Obama a Socialist? Fox News Exec Said So, but Didn't Believe It

[blazerboy30]

To be fair - the socialism started with Bush and his bailouts...

I don't see many here supporting Bush and the bailouts. But that doesn't prove that Obama isn't taking us further towards socialism.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Um, contradictory much? This sentence doesn't even make sense.

Leftist meaning left-wing. As it was described, apparently Obama is far far far left. This is not true. The country was center right, and in that sense he has taken us more to the left, but to call him a liberal or a leftist (left wing) is not correct. Selective quoting FTL.

This is just so incredibly out there, I don't know how to respond. It is asinine to even try to make that argument as we have seen a larger takeover of the economy than ever before and spending is ridiculously higher than ever before.

Is there a more pervasive and intrusive government program than the Patriot act? Did Obama create a whole new beauracracy the size of Homeland Security? If we are talking government take over's through bailing out private too big to fail corporations, then let us see how it plays out. If the government retains its share in those companies, then we can talk.

No.

Ouch. Good one.

 

[blazerboy30]

Leftist meaning left-wing. As it was described, apparently Obama is far far far left.

No. Your response was:

If you think Obama is a leftist, you are sorely mistaken.

Followed up by:

He has taken the country more to the left

Left(ist) is relative. In this context, we are obviously referring to this country, the USA. To say Obama isn't left, but has taken the country more to the left is just ridiculous and illogical.

This is not true. The country was center right, and in that sense he has taken us more to the left, but to call him a liberal or a leftist (left wing) is not correct.

Yeah, if your reference point is France. Again, liberal and leftist is relative and depends on context. This context is this country. We are and have been referring to THIS country. You agree, since you talk about this country in the same sentence. To continue claiming that somebody is taking the country further left but that person isn't liberal or leftist is asinine.

Selective quoting FTL.

Me analyzing your response just shows how illogical it is.

Is there a more pervasive and intrusive government program than the Patriot act? Did Obama create a whole new beauracracy the size of Homeland Security?

Sorry. I didn't realize you hadn't heard about the healthcare reform. You should read up on it since it might affect you. It will make the size of the Homeland Security beauracracy look like peanuts.

If we are talking government take over's through bailing out private too big to fail corporations, then let us see how it plays out. If the government retains its share in those companies, then we can talk.

This is just completely illogical...again. That is like saying: "We'll see if the US stays in Iraq before we can gauge Bush's stance on war. If the US remains in Iraq forever, then we can talk."

See how stupid that sounds?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Um, isn't TARP considered an example of legislation that helped out during a crisis? I mean this article shows that as of December 2010 all but $25B was repaid and that number would likely go down, if you believe the Treasury Secretary.

All but $25B returned from a $700B program? Seems like a decent deal to me, and it might even become a profit program soon.

And DHS wasn't created out of thin air...it was an amalgamation of multiple (at one point I think it was 33) separate departments, organizations and forces that consolidated assets, communication, training, coordination and control to ensure that if there was mission overlap it was intentional and Memoranda of Agreement and Understanding were in place. It's not perfect, and it's not finished, but consolidation of multiple programs into one leaner and less expensive program is closer to what we should be doing than implementing health insurance overhaul that does nothing for health "care".

For instance, the Coast Guard is over 1/4 of DHS's budget (and radically underfunded for the mission required of it). But it wasn't like the Coast Guard wasn't being paid for before...it was just paid for by Dept of Transportation before DHS came about. DHS was a re-organization, not a creation.

 

[Denny Crane]

The government bailout and takeover of Ford was the biggest success story of the "never let a good crisis go to waste" recession.

 

[maxiep]

The government bailout and takeover of Ford was the biggest success story of the "never let a good crisis go to waste" recession.

There's a big difference between what was done for Chrysler and Ford in the 80s and what transpired in 2009. It's the difference between debt (first priority and limited liability) and equity (last priority and unlimited liability).

 

[maxiep]

Um, isn't TARP considered an example of legislation that helped out during a crisis? I mean this article shows that as of December 2010 all but $25B was repaid and that number would likely go down, if you believe the Treasury Secretary.

