I don't know how it is at home, but over here people are talking about stuff that previously was unheard of and outrageous to even suggest in regards to the type of changes that need to take place in America. I stumbled across this video, and as an avid fan of Outkast and the lyrics of Andre and Big Boi, I have to say I agree with just about everything in this song - minus Mary J Blige wanting to cheer for Obama. I have this question for Mary - Are you still cheering? Because Obama is a liar and has followed through on nothing he promised, and has torn the United States apart far beyond anything Bush could have concieved. He was an idiot, right? Well Obama is smart, he's cunning and calculating, and everything he is doing has a purpose behind it. He is a socialist, and I really hope I don't have to explain that, because at this point it's common knowledge, just look at his track record. We wanted jobs, what did we get? Bank bailouts! We wanted healtchare reforms, what did we get? Mandatory health insurance! We wanted economic stability, what did we get? Trillions of dollars spent and an even less secure financial future! Why is it that no one in Washington is listening?! If I were in charge the first order of business would be to axe all elected positions' salaries. It is a position of public SERVICE. A stipend to cover reasonable costs is acceptable, but even that should be capped. Then I would axe all of the government parties. How many has Obama been to now? He's out hamming it up in the White House while the majority of Americans suffer. It's an outrage! No white house correspondents dinner, unless the networks want to cover the cost for the party, but definitely not on the taxpayers' dime. No more government assets being put to private use - that means you Nancy Pelowsy. That G5 will no longer be used to cart your kids back and forth from San Fran to D.C. They can fly commercial like everyone else, and you can foot the bill. I'm tired of the ruling class keeping down the man. What we need is less government intervention, legislated by a bunch of crooks and lawyers (they're not the same thing right?), and allow individual enterprise and ingenuity to flourish. Sorry, just felt the need to vent............
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Still cheerin'!?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am cheering (rather looking forward to) the day when this painful administration will end. I just wonder... which is worse, Bush, or Obama I suppose that is like asking the difference between crap and diarrhea. One seems to be more laborious and painful to get out, while the other is smoother and will be gone much quicker... yet both are still crap.
ReplyDeleteCurious what brand of crazy will be presented next?
GWH, Obama is not a socialist. He is using government to bail out corporations and banks, which is a corrupt form of capitalism. A socialist would not have bailed out the banks, he would have nationalized them. A socialist would not have mandated health insurance, he would have eliminated the private insurance industry and replaced it with a government run system.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if people stopped carping about dumb correspondent's dinners and family vacations and false claims of socialism and started working on getting these lousy politicians dumped out of office at the earliest opportunity, we might get somewhere.
Charles D, Obama has nationalized some of these bailouts. The government owns shares in all of these companies as collateral for their loans. Recently the government nationalized educational lending. The government insurance option is a backdoor way of eliminating the private industry. While not all of his moves are ideally socialistic, they are of that brand if not exemplifying it.
ReplyDeleteThe FED is taking over the banking and financial sector bits at a time. Wether Obama is a true socialist or nit (even though at one point he was a member of your same party Charles) he is the most socialist president this country has seen and he has only been in office a third of his hopefully short presidency.
Is it true that Obummer was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America?
ReplyDeleteJames, sure the government got some shares but they have refused to exercise control. They "loaned" GM more than the company was worth at the time, but instead of taking control and using GM to create thousands of new green economy jobs, they stood back and let the bankers and others run the company for private profit using taxpayer funds. That's hardly socialist.
ReplyDeleteThe health deform bill isn't a stalking horse for single-payer health care - you don't need one. When Obama came into office, 60% of the country supported a single-payer plan. You don't need to sneak in a system that is supported by a majority of Americans. If he wanted to do it, he would have done it.
For the record, Obama was never a member of DSA. He was however a darling of the Democratic Leadership Council, the conservative pro-business wing of the party. It is their policies he has been pushing.
Perhaps this link would clarify the whole dsa thing:
ReplyDeletehttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party
copy and paste the link and see if it works.
The New Party was an attempt to create a left of center political party. While it was progressive and pro-labor, it was not socialist per se. The practice of the New Party, as a "fusion" party, was to endorse selected candidates of other parties that it believed would best support their progressive principles. The party endorsed Obama. Obama was not a member of the party.
ReplyDeleteIf you read the linked article there is confirmation in the New Party's own newsletters that Obama was a member of the New Party. Not sure where you are getting your info but the party itself said he was a member - even had to contract to such. (Sounds like a secret combination to me.)
ReplyDeleteAnd if you expect me to believe that the DSA is going to form a political party that is not socialist you are talking to the wrong guy. Regardless of what they may claim, the party is at a minimum wolves in sheep's clothing. I buy that like I buy the KKK's political party the Knights Party is not a racist organization. While the Knights Party says they have a message of love not hate - do you believe that? I don't for a second. It is the fruit of the poisonous tree. You can't form an organization from one source and expect it to not bring forth the fruit of that organization.
