"Obama is a radical far-left socialist!" Really?

[Wonkish1]

.7% tax on incomes over $1 million to build bridges & roads.

Pretty radical.

Well just because you seem intent on advertising yourselves as very, very far Leftists doesn't make Obama more conservative than even your average Democrat.

Obama is more to the left of Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, and probably FDR(because the US would be screwed with Obama and FDR like majorities).

Furthermore, he's to the left of Gordon Brown, is pretty close to G-Pap(Socialist party), and even to the left of new Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff(Workers Party) who was a communist revolutionary guerrilla when she was a kid.

So yeah I guess Obama isn't quite the Hugo Chavez you wanted him to be, but he is also 1 of the more liberal head of states in the entire world and in US history.

[Wonkish1]

Obama is close to the socialists? What? See this is why I can't take the Republicans seriously. I don't know whether this is just rhetoric or if they really believe it. Or they just don't know what socialism is. That could be true.

I arrived at that by comparing G-Paps austerity plans to Obama's stimulus and austerity plans to arrive at an approximate desired government spending vs. tax situation approach towards growth or cutting the deficit.

Plus you have the fact that even G-Pap is willing to privatize various government entities and Obama would allow that if hell froze over.

So I'm actually comparing real plans here. You just looked at the party names and arrived at your conclusion. Who really shouldn't be taken seriously here?....You!

[Wonkish1]

Obama is close to the socialists? What? See this is why I can't take the Republicans seriously. I don't know whether this is just rhetoric or if they really believe it. Or they just don't know what socialism is. That could be true.

I arrived at that by comparing G-Paps austerity plans to Obama's stimulus and austerity plans to arrive at an approximate desired government spending vs. tax situation approach towards growth or cutting the deficit.

Plus you have the fact that even G-Pap is willing to privatize various government entities and Obama would allow that if hell froze over.

So I'm actually comparing real plans here. You just looked at the party names and arrived at your conclusion. Who really shouldn't be taken seriously here?....You!

But do you think he is a socialist? That's the real question. It's completely ridiculous to say he is a socialist. Don't compare him to a greek party in the situation they are in.

Look, as someone from a country that was actually socialist, you have no f'in clue what you are talking about if you think Obama is a socialist. Not a clue.

Taxes need to be raised, there is no question about it. And yes, spending needs to be cut too. If you think anyone trying to raise taxes is a socialist, then it's you who is a radical.

sbane, I get the difference between a **European socialist country and the US**. European socialist parties aren't quite the same as they were in the 1960s trying to nationalize every industry they could get their hands on and trying to figure out every way they could increase people on the government payrolls.

Actually I think that comparing Obama with G-Pap is a very good comparison because they've faced similar situations. The stimulus package Obama passed and the Obama positions on the debt deal that involved a clear deadline was very comparable to recent Greek austerity plans.

As to answer your question, I'll be honest I'm not positive and it depends on how you define it. The reason why I say that I don't know is for example Obama was forced to moderate during the healthcare debate purely based on who the 60th Democrat was likely going to want. You never actually saw what Obama would want to pass if he could get whatever he wanted.


If I were to define a socialist as someone who wanted the government to make up more than half of an economy, I would say that based on what Obama has said he's wanted in the past I would absolutely call him a socialist(thank God a guy like Ben Nelson previous 60th vote isn't one).

[Wonkish1]

There is someone who thinks that Barack Obama is further left than Dilma Rousseff; moreover, that person thinks it strongly enough that he is willing to post it publicly.

You sure about that she labels herself a "pragmatic capitalist", is pro life, and energy companies like her and believes in using government programs with the private sector to help the plight of the poor as opposed to creating new bureaucracies.

But of course I'm supposed to listen to the guy that probably googled her and then made an assumption based on her being a guerrilla as a kid.

[Wonkish1]

Then you have a very skewed definition of a socialist... and Obama doesn't fit that definition anyway.

Fine you define it then!

Yes he would especially considering that government spending as a percentage of GDP right now is higher than 40% and ideally he would want it much higher.

[Wonkish1]

The idea that Obama is something far to the left of a "pragmatic capitalist" who believes in "using government programs with the private sector" is hilarious.

You added the far part yourself.

[Wonkish1]

If Rush/Beck/Coulter/Hannity repeat it enough times, then it must be true! Seriously, I doubt any of you can comprehend how annoying this meme is, especially when a majority of your family actively believes it.

The man may be terrible, but he isn't a socialist. While it is possible he was during his youth (most are a bit more radical in their youth, and considering Obama's origins, it would hardly be surprising if he was), his policies speak for themselves.

I basically consider Obama the politician to be an enigma. The man is whatever you want him to be (indeed, that's what he ran his campaign on). The man supported Gay marriage in the 1990s, kept Guantanamo open, pledged to re-negotiate NAFTA but never did, reneged on his decriminalization promises, and so on. I don't really know what he truly believes.

