By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Do You Think Obama is a Socialist... Do You Care?

ManusJustus on 07 August 2009
HappySqurriel said:

Now, lets use a car company as an example to explain how a fascist economy works ...

In a fascist economy an individual (or group of individuals) may own a car company and they have some rights to produce cars that people might actually want to drive. Unfortunately, the government has full rights to step in at any point in time and take their company away from them and give it to their friends regardless of any standing contracts that exist, and the government has full rights to step in at any point and tell the company what cars to produce regardless of whether there is demand for those kinds of vehicles.

Thats exactly what the United States did in World War II.



Around the Network
Rath on 07 August 2009
Kasz216 said:

The Nazis economic viewpoints were very socialist... and in fact were the focus of their party.  That's how they came to power.

Their economy was actually trying to promote a "third way" between capitalism and communism which they both saw as wrong.

Since there economy was bad... it was for the good of the people to be subjected for the state until the state was in good condition.

Hence why the people even voted for it.

 

What happens in nations with high socilism when they can't afford to pay for their programs anymore?  Probaby the same that happens in Nazi germany.  The government takes over the means of production of those industries.  (Though private buisnesses still owned their companies... it meant nothing.)

The economic views of the Nazis weren't even really defined. Hitler constantly said that he thought economics were unimportant and never actually properly defined the Nazis policies ever, those he did define he later contradicted. His largest beliefs seemed to be around strict government control of the economy rather than towards the equal division of wealth.


Also even if the Nazi's were socialist blaming Nazi Germany on socialism is just plain stupid. I'm not a fan at all of pure socialism (I think its hugely flawed and just doesn't work) but it just can't be blamed for WWII or the holocaust - the reasons for those are far more complex and include the sanctions placed on Germany after WWI and a long history of antisemitism. Even facism itself can't be blamed for those things, it was a symptom rather than a cause.

 

@slimebeast. Find by me =P you have your right to think that and vote against it whenever you can. Its not proper socialism though.



HappySqurriel on 07 August 2009
ManusJustus said:
HappySqurriel said:

Now, lets use a car company as an example to explain how a fascist economy works ...

In a fascist economy an individual (or group of individuals) may own a car company and they have some rights to produce cars that people might actually want to drive. Unfortunately, the government has full rights to step in at any point in time and take their company away from them and give it to their friends regardless of any standing contracts that exist, and the government has full rights to step in at any point and tell the company what cars to produce regardless of whether there is demand for those kinds of vehicles.

Thats exactly what the United States did in World War II.

No, that's what Obama did recently ...

In World War II the ownership of car companies did not change, and car companies were given very lucrative contracts to build tanks/planes and other large equipment needed by the military.



TheRealMafoo on 07 August 2009
HappySqurriel said:
ManusJustus said:
HappySqurriel said:

Now, lets use a car company as an example to explain how a fascist economy works ...

In a fascist economy an individual (or group of individuals) may own a car company and they have some rights to produce cars that people might actually want to drive. Unfortunately, the government has full rights to step in at any point in time and take their company away from them and give it to their friends regardless of any standing contracts that exist, and the government has full rights to step in at any point and tell the company what cars to produce regardless of whether there is demand for those kinds of vehicles.

Thats exactly what the United States did in World War II.

No, that's what Obama did recently ...

In World War II the ownership of car companies did not change, and car companies were given very lucrative contracts to build tanks/planes and other large equipment needed by the military.

I don't really think this is what Obama did, but it's what he wants the power to do

All the companies the government now owns, were failing. If they were doing well, he would have had no way of taking them over. Like Ford for example. He had no way of owning that company

Now, he has tried to pass legislation to take over banks that are doing perfectly well, so he will then have the power to do this kind of thing. It stems from him getting pissed off during the Chrysler bankruptcy, that he could not dictate to all the banks how they must act. So, he wants the power to just take them over if he feels it's necessary. Not sure if it passed. I have not been following it as of late, with all the other things to follow.



Rath on 07 August 2009

@Mafoo. What bill is this one that you're talking about?

