Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Obama really a socialist?

HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 9:21:27 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
It depends on your definition of socialist. But we can all agree he has FDR and Johnson beat. He embraces all of their ideas (New Deal and New Society), plus those of his own. We're on the verge of socialized medicine. If FDR of Johnson thought it a good idea, each would have included it in their plans. They had the opportunity.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 10:23:12 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/8/2008 9:21:27 AM, HandsOff wrote:
If FDR of Johnson thought it a good idea, each would have included it in their plans. They had the opportunity.

Could you remind me what president it was that signed Medicare and Medicaid into law?

Also, FDR supported national health insurance:
http://www.questia.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 2:20:28 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"

Could you remind me what president it was that signed Medicare and Medicaid into law?"

Johnson. Why?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 2:21:58 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
And btw, Hands, you're overestimating the liberal commitment to principle. They don't have to include it in their plans just because they think it's a good idea. Their "plans" are formed from considerations of the political environment available.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 3:21:03 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Are you implying liberals are incrementalists? Are they keeping their full-blown socialist ideas close to the vest, and leaking each of their programs one at time? Do you think FDR and Johnson would have intorduced universal health care if they thought they had a receptive audience? If that is oorrect, it supports my claim that today's democrats are nothing like the democrats of just 30 years ago. They would have been black balled by their own party as communists back then.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 3:23:39 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
CORRECTION: Are you implying liberals are incrementalists? Are they keeping their full-blown socialist ideas close to the vest, and leaking each of their programs one at a time? Do you think FDR and Johnson would have intorduced universal health care if they thought they had a receptive audience? If not, it supports my claim that today's democrats are nothing like the democrats of just 30 years ago. They would have been black balled by their own party as communists back then
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 4:51:46 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
FDR did say that he was for national health insurance.
I have not studied much of Johnson and don't know what his stance was, so I cannot answer for him.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 4:56:16 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/8/2008 3:23:39 PM, HandsOff wrote:
CORRECTION: Are you implying liberals are incrementalists? Are they keeping their full-blown socialist ideas close to the vest, and leaking each of their programs one at a time? Do you think FDR and Johnson would have intorduced universal health care if they thought they had a receptive audience? If not, it supports my claim that today's democrats are nothing like the democrats of just 30 years ago. They would have been black balled by their own party as communists back then

As to being incrementalists, I'm sure there are incrementalists of all ideologies.

My point was not that they were working step by step to implement national health care. My point was to tell you that you were incorrect in your analysis. FDR was pro national health insurance, and Johnson instituted a form of social medicine. You claimed that Democrats were straying from these two men, my claim is that you don't know your history.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 4:57:52 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Saying something and advertising it are two different things...

and yes, the link says they are incrementalists... lol

The democrats of today would not be attacked as the communists they are by the likes of FDR, they'd simply be called "Idealists."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
knick-knack
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 5:50:22 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I don't think HE is a socialist, but the people who he surrounds himself with are. Especially his spouse Michelle.

He definatly has socialitic views though.
John Hancock
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 5:52:35 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"FDR was pro national health insurance, and Johnson instituted a form of social medicine. "

JBlake,
If they were TRYING TO IMPLEMENT universal health care, but failed, you have a point. I could not find any knowledge of this. If you cannot produce any, then I will let my accusation of Obama being far to the left of FDR and Johnson stand. I think the incrementalist comments stands whether they tried to implement it or merely wanted it. I hope you can show me the history, so I can walk away from this discussion a little more educated, and wrong that democrats were once more sensible people.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 6:28:51 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/8/2008 5:52:35 PM, HandsOff wrote:
"FDR was pro national health insurance, and Johnson instituted a form of social medicine. "

JBlake,
If they were TRYING TO IMPLEMENT universal health care, but failed, you have a point. I could not find any knowledge of this. If you cannot produce any, then I will let my accusation of Obama being far to the left of FDR and Johnson stand. I think the incrementalist comments stands whether they tried to implement it or merely wanted it. I hope you can show me the history, so I can walk away from this discussion a little more educated, and wrong that democrats were once more sensible people.

You do this every time. I prove you wrong, then you change your stance.

You claimed that because Obama was for socialized medicine he was more radical and far left than FDR and LBJ because they didn't think "it a good idea". I showed that they did, in fact, think it was a good idea or else LBJ would not have passed a socialized medicine bill, and FDR would not have been in favor of it. Whether or not he tried to pass legislation does not indicate that he thought it was a bad idea.

As for some liberals being incrementalists, you can have that victory. As I said, surely there are incrementalists among all ideologies.
funnybrad333
Posts: 221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 6:39:36 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
All democrats are inherently incrementalists because they all seek the systematic death of America.
If I didn't answer what you said, try bolding the important part.
Sweatingjojo
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 6:44:51 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/8/2008 6:39:36 PM, funnybrad333 wrote:
All democrats are inherently incrementalists because they all seek the systematic death of America.

Well we sure are doing a crappy job at that.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 7:05:15 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
You do this every time. I prove you wrong, then you change your stance.

Ummm... that's a problem? I'd LOVE it if people changed their stances when I proved them wrong.

Well we sure are doing a crappy job at that.

No, actually, you're doing a fairly spectacular job. America proper is all but dead, 99% of it being replaced with Crypto-Communist Whineria. The roughly 1% or less remaining are stubborn buggers, but that's no fault of yours.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sweatingjojo
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 7:39:02 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/8/2008 7:05:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

No, actually, you're doing a fairly spectacular job. America proper is all but dead, 99% of it being replaced with Crypto-Communist Whineria. The roughly 1% or less remaining are stubborn buggers, but that's no fault of yours.

