CNN asks socialists, is Obama a socialist?

David · Apr 15, 2010

Obviously everyone said hell no.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/14/Obama.socialist/index.html

I like the last part by the head of the DSA:

To be honest, the most socialist candidate in the 2008 election was Sarah Palin.

I can't even count how many times I've made the same point.

myp · Apr 16, 2010

The term socialist is very vague and relative to a lot of other people in Washington, Obama is socialist. On the entire scale, perhaps not, but in some areas he certainly pushes socialist values.

Dirk · Apr 16, 2010

It's not THAT vague. It's generally about more democracy - more popular control, more accountability to the people.

Astonix · Apr 17, 2010

@Dirk - Of course you would say that being a socialist

But from what I remember, democracy is different from socialism so when you say 'generally about more democracy' isn't right? Unless you're a democratic socialist but your signature doesn't say that and I doubt it considering you're far left.

Anyway, on topic - Not being american I don't generally hear a lot of what Obama does but that may also mean it's too early to start judging Obama and which way his politics swing, whether its left, right or centre. Time will tell, and I think when he has a major decision, it will become clear.

el canadiano · Apr 17, 2010

myp said:
The term socialist is very vague and relative to a lot of other people in Washington, Obama is socialist. On the entire scale, perhaps not, but in some areas he certainly pushes socialist values.

Socialist does not equal liberal. A comment like that is like calling you a fascist, which I doubt applies to you. Obviously I don't think that's a fair

I didn't really think Obama wanted to lean towards one-party government, but you got to realize times change. Supplies will change and demands will as well. If anything, the NFL could be considered a socialist's league. TV Contracts are handled as one big package, and there's a big degree of revenue sharing, making sure teams that don't get a Cowboys or Redskins revenue can at least be alive and well. Personally, I find the NFL much more fun to watch than Baseball. Even if the Cowboys have the most amount of money, they can't have a monopoly in salaries like the Yankees do in the MLB.

myp · Apr 17, 2010

Increasing FDIC coverage, unemployment benefits, feeling that the rich should pay for the poor, etc. are socialist ideals. I am not sure where calling me a fascist comes in considering that the health care bill that I do not support is a mixture of corporatism and socialism and not capitalism.

As for the sports leagues, they are private enterprises- we are talking about government here, an entity that can make laws for all- sports leagues don't do that. Also, the MLB has revenue sharing as well

el canadiano · Apr 17, 2010

myp said:
Increasing FDIC coverage, unemployment benefits, feeling that the rich should pay for the poor, etc. are socialist ideals. I am not sure where calling me a fascist comes in considering that the health care bill that I do not support is a mixture of corporatism and socialism and not capitalism.

As for the sports leagues, they are private enterprises- we are talking about government here, an entity that can make laws for all- sports leagues don't do that. Also, the MLB has revenue sharing as well

Mind you, I realize you talk about the government, but they're basically like any business. Of course the MLB has Revenue Sharing, but it's clearly not to an extent that the NFL does. Look at the Yankees, though. A-Rod's contract is larger than the entire payroll of some of the lower teams (I pity the Pirates).

I actually think it's great that Obama is adding into Employment Insurance. Canada's EI can provide a mother 35 weeks off and the guaranteed job back (not to mention she gets 70% of her regular pay from the government). Does it cost us much? Well, we do lose 1.73% of our paychecks (the employer pays an additional 1.4 times we pay on top of that). Health Care? I'd think it'd be a bit better if the individual states get to do their own reforms (but make it similar). Having said that, I do appreciate that Obama is ensuring that every American has some sort of health care.

myp · Apr 17, 2010

Government can not be compared to private enterprise because private enterprise can not tax people and make people do things. The idea that government should be run like a business is extremely corporatist; some may even consider it fascist.

As for unemployment insurance, study after study has shown that as soon as the insurance runs out, there is a significant increase in job applications. Why? Because many who get that insurance don't even bother to look for a job. It is a moral hazard that those who do work must pay the cost of. Hardly fair in my opinion.

And on the health care front, I agree with you in that the states should take the initiative, not the Federal government. And I do not think it is fair to make everyone purchase insurance even if they don't want it.

el canadiano · Apr 17, 2010

myp said:
Government can not be compared to private enterprise because private enterprise can not tax people and make people do things. The idea that government should be run like a business is extremely corporatist; some may even consider it fascist.

As for unemployment insurance, study after study has shown that as soon as the insurance runs out, there is a significant increase in job applications. Why? Because many who get that insurance don't even bother to look for a job. It is a moral hazard that those who do work must pay the cost of. Hardly fair in my opinion.

And on the health care front, I agree with you in that the states should take the initiative, not the Federal government. And I do not think it is fair to make everyone purchase insurance even if they don't want it.

Mind you, I don't think it's fair that some people can't even afford insurance and have access to basic checkups. A government might not necessarily have the same tactics, but at the end of the day, it's net profit = revenue - expenses, just like any other business.

myp · Apr 17, 2010

One of the problems with these entitlement programs is just that though- the government loses money on them and they are forced to fund it with debt. Eventually it is the people that pay for those debts any way. I don't know about you, but I am no supporter of generational theft. With this plan, we are just buying insurance for everyone (including those who don't even want it) and making our children pay for it.