Look I don't exactly like answering the question or bringing it up either because of how politicized the word has become. Today people just equate socialism with the Soviet Union and assume anybody that calls someone a socialist is calling them a Stalin(that might be a bit of an exaggeration, but makes the point).

But someone asked me a straight question. I offered my definition as someone that wants the state being a bigger part of the economy than the private sector. That is a fair definition. And I said that from Obama's own words and actions he has shown to me that he would prefer that today as well even if its only as a result of wanting particular new government benefits paid to people.


Now I would prefer to not have an overly emotionally charged discussion about whether or not  many people on this threads favorite person is a socialist or not, but if you guys are going to press on then I'll answer the questions.

[Wonkish1]

Oh, well let's try it without the "far" part.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yup, still hilarious.

Actually no its not. If Obama has a preference its to offer a benefit directly from the government. He was the only Dem in Illinois that voted to have the doctor kill a baby that was still alive from a botched abortion and Rousseff is pro life. Rousseff is okay with dirty energy and Obama hates it.

[Wonkish1]

But of course I'm supposed to listen to the guy that probably googled her and then made an assumption based on her being a guerrilla as a kid.

To test this assumption, you could look at the many posts that I made on this forum about the Brazilian presidential election in which Dilma was elected, at which point you might conclude that I do in fact know something about Brazil.

Fair enough. Can you explain to me where Dilma is so radically to the left of Obama?

Or should we just all put our stock into how popular culture stylizes these people. Obama as a center left pragmatic moderate vs. Rousseff the warrior for the poor ex Communist revolutionary. If we go off of image well of course Rousseff is way to the left of Obama. But image isn't reality.

[Wonkish1]

This is the political science definition of socialism...

"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole"

There is no collectivisation, there is no nationalisation of private businesses... the means of production remain squarely in the hands of private enterprise and not the Government... therefore not socialist... not even close.

Even his 'socialist' healthcare plan benefits private insurance and healthcare companies.

I'm well aware of the poli sci definition, but you have to provide a quantitative definition as well. Otherwise I could just start firing off questions right now that would tear your definition to pieces.

[Wonkish1]

I'm gonna go ahead and use the "my parents came from a real communist country, and Obama thankfully ain't no commie" card.

Who said socialist = communist?

From a quantitative standpoint I believe that a socialist is someone who wants more than 50% of the economy government and I would define a communist as someone who wants 100% of the economy government.

[Wonkish1]

This is the political science definition of socialism...

"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole"

There is no collectivisation, there is no nationalisation of private businesses... the means of production remain squarely in the hands of private enterprise and not the Government... therefore not socialist... not even close.

Even his 'socialist' healthcare plan benefits private insurance and healthcare companies.

I'm well aware of the poli sci definition, but you have to provide a quantitative definition as well. Otherwise I could just start firing off questions right now that would tear your definition to pieces.

Quantitative definitions of Socialism are almost impossible to present. Because it depends on what sort of framework you want to place on it. Either you want to discuss it in different time-periods or as you did and place your own parameters on it, saying "I believe xxxx means socialism" isn't a quantitative definition... it your own view

No you have to come to a quantitative definition of socialism.

Here's 1 of many questions that can start to demonstrate that. Fictional economy: You have shares showing your "ownership" of a company and yet you have 99% of any income derived from that "ownership" is taxed away to the government how can you possibly come to the conclusion that this is still a capitalist system?

[Wonkish1]

No, that's simply not true at all. If it were, the Affordable Care Act would have been single-payer instead of based on the existing private insurance model.

I don't know what being pro-choice or not supporting dirty energy (which Obama, by the way, does) have to do with being left-wing.

I'm not going off the ACA because that was passed based on the reality of Dems in the senate that didn't believe in universal government healthcare. I'm going off of Obama's admission that he prefers single-payer!

Well you do see this political matrix many have by their handle. It has both an E side *and* an S side. And Obama isn't just pro-choice he was more pro choice than every Democrat in the Illinois state senate.

[Wonkish1]

I wasn't attacking you,  just stating my own opinion. If I had meant to attack, I would have quoted...

I'm not "emotionally-charged" at all on this issue. In fact, in my view, Obama has been a colossal failure. I think your definition may be fair, though I tend to follow Polnut's classic definition. I have no idea (as I elaborated in my post) what Obama's true beliefs are, though.

Obama's not running around nationalizing industries, though (and he probably could have done so in 2009, when he had near-unlimited political capital [which he wasted]), so that points to him not being a socialist.

I didn't think you were attacking me! The "emotionally charged" part was directed everybody that appears to be freaking out because I said that I answered someone's question by saying I personally believe Obama is a socialist.