Give me a break Charles. If Obama didn't want to endorse socialist practices then why did he seek the New Parties/DSA endorsement? Why did he get it? Why did he accept it? And if you don't think that much of what is going is a smoke screen, then how is it that Obama was able to completely nationalize educational funding in a bill that was supposed to be about health care? People were so caught up in that smoke screen that they didn't even pay attention to the truly socialized part of that bill.
Plus, what do you mean that the government didn't exercise the control over the companies that they bought? They went in and started slashing pay of all the top executives, ordering a return of their bonuses, changing contracts, etc. No green jobs for GM? As soon as the government owned stock they changed the green standards for auto emissions in such a way that the company couldn't say no.
I am not sure where you are getting your information Charles, but you have been misinformed.
Charles D,
ReplyDeleteSince the "New Party" is a subset of the DSA of which you belong, how do you feel about a subset of your group endorsing BHO? How do you feel about the New Party? Do you support it? Why do you support DSA?
Tell me if I am wrong in my analysis here: DSA is about THEORY. New Party is about putting that theory into ACTION. If you support the theory, do you then support the action taken from the theory? Why or why not?
DSA is not a political party and has never been one. There are socialist political parties on the ballot from time to time, but not DSA. Obama is nothing if not an opportunist. When he was a political unknown running for State Senate in a very liberal district, he sought the support of organizations that would boost his liberal credentials. Once he became a U.S. Senator and a Presidential candidate, he sought the support of Wall Street interests. What his actual beliefs and ideals are is anyone's guess, assuming he actually has any.
ReplyDeleteThe tightening of the CAFE standards didn't require bail out of GM, it just required people with half a brain to get elected to Congress. Especially after the disaster in the Gulf following close on the heels of the mine disaster in West Virginia, it should be evident that we have to conserve instead of risking lives and our nation's environment to get a few more barrels of oil or tons of coal. By failing to take over GM, we now have that company's CEO strutting around on TV about how they paid off their bailout and are now busy making more gas guzzling cars to maintain our dependence on foreign oil. Not exactly a socialist policy.
Pahoran, the difference between the NP and the DSA isn't between theory and action, it's about what kind of action is likely to be most effective. NP thought that creating a 3rd political party was the answer (as did the Greens) and that is clearly a dead end. DSA thinks that it can influence the Democratic Party to move toward the left and support Independent candidates who reflect their views. That isn't working either. There's a little problem with the approach: the working people of America can't afford to give millions to politicians and provide a dozen lobbyists for every member of Congress.
It really doesn't matter if you want libertarian ideas to prevail in Washington and I want socialist ideas, neither of us is going to get to first base. We will get what Wall Street and corporate America want whether we like it or not. Our government is their wholly owned subsidiary and what you and I think is totally irrelevant. Once every couple of years, the politicians will come around a pretend to listen and tell us how they believe in what we believe in, but as long as we are dumb enough to believe them, we will not get our government back.
Charles,
ReplyDeleteSo you say that one of the objectives of the DSA is to try to create change within the Democratic Party to move left?
Why does DSA work to change the Democratic party and not the Republican? Is the Democratic party closer in ideal to the DSA than the Republican party? Would that be an accurate statement?
Also you said that the New Party and the Greens thought creating a third party would be effective, but that it is a dead end. If it is a dead end, than would you advocate they stay under a "big-tent" of the Democratic Party, as well as DSA folks? Please be patient with me here, I am trying to make sense of it all, I really am.
If you think that a third party is not the effective way to bring about change, than are you in the Democratic Party?
I actually agree that third parties are not the most effective way to make change. I think cleaning house within one of the two parties is better. After all, a sports match must works best with only two teams at a time on the field. I believe that is the purpose of primary elections, to siphon from the many "big-tent" ieas and persuasions, and narrow it down. The third parties really should focus on taking one of the two aprties over in primary season.
Anyway, just want to know if most socialists reside under the big-tent of the Democratic party after the primaries. That is what I am trying to understand.
Pahoran, I don't know what you're really driving at here. Why don't the teabaggers run candidates in the Democratic primaries? This whole left-right Dem-Rep nonsense is little more than a diversion at this point. The philosophical differences between the parties is a moot point since the politicians of both parties are completely in the pocket of the big banks and corporations.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, I am not aware of any DSA members among Democratic members of Congress or even any who openly invite or solicit the support of DSA in their campaigns. Their plan to exert influence has failed and I hope they come up with a Plan B or the organization will wither and die.
The myth of Obama as a socialist is a nice diversion for people on the right, like the diversions that Bush was a fascist were for some on the left. It really doesn't matter. Obama is continuing the same policies as Bush had and I cannot imagine that on any really significant policy area, this administration is acting differently than its predecessor. Sure the Dems had to pass some kind of health care bill to pander to their base, but the bill they passed is modeled on the Bush Medicare Drug plan - it is a huge giveaway of taxpayer money to big corporations in return for little benefit and it increases rather than decreases the cost of care in this country.