There is NO WAY that the democrats are leading to the destruction of America by making everyone crypto-communists. You clearly think that everything can be blamed on a political party which you dislike, even when the republicans have been in the white house for the past 8 years. Its a shame that you have no grasp of reality.

As far as who killed America proper, I'd put my money on the Jews.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 8:59:48 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
There is NO WAY that the democrats are leading to the destruction of America by making everyone crypto-communists. You clearly think that everything can be blamed on a political party which you dislike, even when the republicans have been in the white house for the past 8 years.

Did I SAY the democrats did it without help from the Republicans? And the road began in roughly the late nineteenth century (not even the ideological road, just the political one!) It's been achieved at near- 99% levels since FDR, fairly consistently :D.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 9:04:15 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Perhaps I should clarify. Just because someone helps you doesn't mean you're not doing a spectacular job destroying America (I say you only because you chose to identify with one of the major parties responsible responsible). Just like, say, a receiver scoring touchdowns is not diminished by a quarterback throwing the ball, or vice versa.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 9:16:17 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/8/2008 8:59:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is NO WAY that the democrats are leading to the destruction of America by making everyone crypto-communists. You clearly think that everything can be blamed on a political party which you dislike, even when the republicans have been in the white house for the past 8 years.

Did I SAY the democrats did it without help from the Republicans? And the road began in roughly the late nineteenth century (not even the ideological road, just the political one!) It's been achieved at near- 99% levels since FDR, fairly consistently :D.

The road to destruction began in the late nineteenth century? We weren't even a major world power until after WWI. Unless becoming a world power is what you deem to be destroying America.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2008 9:33:40 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Sherman Antitrust Act. :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2008 8:49:45 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
JBlake,

You are trying to say a I changed my position. Go read my original post. I said Obama was left of FDR and LBJ because he is on the verge of implemening socialized medicine of everyone. I assumed you realized Obama's plan was to provide health care to EVERYONE, as opposed to just the needy and elderly for whom his predecessors sought to provide health care. So yes, I do see him as much more liberal as FDR and LBJ. Would you agree?
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2008 9:31:11 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I'm not in the habit of doing this, but I'm going to have to agree with HandsOff on this one. As far as what's been shown here, it seems Obama is indeed left of LBJ and FDR, at least on the issue of healthcare.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2008 1:33:11 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/10/2008 1:13:08 PM, Ethanthedebater1 wrote:
Sherman Antitrust was a bad idea? That's news to me. I thought competition was good.

And how exactly does forbidding people from competing to the fullest extent of their ability enhance competition? Antitrust laws are kind of like walking into a football game and saying "Crap, the Giants are ahead of the Packers by 40 points... I think we'll just have to arbitrarily take away 41 points or so, to enhance "Competition."
Also, since the antitrust laws are subjective, and have no meaning until the court decides on a meaning, i.e., a person has no way of knowing whether they've violated it until they've already acted, they violate the Constitutional prohibition (and prohibition of every civilized nation) on ex post facto laws.

But no, competition is not a primary good, it's a secondary effect of something good- freedom.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2008 1:35:34 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
As Learned Hand, the judge in the US vs ALCOA case puts it:

""It was not inevitable that it should always anticipate increases in the demand for ingot and be prepared to supply them. Nothing compelled it to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists that it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections and the elite of personnel.""

In other words, they are guilty of BEING TOO PRODUCTIVE. They are guilty of BEING TOO GOOD. COMPETING TOO WELL. PROVIDING TOO MUCH VALUE TO THEIR CUSTOMERS. THAT is the meaning of antitrust law.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2008 1:37:53 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"genuinely inefficient cartels and coercive monopolies, the target of the act, would be self-corrected by market forces, making the strict penalties of antirust legislation unnecessary"

"No one will ever know what new products, processes, machines, and cost-saving mergers failed to come into existence, killed by the Sherman Act before they were born. No one can ever compute the price that all of us have paid for that Act which, by inducing less effective use of capital, has kept our standard of living lower than would otherwise have been possible."
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2008 5:21:55 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Ragnar and Bob made perfect sense. If a company takes a monopoly to the point that it is unhealthy (i.e. gouching it's customers), a profit motive will attract competitors. If there is significant barrier to entry in that particular industry, profit seeking entrepreneurs will always find ways to pool their resources and compete. It's all a matter of letting the market do what it does. There is no need for government to get involved. If competitors think they can offer that same products at a better price than an industry giant, then no monopoly is safe. Either way, the consumer is the winner.
CommonSenseAmerican
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 5:02:09 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I like the discussion but it seemed to stray from the topic....which is cool. I don't think anyone can say one way or the other since Obama hasn't really done anything while in the State Senate or the Us Senate. I agree his limited votes are waaaay left and his rhetoric speaks to that too, but I think he wants power more than radical shifts. He'll be that incrementalist you are all talking about because it will keep him in power longer. We'll see if he actually enacts any of the "promises" he made to the lefties.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 8:12:46 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I was just discussing with a friend whether Obama was a smart liberal or an all-around genius. If he was lying to the mushy-skulled college students, welfare slackers, and liberal elite who elected him, he may be the smartest man alive. If he is not planning to lead responsibly, by scrapping all the spending programs he said he was for, he's just smart enough to be dangerous.