As I pointed out Polnut his definition while a good one could be tore up pretty easily. I could create numerous examples where government doesn't officially "own" a bunch of businesses, but still everybody would point that example as being more socialist than European defined as socialist.

The other funny thing is that people tend to equate socialism or lack of socialism purely based on the title of the party when actually there have been numerous examples of people under the official "socialist party" that are less to the left as someone that is in a "Democrat" party and vice versa.

[Wonkish1]

Are there examples of this?

Doesn't matter it illustrates the point very well!

I'll ask you another question. In several states and countries, someone who starts a company can assign proxy "ownership" to someone else. That means that guys name is on all of the documents, filings, property, etc. yet that person does everything you, the person who started the company, says to do. Who owns that company the person who's name is on it or the person that makes all the decisions behind and collects any monetary benefits from it?

[Wonkish1]

I wasn't attacking you,  just stating my own opinion. If I had meant to attack, I would have quoted...

I'm not "emotionally-charged" at all on this issue. In fact, in my view, Obama has been a colossal failure. I think your definition may be fair, though I tend to follow Polnut's classic definition. I have no idea (as I elaborated in my post) what Obama's true beliefs are, though.

Obama's not running around nationalizing industries, though (and he probably could have done so in 2009, when he had near-unlimited political capital [which he wasted]), so that points to him not being a socialist.

I didn't think you were attacking me! The "emotionally charged" part was directed everybody that appears to be freaking out because I said that I answered someone's question by saying I personally believe Obama is a socialist.

As I pointed out Polnut his definition while a good one could be tore up pretty easily. I could create numerous examples where government doesn't officially "own" a bunch of businesses, but still everybody would point that example as being more socialist than European defined as socialist.

The other funny thing is that people tend to equate socialism or lack of socialism purely based on the title of the party when actually there have been numerous examples of people under the official "socialist party" that are less to the left as someone that is in a "Democrat" party and vice versa.

It's still based on your definition of 'socialism' by the way, examples of your 99% taxed derived income?

^^What? The first part starts off as a statement and the second is a question. What do you mean?

[Wonkish1]

Are there examples of this?

Doesn't matter it illustrates the point very well!

I'll ask you another question. In several states and countries, someone who starts a company can assign proxy "ownership" to someone else. That means that guys name is on all of the documents, filings, property, etc. yet that person does everything you, the person who started the company, says to do. Who owns that company the person who's name is on it or the person that makes all the decisions behind and collects any monetary benefits from it?

Actually it does matter. Because the practical application of these systems of political economic theory do vary widely.

Now there are very few examples of a pure capitalist economy, and there are very few examples left of a pure socialist society - even China, with some estimates of 70% privately generated GDP would have some difficulty falling into the socialist definition (frankly I haven't thought they should be called socialist or communist for the last 15 years... but that's by the by). The majority of the world fit within a mixed-market system, with the majority of those countries having a capitalist lean - with government there to manage fiscal policy to enable corrections during the peaks and valleys of a pure market system.

It seems to me you're the one residing in theoretical land... you're picking and choosing your own personal definition of socialism (as most of the US right do) - not relating to any practical real-world examples.

I know you enjoy thinking you're trapping people with your insightful questioning... but no.

I'm not trapping and I'm not living in theoretical land any more than the definition of something like socialism is pretty theoretical in nature.

According to you, I'm supposed to take your poli sci definition at face value using your definitions of "owning the means of production" and what your definition of "production" is and what it isn't. You don't acknowledge that any of that is theoretical in nature and then tell me I'm being too theoretical when I give a quantitative definition of socialism.

I don't cop out of these questions that are asked to me. I answer them all even when I know that they are going to result in a thread going from 1 page to 3 pages in less than 2 hours.

You initiated this theoretical discussion on the topic of Socialism not me and then you don't want to participate in it when starts going in an area you don't like.

[Wonkish1]

He's not far-left or radical, but socialist isn't as clear cut. He would fit in as a more moderate member of any number of self-described "socialist" parties around the world.
At heart, he's an economic egalitarian, but he's pragmatic enough to see capitalism as useful.

I suppose since most self-described socialists really aren't... it's fair to allow Wonky to make his own up too.

Hey bud. Don't chide me on a theoretical discussion where your not even willing to participate, mmkay?

[Wonkish1]

This is the political science definition of socialism...

"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole"

There is no collectivisation, there is no nationalisation of private businesses... the means of production remain squarely in the hands of private enterprise and not the Government... therefore not socialist... not even close.

Even his 'socialist' healthcare plan benefits private insurance and healthcare companies.

I'm well aware of the poli sci definition, but you have to provide a quantitative definition as well. Otherwise I could just start firing off questions right now that would tear your definition to pieces.

