Is Obama a Socialist?

[Cathryn Blackthorne]

"Is Obama a socialist?"

Pardon me if this question is naïve but, does it matter? And if so, why?

[MMI]

"Is Obama a socialist?"

Pardon me if this question is naïve but, does it matter? And if so, why?

Not really ... in fact, now I think about it, it doesn't matter at all.

What shall we talk about now?

[steelish]

"Is Obama a socialist?"

Pardon me if this question is naïve but, does it matter? And if so, why?

It actually does matter. He stated five days before he was elected that "We are five days away from FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"

Into what?
Why does it need to be "transformed"?

[cbtboyuk]

It actually does matter. He stated five days before he was elected that "We are five days away from FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"

Into what?
Why does it need to be "transformed"?

Had you noticed what everyone thought of you before? lol

[steelish]

Had you noticed what everyone thought of you before? lol

What does that specific post have to do with what the other nations thought of us? Do you really believe that Obama running around bowing and scraping and apologizing for America's existence will change another nation's opinion if they already hated us? It won't. What it WILL do is alienate our alliances.

[cbtboyuk]

What does that specific post have to do with what the other nations thought of us? Do you really believe that Obama running around bowing and scraping and apologizing for America's existence will change another nation's opinion if they already hated us? It won't. What it WILL do is alienate our alliances.

Actually, i don't think Obama is apologising at all, and nor should he, for America's existence (that apology, directed presumably at Native peoples, belongs to the older nations who founded the colonies which became the USA) but i think that a little humility and apology would do America's image abroad no end of good, as it would/did the last imperialistic arrogant Western nation that romped round the globe bringing it's short sighted, prejudiced and parochial views of "right" "democracy" and "freedom", namely the UK. That is not to say that all the fault lies on one side, but the trouble is that the politics you clearly - from your own posts- espouse (i.e. this nation was fine before "handouts" and "flower-power") are all about impossible, fictional ideals and black-and-white absolutes which not only play no real part in actuality, but, in particular, cause immense problems when you (the States) come onto contact with civilisations and societies far more ancient and complex than your own (e.g. Europe or, more importantly, the Middle East), especially when you do so with unbounded belief in your "superior knowledge"....as exemplified by the immortal quote for the US marine to the Iraqui citizens "Shuddup! We are here for your fucking freedom!" Oh, well done.

As for "hand outs", it seems to me that the real measure of any civilisation is the way it treats the least of its citizens, so i suggest that the richest nation on earth needs to sort itself out if people are still homeless, hungry or dumping their parents in neighbouring states because of medical costs. Of course i might, and do, level all but the last accusation at my own country.

You call yourself "right of centre", but you seem to me to be fairly right-wing. And anyone on this site who seems to think that Obama is worse than W Bush has to be at best self-destructive. At least, however you feel about his politics, Obama is not a constant embarrassment, in the way W Chump Monkey was. If one is going to be the most unpopular Imperialistic nation on earth, i think on should at least try to look good doing it: Victoria may have been dumpy but she at least was regal. Philip is embarrassing, but we are a minor issue these days. W Bush was like a strategically shaved chimpanzee but without the social elan, tact, sense, intellect or delicious aroma. i was in Chicago when he was on telly about Iraq - "we're kicking ass!" - and i had sensible Americans coming over in the airport and apologising for their President, as well they might.

And, in the end, I don't think Obama is apologising for America's existence. i think he's started to apologise for some of the horrors, crimes and scandals which America has perpertrated globally with a blithe disregard to the welfare of people in other countries (again, do not imagine i am either unaware or forgiving of my own countries list) and that can only assist America in terms of it's world standing. You are rich and powerful, being gracious can only be a good thing, instead of throwing your weight around like an ignorant 18 yr old boy on too many steroids. Your allies (who if they are like us, are probably allies cos of your fiscal clout, rather than through real allegiance) will appreciate this, and your enemies....well if they are not won round, you might at least comfort yourselves with having actually tried to calm things, rather than making things worse.

lots of love and flower power

[steelish]

Actually, i don't think Obama is apologising at all, and nor should he, for America's existence (that apology, directed presumably at Native peoples

That's an assumption on your part. I never mentioned Native Americans. But he is running around the globe apologizing.

but i think that a little humility and apology would do America's image abroad no end of good, as it would/did the last imperialistic arrogant Western nation that romped round the globe bringing it's short sighted, prejudiced and parochial views of "right" "democracy" and "freedom", namely the UK. That is not to say that all the fault lies on one side, but the trouble is that the politics you clearly - from your own posts- espouse (i.e. this nation was fine before "handouts" and "flower-power") are all about impossible, fictional ideals and black-and-white absolutes which not only play no real part in actuality, but, in particular, cause immense problems when you (the States) come onto contact with civilisations and societies far more ancient and complex than your own (e.g. Europe or, more importantly, the Middle East), especially when you do so with unbounded belief in your "superior knowledge"....as exemplified by the immortal quote for the US marine to the Iraqui citizens "Shuddup! We are here for your fucking freedom!" Oh, well done.

