Obama is not a Socialist
Debate Rounds (4)
Four rounds, the First round for accepting the debate, the next two for the debate itself, and the last round for the closing statements.
I gladly accept this debate, and I will help you improve with feedback in the comments as the debate progresses. Welcome to DDO, young Padawan!
One of the chief reasons I dislike Obama, Bush, Reagan, Wilson, FDR, Johnson, etc.. is due to their willingness to expand the power of the state. I think this is a valid reason, and I will expand greatly upion this idea in the subsequent rounds.
"Hello, I am here to talk about how Obama is not a communist."
My opponent means "how he is not a Socialist." I asked him to change the resolution to fit the more common critique of Obama. So exonerate him of this trivial error.
Good luck to my opponent who will deliver the initial argument! :D
I will start with a simple statement that Obama did not join a socialist party. In the United States, there are many lesser known political parties, including the Communist and Socialist party of America. One would wonder why he would join the much less radical Democrats, than to simply go on with his beliefs. Even if he was using the Democrats to achieve a shot to rise to power, fellow Democrats would soon realize when his policies cross the lane.
One of the known Socialist policy is Nationalizing industries. In Socialist Countries, the government essentially "owns" many of the corporations/organizations. These include the bank, hospitals, and education system. All of these are paid by the government, using tax money. The general populace do not pay much, as their taxes is considered payment.
Obama, has not nationalized anything or leaned towards nationalizing anything. His health care advocates for people to buy health care, which is not nationalizing health care, as the government does not pay for it.
Another policy pushed by Socialists, that is less known is the abolition of classes. Although it is largely considered a communist ideal, we must remember Socialism did ultimately derive from Communism. As the Socialist Part of America would state:
"we strive to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society"
Although most of the sentence has universal appeal, and is quite general, the one part that sticks out is "classless". Obama himself has not even mentioned abolishing the class structure. In fact he is probably considered one of the higher class now, and would not want to bring his own wealth down.
Socialism also believes in equal chance for all. It believes all are promised equal oppurtunites and life chances for all people to maximize their potential. This would essentially mean nationalizing the schools even more, making each one near identical to provide the same education regardless of area. Obama has not mentioned this. This basically states again, that Obama does not follow the major socialist policy of nationalizing the industries.
In fact, he spent government money to bail out many large corporations that are privately owned.
That will be it for me, just remember, this isn't whether Obama is a good or bad president, it is about whether he is a socialist or not.
As the onus is on my opponent to demonstrate that Obama is not a Socialist, I will use this round for the refutation of his claims.
Definition of Socialist:
A person who advocates or practices Socialism
Observation 1: I do not have to prove that the United States has a Socialist economy in order to win this debate, because the resolution states that the subject is Barack Obama, not the US.
Observation 2: Since a Socialist is someone who advocates or practices socialism, if Barack Obama is not proven to be completely barren of socialist inclinations or completely without a history of advocating socialist policies, Con automatically wins the debate.
I like the sound of that :)
I will start with a simple statement that Obama did not join a socialist party.
This statement is simply false. Obama became a member of the New Party in 1996; this is evident in 1996 newspapers, flyers, and newsletters that proved Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party.  The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992 and dissolved in 1998, to amalgamate far left groups and push the U.S. closer toward socialism on the economic continuum by goading the Democratic Party even further to the left in an economic and political sense.  It held views of social democracy, a reformist democratic socialist political ideology that stemmed from the 1920’s with the ideas of men like G. D. H. Cole, R.H. Tawney, and Carlo Rosseli who fused socialist and liberal ideals. 
One would wonder why he would join the much less radical Democrats, than to simply go on with his beliefs.
B.O. has to run as a democrat to achieve power, because 3rd parties have too many legislative, populous, and stigmatized barriers to success. This is due to the reality that in a plurality system of voting like in the United States, a two-party system will develop and third parties will be essentially door mats (absent the unlikely event of massive political shift). This is called Duverger’s Law.  This is why an Austrian Economist, Libertarian like Ron Paul is constrained to running for the Republican Party if he wants a chance of winning; this is why Democratic Socialist leftists like Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders (an openly Socialist Senator) are constrained to the Democratic Party. 
