Is Obama a Socialist?

[tedteague]

Some Americans (in particular a certain congressman and some of his friends and a few others: who almost single handedly appeared to have started the CIA on the path of funding, training, and supporting soviet occupation opposition forces) tried to keep the congressional money train rolling after the war, only to have the rug pulled out from under them because it didn’t matter enough since the soviets were gone to the majority.

That was a huge mistake imho and we are still paying for it today.

As for supporting Israel...well we have been stalwart allies of theirs for decades now, and the House of Saud and it would be a very big mistake to withdraw our support now.

Israeli territorial gains however are almost entirely in response to the different times they have been attacked by their neighbors. They have good reason to be paranoid of those who have done nothing but speak of (and attempted to) destroying them since their country came once again into existence. If the people of Syria, Jordan, Egypt and other Islamic republics would embrace religious freedom like most of the rest of the free world and stop oppressing their own people in restrictive theocracies; things wouldn’t be the way they are over there. Such backward attitudes in the face of progress quite literally ruined the country of my birth (Lebanon which was doing well for a short time with its confessionals until it was subsumed by outside forces) and I pray every day that they will one day cease so that Arab, Christian, Jew, and whoever else can live in peace with each other for a change.

I fail to see however, what any of this most recent trend in sidebars has to do with Obama being a socialist or not because: a close study of history reveals that foreign policy in general (however its touted or promised to be in an election) is simply not executed along party lines or political party platform agendas no matter which way one cuts it in actual practice.

Very true, foreign policy has remained the same for clinton, bush 2, and Obama

[IAN 2411]

The US at least for the past 150 years, has known she was by far the most powerful state in its own hemisphere, and full-scale invasion of the mainland or even attempts to exert hard pressure from other countries close by hasn't really been something she needed to take into account.

Give me a break for fucks sake 150 years ago you had just shot Billy the Kid. The Gatling gun had not been invented, The United states was at war with itself Britain ruled the waves and the JFK aircraft carrier was nonexistent. Where the hell did you pick that number from?

Superiority can be taken for granted wide margin,

That was one of the reasons Pearl Harbour took place. [Before you scream at me, I am in no way making fun at a most tragic event in American history] Complacency; thinking that an atrocity such as that could never happen on or near your mainland.

Nobody expects Canada or Mexico to invade, boycott shipping or try to revile the USA in foreign media. Nobody seriously thinks Brazil would make real damage to U.S. interests by some kind of boycott or by forming an anti-American military league.

Nobody expected the London Tube disaster, 9/11, Canary Wharf, Lockerby, but they took place, there is an unwritten rule in the UK Special Forces expect the unexpected.

In Europe, every country has had to adapt to that the neighbour might react, put pressure on you or even invade: everybody's got a history of being pushed in by the others' ambitions, of being invaded and bombed at home, of having your ports mined or your claims questioned by the neighbours. These days they're not going to war with each other but the possibility of mutual pressure, boycotts, responses and backroom politics is still something that can't be escaped. It's simply not possible, certainly not in tense conditions in peacetime, sometimes not during war either to go for the kill at once and talk in a "read my lips" style, unless you're sure the path you're going is fail safe.

The UK has never bowed down to pressure from Europe when it comes to things that matter to us and our closest Allies. The USA ought to be thankful for that fact, because if the UK had not pushed them as hard as the United States were pushing, Sadam would still be in charge if Iraq and Both of our countries would not be over in Afghanistan getting our asses kicked, and for the Brits it is for the second time in history.

In the old days, when Britain, France and Russia felt they were on top of the world, they could act and speak just as bluntly as the American idea is you should do. But those days are long gone, When it comes to intra-European affairs - Bismarck speaking about Britain, in peacetime, and so on - I guess they ended came to an end already in the 19th century.

You really are living in a cotton wool world, just before the fall of the Berlin wall; Britain held the balance of nuclear power in the western world. We still have nuclear subs, and we still hold the balance of power, while you and the Russians were getting rid of war heads Britain retained theirs. So, Discounting the American war heads that you left England with, we are still a force to be counted. In years to come the world will be split into three, Europe, that includes Britain, France and Russia, USA+ South America, and Asia, we will all be dead and gone but let’s hope by then our descendents are not as complacent as you are talking now.
1...Now as for the question about your President, He failed to take charge of the oil spill.
2...He has just sacked General Chrystal Afghanistan’s only expert in counterinsurgency and probably the best in the world, why because his ego was dented. Then to rub salt in the wounds he sent another General to fall on his sword. Why have you got a non combatant as Commander in Chief, running your Military for?
3...His popularity is now down to 45% with a factor of 48% unpopular.
4...He has had the brass neck to tell the rest of the world how to get their economy straight, and if I am not mistaken the cause of all the problems in the first place was Merrill Lynch, Leamans, and Goldman Sax. China holds more American debt than the Americans, and if they pull the plug you will be in the same shit as Europe.

ANSWER, yes he is a Socialist, and just like Europe you will have to put the Conservatives in to get you out of the mire.
Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

Give me a break for fucks sake 150 years ago you had just shot Billy the Kid. The Gatling gun had not been invented, The United states was at war with itself Britain ruled the waves and the JFK aircraft carrier was nonexistent. Where the hell did you pick that number from?

