I can't think of a single "socialistic" thing President Obama has done. Can you?

[Syrinx]

I wish I could. I voted for him, because I thought he was going to be a little bit like that.

But he hasn't proposed raising taxes on the rich, nor providing benefits to the poor.

He hasn't done anything about getting corporate cash out of elections, nor proving that our elections are fair.

I'll still vote for him over any Republican, because they are crazy.

But I'm not exactly inspired by him anymore.

[Selatius]

1. The stimulus package he signed into law had billions of dollars in infrastructure repairs.

The most obvious and visible aspect of that bill is that many roads, at least where I live, have been repaved or repaired. Aside from that, the bills he signed into law were mish-mash.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Many of the day-to-day functions of the government find their roots in socialism.

We take that for granted.

[Syrinx]

3. Roads are a good thing, and the Republicans are against roads, in general

But roads aren't really socialist. And the roads around here are still pretty bad.

[Selatius]

7. Well, aren't the roads socialist in the aspect that they're publicly owned? nt

[Syrinx]

13. you got me there

But jesus, has the discussion got that far out of control?

[PhillySane]

50. Glad you got the roads

we've got potholes the size of the grand canyon here.

[TroglodyteScholar]

4. THE GOVERMENT TAKE OVER OF HEALTH CARE!

:sarcasm:

[jefferson_dem]

10. As nonsensical as the charge that he's a "Wall Street Enabling Corporatist".

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

54. Who's the Treasury Secretary again? The Chief of Staff?

:think:

[jefferson_dem]

61. Well now. That settles that.

:crazy:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

64. Got it.

:crazy:

[old mark]

5. K&R- I have many times compared his policies to those of that noted American Socialist

Richard Nixon...I think it is a fairly apt comparison.
Of course, there are now some on the right who think Nixon was a Liberal...
I have stated this on a few RW sites, and they seem to think I am a Stalinist.
It is a combination of media propaganda and ignorance, plus hatred of Obama because he is black and because he is a Democrat, even a very centerist one at best. To their "minds" EVERY Democrat is a socialist and anti American.
This includes all unions, environmentalists, advocates for safety in workplaces, and generally those who favor anything the right does not like.
It is their catch-all term of contempt, just as "Liberal" is their term of insult.

mark

[no_hypocrisy]

6. The republican party is so narrowly defined in its policies that almost

anything that deviates from them is "socialist". Matter of semantics.

[BzaDem]

8. "But he hasn't proposed raising taxes on the rich, nor providing benefits to the poor."

Do you realize that half of the hundreds of billions in spending in the healthcare bill was extending MEDICAID to everyone up to 133% of the poverty line? This provides a pretty big benefit to the 15 million people who will now have Medicaid who didn't before.

It is very easy to see no benefits to the poor if you discount any benefits Obama provided to the poor.

[JoePhilly]

51. +100

[eilen]

55. I know that Obama's big accomplishment

is the healthcare bill but I am a little confused as to what exactly He is responsible for in the bill as so many point out that he is not responsible for many of the unpopular parts of it being that he is "not the king" nor "has a magic wand." So here are my points of confusion:

1. His pre-meetings/summits with pharmaceutical, hospital, healtcare insurance lobbyists/industry leaders-= agreement for no price controls, single payor off the table.

2. The Max Baucus commission- -in which meetings with industry leaders but not proponents for single payor nor public option advocates were given hearing.

3. The complex amendments and objections going back and forth in the Congress and Senate.

4. The blocking of a Medicare for all as well as other amendments-- such as drug importation. The abortion legislation attached..., No cost controls on premiums, only a caveat that ins. co must spend 85% of premiums on actual care with the definition of care being hammered out by policy makers and the industry's lobbyists.

5. Ultimately, the elimination of public option, and a mandate to purchase insurance from private insurance companies. Inadequate coverage for those with preexisting conditions. And the kicker that the legislation will not take effect until 2014 -- well after Obama may leave office.

