(07-07-2014 06:24 PM)Old Dominion Wrote: I would say what a person does is far more important than what they say.
Generally agree, but with one huge exception. That applies to actions where the person is free to act in any way s/he chooses. Where the actions are constrained, the impact of those constraints must be considered. For example, those who defend Obama from this criticism like to say that if he were a socialist or communist, Obamacare would have been single-payer or have included a public option. If that's the standard, then he clearly IS a socialist/communist, because he made it very clear that he wanted those things but his actions were constrained by the fact that he could not get the votes to pass the bill with those things in it. And remember, it passed by the slimmest of margins and that only after considerable legislative games were played with it. So consider the impact of the constraints in this case, and you have someone who talked the socialist/communist game and acted as closely as possible to that game.
Quote:Socialist leaning friends? O.k.,
Nice attempt at spin and/or deflection. No, not some socialist leaning friends. Every single influence in his entire life is socialist/communist. That's very different from having some socialist leaning friends. Hell, I have some socialist leaning friends. They don't make me socialist, because they don't constitute every single influence on me, and if that's all it was with Obama, it wouldn't make him socialist or communist either. No, having some socialist friends is very different from having ZERO influences who are NOT socialist/communist. If you want to disagree on this point, fine, who are the influences on his life that weren't/aren't socialist or communist?
Quote:some socialist rhetoric? maybe.
You raise a valid issue about actions versus words. The words are clearly socialite to communist, some of the actions perhaps not. But again, as noted above, the actions have not been unconstrained. That being the case, the words arguably do paint a more accurate picture--particularly the words that come off the cuff without a Teleprompter.
Quote:But, how do you account for the fact he lent GM and the financial institutions $$ to bail them out. That was the action of a capitalist, not a socialist.
The net effect of federal involvement with GM, as compared with a conventional bankruptcy, was that the bondholders got screwed to deliver the company effectively to the UAW. Hmm, workers owning the business. That may not be socialism, but it sure as hell isn't capitalism. It's actually closer to communism than to any other system.
Quote:
A true socialist would have tried to nationalize GM and the banks. If anything he was to pro business (i.e. republican) by not insisting on more concessions. He could have gone to congress and ask them to take over ownership of those companies. That would have been socialist. he did not. He treated all of them just like any capitalist would. Lent money (most if not all of which has been repaid with interest (a pure capitalist move) and one which the obama haters consistently fail to acknowledge.
No this is not capitalism. It's crony capitalism maybe, but crony capitalism is not capitalism. If you think this is capitalism, then you don't understand capitalism. Capitalism would have been letting GM go through a real bankruptcy where the bondholders would have traded the debt they held for an equity stake in the successor company and the union would have been required to make real concessions, instead of getting on the gravy train.
What it's actually most like--and I hesitate to use the term because it suggests some elements that I am to seeking to express or imply, but it's the best fit economically so I will use it and disclaim any attributes other than economic--is fascism. Private ownership with government direction is the basic economic premise of fascism. It's so basic that it's where the name comes from. The fasces were the bundle of sticks bound together with an axe that used to appear on the back of a dime, for those old enough to remember. The axe and sticks bound together were the Roman symbol for government and business working together to achieve common goals. As long as XYZ Company does exactly what the government dictates, government will guarantee profits and will bail XYZ out in a pinch.
Quote:Obamacare? some iteration first proposed by Tricky Dick Nixon, hardly a socialist.
As I said above, Obamacare was constrained by what they could get 218 votes in the house and 60 in the senate--and IIRC the actual vote totals were 219 and 60. And no, no, a thousand times no, Obamacare is not what was proposed by Nixon or any other republican or conservative. Where were the IPAB, the HCC, and the CCO in Nixon's plan?
Quote:This country has not been a true capitalist nation for decades upon decades. It is a hybrid. Let's please not go overboard with the communist talk.
Agree that this country has not been a capitalist nation for decades. Just remember that when you are complaining that various problems are due to free market capitalism. Quite frankly, we've drifted way too far into crony capitalism. And as noted above, crony capitalism is pretty close to fascism.
I really don't think I'm going overboard with any of the socialist/communist comments. I genuinely and sincerely believe that the man is a socialist and/or communist, for the reasons I've given, which do have some significant merit. And I don't find the counter arguments compelling. We may just have to agree on that point.