Seems to me your data is more off than the originators.
Invention of the Gatling gun; your going to quibble about ONE year? The war was just getting started. In the nineteenth century Britain's "rule" of the waves was in decline. What is the point of mentioning the JFK?

[IAN 2411]

Seems to me your data is more off than the originators.
Invention of the Gatling gun; your going to quibble about ONE year? The war was just getting started. In the nineteenth century Britain's "rule" of the waves was in decline. What is the point of mentioning the JFK?

Is that the only bit i messed up on?? The JFK was an afterthought, i spent many nights on the JFK 1968-69 and the food on board was great and i just had to give it a mention. LOL

[SadisticNature]

Wow I think I finally agree with you on 1 point, its ridiculous for the Americans who caused the crisis to try and dictate to the world how it should be solved.

The rest however I rather vehemently dispute.
Your polling numbers look like data coming off fox news, if you look at the recent gallup poll, Obama is doing acceptably. Are you confusing numbers from a particular state with national numbers?

Regarding the Oil Spill what do you want him to do, nationalize the rig, put in experts and solve it? The problem is that rig didn't meet basic standards regulated by most of the world, but not required by the US anti-regulation party (aka the Republicans who cry communism whenever someone tries to pass a reasonable regulation that tries to prevent a catastrophic oil spill.) Basic equipment that could have prevented the spill was absent from the rig because the US government is one of few in the world that chose not to require it.

As for the sacking of the General, it is impossible to execute policy on the ground when people not only disagree with you but air their grievances publicly. The US has been at war in Afghanistan that the idea they have only ONE counterinsurgency expert for the region is ludicrous.

As for Obama being a socialist, he's to the right of most of the world. His health care plan is far to the right of the plan that Britains convervatives don't dare attack in virtually every other country in the world he'd be in a right wing party. The democrats nominated him in the primaries because he was to the RIGHT of Clinton who was seen as too left to win. Clinton was also seen as a repeat of a Clinton presidency which wasn't accused of being socialist.

[DuncanONeil]

As usual you do not bother to let anyone know to what, or who, you are responding.

That makes it very hard to form a coherent response. Further much of what you say sounds like unsupported "talking points".

Therefore dream on!

Wow I think I finally agree with you on 1 point, its ridiculous for the Americans who caused the crisis to try and dictate to the world how it should be solved.

The rest however I rather vehemently dispute.
Your polling numbers look like data coming off fox news, if you look at the recent gallup poll, Obama is doing acceptably. Are you confusing numbers from a particular state with national numbers?

Regarding the Oil Spill what do you want him to do, nationalize the rig, put in experts and solve it? The problem is that rig didn't meet basic standards regulated by most of the world, but not required by the US anti-regulation party (aka the Republicans who cry communism whenever someone tries to pass a reasonable regulation that tries to prevent a catastrophic oil spill.) Basic equipment that could have prevented the spill was absent from the rig because the US government is one of few in the world that chose not to require it.

As for the sacking of the General, it is impossible to execute policy on the ground when people not only disagree with you but air their grievances publicly. The US has been at war in Afghanistan that the idea they have only ONE counterinsurgency expert for the region is ludicrous.

As for Obama being a socialist, he's to the right of most of the world. His health care plan is far to the right of the plan that Britains convervatives don't dare attack in virtually every other country in the world he'd be in a right wing party. The democrats nominated him in the primaries because he was to the RIGHT of Clinton who was seen as too left to win. Clinton was also seen as a repeat of a Clinton presidency which wasn't accused of being socialist.

[TantricSoul]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the ability to post it without being insulted.
This fact "protects" your biased opinion as well as everyone else's.
Please do attempt to keep from insulting other members while you post your "ridiculous" responses to their "ridiculous" posts.

"I look only to the good qualities of men. Not being faultless myself, I won't presume to probe into the faults of others."~ Mohandas Gandhi

[gagged_Louise]

The UK has never bowed down to pressure from Europe when it comes to things that matter to us and our closest Allies. The USA ought to be thankful for that fact, because if the UK had not pushed them as hard as the United States were pushing, Sadam would still be in charge if Iraq and Both of our countries would not be over in Afghanistan getting our asses kicked, and for the Brits it is for the second time in history.

Sorry, you seem to have missed the plot, and as you're clearly worked up I'm not going to make any further replies on this line. At least, you missed the real gist of what I was saying. The UK may have acted headstrong sometimes but not once sxince the Suez crisis (1956) have British leaders attempted to do gunboat diplomacy by openly or indirectly invoking their *own* nuclear arms (no, not the US war capabilities or American nukes). And actually the UK wouldn't have picked to go to war with Hitler in 1937, probably not even if Churchill had been PM at the ime, unless Hitler had acted like a complete fool and forced his hand, which he wouldn't do.

I'm picking that up because 1937 - or Munich in 1938 - is often cited as a point when Britain (and France. but hey we all know the French can't fight don't we?) should have spoken loud and saved the world, and as a precedent for "staring the bad guys down" and taking on a first-strike war against a tyrant. The trouble is, it's so unlikely any British leader would have declared war on Hitler in 1937 even if he had been perfectly aware of that Hitler was planning a new Europe-wide war.. Why? Because England was nowhere near ready for a war in terms of armament, anyone could see that, You picked up speed a good deal in the years up to 1939 and kept running: more and better airplanes, most of all, and a wider awareness that the war was coming. In 1937, Hitler would have crushed you and that was part of the cold reality behind why Hitler wasn't addressed the way Nazi majors are sometimes spoken to in the movies. I admit it would have been morally right, but the point is that doing it - declaring war in 1937 - is just a rear mirror dream: Britain would not have done it, and if she did she would have lost that war.

