Is Obama A Socialist?

[GarfieldJL]

Radio Address Uncovered: Interview with Senator Obama

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

 

It was a link I found via courtesy of Fox News, also found information on this from Newsbusters, and it sounds like if true, this also indicates that media outlets like: CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, AP, Reuters, etc. have absolutely no credibility left whatsoever.

 

Btw, there are also links on the drudge report: http://www.drudgereport.com/

 

News busters story:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/27/will-msm-continue-ignoring-shocking-obama-redistribution-wealth-audio

 

 

Another Source is Little Green Footballs: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31702_Obama_on_the_Redistribution_of_Wealth

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Green_Footballs

 

Little Green Footballs is a right wing blog with an extremely good reputation including breaking stories on: The Killian Documents controversy and Adna Hajj photographs controversy.

 

Little Green Footballs is ran by: Charles Johnson

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

jmac, please buddy, no need to be this snarky - please avoid use of expletives even if the filters do cut them down, it conveys an unnecessary amount of hostility in a post. You are of course free to state if you think a source has wasted your time, but please do this in a more courteous manner - thanks - j7

[GarfieldJL]

Well considering that the Main Stream media is trying to downplay it, makes it seem like the tape is pretty damaging.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/27/daily-kos-desperately-spinning-obama-redistribution-wealth-audio

 

 

And

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/10/27/broadcast-morning-shows-bury-obama-redistributionist-radio-intervi

 

Though it seems Like Morning Joe (MSNBC) reported on it a little.

View Video

 

And Fox News has now jumped into this officially: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

OBAMA SAYS SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND

[GarfieldJL]

And here is why it is a bad thing:

 

1. small businesses (and quite a few make over $250,000 a year) would be taxed more which would affect their ability to employ workers.

 

2. the health insurance taxes would then add yet again to these burdens further cutting jobs.

 

 

Eventually it becomes too expensive for the business to function and the small business owner just gives up. Part of the American Dream is to be able to get ahead in life by working hard, someday maybe even becoming rich.

 

Obama's tax plan + rebates flies in the face of that dream, there is no longer an incentive to do your best work because the government is going to take care of you.

 

Also taxing capital gains affects middle class people whom own stocks, not just the rich.

[ET Warrior]

1. small businesses (and quite a few make over $250,000 a year) would be taxed more which would affect their ability to employ workers.

ORLY?

 

Also, John McCain is a socialist, the horror.

[W]e feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more.

....

And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans ... all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they – you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view.

...

[H]ere's what I really believe, that when you are – reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

source

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

ORLY?

 

Also, John McCain is a socialist, the horror.

 

source

preemptive msnbc can't be trusted post

[GarfieldJL]

ORLY?

 

Isn't factcheck.org tied to the Annenberg Foundation which was once ran by Senator Obama, and also associated with Bill Ayers?

 

http://beltwayblips.com/story/the_chicago_annenberg_challenge_the_fog_thickens/

 

Also, John McCain is a socialist, the horror.

 

source

 

MSM not Correcting 'McCain Will Tax Your Benefits' Claim by Obama Campaign

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/10/21/guess-who-sees-msm-double-standard-bidens-latest-gaffe

Dan Rather

 

Getting back to topic, Obama has ties to several socialists and Marxists.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/28/voight/

Gonna find some more sources on this.

[Rogue Nine]

MSM not Correcting 'McCain Will Tax Your Benefits' Claim by Obama Campaign

My favorite part of the article is where the author uses herself as a source. Nowhere in either article does she cite and properly source McCain's actual economic position, leading me to believe she's making all this up.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/10/21/guess-who-sees-msm-double-standard-bidens-latest-gaffe

Dan Rather

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand (which you started) and further attempts to run with this line of thought will be deleted as spam.

 

Getting back to topic, Obama has ties to several socialists and Marxists.

And John McCain is tied to someone who thinks it's okay to call 911 to complain about traffic and then curse at them. Why does John McCain associate with people like this, who think it's fine to abuse our emergency services systems in such a frivolous manner?

[GarfieldJL]

My favorite part of the article is where the author uses herself as a source. Nowhere in either article does she cite and properly source McCain's actual economic position, leading me to believe she's making all this up.

 

Technically even if you use an article you've written before, if you mention it at all in another location, you're supposed to source it. One of those little legal situations that makes little sense but is on the books.

 

 

And John McCain is tied to someone who thinks it's okay to call 911 to complain about traffic and then curse at them. Why does John McCain associate with people like this, who think it's fine to abuse our emergency services systems in such a frivolous manner?

 

Wasn't that John McCain's brother named Joe McCain? He doesn't have a choice who his family is and you know it.

