OT The new "black" is "socialism" - Page 5

in 2007 the top 1% of the population paid 95% of the income taxes.........we are at a tipping point......

Ok, my attention deficit disordered friends.  This is how I see it.

The ORIGINAL post said that in lieu of honest, careful critiques of Obama, the irresponsible branch of the far right has apparently found a way to tap into the everyready, deep and longstanding racist fears -- and labeled it socialism.

My simple argument: millions of people who rarely used the world "socialism" before 2008 are now, all of a sudden, experts on the subject and braying about socialism this and socialism that.  "Obama is a socialist!" makes little sense from these folks who can't even define socialism, but "Obama frightens me because he is black, and socialism frightens me because, well, the Soviets had it!" sure sounds more like the unconscious truth to me. 

I could be wrong.  I could be missing something.

But this thread sadly makes me more confident that I am right.  Why?  How did you react to my claim?  You don't need me to summarize your own posts.

Raymond takes what surely must be recognized as a racist position.  You could have proved my racism claim wrong by leaping to your metaphorical feet, declaiming such a horrific sentiment.  You could have told him there is no place on this forum for rhetoric of this sort.  You could have SHOWN that your differences of opinion with the democrat in office had nothing to do with race by railing against racism when it appeared it full force.

Did you? 

 

no company is too big to fail - that was a bunch of spin the the stupid public believed.....

You are wrong, SM.

We were at the edge of a precipice.

Some companies are too big to fail - and that is the reason why I support government limits on compensation at some corporations who incentivize employees based on the profits they generate. It encourages high risk behaviour by security traders who are motivated to make a lot of money for the company so that they in turn get rewarded.

This is fine until the company is in danger of going belly-up because their traders were wrong in their assumptions - and then to avoid a financial collapse, the tax-payer has to bail these companies out.

Again, everyone is free to criticize the president (although the first amendment is actually limited -- you cannot advocate overthrow or assasination or even libel/slander in public if you cannot prove the assertion true, although public officials such as presidents are not so protected by the liber/slander rule-- or most of you would be in jail!)

The very specific point I tried to make with this thread is that a hate-mongering fringe of the far right has run up a media frenzy on a new N-word, and that word is socialism.  Who can deny that the word "socialism" is now being bantered around at about 1000 x its former frequency? 

Now, this doesn't mean that everyone who says "socialism" is particularly racist.  (Everyone on the right, left and center, white, black or yellow, is slightly racist, as we inherited "us versus them" from our earliest cave dwelling ancestors.)

How about this for a little social experiment?  Everytime someone uses the word socialism, ask them to be specific: do you mean Soviet, Chinese, Yugoslav or Scandinavian?  What specific program do you mean?  What is the better alternative?  And, finally, when you say "socialism" do you mean it in a positive or negative way?

Then post your results honestly.

My bet?  All negative, all rhetorical, virtually no specifics, virtually no careful policy alternatives considered.

MVF -- I did not read Raymond's post..... I stopped reading most of his posts some time back.   The fact is that you're Race Baiting.   You can assume whatever you want; it doesn't make you correct.   I cannot stand Obama and it has Nothing to do w/his skin color.   I detest most of the Democrats in this Administration -- the majority of them are White.   If you want to label me as a Racist because I dislike Obama because of what he is doing to our Country -- FINE.

I could be wrong. I could be missing something.

MVF, I sincerely believe that you are barking up the wrong tree.

Sure, there are racists who dislike Obama because he is black. But a lot of the hostility to Obama is because the lunatic fringe on this forum relies for its news and analysis on right-wing blogs which are just loose with the facts.

The use of the word "socialism" has taken the place of "liberal" which was the way the right castigated their opponents. "Liberal" lost its sting - besides it was something the right liked to throw out in the context of social issues. "Socialism" works better for them in terms of scaring people because for a start, a lot of the "loonies" don't even know what it means. Besides it helps them to bring up the image of the Soviet Union - and tell them we are headed on that path. From "socialism" to "communism" - the right wing blogs tell them it is just a process of evolution.