The stuff I'm discussing is when a country tries to rearrange the part of the world close to her own shores mainly by her own design, simply by resort to her own force, peaceful (economic) or military. Britain didn't quite do that one single time with Europe at least post 1920, and most of the time didn't even try. In the colonial world yes, sometimes, in Europe no, not simply grabbing the reins and reordering things to your liking.. Neither in 1914 nor in 1939 did Britain go to war on its own, by its own terms and out of a decision that was simply her own decision, triggered by none other than the immediate reasons for the war. Which is substantially what the USA would do in 1941, did in 2003, and would have done in 1950 and 1962 if the Korea and Cuba crisises had led to direct, hot face-to-face confrontations.

Suppose the Red Brigades, the commie terrorist group,from Italy, had struck in London in the early 80s, perhaps in collusion with the IRA, and there had been some kind of spurious evidence that they had acted in connivance with the Italian government at the time (stranger things have happened for sure!). Does anyone think Margaret Thatcher would have spoken boldly to Rome, demanded an unconditional excuse by the Italian cabinet before anything ahd been found out - or a confronation? That she would have kicked off a war with Italy over the affair, even if the British public were as furious as they were with Argentina? Or even threatened Italy the way Bush spoke of Iraq up to March 2003? Nope, and that's the difference in how political action and political language work in America and in Europe.

[gagged_Louise]

150 years ago you had just shot Billy the Kid

Billy was shot in 1881: twenty years off the mark. Now, I read sometime during the early Bush years about an Arizona politician/lawyer who was trying to get Billy the Kid posthumously pardoned and recognized as a brave man. And no, the guy running that campaign was neither Obama nor McCain.

[IAN 2411]

gagged_louise, I can see that you have one hell of a chip on your shoulder and it is for that reason i will not reply to drivel. In three posts you have said nothing about the Socialist tendencies of President Obama, all you have done is used the thread as a platform to run down England and the rest of Europe with your rants. I don’t know if you are American or an American living in Sweden but you are directing an argument that has nothing to do with this thread. I will leave your rant unchecked, and I wish you luck in your pursuit to changing history to the way that makes you feel more comfortable.

My most sincere regards ian 2411

[gagged_Louise]

gagged_louise, I can see that you have one hell of a chip on your shoulder and it is for that reason i will not reply to drivel. In three posts you have said nothing about the Socialist tendencies of President Obama, all you have done is used the thread as a platform to run down England and the rest of Europe....

I wasn't even discussing England in the first post,just noting that Britain has *not* been an exception to the way other ancient European great powers have acted - and I only took it up later because you swerved the discussion on to UK leadership and England's wars. But I can see you have a considerably more imperial vision of Britain, even in the 21st century, than what most people have today. Fine. I was discussing political communication and people's ideas of how a president or a prime minister should - or even *can* - communicate in public with the leading people of other independent nations. No, I'm not American, buit it's obvious to anyone that the expectations of how a national front man should talk and act are different between many U.S. Americans - let's say, Middle Americans, especially, plus the neo-cons -and a majority of Western Europeans. Both the people, the media and the political class themselves, by the way.

And that's coloured by the fact that America has traditionally been more free to do as she pleases without anyone nearby bumping back into her with equal force. I'm not moralizing, just pointing out a fact. I think Obama recognizes this difference , just like JFK and Jimmy Carter did, so his style of talking to other nations appears more European, more diplomatic. And if one is used to a John Wayne style of communication - "smoke 'em out", "We're gonna chase down that mad dog" or flatly declaring that this shit ain't worth the paper it's written on - then maybe it will appear confusing but that's not his problem.

[IAN 2411]

gagged_louise, I will not side track this thread anymore than it has been but if you wish to start another thread i am in no doubt that we have a lot to discus about [my imperial vision,] [i love that LMFAO]

Regards ian 2411

[IAN 2411]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the ability to post it without being insulted. This fact "protects" your biased opinion as well as everyone else's.

[COLOR=”DarkOrange”]Please do attempt to keep from insulting other members while you post your "ridiculous" responses to their "ridiculous" posts.[/COLOR]

After you read your first quote, I will ask you to read your second quote and tell me. Is that supposed to be funny, or are you being sarcastic, derogatory and insulting to gagged_louise and myself. Explain to everyone in one of your colourful Posts, seeing as you have done those very things in public.

Regards ian 2411

[TantricSoul]

After you read your first quote, I will ask you to read your second quote and tell me. Is that supposed to be funny, or are you being sarcastic, derogatory and insulting to gagged_louise and myself. Explain to everyone in one of your colourful Posts, seeing as you have done those very things in public.

Regards ian 2411

In response to your statement, ian2411, I was attempting to interject an element of thoughtful humor into yet another warning message sent to a member whose post was deleted from this thread. The word "ridiculous" was entered into quotations in my response so that the offending member would get the message that their previous post was out of line, without having to make a big deal out of it. (since said member had used that description more than once).

I see by your reaction that you recieved the message but misunderstood the meaning.