You're so right. We've never done anything to help defend other nations. Don't put the burden of some asshole's words on my shoulders. I didn't tell a citizen of Iraq to "Shuddup". Those words didn't come out of my mouth and I highly doubt the majority of the US would stand behind this soldier in his defense on that specific point.

In response to your statement of "romping around the globe and trying to cram our political views upon other nations"...I am against that as well.

As for "hand outs", it seems to me that the real measure of any civilisation is the way it treats the least of its citizens, so i suggest that the richest nation on earth needs to sort itself out if people are still homeless, hungry or dumping their parents in neighbouring states because of medical costs. Of course i might, and do, level all but the last accusation at my own country.

I have nothing against "hand UPS". I think "hand outs" keep those who are in dire straits right there...in dire straits. Rather than simply handing food stamps or welfare out to citizens, the program should have been designed to enable those capable of working to learn a trade and pursue job opportunities. Instead, money is blindly handed out to those who properly "fill in the blanks".

From the 1930s on, New York City government provided welfare payments to the poor. By the 1960s, as whites moved to the suburbs, the city was having trouble making the payments and attempted to purge the rolls of those who were committing welfare fraud. Twenty individuals who had been denied welfare sued in a case that went to the United States Supreme Court, Goldberg v. Kelly. The Court ruled that those suspected of committing welfare fraud must receive individual hearings before being denied welfare. Journalist David Frum considers this ruling to be a milestone leading to the city's 1975 budget disaster.

After the Great Society legislation of the 1960s, for the first time a person who was not elderly or disabled could receive a living from the American government. This could include general welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits. In 1968, 4.1% of families were headed by a woman on welfare; by 1980, this increased to 10%. In the 1970s, California was the U.S. state with the most generous welfare system. Virtually all food stamp costs are paid by the federal government. In 2008, 28.7 percent of the households headed by single women were considered poor.

Before the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, welfare was "once considered an open-ended right," but welfare reform converted it "into a finite program built to provide short-term cash assistance and steer people quickly into jobs." Prior to reform, states were given "limitless" money by the federal government, increasing per family on welfare, under the 60-year-old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. This gave states no incentive to direct welfare funds to the neediest recipients or to encourage individuals to go off welfare (the state lost federal money when someone left the system). One child in seven nationwide received AFDC funds, which mostly went to single mothers.

After reforms, which President Bill Clinton said would "end welfare as we know it," amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population. Each state must meet certain criteria to ensure recipients are being encouraged to work themselves out of welfare. The new program is called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). It also encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals and imposes a five-year time limit on cash assistance. The bill restricts welfare from most legal immigrants and increased financial assistance for child care. The federal government also maintains an emergency $2 billion TANF fund to assist states that may have rising unemployment.

While Clinton's attempt seems "noble" and appropriate, it really does nothing to stem the flow of Welfare cases. Proving you've been out on a job search is about as difficult as a 19 year old securing fake ID to drink at bars. Billions of $$ are spent for workers to process welfare cases, instead of billions being spent to have caseworkers assigned to five or six cases apiece and work directly with the recipients to secure jobs, housing, etc. Welfare is handled similar to the DMV and licensing. Go up to a window, process paperwork, walk away with $$. How is that truly helping anyone to make their life better? (especially when they spend hours in line for the $$, hours that could be better spent in a Welfare run trade school or out job searching)

You call yourself "right of centre", but you seem to me to be fairly right-wing. And anyone on this site who seems to think that Obama is worse than W Bush has to be at best self-destructive. At least, however you feel about his politics, Obama is not a constant embarrassment, in the way W Chump Monkey was. If one is going to be the most unpopular Imperialistic nation on earth, i think on should at least try to look good doing it: Victoria may have been dumpy but she at least was regal. Philip is embarrassing, but we are a minor issue these days. W Bush was like a strategically shaved chimpanzee but without the social elan, tact, sense, intellect or delicious aroma. i was in Chicago when he was on telly about Iraq - "we're kicking ass!" - and i had sensible Americans coming over in the airport and apologising for their President, as well they might.

You obviously haven't seen ALL my posts. I disliked Bush with a passion. Every time he was on TV, I had to turn the channel. Our Republic, when founded was slightly right of center. Why is it that it seems radical now?

And, in the end, I don't think Obama is apologising for America's existence. i think he's started to apologise for some of the horrors, crimes and scandals which America has perpertrated globally with a blithe disregard to the welfare of people in other countries (again, do not imagine i am either unaware or forgiving of my own countries list) and that can only assist America in terms of it's world standing. You are rich and powerful, being gracious can only be a good thing, instead of throwing your weight around like an ignorant 18 yr old boy on too many steroids. Your allies (who if they are like us, are probably allies cos of your fiscal clout, rather than through real allegiance) will appreciate this, and your enemies....well if they are not won round, you might at least comfort yourselves with having actually tried to calm things, rather than making things worse.

lots of love and flower power

ROFL! Flower power? That's rich. The "flower power" children of the 60's are the ones who now have Obama's ear. Bill Ayers and his wife, for example. At one time they had a plan to take over America and eliminate (kill) all the "diehard" capitalists. Remember, the Jihad terrorists came to America and were peaceful at first, took flying lessons (as do many Americans) and lived as if they were one of us. They lived among us for over three years before the attack on the Trade Center took place. Why is it so difficult to believe that the radicals of the 60s who are now grown are not doing the same thing?

