Barack Obama and Socialism

[Liatach]

I will never understand the American pathological fear of the word socialist.

The very idea of an entire supposedly civilized country without universal health care is horrifically frightening.
And that is just the tip of the iceberg,

fingers crossed we are not doomed to a term with McCain/Palin because the level of horror that could sink to, is traumatic to even think about.

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/39179-mccain-s-youtube-problem-just-became-a-nightmarePeace and best wishes from an Australian

 

[Wyatt]

we need to bring back 'socialism' American style. bring back the power of the Unions. a little legal teeth behind an Amewrican workers right to say to a company "HEY, i bust my hump for you 40+ hrs a week you owe me more than minimum wage and no benifits" and its problem solved. as it is now with the labor laws, Unions are so scared to actualy press a company for improvments to workers wages/benifits that they may as well not even exist.

Unions allow those that DO in fact 'work for a living' to get a just reward for their efforts and put a check on companys, and the added fact that strong Unions help EVERYONE by establishing a basic standord of living for the 'lower class' not through government regulation but through market conditions. Unions gave us the "Golden age" of the 50s and early 60s with some aspects of the Union movment being seen still today, its far and away time to give them their teeth back rather than the Government hambstringing them with company written regulations.

if you want to deregulate companys then its HIGH time we deregualted Unions as well.

 

[Alex_P]

So, okay, healthcare...

Spreading costs out among a large group of is fundamental to the very idea of insurance.

As businesses, insurance companies gamble on paying out, on average, less than they charge.

Most classes of insurance cover activities that are more-or-less optional. The companies can simply weed out very-high-risk individuals and not offer them insurance. If you're an unsafe driver and can't get insurance, it probably means you shouldn't drive. If a life insurance company denies you coverage because they figure you're going to die very soon, well, that sucks but it's really a sign that it's too late to be trying to make these kinds of investments.

Healthcare can't work like this. You can't just deny coverage to high-risk individuals (e.g. someone with a condition that will require thousands of dollars of treatments every year) because, well, then you're basically cutting off their access to treatment altogether. That's a pretty ugly moral issue. "Oh, your health problems cost too much. We're just going to let you suffer and die now."

Because insurance only works when part of the group is paying for more than they use, you need to make sure that generally-healthy individuals don't just buy some minimal level of insurance to cover their basic expenses. You can (kinda) rely on the law of large(-ish) numbers to make sure that only a certain percentage of your customers will require expensive treatments, but you still absolutely need them to buy more insurance than most will ever use. That's why it's so much easier for large companies to get insurance for their employees: all of the large company's employees, both high-risk and low-risk, come in one bundle and all buy one of the same small set of insurance packages. This guarantees that insurance companies don't end up with 100,000 generally-healthy customers paying for a minimal plan and 1,000 high-risk customers paying for a very expensive full-coverage plan.

If you're going to stick with an "insurance" scheme for healthcare (in contrast to, say, a pay-out-of-pocket scheme), some kind of collective bargaining is needed to make it effective. My understanding of Obama's plan is that it's trying to allow the government to bargain collectively with insurers on behalf of a group of Americans who don't currently have insurance while allowing you to keep your old deal if you want. (There's also some extra stuff about tax exemptions or whatever.)

Another element is new regulation about "pre-existing conditions," which is important because, as I said above, you can't really deny high-risk patients healthcare the way you deny high-risk drivers car insurance.

Note that this is different from single-payer universal healthcare system where the government replaces insurance companies altogether.

-- Alex

 

[Ravatar]

You know what's funny? The left wingers bleat endlessly about the GOP being the party of the rich, but Obama has spent more money on a presidential election in history - he's raised far more money from his corporate fat cat democrat cronies than Mccain has, and has spent more than 3 times the amount McCain has on TV commercials. So much for the party of the rich...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, Obama has raised more money from more individual donators than any candidate in election history. It makes sense that as a result, he would spend more money, what else would he do with it? If anything, it's a testament to the amount of people completely sick of the current status quo. I guess attacking Barack Obama because more people support him than any candidate ever works out in some weird neo-conservative branch of logic.