If you prefer I would be happy to PM you and make the message very clear.

And Ill even do it colorfully

Respectfully,
Tantric

[gagged_Louise]

Best regards Ian, but if you think I just jumped in out of the blue you should take a look at the posts immediately before my first one; they're at the bottom of the page before this one. I was following up on TantricSoul's post about political speech in high and low-context cultures. He was contrsting Asia and the U.S., I was taking that contrast to the U.S. vs Europe - and guess what, he recognized the link as soon as he read my post. I'm absolutely okay with the fact that Obama doesn't talk like in a Hollywood movie when he's addressing other nations or speaking on tv, the world isn't Hollywood.

Returning ot the header question, no, Obama is not a socialist. Besides the celebrated quote that Steelish pulled up is garbled, what Obama said back in 2001 (it's on Youtube) was that the constitution was an admirable document (and so it should be respected, worked from and held in high estem) but that it was also marked by some of the fundamental flaws of the 18rth century society it came from. The society was flawed in a number of ways, he never sadi the text was "fundamentally flawed". Okay, if you think the text is to be read as if it was handed down from heaven, then this might be the same kind of thing, but maybe he doesn't. Not very sensational. Back in the day slavery was taken for granted, absolutely no one who was close to the founding fathers pushed the question whether slaves should be allowed to vote or if slavery was a decent state of affairs in a free republic - and that had a few side effects on how the political system evolved. Even if the U.S. constitution doesn't mention slaves outrright, the way it was written and interpreted presupposed slavery (and segregation) for a long time. What's the trouble?

[DuncanONeil]

Yes Obama is Socialist in his beliefs.

As to your interpretation of his comments in 2001. I am afraid I must disagree. In saying "it is marked by some of the fundamental flaws of the 18th century" he is speaking of the Constitution. That statement means he believes that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. His own words! Surely crafted to flow in a fashion for people to come to the conclusion you reached. But your conclusion is in error.

On to slavery! "(A)bsolutely no one who was close to the founding fathers pushed the question whether slaves should be allowed to vote or if slavery was a decent state of affairs in a free republic". This is simply untrue. Many wanted to eliminate slavery. But in doing so they would have doomed the birth of the United States. The language extent in the Constitution was in fact a compromise between the pro and anti slavery blocs in the convention.

(W)hat Obama said back in 2001 (it's on Youtube) was that the constitution was an admirable document (and so it should be respected, worked from and held in high estem) but that it was also marked by some of the fundamental flaws of the 18rth century society it came from. ... Back in the day slavery was taken for granted, absolutely no one who was close to the founding fathers pushed the question whether slaves should be allowed to vote or if slavery was a decent state of affairs in a free republic -

[mkemse]

No, I do not believe he is

[DuncanONeil]

No, I do not believe he is

Why not? Most of what he is forcing down the nations throat is socialist agenda items.

[leo9]

Why not? Most of what he is forcing down the nations throat is socialist agenda items.

Cheer up! You are not alone in your struggle:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...billboard.html

I mean, we can all see what he means about Obama being in "lock-step" with Hitler. Didn't he abolish the rights of habeas corpus, jury trial and peaceful protest, set up a new police organisation with the right to make secret wiretaps and monitor citizens' library lists and internet use, authorise interogation by torture and run a prison camp outside the law where detainees have no rights?

Or was that another President? No, couldn't have been; these defenders of liberty would have been up in arms about it right away.

[DuncanONeil]

Cheer up! You are not alone in your struggle:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...billboard.html

I mean, we can all see what he means about Obama being in "lock-step" with Hitler. Didn't he abolish the rights of habeas corpus,

We know the following to be true;

• On April 27, 1861, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana, during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln chose to suspend the writ over a proposal to bombard Baltimore,
  
• In 1942, eight German saboteurs, including two U.S. citizens, who had entered the United States were convicted by a secret military court set up by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In Ex parte Quirin (1942)[12] the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the writ of habeas corpus did not apply, and that the military tribunal had jurisdiction to try the saboteurs, due to their status as unlawful combatants.
  
• In the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor martial law was declared in Hawaii and habeas corpus was suspended, pursuant to a section of the Hawaiian Organic Ac. The period of martial law in Hawaii ended in October 1944.
  
• The November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order purported to give the President of the United States the power to detain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as enemy combatants. As such, that person could be held indefinitely, without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without legal counsel. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus, and the United States Bill of Rights. However in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)[15] the U.S. Supreme Court re-confirmed the right of every American citizen to access habeas corpus even when declared to be an enemy combatant. The Court affirmed the basic principle that habeas corpus could not be revoked in the case of a citizen.

However in the case of the later there was never an attempt to suspend Habeas Corpus. Only an argument that such had occurred. As the actual act was that of Congress ...

jury trial

Depends on how you see a jury trial. Can an alien actually have a jury of his peers in the US? Further why must a "jury trial" be only those trials held in specific court with the jury drawn from a pool of US voters in the district where the trial is to be held? Trails were scheduled to be held with juries to be impaneled. Is this not a jury trial?

and peaceful protest,

Did not happen!

set up a new police organisation with the right to make secret wiretaps and monitor citizens' library lists and internet use,

No new police organization has been set up with these powers. Besides by definition all wiretaps are secret, no one has been monitoring library lists, and the very idea that internet usage can be monitored is ludicrous.

authorise interogation by torture

Not so! With the understanding that everyone seems to have a very different idea of what constitutes torture. by the definition of some all the police departments in the land engage intorture during interigations of criminal suspects.

and run a prison camp outside the law where detainees have no rights?