And then there are the slightly younger revolutionaries, like Van Jones. Just because he is no longer a Czar, doesn't mean he is without influence in todays American political arena.

How about we try and "calm" the storm that rages in America?

[Lion]

That's an assumption on your part. I never mentioned Native Americans. But he is running around the globe apologizing.



You're so right. We've never done anything to help defend other nations.

There is no denying that US has in its history helped other nations of the world. I find it admirable that US, France AND Britain airlifted tons of aid to Berlin when Russia blocked all land access to it. This was soon after the second world war where thousands of Allied soldiers died fighting the Germans.

US has also contributed immensely to aid around the world since then. It's achievements in science and technology is also remarkable. I am grateful for it's contributions to the world.

But America is not without it's dark spots. When people talk about American arrogance, it's mistakes that it has yet to recognize, or apologize for, they are talking about something substantial.

In 1953, to further Western interests, Americans played a hand in removing the democratically elected ruler of Iran.

US has held a relatively unwavering support of Israel over the entire land conflict. Regardless of what side of the debate you are on, consistently supporting one side with money, arms and political support for an issue that is anything but simple gives of an impression of partiality.

In 1988, a passenger jet was shot down by an American ship. As of today, there has been no apology.

The CIA funded and trained thousands of Afghans to fight the Soviets. At the conclusion of the war, when the Afghans defeated the enemy of the Americans, the money to rebuild was no where to be found. The fighters who were so willingly trained now had no home to go to, and no money to replace it.

These are just a few events that people in the other part of the world remembers when they think of America. If you think America is guilt free, then you are sorely wrong. Yes, other countries in the world have done a lot of crap, their hands have blood on them. But when you think of the global reach that the world's super power has to a country like Egypt or Iran, then you have less people affected by their actions.

And as for arrogance, when US-UK marched into war in Iraq with false assumptions, while France and Germany resisted, I remember outrage that the French could betray a country that saved them. French fries were now freedom fries, French wines were poured down the drain, a country that decided to listen to it's own populace and make it's own decision was now the betrayers?

Like cbtboyuk said, a little humility doesn't hurt. In fact, it can help your standing in the world. What good is a expensive military if you aren't liked in the world?

As for Obama, hate or love his domestic policies, but his foreign is much better then what I've seen in the last decade. I used to know so many people who had nothing but respect for the USA. Two wars later not so much.

[DuncanONeil]

You have not been paying attention!!

Actually, i don't think Obama is apologising at all, and nor should he, for America's existence (that apology, directed presumably at Native peoples, belongs to the older nations who founded the colonies which became the USA) but i think that a little humility and apology would do America's image abroad no end of good,

[DuncanONeil]

Had you noticed what everyone thought of you before? lol

What they thought before they still think! Although many are certain the country is weaker.

[DuncanONeil]

"Is Obama a socialist?"

Pardon me if this question is naïve but, does it matter? And if so, why?

It matters because such a progrom would destroy the USA!

[Cathryn Blackthorne]

It matters because such a progrom would destroy the USA!

Am I wrong in wondering if (implied) shouting in one's response disrespectful and possibly worth citation? I was under the impression we're supposed to be courteous in these threads.

[steelish]

Am I wrong in wondering if (implied) shouting in one's response disrespectful and possibly worth citation? I was under the impression we're supposed to be courteous in these threads.

??? Who shouted?

[TantricSoul]

Am I wrong in wondering if (implied) shouting in one's response disrespectful and possibly worth citation? I was under the impression we're supposed to be courteous in these threads.

Cathryn,
Members should always strive to be courteous and respectful to other members and their opinions. In the editorial section, we are given slightly more leeway than other areas of the forums due to the passionate nature of the topics addressed here. So the short answer to your question is no, the post you have quoted would not earn a warning or citation.

As the single moderator for this area, I am kept busy enough searching out and responding to more flagrant violations of respectful debate protocol.
You may always send me a PM (with a link please) to a thread if you feel insulted or flamed by a poster.

On that note, please folks, I ask each of you that contribute to this area to keep in mind that all members have an equal right to participate in these threads and deserve the same respect as you would expect for yourself.

As my Sifu would say: "Not right, not wrong, just different."

Respectfully,
Tantric

[DuncanONeil]

Shouting? I thought THIS WAS SHOUTING.

Am I wrong in wondering if (implied) shouting in one's response disrespectful and possibly worth citation? I was under the impression we're supposed to be courteous in these threads.