Is it regulation (which seems more likely) or the power to nationalise (which you make it sound like)?



Around the Network
Crashdown77 on 07 August 2009
HappySqurriel said:

... On top of that, George W Bush was a politician who has used the partisan politics and the politics of division, fear and crisis on a level few politicians ever have.

 


**Fixed** OT: Barack Obama is taking pretty heavy criticism from the far left wing about not being extreme enough on social issues. I would think no.

TheRealMafoo on 07 August 2009
Rath said:
@Mafoo. What bill is this one that you're talking about?

Is it regulation (which seems more likely) or the power to nationalise (which you make it sound like)?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/17/news/economy/regulatory_reform/index.htm?postversion=2009061717

In the details of this bill, he has the right to take over a bank, even if they are profitable, if he deems it's needed.

In the Chrysler deal, he wanted the top bank to take 10 cents on the dollar for there debt in an attempt to keep Chrysler out of Bankruptcy. They said no. If this goes through, it will give him the power to no need to ask. He can just tell them they are taking 10 cents on the dollar.

Not something I want my government to have control over.

I don't know how anyone could read that article, and not think Obama is moving towards Socialism.



HappySqurriel on 07 August 2009
Crashdown77 said:
HappySqurriel said:

... On top of that, George W Bush was a politician who has used the partisan politics and the politics of division, fear and crisis on a level few politicians ever have.

 

**Fixed** OT: Barack Obama is taking pretty heavy criticism from the far left wing about not being extreme enough on social issues. I would think no.

George W Bush was big on that style of politics, and Obama was successful in being elected (in part) because he promised to end that style of politics; and yet Obama continues to use partisan politics and the politics of division, fear and crsis on a level few politicians ever have.

Every couple of months Obama is rushing some gigantic bill at a pace where no one can read the complete bill before voting on it by fear mongering people into believing we're in a crisis; and if there is any opposition or slowing down on his agenda he blames all problems on the Republicans even though they are powerless to stop him or slow him down.



Rath on 07 August 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
Rath said:
@Mafoo. What bill is this one that you're talking about?

Is it regulation (which seems more likely) or the power to nationalise (which you make it sound like)?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/17/news/economy/regulatory_reform/index.htm?postversion=2009061717

In the details of this bill, he has the right to take over a bank, even if they are profitable, if he deems it's needed.

In the Chrysler deal, he wanted the top bank to take 10 cents on the dollar for there debt in an attempt to keep Chrysler out of Bankruptcy. They said no. If this goes through, it will give him the power to no need to ask. He can just tell them they are taking 10 cents on the dollar.

Not something I want my government to have control over.

I don't know how anyone could read that article, and not think Obama is moving towards Socialism.

I read the article you just linked to and I couldn't find the bit where it said Obama can take over a profitable bank if he deems its needed. Can you quote it to me?

It seemed like stricter regulation and the much needed ability to wind down financial firms 'too big to fail'.



Crashdown77 on 07 August 2009
HappySqurriel said:
Crashdown77 said:
HappySqurriel said:

... On top of that, George W Bush was a politician who has used the partisan politics and the politics of division, fear and crisis on a level few politicians ever have.

 

**Fixed** OT: Barack Obama is taking pretty heavy criticism from the far left wing about not being extreme enough on social issues. I would think no.

George W Bush was big on that style of politics, and Obama was successful in being elected (in part) because he promised to end that style of politics; and yet Obama continues to use partisan politics and the politics of division, fear and crsis on a level few politicians ever have.

Every couple of months Obama is rushing some gigantic bill at a pace where no one can read the complete bill before voting on it by fear mongering people into believing we're in a crisis; and if there is any opposition or slowing down on his agenda he blames all problems on the Republicans even though they are powerless to stop him or slow him down.




Agreed, something that is really bothering me about Obama right now. I was really hoping for an end to the fear mongering. But it works so well, people are really afraid about things right now. My cousin has purchased a Glock and an AR-15 in the last couple months and enough ammo to win Little Big Horn by his lonesome, because he's afriad of . . . well I'm not sure what. Not good though.