Which parts does Obama get credit and which parts to our congress-people get credit? Does putting together a commission, making a few speeches and signing it into law-- mean it is "his"? In which case, doesn't he then not only get credit but also deserve whatever criticism that may ensue?

With the full awareness now, that the President does not write legislation (of which some member sought to "school" me irt budget and tax legislation while questioning whether I had passed Civics-- If he/she is reading this, I'd like you to know that I am a Gen Xer and we had what was likely the worst public education ever-- no Civics classes existed other than SchoolHouse Rock. I graduated from an inner city school in 1983 however I have a pretty good memory and am very aware that Presidents do present a budget and tax reform plans to the Congress).

[jefferson_dem]

9. Sure. Here's a list of accomplishments that may help provide illumination.

Surely, we could all find at hundred or so items that would qualify as "socialistic".

http://kaystreet.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/obama-administration%E2%80%99s-achievements-thus-far/

Anyway, it's past time we retire stale, simpleton, faux dichotomy labels such as "socialist" and "corporatist". They are meaningless and certainly not rooted in reality.

[MannyGoldstein]

29. I love these lists

Things like Financial reform has ‘strongest consumer financial protections in history.’, and when you click on the reference, it turns out that Obama himself said that quote. It's like adding "Greatest wartime President ever" to Dim Son's list because Dim Son said it.

[Teaser]

11. Goddamn the ignorance is powerful here: " nor providing benefits to the poor"

you do realize that the healthcare bill, for all it's flaws, comes with MASSIVE SUBSIDIES TO LOW INCOME FOLK TO PURCHASE HEALTHCARE, don't you?

[Teaser]

12. to say nothing

about it's huge expansion of medicare.

Christ.

[BzaDem]

14. And for those ready to pounce with the "private insurance doesn't count" canard, MEDICAID gets 15m

new enrollees due to this bill.

[eilen]

56. how does this affect the states that have

dramatically cut their medicaid benefits?

[hobbit709]

15. It comes with subsidies to buy INSURANCE, not healthcare.

and for most people it doesn't do any good until 2014.

[BzaDem]

16. Half of the newly additional insured are 15 million new people on Medicaid.

Don't get me wrong -- your implication that insurance mostly doesn't provide care is laughably ridiculous. But on the half that goes to Medicaid (a public program), your argument fails even on its own terms.

[hobbit709]

23. you haven't tried getting on Medicaid in TX have you.

Especially with our illustrious governor and his cohorts in the Lege.
I just pointed out that Insurance is not healthcare-ask the many people that have insurance and still can't afford healthcare because the copays and deductibles are too high.

[BzaDem]

24. You should learn about the bill. The bill will FORCE states to accept anyone up to 133% of poverty.

All states, whether they like it or not.

[hobbit709]

25. Telll that to governor goodhair.

He's not in compliance now with things like food stamps, unemployment and other assistance. what makes you think he will be with that.

[SidDithers]

37. You're blaming Obama because of something Texas isn't doing?...nt

Sid

[hobbit709]

42. You brought up Obama not me.

Nowhere did I put any blame on Obama.

[BzaDem]

38. The governor's only option (if he doesn't like the Medicaid expansion) is to withdraw from Medicaid

entirely. And if he was willing to do that, he would have done it long ago.

[hobbit709]

43. Have you kept up with what the current session of the Lege wants to do.

Check out the TX Forum-you might learn something.

[BzaDem]

45. I am well aware, and am bookmarking this thread. Check back in 2 years, when it doesn't happen. n/t

[Teaser]

31. irrelevant and academic.

1) It comes with massive subsidies to the poor. What isn't socialist about that?

2) It comes with a massive expansion of Medicare. What isn't socialist about that.

I know what you're going to do next. You're going to say "No it isn't irrelevant", and go off on some tangent. Or your going to say "No it isn't academic", and go off on some other line of thought.