Hell, he even bought a 30 minute infomercial to take place before a sporting event, and when time got short, obama decided that rather than have him cut some time that it would be better to forgo the national anthem. Not that he would have bothered crossing his heart while it was sung, but still...

You'd think that a presidential candidate would at least PRETEND to be patriotic, why do his supporters not care about this?

Not only is this untrue, you're also completely crazy if you think patriotism consists only of listening to some clown recite the national anthem. Patriotism is fighting for the people of the country, for basic liberties such as health and education. Patriotism is setting an example to the rest of the world, presenting the USA as a beacon of liberty and freedom as the founding fathers intended.

 

[Doug]

I will never understand the American pathological fear of the word socialist.

The very idea of an entire supposedly civilized country without universal health care is horrifically frightening.
And that is just the tip of the iceberg,

fingers crossed we are not doomed to a term with McCain/Palin because the level of horror that could sink to, is traumatic to even think about.

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/39179-mccain-s-youtube-problem-just-became-a-nightmarePeace and best wishes from an Australian

Indeed, its frightening to think that the worlds only superpower is one of the few 1st world countries without healthcare for all.

 

[Wyatt]

why the fuck do you fucking dumbassess like obama/biden:

1 obama/biden both have bad judgment they voted against the surge in Iraq (which work a hell of a lot better then taking troops out)

2 whats wrong with drilling in the us it means for of your money stays in your country. It also means less oil spills (no need for tankers, and American oil company's which care more about the environment then the oil company form the middle east and south America.

3 obama is associated with known terrorist.

4 but McCain did do that thing to David Letterman....

1) as long as Iraq is still a war zone the 'surge' didnt work, ill say it worked when Iraq is free of combat.

2) because we produce 7% of the worlds oil and USE 27% we just dont have enough Oil to meet our demand even if we pumped every single drop inside our boarders, plus there is the whole oil usage is bad for the enviroment thing. and lets not forget exon posting a 47 BILLION doller profit in ONE quarter while the rest of us are using change found in our couches just to get a gallon of gas that we hope allows us to get to work.

3) McCain shook hands with a guy that is associated with a known terrorist (in case you miss the joke, he shook hands with Obama ..... more than once) *snickers*

4) thats the best reason to hate McCain there is. but on a serious note it just made him look like more of a kook, i mean cummon hes 'suspending his campaign' to rush back to washington and fix the economy then does a couric interview instead?

dont get me wrong i seriously LIKE Obama, but McCain just makes it ever so much easier to click Obamas name. and to really pound the point, before Obama got the Nod from the Dems i WAS gunna Vote McCain before id vote hillary, but after McCain lost his god damn mind and picked palin as his VP, and followed it up with all kinds of obvious stunts like "suspending the campaign" and this truly feeble attempt to make something out of the whole 'Ayers' thing if it was Hillary now instead of Obama i seriously would have changed my opinion and id vote for HER before McCain. hell it would be a serious toss up for me if it was Dubya vrs McCain.

 

[Chiasm]

It's a curious unintended consequence of the Red White and Blue saving everyone's bacon back in the Big One...or something like that:

http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/jobbasedcoverage/a/jobbasedhistory.htm

I love how little things like this get so ingrained with in a society,Kind of like the whole idea of how women also became part of the work face as well due to war efforts.

 

[Walden]

What's really ironic is how history is repeating itself. In 1929, the stock market crash that preceded the Great Depression was caused by rampant capitalism. Hoover's capitalist plans to fix the situation didn't work, and FDR's New Deal, which got the economy back on track to recovery, was derided as "socialist" from all corners. This is happening again here: a crash caused by rampant capitalism and greed, and anyone who tries to fix it is called a "socialist", when in reality, the bailout plan isn't socialist at all. I quote:

"The present crisis exposes the failure of the capitalist system. It has laid bare enormous levels of corruption and incompetence. But beyond the greed and criminality of corporate executives, the crisis is the product of a protracted decay in the global position of American capitalism. The American ruling class has no response but to attack the working class, while attempting to seize control of the world?s resources.