Again another attempt to garner a certain kind of feeling in the reader. The camp was not run outside the law. The detainees were well treated and provided with virtually all the rights enumerated in the Conventions.

Or was that another President? No, couldn't have been; these defenders of liberty would have been up in arms about it right away.

Sarcasm wasted!!

[leo9]

and peaceful protest,

Did not happen!

Does the Orwellian term "Free Speech Zone" ring a bell? As several commentators observed, up till then they'd supposed that the USA was a Free Speech Zone.

Just imagine the howls if Obama were to corral the Teabaggers out of sight like that.

[Torq]

ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stay on topic or seek life elsewhere!!!!!!

ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will not warn again!

T

[steelish]

Okay, let's approach this a bit differently, because we are straying a touch off topic and beginning to get defensive and a little irritated with each other. There are many, many reasons for many Americans to believe that Obama is Socialist. There are many many reasons for many Americans to believe we've had Socialist-leaning Presidents in the past. Obama is simply the current one who has the backing and support of some very powerful self-avowed Communists, Marxists and Revolutionary Socialists. He (Obama) is slated by those who've been working towards America becoming a Socialist-run country as their spearhead to get it done.

Here's a hard concept to get your arms around: It's the concept that there are people in this country who want to intentionally collapse our economic system.

How could it be that any American would or would want to do such a thing? Well, those involved sleep just fine at night because they tell themselves that they're not collapsing, they're transforming — transforming — America into something better.

The progressive movement in which these people are involved started around the turn of last century. These are the same people who gave us the Federal Reserve. They brought America the concept of redistribution of wealth through the progressive income tax, telling Americans at first that only the rich would be affected. They are the same people who felt that they knew better about your health than you did that they needed to force you to stop drinking alcohol-through Prohibition. They brought us the League of Nations, then the United Nations. And their biggest contribution of all: They brought the understanding that our Constitution was a flawed, living, breathing document and that our Founding Fathers were a group of rich racists.

Now, today's group of progressives do not speak the same language as many other Americans and myself do: Economic justice is taking from haves and giving to the have nots; social justice, to quote Mark Lloyd, is when someone needs to step down so someone else can have turn, and transforming America means collapsing the state as we know it and rebooting it as a progressive utopia.

None of the language is the same. What I would call socialist, they call social justice. That's critical to understand; they really believe they're making things better and they're about to finish the process.

They learned from their earlier failed attempts to transform America and the world, like the League of Nations.

First, there can't be a debate. They simply declare the debate over and that they have consensus already.

Second, they can't conduct their transformation in the open.

And third, they can never let a good crisis go to waste.

Now, as we discuss this, keep in mind that you're watching all of this through your eyes; you see this as trying to collapse our economy. But progressives see this as a fundamental transformation — something better than we've ever had — as promised by Barack Obama.

So, let me introduce you to the people you would say are fundamentally responsible for the unsustainability and possible collapse of our economic system: Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven, authors of the Cloward-Piven strategy. Something else to remember is that this isn't some conspiracy theory that we're tossing out; they wrote about collapsing the economy and how they planned to do it in the article they co-authored in the '60s called, "Mobilizing the Poor: How it Could Be Done." Six months later, it was published in The Nation, under the title "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty."

So, just what is Cloward-Piven? Simply put: Cloward and Piven were radical Columbia professors in the 1960s who believed in "change" and "social justice." Inspired by the riots in Los Angeles in 1965, they wrote and published their article which outlined the best way to bring the kind of Saul Alinsky-type social change to America. In their estimation, it was to overwhelm the system and bring about the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with impossible demands and bring on economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven instructed activists that if a crisis did not exist, promote or manufacture one by exaggerating some unthreatening predicament. (Global warming anyone? And to an extent, health care?)

Their methods worked ... for a while. From 1965 through 1974, due to the strategy and efforts of Cloward and Piven and their followers, the total recipients on welfare rocketed from 4.3 million to 10.8 million. In 1975, there were nearly 1 million welfare recipients in New York City alone. That year, New York City declared bankruptcy. The whole state nearly went down with them.

In 1998, as he was still trying to deal with some of the fallout 20 years later, Mayor Rudy Giuliani referred to the Cloward and Piven strategy, describing the economic sabotage (JULY 20, 1998):

RUDY GIULIANI, NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: "This wasn't an accident; it wasn't an atmospheric thing; it wasn't supernatural. It was the result of policies, choices and a philosophy that was embraced in the 1960s and then enthusiastically endorsed in the City of New York."

He went on to say: "This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare."

In the end, it didn't work because Americans became horrified with the welfare-state situation. As a result, Cloward and Piven and their devotees learned that they needed to be in the system — we've shown you how they've done that.

The stimulus bill was written in large part by the Apollo Alliance, whose alumni include Van Jones. In New York, the Apollo Alliance is headed by Weather Underground co-founder, Jeff Jones, partner to Bill Ayers in the radical terrorist group and in whose living room Barack Obama launched his political career in Chicago.