[Rogue Nine]

Technically even if you use an article you've written before, if you mention it at all in another location, you're supposed to source it. One of those little legal situations that makes little sense but is on the books.

I don't care if she cites herself as a source, as long as she cites a source that backs up her claims as well. Fact of the matter is, I didn't see any links to anything from the official McCain stance on the economy. What I saw was one right-wing writer's rebuttal of the Obama Campaign's claim on McCain's economic policies that uses un-sourced conjecture and no legitimate links to back it up.

 

Wasn't that John McCain's brother named Joe McCain? He doesn't have a choice who his family is and you know it.

Wow, he's McCain's brother? Wowee wow wow, this gets even better! So John McCain has obviously known this guy for a long time! I wonder if he shares Joe's views on using the 911 emergency system.

[GarfieldJL]

Nice try. This one doesn't source itself to McCain's actual economic policies either. It just gives another political writer's interpretation of what they think McCain's plan is.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/14/usa-johnmccain

 

Again though what does this have to do with the topic, and I can point out where his policies differ with socialism all day but again that isn't the topic.

 

Oh, so now you want to be on-topic.

 

Actually I was on topic, I was using a strategy that is referred to as inductive reasoning and pointing out why I was dismissing a particular source.

 

Again while you pointed out McCain's brother the fact is it differs from Obama's associations significantly because McCain couldn't choose whom he is related to by blood. Senator Obama chose to associate himself with socialists and marxists whom aren't even related to him.

[Ravnas]

Bah, I'm curious as to one thing how socialism is a bad thing, plus I never knew that it was a political viewpoint, but more of an economic theory, ah well, just ignore the man behind the curtain I guess.

[GarfieldJL]

Bah, I'm curious as to one thing how socialism is a bad thing, plus I never knew that it was a political viewpoint, but more of an economic theory, ah well, just ignore the man behind the curtain I guess.

 

Socialism is a bad thing because of human nature, there has to be some incentive for people to do their best work. If people are paid the same regardless of how much they work for instance or don't have to work to get paid would you work?

 

There is a difference between people being charitable and the government coming in, taking your money that you worked for and just giving it to people whom were too lazy to work a job.

 

An article that would be good reading to bring you up to speed can be found here.

[Rogue Nine]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/14/usa-johnmccain

I don't want you to source the articles, I want the authors to do it for their own writing. The fact that they did not source their articles is rather suspect, in my opinion.

 

Actually I was on topic, I was using a strategy that is referred to as inductive reasoning and pointing out why I was dismissing a particular source.

Sure you were.

 

Senator Obama chose to associate himself with socialists and marxists whom aren't even related to him.

Gonna have to ask you to cite some sources that aren't in the tank for McCain.

[jonathan7]

Please can everyone calm down, lets not get snarky with each other... don't let me get my big stick out.... Also you are all reminded to please stay on topic - j7

 

Socialism is a bad thing because of human nature, there has to be some incentive for people to do their best work. If people are paid the same regardless of how much they work for instance or don't have to work to get paid would you work?

 

This is subjective at best - furthermore have you actually read the Marxist Charter? Any country that took it up, would infact be the most "democratic" country on earth - the USSR, was never what Marx had envisioned. Furthermore it is entirely subjective to see socialism as a bad thing... I love that in a country that is apparently about freedom of speech, it is seen as bad for Obama to associate with such people.... - My 2 cents.

[GarfieldJL]

This is subjective at best - furthermore have you actually read the Marxist Charter? Any country that took it up, would infact be the most "democratic" country on earth - the USSR, was never what Marx had envisioned. Furthermore it is entirely subjective to see socialism as a bad thing... I love that in a country that is apparently about freedom of speech, it is seen as bad for Obama to associate with such people.... - My 2 cents.

 

Jonathan no country could take it up, the problem with socialism is that while it looks good on paper and can work on an extremely small test case, it doesn't work good in practice (on the large scale).

 

Also as far as the associations are concerned, it isn't just the fact that his friends are socialists, at least two of them are unrepentant domestic terrorists.

 

Also he is a member of the New Party (Democratic Socialists), they tried to remove it from their website when this was made public.

 

On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.

 

 

From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party':

"New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...

 

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party

 

Additional Source:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html

[ET Warrior]

Isn't factcheck.org tied to the Annenberg Foundation which was once ran by Senator Obama, and also associated with Bill Ayers?

Hey, maybe you should read the article and see the vast number of sources they use to support their position as opposed to just dismissing it out of hand because they're "in the tank" with Obama (even though they condemn just as many of his false claims).

