Obama: wealth redistributor

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Socialism as defined by Encyclopedia Brittanica:



By this definition isn't Mr. Obama's policies and Practices Socialistic? (So did GWB under this damn TARP legislation)

Damn I hate socialism.

Play it that way if you want. But to be consistent, you will then also have to identify Reagan and GHWB as socialists due to their responses to the S&L crisis in the 80's. Most US presidents have adopted at least one policy that, with strict regard to just that single policy and without putting that policy in the context of all other policies supported by such president, could be regarded as "socialist." What is amusing about the charge with Obama isn't that a single policy is identified as containing elements of socialism, but that the conclusion is that the man himself is a socialist, and all policies advocated by the man are socialist (note that you do this above, but don't do the same with GWB in your post above-you separate him from your encompassing conclusions with respect to Obama by a parenthetical that points out that one of Bush's policies was socialist).

[MikeWaters]

Some Americans are uncomfortable having a president who is also the de facto CEO of nationalized corporations, calling the shots, firing people, etc. It smacks, very slightly, of a socialist running a command economy.

[Venkman]

Socialist, fascist, progressive, whatever. Obama and the U.S. left clearly are collectivists in orientation. They do not believe in the individual. That's all I care about - whatever particular collectivist strain they fit under means little to me.

[ChinoCoug]

This thread is exhibit A on why the term socialist has been rendered useless.

Obama is a redistributor, he ran on it, he won on it, he will enact it, the economy will grow, all Americans, including the rich, will benefit from it, just like with Bill Clinton, end of story.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

This thread is exhibit A on why the term socialist has been rendered useless.

Obama is a redistributor, he ran on it, he won on it, he will enact it, the economy will grow, all Americans, including the rich, will benefit from it, just like with Bill Clinton, end of story.

How do you come up with this conclusion? What proof do you have to make such a definitive statement?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

How do you come up with this conclusion? What proof do you have to make such a definitive statement?

1. the economy will grow

2. just like with Bill Clinton

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

1. the economy will grow

2. just like with Bill Clinton

#1 is not proof.

#2 had nothing to do really with Clinton. He just happened to be in office during significant growth. No President, regardless politics can get credit nor can be blamed for the economy.

I ask again, what proof do you have to make a definitive statement, especially about all benefiting from it?

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

#1 is not proof.

#2 had nothing to do really with Clinton. He just happened to be in office during significant growth. No President, regardless politics can get credit nor can be blamed for the economy.

I ask again, what proof do you have to make a definitive statement, especially about all benefiting from it?

I don't agree with #2. While Presidents get blamed or credited way too much for economic growth or stagnation, government policies certainly affect the economy. I'm not sure you can give Clinton much credit besides the fact that he didn't eff too much with Reagan's formula, and much of that can be attributed to a Republican Congress.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Venkman

I don't agree with #2. While Presidents get blamed or credited way too much for economic growth or stagnation, government policies certainly affect the economy. I'm not sure you can give Clinton much credit besides the fact that he didn't eff too much with Reagan's formula, and much of that can be attributed to a Republican Congress.

This is a fair statement.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

#1 is not proof.

#2 had nothing to do really with Clinton. He just happened to be in office during significant growth. No President, regardless politics can get credit nor can be blamed for the economy.

I ask again, what proof do you have to make a definitive statement, especially about all benefiting from it?

What proof do you have to make a definitive statement, especially about how no president can get credit nor be blamed for the economy?