I'm a Pundit Too

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Is Obama Leading Us Into Socialism?

I have taken a bit of criticism over the past few weeks because I have defined President Obama’s proposals as socialist. In the interest of fairness, I have decided to explore socialism and it’s definition to see how closely aligned Obama’s proposals are to socialism.

To begin we must first define socialism. According to Yahoo, socialism is defined in one of two ways. First it is “any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.” It is also defined as “the stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.”

I am tempted to just end this article now because I believe that those 2 definitions sum up what the Obama administration has proposed in just their first few weeks in office, but what would be the fun in that? Let’s take a look at some of the proposals to come out of Washington since January 20 and see if they fit the socialist mold. One last note before my liberal minded friends begin the catcalls about Bush, Bush definitely started the socialist ball rolling with his own meddling in the free markets, but he is gone now and we are dealing with this President and his socialist agenda.

The automotive industry bailout, while passed during Bush’s last days, has shown some true socialist tendencies. Since the bailout, the White House has fired the CEO of General Motors and the new CEO has been given notice of what the administration expects him to do. The White House insists that they do not want to run the auto industry, but yet they have fired the CEO of GM and they are demanding that the auto industry manufacture the least profitable models. A report has come out of GM showing that the most profitable models that they manufacture and sell are Sport Utility Vehicles and trucks, but yet they are being told to come up with a plan to manufacture more hybrids and electric vehicles. Shouldn’t the free market decide which vehicles it wants the auto makes to manufacture?

President Obama recently made a terrifying statement, at least to anyone that was paying attention. He stated that they will change the laws to allow the government to “seize control” of troubled companies and sell of their “toxic assets” to other companies to save the financial markets. Exactly how would the omniscient government decide which companies to seize? What right does the government have to swoop in and seize control of a company that a private citizen has built? What constitutes a troubled company?

The last proposal that I want to analyze is his proposal for reforming health care. He has proposed universal health care for all Americans. The argument is that there are too many uninsured Americans and because they are uninsured, they are not receiving proper medical treatment. First of all, it is illegal for a hospital to turn away a patient in need of medical care. If you do not have insurance and you are involved in a car accident, do you really believe that the ambulance will not deliver you to an emergency room for medical treatment? Secondly, why does anyone believe that the same inefficient government who runs the Social Security Administration will do a better job with you health care? Does anyone love going to stand in line at a government institution? When was the last time that you were pleased at the service you received when you called the IRS? The same government that was so upset with the AIG bailouts, even though they specifically approved them in the stimulus bill that they never read, you want to decide whether or not you deserve cancer treatment after the age of 65?


Socialism has been tried around the world and it continually fails to deliver on its promises of equality. Mark J. Perry, of the Foundation for Economic Education has cited what he believes to be the fatal flaw of socialism. He says, “It is a system that ignores incentives.” Margaret Thatcher once quipped that the result of Britain’s socialist agenda was they eventually “run out of other people’s money.” Winston Churchill saw the differences between Capitalism and Socialism this way, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.” At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, Ben Franklin is reported to have responded to the question of what type of government do we have, with “A Republic, if you can keep it.” It has taken more than 200 years of politicians slowly chipping away at our freedoms to get to this point, but I think we can safely say that we are now on the verge of losing the Republic in favor of Socialism.

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

  • Considering the actual Socialist running for President defined Obama as something other than a Socialist....you really have no idea what you are talking about. This interview was on Colbert. Yes a comedy show but truly the only place to hear the ideas of the Socialist Presidential candidate and what he believed. And he directly said Obama was NOT.
    If going to the Emergency Room is so great tell me that you do not have insurance. It is THE most expensive way to get medical care and the way that YOU get to pay the MOST for others to get that care. 50% of bankruptcies in America are due to Health Care costs. Other countries simply have 0 bankruptcies due to health care costs.

    Your analysis has many many pangs of FOX News. You truly need to look for your news elsewhere because if you look at opinions of happiness you find Europe with their pseudo-Socialism you find healthier and happier people with retirment plans and a better quality of life than we have in America.

    If you believe we are headed to Socialism it is only because of the lack of regulation handed to us by Reagan and then to a much lesser degree by Clinton and then poured on by W. If you take an economy and remove all restraints you will see a bubble. Go look at the cost of housing and you will see a massive surge in the 90s. this was the removal of regulation separating investment banks from banks and other investment vehicles. They all were driven by the huge push to pump up stock prices. All of this added up to a massive bubble of housing prices in the 90s driven by deregulation. The NeoCons/Republicans handed us this bubble which was a false run-up of richness in America and therefore the OBVIOUS deflation of that bubble happened in the end of 2007.

    So now we have a deflating balloon of an economy and a nation. These are people's lives. What are you going to do? Stand by and watch everything fail? the increase of taxes from 36 to 39% is the thing that is being called the dirty word of Socialism by the rich and super rich. Rush Limbaugh said it best which was highlighted on The Daily Show. Rush said people making over $500,000 in NY were going to see taxes go up dramatically so he is moving out of NY. hahahaha So therefore the top .1 of 1% of Americans can relate to that. Considering the top 2% made 43% of the economic gains over the past few years to think it is not time for them to pay is to be gullibly led by Rush Limbaugh as we hand him a towel as he sees his salary demand he see a big tax increase.

    Boo hoo Rush. You have been on a Socialistic gravy train powered by the taxation of the poor at the gain of the rich and super rich. This is the weakest way to make money since if giving a tax break to a rich man equaled jobs then we should be swimming in high paying jobs....right? hahah WE ARENT. We lack good jobs and the money we gave to the rich has not trickled down.

    So your analysis lacks reality and is powered by the demented thoughts of the super rich looking to make themselves richer at the expense of the poor.

    And by the way how much more than $500,000 per year do you make and how hard will you cry when Rush Limbaugh and his buddies making that much money see higher taxes next year?

    Your analysis is pretty poor and I could go on and on shooting holes in it.

    www.joewo.com/WordPress

    By Blogger joewosik, At April 3, 2009 at 1:15 AM  

  • You have not shot one hole in anything that Troy said. Try again.

    I'll explain. First, the fact that a handful of socialist have claimed that Obama is not a socialist means little. There are conservatives who claimed that McCain is not a conservative. Does this mean McCain is not a conservative? Or does it mean that he simply didn't fit into their opinion of a conservative?

    If you believe what you are being told by Olberman and Micheal Moore, then you will believe that these other countries have better retirement systems and health care systems. If you compare the actual facts however, the opposite is the case.

    If you think that the rich are getting richer because of taxes being paid by the poor, you need to do research, I would direct you to the CBO and the IRS. You will find that the bottom 40% have a negative tax burden in this country.

    I'm glad I could help you out. It's been a ton of fun.

    By Blogger The Author, At April 3, 2009 at 9:27 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



<$I18N$LinksToThisPost>:

Create a Link

<< Home