All but $25B returned from a $700B program? Seems like a decent deal to me, and it might even become a profit program soon.

And DHS wasn't created out of thin air...it was an amalgamation of multiple (at one point I think it was 33) separate departments, organizations and forces that consolidated assets, communication, training, coordination and control to ensure that if there was mission overlap it was intentional and Memoranda of Agreement and Understanding were in place. It's not perfect, and it's not finished, but consolidation of multiple programs into one leaner and less expensive program is closer to what we should be doing than implementing health insurance overhaul that does nothing for health "care".

For instance, the Coast Guard is over 1/4 of DHS's budget (and radically underfunded for the mission required of it). But it wasn't like the Coast Guard wasn't being paid for before...it was just paid for by Dept of Transportation before DHS came about. DHS was a re-organization, not a creation.

I hated every bit of TARP, but it was a necessary evil due to the policy objective of putting people into homes whether or not they can afford it (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were commanded to securitize shit loand), insufficient oversight by the SEC (they just hire stupid people) and the Congress allowing the wall between investment and commercial banks to be torn down.

With the right policies, TARP wouldn't have been necessary. And the shitty thing is we haven't fixed anything. Banks are still too big to fail. Oversight still sucks. And the attempted propping up of the residential market has just made the dip worse and more sustained, forcing people who may not have gone into bankruptcy to have to take that option.

For $700B, shouldn't we at least learn a lesson?

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama's not a socialist. You can't make him guilty of that through his associations.

It's another matter to say some of his programs are socialist or outright fascist. The concept of universal health care is socialist in nature, but in ObamaCare implementation it's govt. in bed with the insurance industry and rather fascist. The takeover of GM was a fascist kind of move as well.

The big spending and big government is a progressive sort of agenda. While he has demonstrated he will have govt. buy whole HUGE businesses, it doesn't at all look like he's trying to nationalize all businesses (which is socialist).

As for Sammon, he's a very smart fellow, if not misguided. You can call him a liar, etc., but it was for effect and effect achieved.

 

[Stevenson]

Nah, Obama's no socialist. It's just a coincidence that he belonged to a church in Chicago for over 20 years that supports a form of marxism called Black Liberation Theology. It's also just a coincidence that he is friends with Bill Ayers, an avowed marxist, and that he has vowed to "spread the wealth around." All pure coincidence.

He knew Ayers, and so what even if they were friends. I have pals who are Republican but thankfully that doesnt make me one. What an ignorant take Shooter. Guilt by association. Pure McCarthyism.

Obama - the millionaire socialist.

 

[Shooter]

He knew Ayers, and so what even if they were friends. I have pals who are Republican but thankfully that doesnt make me one. What an ignorant take Shooter. Guilt by association. Pure McCarthyism.

Nonsense. Read his books. Look at his public statements. Look at his interpretation of the constitution. Look at the federal takovers of private business that he approved since coming to power. And look at the people he associates with, as well as the church he attended for 20 years. ALL of it supports the idea that he's a socialist. And lest you forget, here's the cover of Newsweek magazine shortly after Obama was elected . . .

 

[MrJayremmie]

No. Your response was:

Followed up by:

Left(ist) is relative. In this context, we are obviously referring to this country, the USA. To say Obama isn't left, but has taken the country more to the left is just ridiculous and illogical.

Yeah, if your reference point is France. Again, liberal and leftist is relative and depends on context. This context is this country. We are and have been referring to THIS country. You agree, since you talk about this country in the same sentence. To continue claiming that somebody is taking the country further left but that person isn't liberal or leftist is asinine.

Me analyzing your response just shows how illogical it is.

Did you really spend all that time analyzing my sentences? Wow. In short, i said Obama has moved the country to the left, but he isn't a liberal (but he is left of center and the country is right of center so it was only natural).

It really isn't that hard to ignore any mistaken diction or grammatical error on a message board.