Dirk · Apr 18, 2010

Astonix said:
@Dirk - Of course you would say that being a socialist But from what I remember, democracy is different from socialism so when you say 'generally about more democracy' isn't right? Unless you're a democratic socialist but your signature doesn't say that and I doubt it considering you're far left.

I don't identify myself as a democratic socialist, but I do have something of a love affair with democracy. Haha. All the socialists i know, myself included, basically want more democratic controls in society. For example, i'm very much in favour of industrial democracy, and am in favour of utilities and services under local social control, and worker control of the workplace. To ensure that, you need more popular control. Democracy is a lot easier, and more practical, at a local level. That's why i'm a localist (but i'm also an internationalist).

I don't know about your socialist friends, but all of mine think similar, but not identical things. And we disagree a lot as to how it can and should be achieved. And how it can be implemented, while allowing the maximum liberty, etc. Our discussions are pretty lively, actually.

Anyway, on topic - Not being american I don't generally hear a lot of what Obama does but that may also mean it's too early to start judging Obama and which way his politics swing, whether its left, right or centre. Time will tell, and I think when he has a major decision, it will become clear.

Seems pretty centrist to me. I just think it's been a long time since the US has had a centrist in power.

David · Apr 18, 2010

Dirk said:
Seems pretty centrist to me. I just think it's been a long time since the US has had a centrist in power.

I'd say not since Eisenhower.

jdsingle · May 25, 2010

myp said:
Increasing FDIC coverage, unemployment benefits, feeling that the rich should pay for the poor, etc. are socialist ideals. I am not sure where calling me a fascist comes in considering that the health care bill that I do not support is a mixture of corporatism and socialism and not capitalism.

As for the sports leagues, they are private enterprises- we are talking about government here, an entity that can make laws for all- sports leagues don't do that. Also, the MLB has revenue sharing as well

Agreed. I think people in general should help try and get people that are at the bottom back on their feet and help them become contributing members of society. However, I would say that from personal experience, the majority of people on the welfare program that I have met enjoy the "I sit on my ass while all of you pay for me to do it" lifestyle.

Kyuubi · Jun 12, 2010

Dirk said:
Seems pretty centrist to me. I just think it's been a long time since the US has had a centrist in power.

Depending on where you live being "centrist" means different things. I wouldn't be too shocked at the fact that people outside of the US view him as centrist though given his ideology matches with their own (or doesn't go far enough). In US politics though he would count way from centrist, at least to conservatives like myself

Dirk · Jun 14, 2010

jdsingle said:
Agreed. I think people in general should help try and get people that are at the bottom back on their feet and help them become contributing members of society. However, I would say that from personal experience, the majority of people on the welfare program that I have met enjoy the "I sit on my ass while all of you pay for me to do it" lifestyle.

I am a big believer in "from each according to faculties, to each according to need", and I honestly think that welfare needs to reflect this. Welfare is a brilliant thing, and the safety net is very much needed. But I think a greater effort is required in getting people into work, in order to contribute to society, and in preventing poverty in the first place.

Kyuubi said:
Depending on where you live being "centrist" means different things. I wouldn't be too shocked at the fact that people outside of the US view him as centrist though given his ideology matches with their own (or doesn't go far enough). In US politics though he would count way from centrist, at least to conservatives like myself

I can assure you that Obama's "ideology" is far far far to the right of my own. As for my friends, well, most of them are leftists, too. I don't think it's as you say, so much. I would consider, for example, Germany to be a centre-left country. Equally, i'd consider the United Kingdom a centre-right country, and the US a conservative country. This has nothing to do with me, i don't consider myself a centrist, being on the far left. And naturally, there are leftist and rightist elements in all these countries.

el canadiano · Jun 14, 2010

Well that's true. What's considered "conservative" is definitely different in the United States than what Europe/Asia considers "conservative." I find Canada's definitely more liberal than the US, but we're definitely more conservative than places like Scandinavia, maybe a few western European countries as well.

Kyuubi · Jun 18, 2010

I can't speak for every conservative but my opinion is this; if I call him a European socialist it doesn't mean I think he's a tyrannical dictator. If I really thought that I'd have been comparing Europe to true dictatorships like North Korea Cuba, Venezuela and Burma to name a few already, and I think the "European" of socialism is far from comparable to those countries. On the other hand, the same countries have implemented welfare programs which may have political, sociological, and moral benefits, but are also unrealistic especially given that government intervention is often a bureaucracy. France for example is increasing the retirement age to help cover budget deficits which are in part due to some of their programs.

I don't think asking "socialists" if Obama is one is a very good way to go about it anyway. The ideology is far too broad to be put on a single podium. It's pretty much everything in between capitalism and communism, a more effective approach IMO is to judge "socialism" by how much centralization in government takes place. :\

But again, with the diversity of public opinion makes determining who's moderate at least partly a measure of opinion rather than actual analysis.

digitalfanatic · Jul 26, 2010

I believe is politicians are socialists, then that is for their own selfish reasons. They intend to use us sooner or later!

CNN asks socialists, is Obama a socialist?

Similar threads