Even if he was using the Democrats to achieve a shot to rise to power, fellow Democrats would soon realize when his policies cross the lane.
Democrats are not particularly averse to Liberal-Socialist ideologies. Again, Bernie Sanders is openly Socialist, and he was democratically elected to the highest legislative position in the US government. Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, endorses nearly every policy that will expand the size, scope, and power of the presidency.  Obama supported Bernie Sanders' campaign.
Socialist policy of Nationalizing industries. These include the bank, hospitals, and education system.
Barack Obama socialized the losses of several financial institutions and automotive manufacturers onto the American people; thus, nationalizing the industries’ losses. 
Banking- B.O. has great confidence in the Federal Reserve Bank and the System in which it operates. A central bank is a socialist institution that seeks to influence the market artificially, the opposite of capitalism. A central bank is actually a fundamental plank of Communism. Obama has met with Ben Bernanke many times and has asked for advice in issues of macroeconomic policy and other policies.  He supports the FDIC, Wall Street Reform, and other banking regulations that increase the size of government in those sectors and manipulate control over the banking system.
Health Care- Obamacare would force people to buy health insurance by law. This is a statist-Socialist policy that would artificially increase demand for health care while doing nothing to increase supply. Central planning like this leads to shortages, and in this case human lives are at stake. In 2008, there were 1,131 U.S. public hospitals. These hospitals represented 21.9 percent of all hospitals in the U.S.  The number of public hospitals is expected to rise greatly with the passing Obamacare. Furthermore, Obamacare will artificially create government jobs for switching the US’ medical records from paper to digital. This, as Hazlitt would point out, will destroy other productive jobs in the economy. Socialist central planning like this is a net-harm.
Education- Obama supports public education (a plank of Communism). Furthermore, he supports, advocates, and is striving to get more government in higher-level institutions. Government-guaranteed student loans from banks have been raising the costs of tuition far above inflation for decades now, yet B.O. wants to do away with the middle-man and issue government-guaranteed student loans directly from the government. 
His health care advocates for people to buy health care, which is not nationalizing health care, as the government does not pay for it.
The Ludwig von Mises Institute addressed that this way, “Obama explicitly states that he wants to force the redistribution of income from healthy to unhealthy individuals but with the illogical belief that somehow this scheme will reduce the costs to everyone.”  One cannot switch to socialist healthcare overnight; however, Obamacare is a giant step in that direction.
Another policy pushed by Socialists, that is less known is the abolition of classes.
Obama is a strong advocate of the heavy progressive income tax (on of the planks of Communism), which taxes the rich a higher percentage than the poor (many of whom do not pay income taxes). He proposed the Buffett Rule which would ensure the rich are taxed at a minimum of 30%.  With all of the Marxist literature Obama has read, I'm sure if it was that easy to abolish classes, he would do it overnight.
Socialism also believes in equal chance for all.
So does Obama. That’s why he is an advocate of socialized education, health care, banking, etc.
In fact, he spent government money to bail out many large corporations that are privately owned.
This is phrased in contemporary political discourse as, “privatizing profits and socializing losses,” and it is a socialist policy. The classical political-economic argument socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor which states that through the use of lobbyists and special interest groups, some businesses receive government aid, called corporate welfare, ensuring a flow of resources toward ineffectively managed companies from the taxed middle and lower classes. The showing of favorable treatment toward some corporations in the act of blending corporation and state is not capitalism or the proper role of government; it is the beginning of Corporatist Social Democracy and Socialism itself.
 Steve Bastow, James Martin Third way discourse: European ideologies in the twentieth century pages 74-75.
May I contradict your second argument?
"Since a Socialist is someone who advocates or practices socialism, if Barack Obama is not proven to be completely barren of socialist inclinations or completely without a history of advocating socialist policies, Con automatically wins the debate."