The propagandists of big business pay endless tributes to capitalism and the infallibility of the ?free market.? This ideology, as stupid as it is reactionary, is exposed by the eruption of the sub-prime mortgage crisis that has brought the entire American and world financial system to the brink of collapse. During the past several months, hundreds of billions of dollars have been poured by the Bush administration, with the support of the Democrats, into privately-owned financial institutions. The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has effectively doubled the national debt of the United States. The cost of these bailouts will be borne by the working class. The sole beneficiaries of these rescue operations will be, as always, corporate executives and super-rich investors.

In opposition to the state bailout of the American financial oligarchy, the SEP advocates the transformation of the giant banks and corporations into democratically controlled utilities, operated to meet social needs, not private profit. It supports a massive redistribution of wealth to benefit working people, including vastly expanded resources for social programs, jobs, health care, housing and education."

This is the opinion of the World Socialist Website, which is the website of the Fourth International (the current communist movement). I really find it frustrating that people label the Democratic policies "socialist" when in reality they really aren't.

The article I cited may be accessed at: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/elec-s13.shtml

EDIT: Further opinion about the "socialist" character of Democratic politics: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/pers-o23.shtml

"Socialism means the reorganization of economic life under the democratic control of the actual producers, the working people whose labor creates all wealth. It can come about only through the independent political mobilization of the working class, led by a revolutionary party, which establishes a new and far more democratic form of state, a workers' state, which exercises ownership and control over the means of production. Socialism cannot be engineered through backroom deals between Wall Street bankers and Washington politicians, or through the policies of any Democratic or Republican politician."

 

[Anton P. Nym]

"All power to the state/market/workers" leads to tyranny no matter which of the three gets it.

<3

That's moronic. Consumers, ie - most people, are what control the market. When the power goes the market, the power goes to the people.

The Communists said that if all power went to the state, which is the people's will made manifest, the power goes to the people. I'd say their case was stronger, in the abstract, given that governments are elected and markets aren't.

You see how well that turned out.

-- Steve

 

[Mr. Moose]

Something tells me this entitlement business comes from the bullshit self esteem movement. We start telling kids that everyone is special and that in the end, everyone wins. No one loses in games anymore, everyone gets a trophy. They tell the loser that he was 'the last winner'. Kids don't experience failure anymore and they're afraid to experience it when they become adults. Now we have kids believing that they're all special no matter what they do or what they achieve or how hard they work, and that everyone is equally special. I don't have to explain the socialist undertones to this kind of child rearing. Now look what we have - a generation of Marxist and socialist whiners with entitlement issues that expect the government to take care of everybody.

That's like blaming bad parenting on the availability of "World's Greatest Dad" coffee mugs.

No, it isn't. No one honestly believes they're the worlds greatest dad because they got a mug that says so, but a child certainly swallows just about everything you tell them. Children learn a lot in their early years and if you give them a certain message about life they'll often carry it into adulthood - that's why kids believe in Santa Claus and Jesus.

No they don't--they swallow the meaning behind the message. That's why even people who grow up to be atheists still give out Christmas presents and treat others as they would like to be treated.

You've just contradicted yourself. You've suggested that athiests carry the message of christmas into adulthood - this is obviously not true according to what said. The message behind Christmas is celebrating the birth of Christ. If you are an athiest, you do not celebrate the birth of christ - thus, the true meaning of christmas has been lost on you. Us athiests only exchange presents because it's a cultural norm, and it's a fun thing to do. The cultural norm tells us that on December 25th we give gifts, and we do it. The cultural norm is to tell every child that they're special no matter what they do, so they believe it.

Really?
Celebrating Hayzoos' birth?
Since when?
I say it's a celebration of the birth of Mithra, or Horus.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Really?
Celebrating Hayzoos' birth?
Since when?
I say it's a celebration of the birth of Mithra, or Horus.

Ave, Sol Invictus!

-- Steve

 

[whatchamabiscut]

What's the downside of Socialism? I've lived in the middle and upper class in American society, and at either point I would have gladly said bring in Socialism. By the definition of Socialism being used by the right, countries such as Canada, Norway, and Iceland are all socialist, yet are the people there unhappy? Have they been complaining and having rebellions? No, they haven't. Now look at our country, how many people in America would you say are satisfied with the government?

