The Goat Pen

Op Ed wrote:

THE_WIZARD_ wrote:It’s Collectivism vs. Individualism
Copyright © 2010 By Ray Thomas

People think the basic conflict today is between liberals and conservatives. It’s not. It’s between believers in collectivism and those who believe in individualism.

Which side is responsible for our wars of occupation, our declining civil liberties, and Wall street run amuk?

THE_WIZARD_ wrote:What sides are you referring to Ed? I'm not a Republican. I'm a Libertarian.

sardis wrote:The point is that even the most left, or socialistic, of our Presidents were occupiers as much as neocons.

Op Ed wrote:

sardis wrote:The point is that even the most left, or socialistic, of our Presidents were occupiers as much as neocons.

We have had no left or socialist presidents.

Big Orange Junky wrote:

Op Ed wrote:

sardis wrote:The point is that even the most left, or socialistic, of our Presidents were occupiers as much as neocons.

We have had no left or socialist presidents.

LMBOMA

Yeah right. Oprama isn't a socalist he just appears to be. Really he doesn't mean all those things he says and does.

Op Ed wrote:OK Labomba, how the fuck is Obama a socialist?

By “socialist,” I do not mean a Lenin, Castro, or Mao, but whether Obama falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism as represented, for example, by Germany’s Social Democrats, French Socialists, or Spain’s socialist-workers party?

By this criterion, yes, Obama is a socialist.

The November 2011 Declaration of Principles of the Party of European Socialists (PES) summarizes the European socialist agenda. I condense its main points and compare them with Obama’s statements and legislative initiatives:

PES: The welfare state and state-provided universal access to education and health care are society’s great achievements.

Obama: Favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state.

PES: A strong and just society must ensure that the wealth generated by all is shared fairly as determined by the state.

Obama: Favors progressive taxes on the rich to redistribute income and wealth from winners to losers and to ensure that all pay their fair share. (As he has said: “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”)

PES: Collective responsibility makes society stronger when people work together, and all people are enabled to live a dignified life, free of poverty and protected from social risks in life.

Obama: Favors collective responsibility (as defined by the federal government) to protect all from social risks through food stamps, welfare programs, extended unemployment benefits, guaranteed health care, the bailing out of big companies, forcing renegotiation of mortgages, class action law suits, and other measures. (Instead of opportunity and incentive to succeed, no one is allowed to fail).

PES: The state must insure that economic growth is environmentally “sustainable.”

Obama: Favors carbon taxes, higher energy prices, restricted drilling and refining, and subsidies of green technology for the “common good,” even at the expenses of higher conventional growth and jobs.

PES: If unfettered by state control, market forces, driven by and greed and shift power to the privileged few, deepen economic, geographic and social inequalities, and create economic crises.

Obama: Shows a distrust of market forces and advocates selective regulation, subsidies, and taxation to persuade or coerce business to promote the general welfare as he defines it. Industries not part of his collective endeavor (oil and gas and coal) are penalized. Industries that serve his conception of “general welfare” (green technology) are to be promoted even if the market rejects them.

PES: Ensuring long lasting prosperity, stability and above all, peace requires effective coordination in the international realm based on democracy, mutual respect, and human rights.

Obama: Places reliance on international institutions, international consensus, and mutual respect in the conduct of foreign policy. (The United States must coordinate its foreign policy with international organizations and treat even rogue nations with respect in the hope that they will voluntarily improve their behavior).

PES: A strong state must preserve the public good, guarantee the common interest, promote justice and solidarity and allow people to lead lives rich beyond material wealth, so that each individual’s fulfillment is also part of a collective endeavor.

Obama: Advocates a strong state that offers the “positive right” of political and economic justice to its citizens. He complains that the U.S. Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties,” that dictates what government “can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

If the Party of European Socialists were to rate Obama, he would get a near perfect score. The political views and programs that Obama is prepared to reveal to the public are consistent with those of European socialists. He is clearly a socialist in the European sense of the term.

If the “socialist label” sticks, Obama faces an even more uphill 2012 campaign. In scripted moments – like Tuesday’s State of the Union Address — he must present his socialist campaign themes while avoiding the appearance of being a socialist.

Obama must worry most about those slips in unscripted moments that, I believe, reveal a deep animosity towards private enterprise. He has given us a few fleeting glimpses, such as his complaint about the Constitution’s “negative rights and his off-the-cuff “spread the wealth around” remark. His most recent and significant slip was to tell Occupy Wall Street protesters: “You are the reason I ran for office.”

Obama’s defenders will counter that Republicans also accept Social Security and a progressive income tax and that his slips are taken out of context. But these criticisms fail to address the remarkable coincidence of Obama’s views with those of European socialists. By comparing Obama not to Lenin or Mao but to European socialism, we have placed the question “Is Obama a socialist?” in a fair and appropriate context.

Our political discourse is conducted largely in the language of the left, to the disadvantage of conservatives. After all, who can oppose “fairness, justice, dignified life, or sustainable growth?” Only sophisticated observers understand that these are code words for something else. They are all excuses for the state to take from one group to give to another or to coerce people or businesses to do something they do not want to do otherwise. The more powerful the state, the greater the risk of state coercion under the guise of noble aims. Enhancing the size, scope, and power of the state vis-à-vis the private sector may be Obama’s ultimate objective.

This country was founded on the principle that individuals should not be subject to the control of a powerful state. That founding idea has never before been in greater peril.

Big Orange Junky wrote:

Op Ed wrote:OK Labomba, how the fuck is Obama a socialist?

This whole health care debacle for one.

Big Orange Junky wrote:Then his support for the UN Gun Control treaty adds to it.

Big Orange Junky wrote:His take over of GM.

Big Orange Junky wrote:On and on.

10ac wrote:Arabs, heh.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jordanian- ... tv-debate/

Op Ed wrote:

Big Orange Junky wrote:

Op Ed wrote:OK Labomba, how the fuck is Obama a socialist?

This whole health care debacle for one.

You mean RomneyCare, where he forced everyone to buy for-profit health insurance.
There is zero government option is this, what is socialist about it?

Big Orange Junky wrote:Then his support for the UN Gun Control treaty adds to it.

What is socialist about it?

The Socialist Republik of Vermont has perhaps the loosest gun control laws in the nation.

Big Orange Junky wrote:His take over of GM.

How did he take over GM?

Big Orange Junky wrote:On and on.

Please start when you're ready.

Op Ed wrote:

Op Ed wrote:

THE_WIZARD_ wrote:It’s Collectivism vs. Individualism
Copyright © 2010 By Ray Thomas

People think the basic conflict today is between liberals and conservatives. It’s not. It’s between believers in collectivism and those who believe in individualism.

Which side is responsible for our wars of occupation, our declining civil liberties, and Wall street run amuk?

THE_WIZARD_ wrote:What sides are you referring to Ed? I'm not a Republican. I'm a Libertarian.

I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Progressive.

If you see the divide as collectivism vs individualism, which side is responsible for the above mentioned issues?

I see the divide as class... the wealthy vs the rest of us.

INVHO collectivism vs individualism is just a distraction.