George Soros is the source of funding for so many of these radical groups and Soros and Jeff Jones went into one of the poorest sections of New York and gave away hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of the stimulus money.

How about ACORN? These "community organizers" are receiving untold billions in taxpayer money, despite massive voter registration fraud and corruption. Still, Congress won't turn off the spicket.

Does it sound like someone is trying to overload the system yet?

Throw in TARP — a massive, inexplicable bailout that America didn't want for people Obama himself described as "fat cats". And, by the way, you have the progressives in the Republican as well as the Democratic Party to thank for that.

A trillion and a half dollar health care overhaul that less than 36 percent of the American people want, but Obama along with House and Senate Democrats forced it on us. They say it will only cost us a trillion dollars because of the savings they'll get by making cuts to Medicare at the same time they're expanding Medicare and Medicaid.

Medicare is a program with a $74 trillion liability already. Again, the idea is: Get as many people on government assistance as possible. Does it sound like that's what's going on here?

And in case no one noticed, the Wall Street Journal published an article stating that the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that the House health bill increases the deficit by $239 billion over the next decade.

The latest class of progressives have taken Cloward-Piven to a whole new level. TARP money to people who don't deserve it; if you're a bank and you can't figure out that some of these people you're handing out loans to shouldn't have the money, you don't deserve to continue to exist. But Barney Frank and others threatened the banks to give out risky loans to people who couldn't afford them. Even the guy who signed off on TARP — a progressive himself — George Bush, warned that tighter restrictions and regulations were needed for Fannie and Freddie … not once or twice, but 17 times. The stimulus package with millions going to fund non-existent projects in districts that don't exist.

Frank and Dodd learned the Cloward-Piven lesson in the '70s: You have to be a part of the system to make it happen — they certainly are part of it.

After the nation tired of able-bodied welfare recipients taking money from hard-working taxpayers, Cloward and Piven turned to other methods to overwhelm the system. They formed voter registration groups, like Human Serve, and worked with Project Vote, a group tied to ACORN, in their efforts.

And John Fund reports that Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer are about to introduce universal voter registration: If you're on any federal roll, you're automatically a voter. Receiving welfare, food stamps, if you own a home or are unemployed, you're automatically I — never mind, it makes me feel like my head will explode. But ponder that: If ACORN can automatically register everyone, that just might explain why members of Congress don't care about their poll numbers. This is the same ACORN already indicted for voter fraud all over the country.

Cloward and Piven lobbied heavily for the "Motor-Voter" law, which is widely blamed for getting so much deadwood fraud onto our voter rolls: Invalid registrations signed by the dead, ineligible or non-existent.

In 1993, when Bill Clinton signed the Motor Voter Bill into law and guess who was there as the invited guests of the president? Richard Cloward and his wife, Frances Fox Piven — who is currently an honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Then, three years later, they also supported the Clinton signing of the welfare reform bill in 1996. After working so hard to create an entire class of permanent welfare recipients in America, why would they publicly support the signing of a bill that put new restrictions on welfare recipients? Was it just a signal to the far left, saying, hey, don't worry, they won this battle, but we have the godparents of welfare excess right behind me. Don't worry, we'll win the war.

This was the same kind of signal to the far left that Senator Tom Harkin sent when he said the Senate health care bill was just a "starter home" — we'll put on the additions and do the remodeling later. It was the same signal Obama sent to the left when he announced he was committing more troops to Afghanistan and then in the next breath, said he was also bringing them home in 2011.

Just because most of us have never heard of this motley pair until recently, don't think for a minute that they haven't been heroes to the left for years. Bill Clinton knew exactly who they were in back in 1993 and, no doubt, long before.

You may not have even heard much about Saul Alinsky until recently, but Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on him. And even if you had heard of him, you may have just assumed that all Americans felt the same way about him as you did — repulsed, dare I say?

You'd be wrong again.

Here's a statement, made just a couple days before Christmas from Chris Matthews, that shows us that we're not all on the same page.

So, as for the case for progressives overloading the system — on purpose — to bring about what I would call systematic failure and catastrophic collapse, but what they would call "fundamental transformation" of America?

Case closed.

[MMI]

I wonder if there is any comparison to be drawn between Obama's alleged fundamental changes or transformations and the acts of Messrs Washington, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, et al, when they transformed a society ruled by a duly constituted Parliament and by a rightful King who reigned over all his possessions by the grace of God, in order to bring about a change that the majority did not appear to want.

[denuseri]

Again...Revolutionary War Historians place the numbers somewhat differently MMI... more like 4/5ths plus of the colonial population in support of Revolution with only 15-20% at best against it.

Which is besides the point and has nothing to do with Obama now or what he supports.

Now as for calling him a progressive...which is in no way shape or form the same really as calling him a socialist since the two things are indeed very seperate things:

Lincoln Mitchell writes in the Huffington Post:

Frustration with the Obama administration from the left due to the failure of the administration to embrace and implement a progressive program seems to be increasing. It is now clear that while Obama is a far better president than his immediate predecessor, (personally I think he sucks at about the same level myself) an extraordinarily low bar to be sure, he will not be the progressive leader for which many had hoped during the campaign. His governing style has been largely centrist with a preference for compromise over bolder, riskier decisions.

The two most common explanations for Obama's moderate governance are that critics on the left are not being fair to the president and holding him to standards that are too high or that the US is a center-right country, so left-of-center leaders like Obama are inevitably going to encounter obstacles.