Quantitative definitions of Socialism are almost impossible to present. Because it depends on what sort of framework you want to place on it. Either you want to discuss it in different time-periods or as you did and place your own parameters on it, saying "I believe xxxx means socialism" isn't a quantitative definition... it your own view

No you have to come to a quantitative definition of socialism.

Here's 1 of many questions that can start to demonstrate that. Fictional economy: You have shares showing your "ownership" of a company and yet you have 99% of any income derived from that "ownership" is taxed away to the government how can you possibly come to the conclusion that this is still a capitalist system?

Ok, but when has Obama proposed anywhere near 999% of anyone's income being taxed?

Did I say he did?

[Wonkish1]

sbane, I get the difference between a **European socialist country and the US**. European socialist parties aren't quite the same as they were in the 1960s trying to nationalize every industry they could get their hands on and trying to figure out every way they could increase people on the government payrolls.

What the hell? The 1960s were the golden age of technocratic Revisionist social democracy; people like Wilson, Erlander and Brandt didn't even really believe in nationalisation, except when absolutely necessary. The belief (put as crudely and as simply as possible) was that you could use the booming and semi-planned capitalist economy to fund Socialism. This is basic stuff as well...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...you would be an idiot.

Coming from you that hilarious.

[Wonkish1]

sbane, I get the difference between a **European socialist country and the US**. European socialist parties aren't quite the same as they were in the 1960s trying to nationalize every industry they could get their hands on and trying to figure out every way they could increase people on the government payrolls.

What the hell? The 1960s were the golden age of technocratic Revisionist social democracy; people like Wilson, Erlander and Brandt didn't even really believe in nationalisation, except when absolutely necessary. The belief (put as crudely and as simply as possible) was that you could use the booming and semi-planned capitalist economy to fund Socialism. This is basic stuff as well...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...you would be an idiot.

Hey, it's Wonkish1. He has demonstrated multiple times his fifth-rate hackishness.

Really? Where do I sound like anybody else you know politically??

Pompous you really shouldn't talk.

[Wonkish1]

The difference is that these aren't my definitions... I'm not making them up to suit my own purposes.

I'm happy to engage you in a theoretical/hypothetical discussion, as long as you acknowledge that the theoretical framework in which you are operating is actually a self-realised one.

To be frank, I don't even know why I bothered weighing into this bog because theoretical economics is SUCH a waste of time for me. I hated studying it and I dislike dealing with people who reside in theory land and not in practical land.

Obama is a socialist to you because he (I'm not really sure how but... whatever) does x or seems to advocate y. He's not a socialist to me because he doesn't fit any recognised definition of modern socialism... not even close to European socialism.

Obama is a modern centre-leftist, who is advocating things that are to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon. Who he is at his core... who the hell knows?

They kind of are your definitions because as I said before I could start asking you questions testing your understanding of those definitions you would end up making determinations that were of your own opinion and couldn't be determined as such through using a Wikipedia entry for example.

Its always to some extent self realized for anybody on a subject like this, but assuming you are good at laying out every single definition and framework some understanding comes about.

I don't want to engage in this either as I said above. It wont change anything and it will be a colossal waste of my time. But at the same time I'm being challenged by political amateurs(not you) on this subject so I'm responding.

I can use the modern definition of Socialism quite easily to show that Obama is a socialist. There are certain assumptions you have built into your idea of socialism that I don't think are born in reality.


For the love of God, can people just realize that even continuing on this crap is a colossal waste of time and the OP was essentially trolling when he asked the question.

[Wonkish1]

Wonk takes support for a .7% tax as proof that one's very far-left.

What a maniac. Republicans care nothing about the deficit, economic growth, nothing. All they care about is not taxing the rich. A deficit neutral plan to update aging infrastructure, a classic case of economic stimulus that's worth doing for its long-term economic benefits, is slammed as some hippie pipe-dream.

Crazy times.

Where did I say that?

[Wonkish1]

Wonk takes support for a .7% tax as proof that one's very far-left.

What a maniac. Republicans care nothing about the deficit, economic growth, nothing. All they care about is not taxing the rich. A deficit neutral plan to update aging infrastructure, a classic case of economic stimulus that's worth doing for its long-term economic benefits, is slammed as some hippie pipe-dream.

Crazy times.

Where did I say that?

.7% tax on incomes over $1 million to build bridges & roads.

Pretty radical.

Well just because you seem intent on advertising yourselves as very, very far Leftists doesn't make Obama more conservative than even your average Democrat.

And you think I was referring to the .7% tax on incomes over $1 million? Instead of your claim that he was more conservative than your average democrat?

[Wonkish1]

And you think I was referring to the .7% tax on incomes over $1 million? Instead of your claim that he was more conservative than your average democrat?

Considering that I only said one of those things, it seems you need to get some rest.

Actually maybe your right about the rest! I intended to quote OP(Pompous) not you! You were probably wondering why I was addressing things you didn't say.