Bill Maher? LOL I don't think he is a socialist, (Obama , not Maher.....hee!) I just don't agree with his idea of what Government is for. It's not the beginning of Oceania as some would have you believe though.
If he's a Socialist, he's really, really bad at it.
And I want proof that Romney doesn't have six wives. And that he's not a Unicorn.
Not too sure about the "socialist" label, but there are a few stark differences between Obama and your typical independent American. Ask the typical American where wealth originates, and most will say from the private sector, or free enterprise. Obama repeatedly stresses that the Federal Government has a vital role to play in wealth generation. It is the government's job, he says, to funnel money in the right areas, like Solyndra.
The biggest difference, or one that sets him on the socialist side of the spectrum? When a person making over $250,000 pays too little of their fair share of taxes, who "OWNS" this disputed income? Obama always, I repeat, always says that WE'RE (ie the government) letting him get away with hiding our taxes through tax loopholes. He ALWAYS refers to this concept of "the fair share" as the federal government's money. This country was founded, and the US Consitution, was founded on individual liberty, and the belief that or property is ours, and disputed incomes are ours. The government takes OUR money for necessary duties. Obama, by default, says that this income is only our money after the government tells us how much is left over.
I don't have a problem with people saying that my beliefs of liberty are Libertarian, even though I am not Libertarian. Obama believes in the philosophy of government as an independent, necessary wealth generating entity. Axelrod said this past weekend that Obama's second term would be about creating jobs in the private sector, like teachers and firemen. Says a lot when the president's men don't even know what the private sector is. At a minimum, Obama leans towards being a philosophical socialist, while you seem to be comparing the definition of socialism to a true Marxist definition.
The definition:
Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system.
I think Obama has had to govern from the center as much as he can Bill Clinton did the same thing. I don't think he is the big bad boogie man that the far right makes him out to be. Just my opinion I like halien post and I agree Posted via Mobile Device
Not too sure about the "socialist" label, but there are a few stark differences between Obama and your typical independent American. Ask the typical American where wealth originates, and most will say from the private sector, or free enterprise. Obama repeatedly stresses that the Federal Government has a vital role to play in wealth generation. It is the government's job, he says, to funnel money in the right areas, like Solyndra.
The biggest difference, or one that sets him on the socialist side of the spectrum? When a person making over $250,000 pays too little of their fair share of taxes, who "OWNS" this disputed income? Obama always, I repeat, always says that WE'RE (ie the government) letting him get away with hiding our taxes through tax loopholes. He ALWAYS refers to this concept of "the fair share" as the federal government's money. This country was founded, and the US Consitution, was founded on individual liberty, and the belief that or property is ours, and disputed incomes are ours. The government takes OUR money for necessary duties. Obama, by default, says that this income is only our money after the government tells us how much is left over.
I don't have a problem with people saying that my beliefs of liberty are Libertarian, even though I am not Libertarian. Obama believes in the philosophy of government as an independent, necessary wealth generating entity. Axelrod said this past weekend that Obama's second term would be about creating jobs in the private sector, like teachers and firemen. Says a lot when the president's men don't even know what the private sector is. At a minimum, Obama leans towards being a philosophical socialist, while you seem to be comparing the definition of socialism to a true Marxist definition.
The definition:
Socialism /solzm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system.
I didn't label him as a Socialist. I've just been told enough that he is one.
When I was a kid making minimum wage and there was a Republican President in office, the government was rationing about 25% of my paycheck each week. In my lifetime, a large portion of my money has always been theirs.
There are plenty of real things to criticize him about. But he's yet to actually do so many of the things of which he's been accused.
Location: Temporary Resident of Earth Lord Only Knows Where Next
Posts: 5,599
Re: Obama the Kenyan Socialist
In 2009 President Obama "fired" Rick Wagoner the CEO of General Motors. Yeah I have a problem with our government deciding they have the "right" to make those kinds of calls in the private sector.
In 2009 President Obama "fired" Rick Wagoner the CEO of General Motors. Yeah I have a problem with our government deciding they have the "right" to make those kinds of calls in the private sector.
I agree and I also think that the federal Govt should stay away from education and leave it to the states the NCLB is a Joke
In 2009 President Obama "fired" Rick Wagoner the CEO of General Motors. Yeah I have a problem with our government deciding they have the "right" to make those kinds of calls in the private sector.
That was because GM sold itself to the federal government to survive. Ford, for example, chose not to and was able to make its management decisions. If GM is going to take federal money, I am unsure why the federal government should nto have a say in management of that company.
In 2009 President Obama "fired" Rick Wagoner the CEO of General Motors. Yeah I have a problem with our government deciding they have the "right" to make those kinds of calls in the private sector.
General Motors asked the government for help to keep from going out of business. It's not as if the federal government decided it wanted to manufacture automobiles and staged a hostile takeover.
GM hadn't been profitable for years and unsuccessful CEO's are politely asked to "resign" all the time.
It's not like Obama asked Bill Gates to step away from Microsoft.
Location: Temporary Resident of Earth Lord Only Knows Where Next
Posts: 5,599
Re: Obama the Kenyan Socialist
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Average Guy
That was because GM sold itself to the federal government to survive. Ford, for example, chose not to and was able to make its management decisions. If GM is going to take federal money, I am unsure why the federal government should nto have a say in management of that company.
