Obama's Stealth Socialism

[Archangel M]

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=302137342405551

Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.
It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.
Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.
Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.
Among his proposed "investments":
• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.
• "Free" college tuition.
• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).
• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").
• "Free" job training (even for criminals).
• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).
• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.
• More subsidized public housing.
• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."
• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.
His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.
That's just for starters — first-term stuff.
Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

If the gvt bailing out Wall Street with our money is a bad sign of gvt takeover of the free market and "statism", how much scarier is this thrown on top? Who pays for all of this? The "Rich"? I dont think so....

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Sounds good to me. I can stay poor and suck at the gov. teet, and only Bill Gates gets hurt.

 

[Archangel M]

Sounds good to me. I can stay poor and suck at the gov. teet, and only Bill Gates gets hurt.

LOL! Problem is I see a lot of the middle/lower middle class being redefined as "rich" down this road. There are some other disturbing claims in that editorial, Id like to se some proof but look at this one:

The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.

A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."

As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."
After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.

His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.

The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.

After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.

 

[Nolerama]

I think introducing this to legislators as an "extreme case" would be beneficial. Of course there would be controversy. Of course there would be massive debate on whether or not to implement such "socialist" ideas and practices.

But the "What Ifs" come to mind. What if the poor single mother of two, who works three jobs just to pay rent and keep her kids all of a sudden gets free health care, is able to see a light at the end of the tunnel and MAYBE hope for a secured retirement?

The Haves takes this sort of thing for granted.

I'm not worrying about who's going to pay for all of this. I'd rather the government take a little more responsibility to correct society's problems, rather than outsourcing its duties to the private sector (Military, and Prison systems come to mind.)

However, it's never going to be a win-win situation... ESPECIALLY when it comes to the US government.

And as far as the whole "Socialism" thing being implied as a negative, maybe we need that in this country... And like everything needed in this country, it should be in small doses.

We've got plenty of government programs that can fall under the "Socialist" umbrella. Technically, could one consider every expected government service as a little socialist? I think so.

So consider Obama's postulation that we need a little more Socialism in this country in fields that don't necessarily benefit (or are readily available) to lower-income families because there's an apparent NEED to change the system.

Can a McDonald's worker really afford health insurance for his or her family? I doubt it. Can a poor laborer save for retirement in order to be less of a burden on his family or society? Does it make sense to better fund effective, socialized care for the mentally ill in order to curb crime? Yeah.

In the broad scheme of things concerning the 25% of taxes I pay out of every check I receive: I'd rather my portion go to helping people HERE, in the US, by creating jobs and services, than over THERE in other countries in terms of "Nation Building," war, or outsourced American jobs.

It's nice to tack on a connotation-- That makes for a better story. However, that detracts from the problems at hand. The REAL problems. And funnels our energy into a wasteland of semantic garbage.

If it's functional, then it's good, right? If there's debate about the status quo, then it's static and might need a little change, right? Dwelling on names another person tacks onto an idea resembles stupidity. Following that based on your personal ideas of that name, tacked onto a good idea IS stupidity.

Think for yourself. Free yourself from your own, self-imposed chains and walk out of your cave.

 

[Archangel M]

Why should anyone EXPECT to raise a family working at (flipping burgers vs. management) McDonalds??

 

[Archangel M]

I'm not worrying about who's going to pay for all of this. I'd rather the government take a little more responsibility to correct society's problems, rather than outsourcing its duties to the private sector (Military, and Prison systems come to mind.)

You should worry. WE are the government, WE are where they get the $$ to pay for all these progams.

 

[Nolerama]

You should worry. WE are the government, WE are where they get the $$ to pay for all these progams.

I think you have some flawed logic concerning this whole thing. On one hand, you're arguing that Obama's "Socialist" ideas are bad for the country, since it would increase government spending. I see that point.

On the other hand, you don't seem to get where I come from when I say that I think military spending (as well as the money spent on privatized military/military support services) might be a bit high and should be used on domestic problems, rather than those abroad.

I don't "worry" about such spending in the sense that I think you're implying because to do so, without real action (like voting, organizing, campaigning, etc) is like yelling at the Great Wall of China for being so huge.

There are better ways to think, plan, and act. I should not be doing anything outside of what I already do, because I think that works.

If we're going to play that kind of game where we impose "shoulds" on others, then I think you SHOULD think this out more, instead of making a comment and not back it up with an alternative idea to add to this dialogue.

Go.

 

[Nolerama]

Why should anyone EXPECT to raise a family working at (flipping burgers vs. management) McDonalds??

That's reality. Some people have crappy McJobs and just so happen to have a family.

Sorry. That's reality.

The kids' needs have to be met... Or should we clog up our overburdened social systems and jails with parents unable to financially secure their family, or kids whose parents are out of the picture and move into street crime?

I don't see your reasoning here. Families should have the ability to rise and fall in the US. Prosperity leads to a boom in the arts and sciences in later generations. How is that NOT a good thing?

It's definitely not a good thing to hold people back through legislation favoring larger corporations.

The pie should be redistributed.