So you think Healthcare reform, with no public option or single payer, is more pervasive and intrusive than the patriot act (because of a health mandate?) and will lead to a larger bureaucracy than Homeland Security? I must say, I completely disagree on both points.

This is just completely illogical...again. That is like saying: "We'll see if the US stays in Iraq before we can gauge Bush's stance on war. If the US remains in Iraq forever, then we can talk."

Actually, it is completely different. If the government retains ownership, it means its motives may have been other than just helping a company out financially. If they give it all back and get all the money that they paid back, then this was simply a good move that helped the country.

 

[BrianFromWA]

So you think Healthcare reform, with no public option or single payer, is more pervasive and intrusive than the patriot act (because of a health mandate?) and will lead to a larger bureaucracy than Homeland Security? I must say, I completely disagree on both points.

Without the grammar aspect, I'd like to discuss this particular issue and your disagreement. You do know that DHS is "only" a 40B/yr entity that consolidates almost all of our non-DoD security, surveillance and emergency agencies, right? As opposed to, say, a bureaucracy that manages 1/6th of the GDP? For example, DHS isn't even bigger than the Veterans Affairs Department, which covers approximately 9% of Americans who are veterans. You think a government agency covering 100% of Americans would be less of a bureaucracy?

As for the Patriot Act, I can understand (even if I don't particularly agree with) some points of it that people don't like, or the opinion that it's taking us closer to a 1984 world. But I can't fathom that you'd think that the government making you do something (like get medical insurance) is more pervasive or instrusive than them surveilling you as you do what you want. Which they have severe restrictions on.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Without the grammar aspect, I'd like to discuss this particular issue and your disagreement. You do know that DHS is "only" a 40B/yr entity that consolidates almost all of our non-DoD security, surveillance and emergency agencies, right? As opposed to, say, a bureaucracy that manages 1/6th of the GDP? For example, DHS isn't even bigger than the Veterans Affairs Department, which covers approximately 9% of Americans who are veterans. You think a government agency covering 100% of Americans would be less of a bureaucracy?

If the government took over health care this argument would be valid. But there is no public option or single payer. There is some oversight, a mandate, and rules for the PRIVATE insurance industry. It is in no way a government bureaucracy in the sense of the department of homeland security in my mind. Health care as a whole, sure.

As for the Patriot Act, I can understand (even if I don't particularly agree with) some points of it that people don't like, or the opinion that it's taking us closer to a 1984 world. But I can't fathom that you'd think that the government making you do something (like get medical insurance) is more pervasive or instrusive than them surveilling you as you do what you want. Which they have severe restrictions on.

One of them has a sort of precedence in mandating car insurance. Either way, I disagree with both. I like Obama's idea to let states opt out of the mandate.

 

[blazerboy30]

So you think Healthcare reform, with no public option or single payer, is more pervasive and intrusive than the patriot act (because of a health mandate?) and will lead to a larger bureaucracy than Homeland Security? I must say, I completely disagree on both points.

Dude, you're just flat out wrong. And it isn't even close. Depending on which numbers you use, the healthcare reform is going to cost somewhere between $1 Trillion and $2 Trillion over the next decade, or $100billion to $200 billion per year. As Brian mentioned, the DHS is about $40 billion / year.

Beyond the cost issue, healthcare reform will affect everybody in this country and also forces people to do something. The Patriot Act has nowhere near that amount of effect on our lives.

Are you REALLY trying to argue that the DHS is a larger expansion of the government than healthcare reform? Go ahead and keep arguing and disagreeing, but it looks ridiculous.

Actually, it is completely different. If the government retains ownership, it means its motives may have been other than just helping a company out financially. If they give it all back and get all the money that they paid back, then this was simply a good move that helped the country.

False. Whether or not the government retains ownership, it shows that the government was willing to step into the private sector and take over... more in the direction of socialism. They already did that, whether you want to analyze it now or later is immaterial. Just like the fact that we already went to war. If you want to analyze whether or not Bush was willing to go to war after we are out of Iraq doesn't make any sense.