[jrrtoken]

Jonathan no country could take it up, the problem with socialism is that while it looks good on paper and can work on an extremely small test case, it doesn't work good in practice (on the large scale).

Socialism can work, but most of the attempts in recent history have not been executed properly. I agree that socialism on a larger scale will eventually collapse, but when in city-state form, perhaps in an anarcho-socialist scheme, it might just work. Like J7 said, true Marxist communism hasn't even implemented yet. There's a reason why USSR's government was known as Leninism, and eventually Stalinism, and so forth; Each leader shifted the basic communist principles to their own philosophical beliefs. Which is why Marxism shouldn't be written off yet, as it has never been truly implemented.

 

Also as far as the associations are concerned, it isn't just the fact that his friends are socialists, at least two of them are unrepentant domestic terrorists.

Sweet Jesus, please don't bring that up again.

[GarfieldJL]

Hey, maybe you should read the article and see the vast number of sources they use to support their position as opposed to just dismissing it out of hand because they're "in the tank" with Obama (even though they condemn just as many of his false claims).

 

I have read through a lot of their stuff, and while they have condemned quite a few of Obama's false statements, there have been things they've allowed to slip through and this case is one of them. To be fair to factcheck.org they've been a lot better at covering things than the mainstream media.

 

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/16/joe-plumber-calls-obamas-tax-plan-socialist-sawyer-defends-it

 

I've been trying to find the actual interview on Fox News where one of Obama's advisors said that the $250,000 cutoff refers to Gross Income, I actually saw it on TV a few days ago, which completely debunks the accusation that McCain wasn't telling the truth.

 

Anyways, even without it I can say this taxes are taken on a person's gross income, that means the total amount you make before taxes and other expenses.

[Web Rider]

Socialism is a bad thing because of human nature, there has to be some incentive for people to do their best work. If people are paid the same regardless of how much they work for instance or don't have to work to get paid would you work?

Marxism=/=Socialism. I've just spent the last 5 weeks studying Marx, they're not the same. The execution of Marxism and what Marx intended aren't even the same thing.

 

There is a difference between people being charitable and the government coming in, taking your money that you worked for and just giving it to people whom were too lazy to work a job.

I guess you don't realize that taxes also pay for our failing airline industires, support our steel companies, pay for our roads, keep our food cheap.

 

Unless you'd like an apple to cost 10 dollars, build your own roads, have steel owned by the Swiss and have no form of air travel, you're already loving a lot of socialist things.

 

You want a socialist government, it's not Marx. It's the UK, or Japan. Socialism is more of an economic policy that governments participate in the operation of business to ensure a stable economy.

 

An article that would be good reading to bring you up to speed can be found here.

How about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

It gives general information, unlike the other which is just a critique. And it gives some pros and cons, but mostly gives you the information and lets you decide for yourself.

[True_Avery]

Jonathan no country could take it up, the problem with socialism is that while it looks good on paper and can work on an extremely small test case, it doesn't work good in practice (on the large scale).

 

Also as far as the associations are concerned, it isn't just the fact that his friends are socialists, at least two of them are unrepentant domestic terrorists.

 

Also he is a member of the Democratic Socialists, they tried to remove it from their website when this was made public.

It seems you've mixed up socialism with communism.

 

Socialism:

1. A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. Procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

 

Communism:

1. A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

 

Now, the definition of Marxist socialism does indeed mean a transitional period between the two. But lets looks closer:

 

It transitions into communism. Now, as far as we know, true 100% communism has never existed. There have been very good examples of it happening, but even these tribes have had some form of trade, currency (be it hides, meat, respect, etc), and concept of ownership, even if it was small. So, through this, I think we can establish that true Marxist communism is a pipe dream that will never work in a society.

 

It is the Garden of Eden of societies if you will. A utopia that is only promised in religious lore, but never successfully implemented on a scale larger than roughly 100 people.

 

Now, we seem to agree with this from what I've read of your posts. But, if you would like me to pull up some sources on such tribes then I would be more than welcome to provide them.

 

But, moving on to socialism as it actually applies to the world and not as Marx pipe dream says it should:

 

Just throwing it out there, but America is a capitalist/socialist hybrid in many respects. Now, while we may not have Universal Health Care, we do share other socialist aspects of society with other socialist/capitalist hybrid countries.

 

For example:

Military

National Defense

Police

Firemen

Roads

Highways

Bridges

Water treatment

Recycling

Trash collection

Welfare

Elementary School

Middle School

High School

Social Security

Prisons

Jails

 

Our Taxes, in most if not all of the United States, pay for these services that you enjoy. We give the government the money, and we hope, through elected officials, that they use the money in a way that benefits our society, or "community" if you will.