The first explanation, that critics on the left are simply wrong, is based on willfully ignoring the realities of the Obama presidency. While it is true that Obama has passed health care and economic stimulus bills, defining these as progressive is demonstrably inaccurate. Moreover, Obama's failure in other areas, from strong environmental legislation to marriage equality, also undermines that explanation.

The second explanation, that Obama has failed because the US is a center-right country, is essentially a Republican talking point, and not even a creative one. It is what right wing analysts and pundits say when they have run out of other ideas. The power of the argument is that it is so devoid of meaning that it is almost impossible to rebut. Without defining what is left, right and center and determining how to accurately measure views on these issues, the assertion means nothing.

Another explanation is that Obama has simply failed because he is indebted to powerful moneyed interests, not really a progressive, or too timid. This explanation personalizes the situation too much. (However this explanation is my personal favorite)While Obama undoubtedly could have done more, it is far from clear that he could have passed sweeping progressive legislation. Presidential power, after all, is an often overrated and elusive thing.

Although there is no easy explanation for Obama's failure to deliver for the progressive movement which helped elect him, none of the explanations most commonly offered are satisfying or helpful largely because they are based on ideological positions rather than real analysis. While the direction of Obama's presidency may be difficult to explain, it has demonstrated the narrow bandwidth in which American politics occurs. Similarly, while claiming that the American people are center right is inaccurate, it is nonetheless true that politics in Washington occurs in a very limited policy space ranging from the center to the right.

The evidence for this can be seen in virtually any significant policy debate, but rarely with more clarity than in the health care debate. A single payer system, which is viewed by most of the industrial world outside the US as a centrist common sense solution, was dismissed by both parties as too radical before the health care debate really began. Instead the policies debated were largely modifications to a privatized health care system. The bandwidth was sufficiently narrow in this area that progressive solutions were ruled out before the discussion started. Similarly, throughout the economic crisis an entire range of issues such as major spending increases on infrastructure and unemployment relief, public options for the banking sector and meaningful tax increases for the richest Americans were simply never discussed.

This limited bandwidth is not due to an absence of progressive impulses, or to a center right consensus on the part of the American people, or personal failing on the part, not just of Barack Obama, but of all elected officials who run as progressives. It is, at least in part, due to institutional constraints which are structural, legal and political in nature. Obama is constrained by a Senate that over-represents conservative rural interests; a political environment in Washington and set of campaign finance laws that still give tremendous power to moneyed interests as elected officials must raise unseemly amounts of money in order to seek reelection; and a system of shared powers, overlapping jurisdictions and court challenges that make real change extremely difficult. There is also, of course, a right wing attack machine, but the noise the far right has made notwithstanding, they have not been politically relevant for much of Obama's time in office.

The existence of these constraints is part of political reality, but for many progressives there is a sense that the administration has used these constraints to rationalize away their relative inaction and timid policy making. It is clear that rapid progressive reform cannot be brought about simply through electing a president, but it is equally clear that even given these constraints more could have been done. Presidential decrees could have ended don't ask don't tell, and more aggressive bargaining would have led to a better health care. It is the failure to do this, not the failure to overcome the harsh political constraints, that should be the cause for the most concern from progressive supporters of the President.

In other words the Progresives do not see Obama as a progressive!

[steelish]

In other words the Progresives do not see Obama as a progressive!

Actually, I think what the Huffington Post is saying is that the Progressives do not think Obama is progressive enough!

[DuncanONeil]

Center - right country?
Well the graph did not come through!
So;
year Con Mod Lib
92 36 43 17
94 38 42 17
96 38 40 16
98 37 40 19
00 38 39 19
02 38 39 19
04 40 38 19
06 37 38 20
08 37 37 22

These annual figures are based on multiple national Gallup surveys conducted each year, in some cases encompassing more than 40,000 interviews. The 2009 data are based on 10 separate surveys conducted from January through May. Thus, the margins of error around each year's figures are quite small, and changes of only two percentage points are statistically significant.

The things that are clear from this study is that Liberals are really a minority and that elections turn on the wishes of the Moderates. Also that moderates and Conservative have changed place over the years being 43 - 36 moderate in '91 and 40 - 35 Conservative in 2009. While Liberals have remained, essentially stagnant!

The data supports the country being center - right!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/co...cal-group.aspx
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...owtopic=184855
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52602

Again...Revolutionary War Historians place the numbers somewhat differently MMI... more like 4/5ths plus of the colonial population in support of Revolution with only 15-20% at best against it.

Which is besides the point and has nothing to do with Obama now or what he supports.

Now as for calling him a progressive...which is in no way shape or form the same really as calling him a socialist since the two things are indeed very seperate things:

Lincoln Mitchell writes in the Huffington Post:

Frustration with the Obama administration from the left due to the failure of the administration to embrace and implement a progressive program seems to be increasing. It is now clear that while Obama is a far better president than his immediate predecessor, (personally I think he sucks at about the same level myself) an extraordinarily low bar to be sure, he will not be the progressive leader for which many had hoped during the campaign. His governing style has been largely centrist with a preference for compromise over bolder, riskier decisions.

The two most common explanations for Obama's moderate governance are that critics on the left are not being fair to the president and holding him to standards that are too high or that the US is a center-right country, so left-of-center leaders like Obama are inevitably going to encounter obstacles.