 

[MrJayremmie]

False. Whether or not the government retains ownership, it shows that the government was willing to step into the private sector and take over... more in the direction of socialism. They already did that, whether you want to analyze it now or later is immaterial. Just like the fact that we already went to war. If you want to analyze whether or not Bush was willing to go to war after we are out of Iraq doesn't make any sense.

Its called learning from our mistakes during the first great depression and hoping to prevent the second.

Dude, you're just flat out wrong. And it isn't even close. Depending on which numbers you use, the healthcare reform is going to cost somewhere between $1 Trillion and $2 Trillion over the next decade, or $100billion to $200 billion per year. As Brian mentioned, the DHS is about $40 billion / year.

Beyond the cost issue, healthcare reform will affect everybody in this country and also forces people to do something. The Patriot Act has nowhere near that amount of effect on our lives.

Are you REALLY trying to argue that the DHS is a larger expansion of the government than healthcare reform? Go ahead and keep arguing and disagreeing, but it looks ridiculous.

Yes, because I don't see health care forming that big of a bureaucracy. The cost of a bill and the budget of a government department are far different. I don't see tax cuts as a bigger bureaucracy than DHS even though they cost more and effect more Americans. I don't see a car insurance mandate as a bigger government program than DHS.

I see the Patriot Act as a huge overstepping of Government. I also see the health mandate as one, because the government has no place to mandate us to do something. But there is a huge difference between the two.

Why are republicans, who say they will fight for personal freedoms, not see the Patriot Act as a huge problem? Its so partisan its ridiculous.

Like the Libertarians say, conservatives want government out of economic freedoms but want government intrusion in our social lives (Patriot Act, Gay Marriage, Abortion, Drugs)... and Liberals want government out of personal lives and want government intrusion in our economic freedoms.

Either way, I'd rather chat with BrianFromWA than BB because I think BB takes this stuff way too seriously, while BfWA makes intelligent yet non bitchy arguments (and probably THE most convincing arguments coming from a righty on this site).

 

[Denny Crane]

Isn't the IRS going to need something like 100,000 additional employees just to collect the penalties from those who opt out of ObamaCare?

It's a huge clusterfuck of a bureaucracy and the IRS in general is as anti-libertarian as it gets

 

[barfo]

Without the grammar aspect, I'd like to discuss this particular issue and your disagreement. You do know that DHS is "only" a 40B/yr entity that consolidates almost all of our non-DoD security, surveillance and emergency agencies, right? As opposed to, say, a bureaucracy that manages 1/6th of the GDP? For example, DHS isn't even bigger than the Veterans Affairs Department, which covers approximately 9% of Americans who are veterans. You think a government agency covering 100% of Americans would be less of a bureaucracy?

I do. I think your 1/6 of GDP argument is pretty misleading. By that reasoning, the IRS must be the largest bureaucracy, since it 'manages' 100% of GDP (well, except for GE's portion of GDP, apparently). The truth is that the healthcare bill doesn't require 'management' of the entire healthcare system. If we'd nationalized all the doctors and nurses, all the hospitals, all the insurance companies, all the drug companies, then your argument would actually be legitimate.

As for the Patriot Act, I can understand (even if I don't particularly agree with) some points of it that people don't like, or the opinion that it's taking us closer to a 1984 world. But I can't fathom that you'd think that the government making you do something (like get medical insurance) is more pervasive or instrusive than them surveilling you as you do what you want. Which they have severe restrictions on.

But the something they are making me do is something I was doing already, and that I'm happy to keep doing. Whereas reading my email and tapping my phone is taking away something that I previously had: privacy.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

Either way, I'd rather chat with BrianFromWA than BB because I think BB takes this stuff way too seriously, while BfWA makes intelligent yet non bitchy arguments (and probably THE most convincing arguments coming from a righty on this site).

Sounds good to me. Your logic is so flawed it is an embarrassment. I'm happy to have a discussion with somebody that has opposing views... But it is extremely annoying to have a conversation with somebody can't formulate a logically sound position.