 

One of the other aspects of Socialism is the creation of an Egalitarianist society. Egalitarianism is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.

 

America's Bill of Rights says roughly the same thing, but we have established that said "rights" can be removed from a person if they fail to follow the established rules/laws that the society and government has in place. And, for the most part, all first world countries nowadays attempt to follow this doctrine.

 

So, your claim that "no country could take it up" is odd to say the least. While we are not entirely Socialist, we share many aspects of a socialist society. Outside of Universal Health Care, most of what you'd call socialist in other countries are things this very country stands for.

[Ravnas]

Huh, looking at all these articles, I feel pretty sure that Socialism isn't the worst path to go down, I guess I don't really understand the whole laziness argument since I grew up with a single mom and a 50,000 a year income and she treated(She works in Medicine) a lot of people who happened to be laid off due to outsourcing and such. Ah well, I have a clearer understanding of the matter at least, though considering there was a statement from the Socialist Candidate that Obama isn't a Socialist will probably be an influence on this whole argument.

 

EDIT: Here's a link to his statement:http://vote-socialist.org/press/081023spt.html

[GarfieldJL]

Marxism=/=Socialism. I've just spent the last 5 weeks studying Marx, they're not the same. The execution of Marxism and what Marx intended aren't even the same thing.

 

A lot of the aspects are the same though.

 

 

I guess you don't realize that taxes also pay for our failing airline industires, support our steel companies, pay for our roads, keep our food cheap.

 

I live in the United States in our case it's the other way around as far as food is concerned, or it used to be. Government actually paid farmers not to farm so food prices didn't fall through the floor.

 

Unless you'd like an apple to cost 10 dollars, build your own roads, have steel owned by the Swiss and have no form of air travel, you're already loving a lot of socialist things.

 

I'll agree pure capitalism is bad, however you're missing the point. What we're talking about is Marxist/Socialist style of class warfare.

 

You want a socialist government, it's not Marx. It's the UK, or Japan. Socialism is more of an economic policy that governments participate in the operation of business to ensure a stable economy.

 

I don't want to have my success taxed if I manage to get over the $250,000 gross income cutoff. Furthermore, raising taxes in a recession is the absolute worst thing you can do. See the state of Michigan as an example.

 

How about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

It gives general information, unlike the other which is just a critique. And it gives some pros and cons, but mostly gives you the information and lets you decide for yourself.

 

Again Socialism doesn't work on a large scale, it ends up falling apart relatively rapidly.

 

Look at Venezuela, as an example they've devolved into a dictatorship.

 

Huh, looking at all these articles, I feel pretty sure that Socialism isn't the worst path to go down, I guess I don't really understand the whole laziness argument since I grew up with a single mom and a 50,000 a year income and she treated(She works in Medicine) a lot of people who happened to be laid off due to outsourcing and such. Ah well, I have a clearer understanding of the matter at least, though considering there was a statement from the Socialist Candidate that Obama isn't a Socialist will probably be an influence on this whole argument.

Raising taxes on employers causes the price of goods to increase or they ship the jobs overseas. Or the business just closes up.

[Web Rider]

A lot of the aspects are the same though.

Yeah, and we share 50% of our basic building blocks with a banana. Does that make us a banana? no it doesn't.

 

I live in the United States in our case it's the other way around as far as food is concerned, or it used to be. Government actually paid farmers not to farm so food prices didn't fall through the floor.

Farmers get HUGE government subsides, paid by our taxes, to keep being farmers instead of selling their land to have homes built on it.

 

I'll agree pure capitalism is bad, however you're missing the point. What we're talking about is Marxist/Socialist style of class warfare.

No we're not. YOU didn't even say that to being with. And STOP equating Marxism with Socialism. They are not the same.

 

I don't want to have my success taxed if I manage to get over the $250,000 gross income cutoff. Furthermore, raising taxes in a recession is the absolute worst thing you can do. See the state of Michigan as an example.

Okay, my mistake for thinking you'd actually know about the countries I mentioned. Japan's government is heavily invested in the largest corporations in their nation, though this often causes massive corruption, it has also lead to the government subsidizing business to allow for cheaper operating costs and LESS class warfare. Workers are better taken care of, government and business walk hand in hand instead of head to head.

 

Again Socialism doesn't work on a large scale, it ends up falling apart relatively rapidly.

 

Look at Venezuela, as an example they've devolved into a dictatorship.

This did not happen because of socialism. This happened because a guy with dictatorial dreams was in power. France, Germany, England, Sweden, Iceland, Japan, ALL very successful nations, ALL practice strongly Socialist principles.