Defining Obama

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Defining Obama

Postby cartervj » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:19 pm

Socialist or Fascist
Thomas Sowell | Jun 12, 2012

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/12/socialist_or_fascist/page/full
It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.
What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.
Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.
Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous -- something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.
Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the "greed" of the insurance companies.
The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.
One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.
Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.
Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.
It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot -- and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.
What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.
The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..."
That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution's limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges' new interpretations, based on notions of "a living Constitution" that will take decisions out of the hands of "We the People," and transfer those decisions to our betters.
The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.
Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 6916
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL


Re: Defining Obama

Postby cartervj » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:42 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/08/02/Five-things-media-arent-telling-you-about-jobs-numbersNew%20Article

5. Reagan Recovery Created More Jobs in One Month Than Obama Has All Year
In 1983, as President Ronald Reagan's economic policies took hold, the American recovery started to roar back to life. This was thanks to Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts and an overall philosophy of getting government out of the way of American ingenuity. The result was that the entire dynamic of an economy that had been in a malaise for nearly a decade completely turned around.
In one month, September of 1983, the Reagan Recovery created 1,114 MILLION jobs.
This was no fluke, either. The next 15 months saw amazing job growth (in thousands): 271, 352, 356, 447, 479, 275, 363, 308, 379, 312, 241, 311, 286, 349, 127.
By contrast, President Obama attacked his inherited recession in the exact opposite way Reagan did. Obama passed onerous regulations, including Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare. Worse, his class warfare rhetoric demanding higher taxes and even more regulation, has never ceased. The uncertainty he creates in the labor market is unprecedented.
Despite the media's spin, the results have been disastrous for the American people. Thus far, all year, the Obama Recovery has created fewer jobs than Reagan's recovery created in that single month of September in '83.
Over seven full months in 2013, only 953,000 jobs have been created.(77% of those part-time)
What the media won't tell you as they say things like, "Well, we are growing, just not fast enough," is that it did not have to be like this.
During these same seven months in the second term of his presidency, George W. Bush created over 1.6 million jobs. President Clinton was just shy of two million.
---
Obama's economic record is a disaster, but he feels no pressure to change course because the media have created the Obama Curve in order to avoid pointing out and putting pressure on his failure.
Neither the media nor Obama want to face the reality that big government economic policies are a failure. And that refusal is spreading misery like a plague.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 6916
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Defining Obama

Postby buckmeister » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:06 pm

Brilliant article by Thomas Sowell.
"Give me liberty or give me death"
buckmeister
hunter
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:07 pm
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma

Re: Defining Obama

Postby beretta24 » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:56 pm

Number of jobs is only part of the story...average hours worked has declined to a point that exceeds the total hours worked by those "created" jobs.

On a side note Reagan and that Congress couldn't do now what they did then. There's not enough people that want to buy enough of our schit to grow at those rates today.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Defining Obama

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:18 pm

And that is why I told BBD2 that fascism resides on the left....when was that discussion??? like 2 years ago??? Or is it in the long list of threads since that epic discussion occurred?
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 54576
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Defining Obama

Postby Indaswamp » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:26 pm

beretta24 wrote:Number of jobs is only part of the story...average hours worked has declined to a point that exceeds the total hours worked by those "created" jobs.

On a side note Reagan and that Congress couldn't do now what they did then. There's not enough people that want to buy enough of our schit to grow at those rates today.

not to mention that there are no interest rate tail winds nor enough room left in bubbles to pump out any more true, organic, real credit growth.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 54576
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Defining Obama

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:00 am

I think the problem with defining Obama is that he is intellectually stunted. If you go to a college campus and try to define these kids that want to change the world and bring utopia to earth and all of that. They have a bunch of whackjob ideas that are anything but coherent. They are bits and pieces grabbed from the things that they have heard. They then have decades of life experience where, if they are serious, they take all of that random noise and convert it into something coherent, or at least they believe to be coherent. This last part is why I say that only intelligent people can believe the dumbest things. If they are zealots about what they want (i.e. socialist/communist) the world to be like, they come up with convoluted "solutions" to the obvious failures in their theory that do nothing but make it impossible to show the flaw in 30 seconds, but the flaw still exists which is why try as they might, they still fail. Most people are not serious, so they never fully resolve most of the inconsistencies in their beliefs. Obama is NOT intellectually serious. He has been surrounded by yes men his entire life. If you are serious, you seek out the people that tell you that you are wrong and this is why you are wrong. Obama would never last in the CI forum. It is far more serious debate than he has every engaged in in his entire life. He is so hard to define because he hasn't internally defined himself yet. Well other than he is great and will change the world like no other human being could ever do.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15187
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Defining Obama

Postby Andy W » Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:58 am

SpinnerMan wrote: Obama would never last in the CI forum.

Would he be allowed to join? Don't we have some sort of standards here?
Andy W
hunter
 
Posts: 591
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:30 am
Location: KY

Re: Defining Obama

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:42 am

Andy W wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: Obama would never last in the CI forum.

Would he be allowed to join? Don't we have some sort of standards here?

They let me in and allow me to stay so, whatever those standards are, they got to be pretty low. Probably should go with the Groucho standard for joining clubs.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15187
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Defining Obama

Postby ohioboy » Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:32 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Andy W wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: Obama would never last in the CI forum.

Would he be allowed to join? Don't we have some sort of standards here?

They let me in and allow me to stay so, whatever those standards are, they got to be pretty low. Probably should go with the Groucho standard for joining clubs.


Must have a mustache? :beer:
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2153
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Defining Obama

Postby Glimmerjim » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:15 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Andy W wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: Obama would never last in the CI forum.

Would he be allowed to join? Don't we have some sort of standards here?

They let me in and allow me to stay so, whatever those standards are, they got to be pretty low. Probably should go with the Groucho standard for joining clubs.

I think you are referring to the same thing I am thinking of, Spinner. Was that originally Groucho? I thought it was all Woody Allen.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 9797
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Defining Obama

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:26 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Andy W wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: Obama would never last in the CI forum.

Would he be allowed to join? Don't we have some sort of standards here?

They let me in and allow me to stay so, whatever those standards are, they got to be pretty low. Probably should go with the Groucho standard for joining clubs.

I think you are referring to the same thing I am thinking of, Spinner. Was that originally Groucho? I thought it was all Woody Allen.

This would never be wrong and it says Groucho.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_I_wouldn%27t_join_any_club_that_would_have_me_as_a_member
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15187
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Defining Obama

Postby Glimmerjim » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:30 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Andy W wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: Obama would never last in the CI forum.

Would he be allowed to join? Don't we have some sort of standards here?

They let me in and allow me to stay so, whatever those standards are, they got to be pretty low. Probably should go with the Groucho standard for joining clubs.

I think you are referring to the same thing I am thinking of, Spinner. Was that originally Groucho? I thought it was all Woody Allen.

This would never be wrong and it says Groucho.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_I_wouldn%27t_join_any_club_that_would_have_me_as_a_member

That's the one. Holy cow...were I to find out that Woody Allen is a plagiarist I would never have faith in mankind again! Now I wonder about the "chicken" quote at the end of Annie Hall!
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 9797
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am


Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nabs and 6 guests