 

[blazerboy30]

I do. I think your 1/6 of GDP argument is pretty misleading. By that reasoning, the IRS must be the largest bureaucracy, since it 'manages' 100% of GDP (well, except for GE's portion of GDP, apparently). The truth is that the healthcare bill doesn't require 'management' of the entire healthcare system. If we'd nationalized all the doctors and nurses, all the hospitals, all the insurance companies, all the drug companies, then your argument would actually be legitimate.

Even if it isn't 1/6 of the GDP that the government will manage, the portion they will manage will make the DHS beaurocracy look tiny. The relative spending on each of those programs gives a reasonable indication. Healthcare will be an order of magnitude larger.

But the something they are making me do is something I was doing already, and that I'm happy to keep doing. Whereas reading my email and tapping my phone is taking away something that I previously had: privacy.
barfo

That isn't a valid argument. If the government required that all men gave free bj's, that is something some already do and something I'm sure they'd be happy to keep doing. That doesn't mean it is a reasonable thing for the government to mandate.

 

[barfo]

Even if it isn't 1/6 of the GDP that the government will manage, the portion they will manage will make the DHS beaurocracy look tiny. The relative spending on each of those programs gives a reasonable indication. Healthcare will be an order of magnitude larger.

I'm not seeing an actual argument here, just an assertion. I assert back that you are wrong.

That isn't a valid argument.

I wasn't making an argument. I was explaining why *I* consider the one worse than the other. That's a matter of opinion, obviously, and you are free to have a different one.

If the government required that all men gave free bj's, that is something some already do and something I'm sure they'd be happy to keep doing. That doesn't mean it is a reasonable thing for the government to mandate.

projection is a terrible affliction.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

I'm not seeing an actual argument here, just an assertion. I assert back that you are wrong.

Wrong about what? The spending numbers?

I wasn't making an argument. I was explaining why *I* consider the one worse than the other. That's a matter of opinion, obviously, and you are free to have a different one.

You're opinion is valid when talking about which one you think is more invasive in your life. Your opinion doesn't matter when comparing the sizes of the beauracracies, which was the original point.

projection is a terrible affliction.

barfo

Brian edited my post, but it was funny. I must say, I'm a little disappointed in your response, Barfo. I was expecting something better from you.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I do. I think your 1/6 of GDP argument is pretty misleading. By that reasoning, the IRS must be the largest bureaucracy, since it 'manages' 100% of GDP (well, except for GE's portion of GDP, apparently). The truth is that the healthcare bill doesn't require 'management' of the entire healthcare system. If we'd nationalized all the doctors and nurses, all the hospitals, all the insurance companies, all the drug companies, then your argument would actually be legitimate.

I'll grant you the 1/6 of GDP thing, b/c it's nebulous. But what about the DVA example? Management of the health care of veterans (whether through managing their care, paying for the management, paying off disability claims, etc) is a bigger chunk of budget than DHS, and it's only for 9% of Americans maximum (and probably much less, since not every veteran is cared for, paid by or uses DVA). My personal belief is that, for a program this big, you're going to have to stand up (not consolidate, as DHS did or DoD did in the 50's) a brand new bureaucracy for it. Maybe not cabinet-level, but still a large and costly stand-up.

But the something they are making me do is something I was doing already, and that I'm happy to keep doing. Whereas reading my email and tapping my phone is taking away something that I previously had: privacy.

barfo

But not everyone is doing it, and not everyone WANTS to do it. And (as far a I can tell, though I profess ignorance on the finer points of the health insurance reform) they can't opt out of it by, say, not driving.
So in this case, it works out for you. But government regulation of our actions seems like a larger and more intrusive matter; since who's to say in 2 years that the gov't regulates everyone pays 10% to charity? I mean, it's something I was doing already and I'm happy to keep doing. Or, you could opt out and just give the "penalty" of 10% to the gov't.