 

[Archangel M]

All well and good unless you hold the franchise to a McDonalds..are burdened with gvt mandated expenses..cant make the ends meet and close shop and ALL the jobs go bye bye. The idea that ANY and EVERY job has to provide a family raising income is illogical. Never has been that way and never will. This is all feel good, vote pandering crap that makes about as much sense as this ARM mortgage/Banking fiasco. Its built on clouds, theories and dreams.

 

[Twin Fist]

That's reality. Some people have crappy McJobs and just so happen to have a family.

Sorry. That's reality.

The kids' needs have to be met... Or should we clog up our overburdened social systems and jails with parents unable to financially secure their family, or kids whose parents are out of the picture and move into street crime?

I don't see your reasoning here. Families should have the ability to rise and fall in the US. Prosperity leads to a boom in the arts and sciences in later generations. How is that NOT a good thing?

It's definitely not a good thing to hold people back through legislation favoring larger corporations.

The pie should be redistributed.

you want reality? here is reality

if the government does it for you, you have no reasn to try to do it yourself.

THATS reality

"my life sucks" is great motivation to IMPROVE YOUR LIFE

take away that motivation and what do you get?

Soviet Russia

it didnt work the first time, it wont work ever

"The pie should be redistributed"

just come out and say it, you want to take awy from people that earned it and give it to the people that didnt earn it

 

[celtic_crippler]

Why don't you take care of them then?

It boils down to "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Socialists will reply "yes" and demand everyone contribute to the whole.

Libertarians will reply "no" and expect people to take responsibilty for their lives.

Face it, you can't have "socialism" without handing over certain liberties and freedoms...and the more social you get...the less free you are.

But hey...I'm with Bob...I'll suck that gov't teet as long as the wealthy elite foot the bill. =-P ...hell, I can quit work and sit at home playing video games.

 

[Nolerama]

All well and good unless you hold the franchise to a McDonalds..are burdened with gvt mandated expenses..cant make the ends meet and close shop and al the jobs go bye bye. The idea that ANY and EVERY job has to provide a family raising income is illogical. Never has been that way and never will. This is all feel good, vote pandering crap that makes about as much sense as this ARM mortgage/Banking fiasco. Its built on clouds, theories and dreams.

While emotionally, I can agree with you. I can't agree with you on a logical platform... Or even a clear, concise platform.

You're countering a viable option to the plight of the poor with pure emotion.

This reminds me of a "sports writer" I used to know for a local rag. He's just write about whatever he heard about the sports at the barber shop or ESPN. He never thought things through... And was paid well for his emotion in his writing.

Does that make him functional? No. Does that shed light on some of the reasons why my favorite quarterback isn't producing touchdowns this year? No.

Think beyond the limitations of your emotion and look ahead in a positive way, instead of sitting at your own mental barbershop, reiterating what you see in the media.

I don't own a McDonalds... Besides, the example of McDonalds is simply an arbitrary one... You can interchange that with Jack in the Box ;P

 

[Nolerama]

you want reality? here is reality

if the government does it for you, you have no reasn to try to do it yourself.

THATS reality

"my life sucks" is great motivation to IMPROVE YOUR LIFE

take away that motivation and what do you get?

Soviet Russia

it didnt work the first time, it wont work ever

"The pie should be redistributed"

just come out and say it, you want to take awy from people that earned it and give it to the people that didnt earn it

I don't think the US will ever get to the point of Soviet Russia unless the Big Corporations make even larger forays into our governmental processes.

I don't want to take away from people that "earned" it and give it to people that didn't "earn" it. I just want those people to have a fighting chance in this life.

But if you want to make a monster out of me, then please do. I don't think the rich necessarily have the right to "earn" their wealth, especially the super rich. Their wealth is borne upon the sweat of the "lower classes'" backs because they don't get paid enough, and there's enough poor people to go around that it's negligible to care as to whether or not they can succeed in life. Call me a Socialist... I harbor some Socialist views. I already vote Democrat (har har... to nip some other stupid future post in the butt)...

Is that what you want me to say?

I said it...

So come out and say it yourself: "Hi, I think the status quo is fine and dandy because everything is ever so peachy-keen at our great government. My station is life is simply that: a station... and this is where I'll stay, as well as my progeny."

 

[Nolerama]

Thinking about theoretical politics in terms of labels is not productive.

Think of what works from both ends of the spectrum.

Above all else, THINK.

Just throwing that in there.

 

[Sukerkin]

Angel and others, I know that everyone has an opinion on economics because, for some absurd reason, everyone thinks they know what it is without ever having to study it. Being able to balance a cheque book and understand a credit card receipt are not a guarantor of economic understanding any more than seeing an apple fall is a qualification for understanding the equations of simple Newtonian physics.

Now I am a qualified Economist and have suffered twenty years or so of being told I don't know what I'm talking about by 'the man in the street' (you can't tell it grates my chops can you ?). However, I shall tilt at one more windmill and see if I can effectively show you that somehow you have seized the wrong end of the stick with the OP.

