I know there is a lot of correlating evidence that Obama is a socialist. However, whenever I debate, liberals always want me to prove it concretely with solid proof---they want to hear it from Obama's mouth and everything else be damned. What, if anything, can be used as damning evidence that Obama is a socialist?
I know there is a lot of correlating evidence that Obama is a socialist. However, whenever I debate, liberals always want me to prove it concretely with solid proof---they want to hear it from Obama's mouth and everything else be damned. What, if anything, can be used as damning evidence that Obama is a socialist?
I know there is a lot of correlating evidence that Obama is a socialist. However, whenever I debate, liberals always want me to prove it concretely with solid proof---they want to hear it from Obama's mouth and everything else be damned. What, if anything, can be used as damning evidence that Obama is a socialist?
You might first want to prove that he isn't Keynesian.
Obama seeks to "spread the wealth" and "fundamentally transform America." He speaks of "change" and "progress." America is the only capitalistic nation. What are we to "change" into? Please take some time to weigh this in your hands and reason within yourself.
Obama seeks to "spread the wealth" and "fundamentally transform America." He speaks of "change" and "progress." America is the only capitalistic nation. What are we to "change" into? Please take some time to weigh this in your hands and reason within yourself.
Obama seeks to "spread the wealth" and "fundamentally transform America." He speaks of "change" and "progress." America is the only capitalistic nation. What are we to "change" into? Please take some time to weigh this in your hands and reason within yourself.
You might first want to prove that he isn't Keynesian.
Increased Pell grant amounts and lowered interest rates on student loans.I am sure I know what he is. I am not HE knows what he is from an economics standpoint. That being said my sense is that there are things that he and his administration have done and said which would say he is not a wild eyed capitalist.
Some examples might be as follows:
- Privatizing student loans.
Well, weren't they?- Calling Chyrsler bondholders who felt they were cheated by the government - greedy speculators.
Well, considering taxpayers had to bail them out, why should they reward them for failing as well?- Questioning the pay packages of certain people whom he demonized.
The GM CEO was a failure. Why keep him on if taxpayers are footing the bill to bail GM out?- More than the bailout of GM, the bringing in his people to fire the existing CEO and make operating decisions for a major corporation.
What was the original design of TARP? If I recall the TARP funds were designed to be used at the Secratary of Treasury discretion.- Using TARP funding beyond it's original design. A piggybank for a bunch of social experiments.
Hmm, I thought it was to redistribute health.- Healthcare is clearly an act to redistribute wealth.
The Bush tax cuts did nothing to help the economy and if they aren't left to expire on Dec. 31, they will add $3.3 TRILLION more to the deficit.- Using the Bush taxes to generate class welfare which is destructive to our form of economy.
It was deregulation that destroyed the economy, so what we need is more regulation, not less.- Putting Ms. Warren in charge of figuring out regulations on the financial industry. Did this group go off the reservation, yes. But it has been a competitive advantage
for America for the last two decades. Too much regulation may cause a lot of income destruction here in america.
Oh I'm sure there are.I am sure there are several more that folks can add to this starter list.
Then perhaps you could define what you mean by "socialist"?Because you do not weigh all issues, and seek to reason all things, you are not credible. If you have naught but ignorant comments, then please do not post here.
I do know what socialism and its variations are. Time and again people ask me to define it as though I know not what I speak. It gets old quickly.
Increased Pell grant amounts and lowered interest rates on student loans.
Well, weren't they?
Well, considering taxpayers had to bail them out, why should they reward them for failing as well?
The GM CEO was a failure. Why keep him on if taxpayers are footing the bill to bail GM out?
What was the original design of TARP? If I recall the TARP funds were designed to be used at the Secratary of Treasury discretion.
Hmm, I thought it was to redistribute health.
The Bush tax cuts did nothing to help the economy and if they aren't left to expire on Dec. 31, they will add $3.3 TRILLION more to the deficit.
It was deregulation that destroyed the economy, so what we need is more regulation, not less.
Oh I'm sure there are.
But nothing on your list suggests that Obama is a sssssssocialist.
Are we not a Republic, as evidenced by the National Anthem?
I do know what socialism and its variations are.
Time and again people ask me to define it as though I know not what I speak. It gets old quickly.
you should start with a definition of socialistI know there is a lot of correlating evidence that Obama is a socialist. However, whenever I debate, liberals always want me to prove it concretely with solid proof---they want to hear it from Obama's mouth and everything else be damned. What, if anything, can be used as damning evidence that Obama is a socialist?
you should start with a definition of socialist
Ok, you're interpreting rhetoric the way you want to see it. Dont tongue-lash someone for ignorant comments while fishing for partisan wood to fuel your fire.Obama seeks to "spread the wealth" and "fundamentally transform America." He speaks of "change" and "progress." America is the only capitalistic nation. What are we to "change" into? Please take some time to weigh this in your hands and reason within yourself.
The government did it's constitutional duty to provide security and protection to tax paying citizens when it stopped the usury on student loans in order to prevent an entire segment of the population from debt slavery. Call it whatever you want, but it wasn't socialism.You are just factually wrong on so many counts.
On the first point we are not debating merits just looking for a tendency to socialise our economy. So you seem to agree he did that in this case.
But investing is speculating.Chrysler bondholders were held by all sorts of people. Retired people who had held them for a long time, pension funds etc. To generalize and call all investors speculators in my view is just stupid.
So what. If it werent for Goldman Sachs and the other big banks bundling and selling toxic subprime mortgages and then betting against them thru AIG, we wouldn't have needed to bailout the big banks and AIG in the first place.Goldman Sachs took bailout money because Paulson made everyone take it. So the weakest players would not be exposed. GS had already done the deal with Buffet which provided $5 billion in additional capital.
"On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program that Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson,[18] deems necessary to avert the financial crisis. This has allowed President Bush to extend the use of TARP funds to support the auto industry, a move supported by the United Auto Workers."No read up on what TARP was intended for and get back to us.
Your talking points are getting extremely redundant and meaningless. I meant what I said, the healthcare bill was a redistribution of health care, not wealth.Again on healthcare, not sure if you are dense, think you are cute with silly answers or what. There are a number of articles saying that is just what I called it. A redistribution of wealth.
Do you know what an ad hominem attack is and why people like you feel the need to use fallacies? Because you can't defend your arguments with facts and reason, thats why. So keep it up and there will be little doubt just exactly who the dense one is in this debate. It will be you.Again on the tax cuts, not sure if you are dense or what. Obama is not trying to eliminate all 3 trillion, just the money that goes to people over 250K. My understanding is that would cost about 35 billion in 2011.
No, you are sadly misinformed and you have just proven it.Again you are sadly misinformed. There was enough regulation. However the regulators did not do the job. So how about following the old rules before adding more and see how that works.
Whatever. Our discussion is over.Again I did not say he is a socialist. I am not sure what he is except inept.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?