The first explanation, that critics on the left are simply wrong, is based on willfully ignoring the realities of the Obama presidency. While it is true that Obama has passed health care and economic stimulus bills, defining these as progressive is demonstrably inaccurate. Moreover, Obama's failure in other areas, from strong environmental legislation to marriage equality, also undermines that explanation.

The second explanation, that Obama has failed because the US is a center-right country, is essentially a Republican talking point, and not even a creative one. It is what right wing analysts and pundits say when they have run out of other ideas. The power of the argument is that it is so devoid of meaning that it is almost impossible to rebut. Without defining what is left, right and center and determining how to accurately measure views on these issues, the assertion means nothing.

Another explanation is that Obama has simply failed because he is indebted to powerful moneyed interests, not really a progressive, or too timid. This explanation personalizes the situation too much. (However this explanation is my personal favorite)While Obama undoubtedly could have done more, it is far from clear that he could have passed sweeping progressive legislation. Presidential power, after all, is an often overrated and elusive thing.

Although there is no easy explanation for Obama's failure to deliver for the progressive movement which helped elect him, none of the explanations most commonly offered are satisfying or helpful largely because they are based on ideological positions rather than real analysis. While the direction of Obama's presidency may be difficult to explain, it has demonstrated the narrow bandwidth in which American politics occurs. Similarly, while claiming that the American people are center right is inaccurate, it is nonetheless true that politics in Washington occurs in a very limited policy space ranging from the center to the right.

The evidence for this can be seen in virtually any significant policy debate, but rarely with more clarity than in the health care debate. A single payer system, which is viewed by most of the industrial world outside the US as a centrist common sense solution, was dismissed by both parties as too radical before the health care debate really began. Instead the policies debated were largely modifications to a privatized health care system. The bandwidth was sufficiently narrow in this area that progressive solutions were ruled out before the discussion started. Similarly, throughout the economic crisis an entire range of issues such as major spending increases on infrastructure and unemployment relief, public options for the banking sector and meaningful tax increases for the richest Americans were simply never discussed.

This limited bandwidth is not due to an absence of progressive impulses, or to a center right consensus on the part of the American people, or personal failing on the part, not just of Barack Obama, but of all elected officials who run as progressives. It is, at least in part, due to institutional constraints which are structural, legal and political in nature. Obama is constrained by a Senate that over-represents conservative rural interests; a political environment in Washington and set of campaign finance laws that still give tremendous power to moneyed interests as elected officials must raise unseemly amounts of money in order to seek reelection; and a system of shared powers, overlapping jurisdictions and court challenges that make real change extremely difficult. There is also, of course, a right wing attack machine, but the noise the far right has made notwithstanding, they have not been politically relevant for much of Obama's time in office.

The existence of these constraints is part of political reality, but for many progressives there is a sense that the administration has used these constraints to rationalize away their relative inaction and timid policy making. It is clear that rapid progressive reform cannot be brought about simply through electing a president, but it is equally clear that even given these constraints more could have been done. Presidential decrees could have ended don't ask don't tell, and more aggressive bargaining would have led to a better health care. It is the failure to do this, not the failure to overcome the harsh political constraints, that should be the cause for the most concern from progressive supporters of the President.

In other words the Progresives do not see Obama as a progressive!

[MMI]

No, den. Colhoun, if he is to be believed, said "a bare majority (of the white population) at best" supported the revolution, not 80%. The 15-20% number is his, I agree, leaving up to 35% neutral.

The point I was making (I don't know what a Progressive is anyway) was that political transformations are good or bad, according to your perspective, but your perspective is not everyone else's (unless you have conducted an impartial survey and have established that it is, as a fact). To me, a socialist president would be a good thing for America (probably) and for the rest of the world (certainly), and if anyone can effect such a transformation, he has my support.

I do not belong to any world-wide conspiracy, by the way.

Perhaps there are some people who would see a transformation to fascism as a good thing.

If the leader wishes to effect such a change, and can command the electoral support to do so, then the transformation is legitimate, and no amount of bad-tempered whingeing can change it.

[steelish]

To me, a socialist president would be a good thing for America (probably) and for the rest of the world (certainly), and if anyone can effect such a transformation, he has my support.

Yes, I can see how many non-Americans (and, unfortunately, even some Americans) would LOVE to see America collapse. I guess for some, it would be poetic justice.

Just one glaring difference - when America declared independence it did not cause the collapse of the nation it was leaving. It simply severed itself from that government and instituted it's own. What the Progressives are doing is trying to collapse the country...to bring about it's economic doom. Did the King's economy collapse when America declared independence? Did the country fall into ruin? Nope.

One thing to remember...if America collapses economically, don't be surprised if other countries follow suit.

[DuncanONeil]

Good Response!!

Yes, I can see how many non-Americans (and, unfortunately, even some Americans) would LOVE to see America collapse. I guess for some, it would be poetic justice.

Just one glaring difference - when America declared independence it did not cause the collapse of the nation it was leaving. It simply severed itself from that government and instituted it's own. What the Progressives are doing is trying to collapse the country...to bring about it's economic doom. Did the King's economy collapse when America declared independence? Did the country fall into ruin? Nope.

One thing to remember...if America collapses economically, don't be surprised if other countries follow suit.