Your government is 'owned' by the financial sector, that's why your tax money is being used to being bail out some overly greedy traders who've been burned doing something (amongst other things) that is actually, as I understand it, technically illegal in the States. At the very best it was monumentally stupid and at the worst has some unpleasant connotations of social control for profit.

A further factor to chew on is that it is not even the financial sector indiginous to the US that owns most of your supposed wealth (aka debt).

What you need to be concerned about is not 'Statism' but rather the ownership of your means of production by external bodies. The reason why the Big Boys have been given a handout that noone else would get is that the debt America owes the World needs to be serviced.

If the internal financial sector collapses, taking the rest of the economy with it, then 'harsh questions' arise and the global banking sector takes a wobble.

Your only hope is to get a government in place that will regain control of the money supply in it's own hands and return the economy to being based on something real rather than something virtual. It's taken less than a hundred years of 'modern paper money' banking to inflate the Western economies into a bloated parody of a stable system and the 'pin' is getting dangerously close to the 'balloon'.

 

[Twin Fist]

I am where I am in life because of MY actions. So is everyone else.

Want to go to college? get excellent grades, with loans and grants, you WILL be able to go to college.

want health insurance? get a better job.

and, uh, newsflash, the Russians were not busines getting into government, it was government getting into business.............

And actually, i dont think the status qou is fine, burger flippers are making too much money these days. Damn burgers cost 5-7$ for a combo meal? most of that is due to the kid with NO skills making 7.50 and hour.....needs to be lowered

 

[Archangel M]

Sukerkin..Im far from saying you dont know what you are talking about. I am FAR from knowledgeable on the subject. However I do not think our country is even close to being able to impliment these expensive socialist programs Obama is proposing. And perhaps HE even knows that, its probably just pandering.

 

[Sukerkin]

That's an interesting question, Angel.

Does anyone have any figures of a cost analysis of the programmes he's mentioned? Or were they really just 'sky writing' i.e. words unbacked by thought? I would have hoped that a politician making what amount to 'promises' would have had some background work done as to feasability?

Over here in Britain, the Welfare State is struggling. Our population is about sixty million, with an aging demographic that is putting pressure on the Health Service and Pension Funds.

This is tied in with the problem of falling aspirations amongst the working class because of the removal of 'real' jobs. The replacement employment 'slots' are 'Service Industry' and low paid. More importantly, they are jobs with no real advancement possibilities for the majority of employees. Such low pay jobs that also do not produce secondary employment are unable to power an 'economy' properly and unfortunately create a working 'underclass' who cannot effectively contribute to the system as a whole.

What happened to create this mess, as I've banged on about before, is that Thatcher imported Monetarist Economics from America. This is what has resulted in the export of nearly all primary industrial activity to Third World countries with cheap labour, leaving our own labour force with no real way of aquiring sufficient income for a 'decent' lifestyle commensurate with the country and age within which they live.

Even in more 'professional' fields, incomes are kept low by the drive to service the shareholders. For example, I'm pretty well educated and very experienced in my current field and yet my missus still has to work to make ends meet. That is not a good sign of economic health and shows that money is pouring in at the top of the tree rather than feeding the roots.

Now America has a lot more in the way of indiginous resources to draw on and has kept more of her heavy industry than we have, so it should be possible to salvage the economy before things get too bad. Your major problem is going to be the astonishing amount of debt you carry. That is going to leech money out of the system for a long time to come. However, get the industrial heart beating again, apply a little more unfashionable Protectionism and a little less glamourous 'laissez faire' and a solid economic footing should start to regrow. Once that's in place, maybe the policies for social good that Obama has posited will have a chance.

 

[jarrod]

people, what we have now is socialism without any of the benefits. the current administration has just bailed out & in effect taken over the biggest finance corperations in the nation. how is that not a socialist move? this $700 billion bailout costs every man, woman, & child in the U.S. $3200 that i, for one, don't have. it seems like that $3200 could have supplied me with some health care instead of fixing things for people on wall street who apparently didn't do their job very well.

couple that with the liberties taken away by the patriot act, & the same administration making personal bankruptcy more difficult to file (aw, did you rack up too much credit card debt? tough ****, flip more burgers, plebian. aw, did your company tank because you couldn't collect on all those credit card debts with 26% interest? okay, here's $700 BILLION dollars that we don't have...) & you have the most socialist united states government ever.

yes, people need to be accountable for their actions, BUT SO DO THE RICH! right now i work 3 jobs & haven't been to the dentist in two years. my finances are improving, but if i got in a car accident or just plain old got sick i would be completely sunk. meanwhile the government is spending my money on a war that shouldn't have happened & a bailout that shouldn't be needed. no, people shouldn't have taken out mortgages on homes they couldn't afford. but the companies shouldn't have issued high-risk mortgages either. & when the bubble pops the taxpayer foots the bill. so what what have right now damn well looks like socialism to me. since it's not going to change, i'd like to go to the dentist, please, & maybe you could cut the interest just a bit on my student loans.

jf

 

[Archangel M]

Where does this stuff end though? Extending health care to those who really cant afford it is one thing, universal health care is another. Financial aid is one thing, a free college education for all is another. We have freeloaders NOW with all the welfare/social programs we already have.