Now there is unquestionably a segment of the population who hate Obama because he is black - but they don't even pretend otherwise. There was a recent poll on who the "birthers" are and it turns out that among Republicans there are a few in the North East, Mid West and West who believe in the whole "birther" nonsense. But the majority of the birthers come from the South. I am confident that with those people, it is race as much as anything else. I lived in the South for a few years in the 80s' and I know how deep-seated prejudices were towards blacks - I cannot believe that things have changed that much.

There are Republicans who are really concerned about some of Obama's polcies and it has nothing to do with race. I know a few well  - and they don't have a racist bone in them.

IMO - fdr and lbj were also socialists and even communists, no better then chavez and his ilk........MVF - feel better now?

keepthefaith - maybe you need to once again read the definition of the word socialism.......then take off your glasses and see what your Messiah has done since been in office......

While very many people misuse the word socialism, it can still be used to describe our current president’s agenda. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary describes socialism as

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Using any of these definitions in conjunction with what has thus far happened under the current presidency you can define President Obama’s policy as socialist.

For definition 1 consider the federal takeover of the banks and automotive companies. Those companies are now under governmental ownership and administration, whereas the government now controls the means of production and distribution of goods, the goods in this instance being automotive vehicles. While some may argue that the government only exercises control on some goods and not the whole economy, one must remember that this is still increasing governmental ownership and thereby this can still be a socialist act.

For definition 2, one must realize that President Obama is intending on following the current course, and is in no means planning to change his demeanor. While some may argue that his agenda does not state that he will continue to exercise governmental control, one must remember that most of his agenda is not currently, and will never be attempted under his name. A human can only be defined by his actions and not his plans. A man born in Austria had very ambitious plans to save the country that he resided in from an economic disaster. While his agenda sounded good, one must remember that the actions that this man, who many know as Adolf Hitler, are what caused the mass deaths of millions of non-Aryan people. This being settled, President Obama’s previous actions in the automotive and banking industries can only lead one to believe that he will continue to pursue governmental ownership of industries, eventually leading to a system of society or group living in which there is no property that is not owned by the government.

For definition 3, one must reassert the principle stated in my analysis of definition 2; a mans only merit is his actions. This being said, President Obama, and his band of merry democrats are pushing the United States of America away from the capitalist economy that it was founded upon, and towards a communist economy, thereby the current economy can be described as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

So, while very many people misuse the term socialist, there can be no doubt that the term can be used justly when referring to our current president, Barack Hussein Obama II

It's not difficult to see the difference between the thinkers & the reactors in this thread.....some can't even find moderately articulate words to react with....('poo-poo'??). I have no comprehension of finance, (my bank account is very good proof of this, LOL), but I love a debate. Thank you, MVF, for an intelligent thread; interesting to read, instead of the usual pro-far-right drivel. I like to hear viewpoints with substance, instead of unmitigated propaganda. I only wish I had something useful to contribute, but I don't, so I will sit back & applaud. Thank you! jackie harris

I will leap to my metophorical feet and shout "I am not a racist" I just hate everyone! I will never discriminate! LOL  LOL  I resemble that remark 1 As cirly would say!! Certainley! And yes I have plenty of attention!!! Just can not remember where I put it!! If it walks upright and picks it's nose I hate it11 But on a more serious note people!Companies are only as sucessfull as those who are steering the ship!Fannie Mae; which I own was extremely sucessful until Clinton admistration directed them to assume more risky loans and get in on a piece of the action that wall street was selling! Now those executives who are govt appointed didi not experience the scrutiny that gm and ford and chrysler didi. Even the exec who worked for fannie and freddie who committed suicide was not widely investigated! When a company goes belly up you must put the blame on those who were setting policy and steering the ship! And actually I am not racist! I truely believe that is a catch all phrase to shift the attention away from those who are at fault! Obama does not make policy!!!!!!!!! he only impliments it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Congress makes and sets policy as instructed by those who own the senators.