 

[MARIS61]

I'll grant you the 1/6 of GDP thing, b/c it's nebulous. But what about the DVA example? Management of the health care of veterans (whether through managing their care, paying for the management, paying off disability claims, etc) is a bigger chunk of budget than DHS, and it's only for 9% of Americans maximum (and probably much less, since not every veteran is cared for, paid by or uses DVA). My personal belief is that, for a program this big, you're going to have to stand up (not consolidate, as DHS did or DoD did in the 50's) a brand new bureaucracy for it. Maybe not cabinet-level, but still a large and costly stand-up.


But not everyone is doing it, and not everyone WANTS to do it. And (as far a I can tell, though I profess ignorance on the finer points of the health insurance reform) they can't opt out of it by, say, not driving.
So in this case, it works out for you. But government regulation of our actions seems like a larger and more intrusive matter; since who's to say in 2 years that the gov't regulates everyone pays 10% to charity? I mean, it's something I was doing already and I'm happy to keep doing. Or, you could opt out and just give the "penalty" of 10% to the gov't.

Who do I contact to opt out of supporting DHS and wars for profit?

They are something I would never approve of and I'm not at all happy about my tax dollars being misused in these un-American, treasonous enterprises.

 

[blazerboy30]

Who do I contact to opt out of supporting DHS and wars for profit?

They are something I would never approve of and I'm not at all happy about my tax dollars being misused in these un-American, treasonous enterprises.

Yeah, that's the point. You can't opt out of these programs... just like you can't opt out of Obamacare. Did you miss that point?

 

[barfo]

As for the Patriot Act, I can understand (even if I don't particularly agree with) some points of it that people don't like, or the opinion that it's taking us closer to a 1984 world. But I can't fathom that you'd think that the government making you do something (like get medical insurance) is more pervasive or instrusive than them surveilling you as you do what you want. Which they have severe restrictions on.

But the something they are making me do is something I was doing already, and that I'm happy to keep doing. Whereas reading my email and tapping my phone is taking away something that I previously had: privacy.

That isn't a valid argument.

I wasn't making an argument. I was explaining why *I* consider the one worse than the other. That's a matter of opinion, obviously, and you are free to have a different one.

You're opinion is valid when talking about which one you think is more invasive in your life.

Which is, of course, what I was talking about.

Your opinion doesn't matter when comparing the sizes of the beauracracies, which was the original point.

I didn't make any claims to the contrary.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

Which is, of course, what I was talking about.



I didn't make any claims to the contrary.

barfo

Well alright then. Try to stay on-topic next time. Thanks.

 

[barfo]

I'll grant you the 1/6 of GDP thing, b/c it's nebulous. But what about the DVA example? Management of the health care of veterans (whether through managing their care, paying for the management, paying off disability claims, etc) is a bigger chunk of budget than DHS, and it's only for 9% of Americans maximum (and probably much less, since not every veteran is cared for, paid by or uses DVA). My personal belief is that, for a program this big, you're going to have to stand up (not consolidate, as DHS did or DoD did in the 50's) a brand new bureaucracy for it. Maybe not cabinet-level, but still a large and costly stand-up.

Is the VA really an apples-to-apples comparison? Is the level of services provided to veterans limited to mandating that they buy insurance? I kind of guess not, but I suspect you know more about the VA than I do.

But not everyone is doing it, and not everyone WANTS to do it. And (as far a I can tell, though I profess ignorance on the finer points of the health insurance reform) they can't opt out of it by, say, not driving.
So in this case, it works out for you.

Sure, I wasn't claiming that my experience was universal. Although, a majority of the country does now have health insurance.

But government regulation of our actions seems like a larger and more intrusive matter; since who's to say in 2 years that the gov't regulates everyone pays 10% to charity? I mean, it's something I was doing already and I'm happy to keep doing. Or, you could opt out and just give the "penalty" of 10% to the gov't.

Sure, it's a slippery slope. One day they make us buy health insurance, and the next day they'll be choosing who we can and can't marry. Oh, wait, I guess they do that already.

I think this objection is a nice theoretical point, but in the real world, it just isn't that big a deal. Are you outraged by walk/don't walk signs at crosswalks? They are telling you what to do, man! Some machine is taking away your freedom!

barfo