The same argument can be said for nearly anything, but is not necessarily the truth. History does not determine present. A person could change their political, economic, religious, or any status given enough time.
Bad Example: Joe approves of totlitarinism, which is an aspect of communism... but he's not communist... he's a Facist XD
On a more serious note, Good/Normal example: Joe supports the idea to nationalize certain industries, but he is not supportive of Class Abolotion, Redistribution of Wealth, and other such socialist aspects. Thus means he simply supports one aspect of a certain belief that one group of people share. This doesn't make him part of it.
I believed in working hard 12 hours a day, and beating my self to death, practicing till I died... but that didn't stop the Gaming Club from rejecting my application to them =P
Anyhow, moving on with the argument.
"Privatizing Profits and Socializing Losses"
A true socialist would have nationalized these corporations if anything, or attempted at it. On the nationalizing subject, he would try to absolutely nationalized hundreds, of compaines and corporations at an attempt to create more jobs. But why would he cancel the Keystone pipeline project. A national project that would have created many jobs, this is a forefront Socialist policy, and there would be little other opposition against it.
Just because one has great confidence, or supports one aspect of something, doesn't mean they totally disregard everything else. Obama has yet to nationalize all, or even a noticable amount of banks in America. Most of these Banks are still their own Banks, and not under Obama.
Forcing people to buy Health Insurance isn't exactly Socialist standings. Socialists would nationalize the hospitals, making them all public. Making them practically free of charge, but would make people spend that moeny through taxes. I'm pretty sure that we're not paying taxes for all those hospitals out there, and I'm also sure that I had to pay that outrageous sum of money for my dislocated toe last month, but like I said, I'm probably getting off-topic again. Also switching documents from paper to digital is progressive reform, hardly a hardacore socialist program. Every nation gradually progresses, and in the process of progress, jobs are lost and gain. Great Britain destroyed hundreds of jobs when it introduced factories during the Industrial Revolution.
Suporting Public Education, and nationalizng the schools are two different things. There are many public schools around the area, and I doubt you can say that each one is exactly the same. I go to a good school with plenty of equipment, and good teachers and clean facilites. But a mere 20 miles off, is another school. This school is also public, but it has next to no equipment, horride teachers, and the infastructure is literally falling apart. Nationalizing would mean the government would pay for all the equipment, all the facilites and all the infastructures. This once again would come out of taxpayer's money, but I belive recently we've been cutting education funds, not increasing it.
I maybe should have elborated here. Say you have a wealth higher middle class child, and a low class child. Now both would go to public school, and both would recieve education, but, the higher class children would have the money to attend extra-ciricular activites, to go to private schools, to get the vacines and such to keep them healthy. The lower class child can only take hold of what he learns in school. Under socialism, they would probably attempt to cut the cost of many extra-circular activites, they would like I said nationalize the school and hospitals.
Abolotion of Class
Of course this is highly unlikely to happen overnight as you have stated in your arugments for Healthcare, but if Obama was truly a socialist, he would have made obvious progression twoards class equality. No special treatment for the higher class, or the middle class, or the lower class. He would have somwhere along the line, try to advocate some sort of equality. And what is the best way to acheive equatity? This comes all rushing back to Nationalizing Industries. Because if people all recieve the same things, from the same sources, they will have equal opopurtunity to move up and down depending soley on their skills.
Hello, I'm moving into my dorm in an hour, and I've been doing college forms and housing applications and dealing with prepaid college plan transfers and stuff. I won't be able to post this round adequately, sorry. Hopefully I will have a laptop by the time the next round starts. I can't bring my desktop :/
In the next 17 hours it would be night and school. So I am posting now, I have held out as long as i can to give my opponet time to adjust to college life. As he was not able to post his round to refute my previous refution. I now give him the last post to do so, and that would end the debate.
Good luck, and hope you settle in to your dorm
Wallstreetatheist forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: 2 FFs
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.