Don't do that. Deny points 1 and 2, or don't bother responding.

[hobbit709]

36. LOL

[Syrinx]

17. Make poor people send their meager income to fat rich executives

So that they are ENTITLED to be saved from some horrible disease. Goddamn, the standards have fallen since 2002.

[BzaDem]

19. Does your ridiculous statement apply to the half of the coverage expansion that is Medicaid?

Nope.

[jefferson_dem]

30. Funny thing is the bill he signed into law last December, that included REAL aid to the poor...

in the form of extensions of UI, was opposed by many of his critics here...those who claim he hasn't done anything for the poor. Rich, huh?

[dipsydoodle]

18. That's because

he's not Hugo.

[Syrinx]

20. Hugo is a dictator and an asshole.

[dipsydoodle]

33. The subject of the post

was "socialistic things" and Hugo was quoted for comparison.

Overall the Venezuelan population have benefited from his "socialistic" programs whereas it would appear the US population has not so benefited from the current administration.

The comparison needs to be drawn on that basis and not whether you consider him to be dickhead.

[MisterP]

63. yeah, and the nukes are in Syra and Jordan nt

[MannyGoldstein]

21. He's directed the treasury and the Fed to

Give the bankers whatever Taxpayer money they want.

Does that count?

[BzaDem]

22. I think for something to count, it has to be true. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Then it counts, for example:

e.g.,

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=armOzfkwtCA4">Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion

http://www.cnsnews.com/node/59336">Democrats and Republicans Oppose Obama Move Giving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Unlimited Funding

Thanks for your support.

[jefferson_dem]

28. CNSNews?

HaHa. Are you serious? Resorting to Bozell's wacky website to promote a false smear on Obama reeks of pure desperation. Come on. You're better than this.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. How about the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/business/economy/02fannie.html

Or a hundred other sources. It's news, not commentart.

Of course, this staggering taxpayer bailout came the same day that Fannie and Freddie bosses got many millions in payments: http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/24/news/companies/fannie_freddie_pay/index.htm

[BzaDem]

39. None of the articles you just posted at all supports your claim that Treasury has been instructed

to give bankers whatever they want.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. Despite the fact that they've been instructed to give more than a year's US GDP

to them.

Well then, I guess we disagree.

[BzaDem]

47. To you, if I give you a dollar, you give me back the dollar, then I give you the same dollar, then

you give it back to me again, and we repeat this every hour for your whole life, I will have "given you" close to half a million dollars (at least).

That is the kind of contortion you need to go through to make your claim.

[MannyGoldstein]

49. Has the Fed not purchased more than $2 trillion in junk assets?

Have they not massively bailed out European banks in out to keep Goldman Sachs whole?

Has Treasury not pledged unlimited - UNLIMITED - bailouts for Fannie and Freddie?

[BzaDem]

52. Do you know who would actually get hurt if the "bailouts" to Fannie and Freddie stopped tomorrow?

Actually, here's a broader question. What do you think would have specifically happened if all of the line items on the CNS article were never executed? Let's ignore for a second the fact that much of that will be PAID back (which is something different than "giving"), and let's similarly ignore that much of that isn't "giving" even under your "alternative" definition. What do you think would have happened if those items in the CNS article never occurred?

[MannyGoldstein]

60. We needed to bail out the banks - bailing out the bankers was optional

We spent a load of money that we didn't have to in order to preserve banker wealth - in the year after almost obliterating the world economy, US bankers made record bonuses. UK bankers made much-reduced bonuses, and UK citizens spent far less and are at far less risk, because their government was mainly concerned with bank bailouts, not banker bailouts.

Also, again in order to protect bankers, we have not reinstated Glass-Steagall - it was "replaced" with a 2,000+ page lobbyist-written behemoth that's filled with tricks and loopholes. When the economy crashes again because the rules have not changed, you think those $trillions in loans will get paid back? I don't.