But bringing it back to a more applicable topic, is a persons life worth paying less in taxes? Without universal health care there are people who get turned away from life saving treatments, and the only way to afford universal health care would be through higher taxes. So please ask yourself, is your money worth someone's life?

 

[Mr. Moose]

Really?
Celebrating Hayzoos' birth?
Since when?
I say it's a celebration of the birth of Mithra, or Horus.

Ave, Sol Invictus!

-- Steve

Aha!
Sol Invictus, oh how ye have been forgotten!

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

Really?
Celebrating Hayzoos' birth?
Since when?
I say it's a celebration of the birth of Mithra, or Horus.

Ave, Sol Invictus!

-- Steve

CHRISTMAS IS NOT A PAGAN HOLIDAY YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
Christmas takes place on what WAS a pagan holiday. Two holidays can take place on the same day you fucking halfwit.

 

[BladesofReason]

No, but it's easy to put the celebration of your saviors birth on a date where everyone else is celebrating something anyways.

Sol Invictus indeed!

 

[L3G10N]

Have you guys been asleep at the wheel. Both of these guys are socialists, lest you forget it's the GOP that is nationalizing the banks. Oh and also McCain who once supported the VERY SAME tax breaks Obama is preaching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8EyGpOU3qM
So lets see here, basically Socialism involves espousing government control over a country's basic industries, like transportation, communication and energy, while also allowing some government regulation of private industries.

Ok well, our highways are maintained by federal and local government all the tolls we pay go directly into their pocket..so check.

Communication, see "The Patriot Act" They can listen to ANYONE and ANYTIME, if that's not control I don't know what is.

As far as energy. maybe someone can help me out here. We have spent the last what...6 years in the middle-east fighting over oil, so we haven't quite gotten there yet.

And Private industry. The White House does currently "own" many companies due to the economic downfall, take Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for example. Not to mention the 700Billion dollars they are going to use to buy company stock and save the economy.

Now that's just the tip of the socialist iceberg here in the great USA. And now you guys are screaming "SOCIALISM!?!" It's a little late, don't you think?

 

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Maybe everyone should be responsible for their own choices. Seems a lot simpler.

So if a rapist comes up to a woman and rapes her, she should take responsibility?
So the child should be thrown out into the cold the moment it's born?

That is personal responsibility. Everyone worrying about there own lives.
But we don't do that do we? No we have cops to stop the rapist and we hold kicking your baby out in the cold to make it's own way as abominable.
we are social animals, we have family units, friends, religions and cultures. We banded together to protect each other, because it was mutually beneficial.

-----------------------No longer reply directly, general reply on socialism-----------

The fact of the matter is not everyone CAN be rich, no matter how talented they are. If everyone is a rich entrepreneur then everyone dies of starvation, society needs it's lower class to exist. The world needs farmers, CEOs while beneficial are unnecessary.

Should those who work hard -to benefit the group- be rewarded? HELL YES. Those who benefit the group more have earned it. But it's not like our system rewards people solely based on talent and hard work, it does to an extent but there are other less good ways to get rich as well. You can get more money just by exploiting the system and not actually contributing, you can make a shit ton of money being born with it thus having earned nothing.
And you know what? most people aren't talented, most people are by definition average and no matter how hard average people work they won't do much better than average if they do it honestly.

At the end of the day, society is built by everyone. And that means the system should benefit everyone, not just the nobility. There is no good reason to support a system that doesn't benefit you after all, so shouldn't the majority of average hard working folks rise up and tear down the lucky few unless those lucky few say "behold the benefits your holding us up gives you". Society exists to benefit everyone, it needs to own up and start doing that. That doesn't mean we should drag down the talented and hard working who contribute the most, and it doesn't mean we should reward people for doing nothing, it means that everyone who participates in the system should clearly benefit from doing so.

 

[Seekster]

Is Obama a socialist? Yeah most likely. Has socialism ever worked? Nope. Will it ever work? Probably not.