Fully aware of that and saw the government bail out of Chrysler in the late 70s. The government left their hands off of it and Lee Iaccoca did wonders with it with his team of experienced industry masters. Even paid off the government loan early. While the government certainly has a right to make sure the money is not squandered and that the note is paid on time it should be left to experts to run and improve the company. Now to have President Obama, who never worked in any capacity other than politics and cause mobilization fire the CEO of a major American corporation I find frightening. (Let alone repopulating the majority of the GM board) Mr. Obama has many talents but he doesn't know jack **** about building or selling cars. I find it laughable that the US Government which has for decades run in the red with no real plan to address the deficit should really have any credibility in running a "for profit" organization. Personally I believe the majority of decisions made by the administration regarding GM were ideologically driven, not business driven.
Fully aware of that and saw the government bail out of Chrysler in the late 70s. The government left their hands off of it and Lee Iaccoca did wonders with it with his team of experienced industry masters. Even paid off the government loan early. While the government certainly has a right to make sure the money is not squandered and that the note is paid on time it should be left to experts to run and improve the company. Now to have President Obama, who never worked in any capacity other than politics and cause mobilization fire the CEO of a major American corporation I find frightening. (Let alone repopulating the majority of the GM board) Mr. Obama has many talents but he doesn't know jack **** about building or selling cars. I find it laughable that the US Government which has for decades run in the red with no real plan to address the deficit should really have any credibility in running a "for profit" organization. Personally I believe the majority of decisions made by the administration regarding GM were ideologically driven, not business driven.
Perhaps they were, but they appear to have been successful. Again, all this could have been avoided if GM elected not to take government funds. Once you take the Feds money, you realize you may have to do the Feds bidding. If that is something people don't want (and it is certainly a reasonable position), then the Federal government should not give any money or tax breaks to any private company.
And I want proof that Romney doesn't have six wives.
I'm just curious, are you equally concerned with seeing Obama's college transcripts? After all, the left has labeled him the "smartest president EVAR", yet we have zero proof of this.
Oh, c'mon, Joe, you are smarter than that. You don't get chosen as the Editor of the Harvard Law Review if you are stupid. That is a peer-chosen position, and law students are by nature mean-a** bastards. They wouldn't have chosen him if he was stupid.
Perhaps they were, but they appear to have been successful. Again, all this could have been avoided if GM elected not to take government funds. Once you take the Feds money, you realize you may have to do the Feds bidding. If that is something people don't want (and it is certainly a reasonable position), then the Federal government should not give any money or tax breaks to any private company.
From one who works in the automotive industry, its interesting that this discussion fails to differentiate from the backrupcy and the politically based intervention that came with it. The government bailed out GM largely because they did not want the country to face the glut left behind by the failure of the worlds largest automaker. Previous buyouts revolved around putting industry experts in key positions. This one revolved around putting polical supporters in key positions, and making decisions that were made for political advantage. The bankrupcy was needed. The political stink it created is a model of unfairness, and has helped Ford, John Deere, Caterpillar, Chrysler, and even foreign competitors begin picking away and stealing the talent with the brains behind the current quality improvements. It further embedded the unions, who are made up of people who make far more than your typical American.
A manager who makes $100k per year likely lost millions in pension and retirement benefits during the government management of the bankrupcy. A union employee making $100k per year maintained all of his/her retirement, plus got an exemption to the heavy Cadillac penalties under the health care law. Tens of thousands of employees lost their future, and tens of thousands got ensured futures based on political alliances with the government. The engineers I've hired during the mass exodus from GM all tell pretty similar tales about future products in the pipeline. Plenty of talent left, but after the way the bankrupcy was handled, the best talent avoids them like the plague.
Well, considering how hard the new management is pushing the Volt, you can guess where GM is putting its resources. Maybe somebody will buy one. Or two?
I'm just curious, are you equally concerned with seeing Obama's college transcripts? After all, the left has labeled him the "smartest president EVAR", yet we have zero proof of this.
No - I'm not concerned with how he did in college - or if he's the smartest President EVAR (?).
Most days, I'm concerned about my job and my kids.
Started this mostly as a vent regarding some stuff I've been seeing on Facebook lately. Any idiot can photoshop Obama's picture onto a picture of a Nazi flag alongside Khadafi and Saddam. What scares me is how many idiots hit "share" or "Like" - as if this person is making some valid point with their little art project.
If you want to post that you think Universal Healthcare is unconsitutional, I understand. I may not agree - but I understand.
If you want to claim he's from Kenya - or simply wasn't born in the USA - honestly - I think that's racist. Has any other President ever had to produce their birth certificate 2-3 years INTO their term? Then again - he doesn't quite look like all the other Presidents, does he...???
And again - if you're worried about your money - so far you're safe. Stop complaining about what he might do - or what you think he wants to do.
There are valid complaints and things he has truly done wrong. I will watch the debates and listen to Romney just as I did McCain, even though I lean Left on most social issues.
80Likes
Obama the Kenyan Socialist 