You think that the $2 trillion in junk assets purchased by the Fed, backed by mortgages, will be made whole? I don't.

[girl gone mad]

68. How about if you give me a dollar and I give you back..

a piece of dog shit that I say is worth a dollar?

Or you could give me a dollar and I could "pay it back" by writing off some other debts that I owe you (taxes, in this case).

Now I can take my dollars that you've given me and go gamble in Vegas, or buy up oil and corn futures and play around in Forex.

Hope you don't need oil, corn or a fair exchange rate. And I especially hope you don't need me fund your basic economic activities because I could already be completely underwater, but you won't know until it's too late since you changed the accounting rules so I can hide all of my losses.

digtbk.

[girl gone mad]

65. Unlimited bailout to Fannie and Freddie + 13 Trillion to the banks =

Socialism for the rich.

[jpljr77]

26. The Federalization of formerly "Federally backed" student loans

One of the more important, and practical, aspects of the healthcare reform bill is the largest shift in the federal student loan programs ever.

Now, all loans that the FedGov gets involved in will be direct loans. Before, the gov't "backed" the loans made by private lenders. They did this by servicing the student loans that went into default, in effect, subsidizing massive private lenders against their losses. Now the banks will be cut out altogether and the FedGov will still service the bad loans but also get to collect the interest on the good ones.

Very, very practical, sensible, and smart move, and one that was fought mightily by the banks, but one that even they couldn't prevent.

[DutchLiberal]

32. If you think any of the candidates who end up on the ballot will be anything like that...

... you're not paying attention.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. Very well said

[TBF]

41. Bailing out the bankers came pretty close - but we should've just nationalized them. nt

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Historic NY]

46. It all boils down to one question .......

What would McGrumpy & his Mistress Sarah have done If they were elected?

:yoiks:

[PhillySane]

48. He kept the post office open...

Wait, now they're talking about closing down!

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/could-your-post-office-be-closing.aspx

[Codeine]

53. Since he never pretended to be a socialist,

and the Democratic party isn't a socialist party, I'd say that's a fairly weak reason to condemn him. I'd prefer a socialist, but we're not getting one in this country, so I'll take a Democrat.

[eilen]

57. When you find one, let us know. nt

[ehrnst]

58. Anything that did not coincide with the GOP talking points. (nt)

[SidDithers]

59. "All right...

but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Sid

[MisterP]

62. well, his sheeple say he's "force[d] Americans to participate in a program that makes comprehensive

health insurance affordable and accessible to all"
but that's only because they believe he's done everything Beck said he has

[gracchorumspes]

66. "Not being a Ruhpublican"

You know, ...an "A-muhrican" :eyes:

[Nye Bevan]

67. Banning lifetime maximums on health insurance policies?

Preventing health insurers from discriminating based upon pre-existing conditions?

[ProSense]

69. "But he hasn't proposed raising taxes on the rich" That's

"socialistic"? The following proposals are in the President's 2012 budget.

<...>

The president, in a $3.7 trillion budget plan released yesterday in Washington, revived dozens of proposals that Congress has rejected, including $129 billion in higher taxes on the overseas profits of U.S. companies. He also proposed changing the tax treatment of oil, gas and coal companies, which would raise about $46 billion.

<...>

The proposal also would bring back pre-2001 tax rates on income and capital gains for individuals earning more than $200,000 annually and married couples making more than $250,000. The estate tax would return to 2009 levels with a $3.5 million per-person exemption and a 45 percent top rate. Under a law Obama signed in December, lower rates expire at the end of 2012.


<...>

The budget plan would limit itemized deductions for top earners to 28 percent, curbing the value of tax breaks for charitable contributions, home mortgage interest and state and local taxes. That proposal has been included in every budget of Obama’s presidency and was rejected as a revenue-raising provision to fund his overhaul of the health system last year.

link

Also proposed: $30 billion tax on the largest financial institutions.

If Congress wanted to hold the President accountable, they'd pass this budget.