Obama Socialism?

What exactly is "Obama's socialism"?

Well, this professor certainly might have a job at a better reputablecollege or an university if he had had some knowledge about Socialism.

I read on facebook that snopes says this story is false.

I equate any concept of Obama Socialism (something I'm not sure he entirely merits) to his general belief in the importance and efficacy of wealth transfer. While I am not exactly an opponent of tax increases, the general idea that government should always be directly involved with handing out social services to those who exhibit use for them (different from strict "need" as some who exhibit such uses "need" them only because of their choices in other areas - another conversation entirely), results in an idea that the government be an intrinsic cog in a large wealth transfer machine. While this may be lauded by some, I don't think it serves as a good solution.

What about an idea like:
Instead of a simple tax increase - and corresponding services increase or continuance on the entitlements side - what about a tax increase directly aimed at measures that make us structurally more competitive and marketable overall. i.e. A direct high-speed rail tax. Or a direct highway infrastructure tax. Or a education improvement tax. Or a sciences-in-education improvement tax. ... (The list could go on and on, and - to me - would ALWAYS be better and more constructive than the current "social services" focused budget deficit proposals - and their corresponding requirements to increase taxes to reduce the naturally following MEGAdeficits.)

Well, this "story" is online since March 2009 ...
And according to a reader of Snopes, this story was already told in a bible college in 1994 ...

Pretty sure the story is false. Pretty sure every parable/conceptual hypo is not seriously being sold as "true" per se. (a la Aesop's Fables and Daniel Tosh's "a rabbi, a blind hooker, and a tax accountant walked into a bar.")

Do you have any specific examples of this:

"his general belief in the importance and efficacy of wealth transfer."

Except you reported it as though it were factual, until called on it.

Please, do some research on Socialism. Read it, understand it, then come back and take a good hard look at this question again. K.

Currently working on a case involving satire. Liberal-leaning newspaper published a satire piece involving a judge who decided a controversial case. To satirize they substituted the individual named for a child and published the story with some humorous quotes attributed to the judge. When she sued the paper for libel they claimed "any reasonable person should know that the story was so over-the-top that it couldn't possibly be true." Rest of the liberal pundits agree. (Story using real facts with real names - including judge, police detectives, & prosecutors). But in a post with no names, no university alluded to, no preface saying it was true, and a narrative format not particularly suited to a "firm statement of fact" and a liberal pundit believes this was ... how did you put it? "reported it as though it were factual, until called on it."

Tsk.

A brazier had a little Dog, which was a great favorite with his
master, and his constant companion ... - Aesop

A lawyer calls his client to tell him about his fee schedule ... - Unknown

(Perhaps, conceptually contesting a rather elementary example of a tragedy of the commons and challenging the logic and/or offering a better template that works? ... or ... getting hung up on whether the obviously fictional story "is true/ was reported as true" works too.)

From Merriam-Webster:

so-cial-ism

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.
(emphasis added)

Please point out how my posts have in any way contradicted Merri-Webby here? You also automatically assume I have no academic or professional experience with socialism (largely due to the fact you disagree with me, I know), and by your post infer that you do and are alerting me to the logical mistakes I have committed. Basis for understanding - willing to show you mine if you show me yours. =) Paz.

Excuses, excuses.

Good lord, if you're going to highlight something, make sure you get the relevant parts eh. Socialism is a lot more than the back end of a sentence. There is much your fevered little brow has overlooked. Now go study up.

Fierce comeback, good sir.

Though I dare say "IT'S A FLESH WOUND!"

Quick to the core. (She tells herself. ... not a "true story" disclaimer). I guess you missed the relevance and/or the implications. Sorry. I failed to tailor my point to my audience. Let me try again:

1. Constant entitlement handouts require money.
2. Money is only acquired by a government through taxes.
3. Taxes have to be produced by others producing some goods or services.
4. Goods and services are sold for profits (which often become "goods" themselves through financial services)

Still with me, Ceili? ... :

5. Greater taxes are a distribution control on financial goods. (Just in case: If a tax takes it from A and gives it to B through Goverment = G then it has been distributively controled).
5.a 25% tax rate on 12hrs of work produces a result "unequal to" 35% tax rate on 12hrs of work.

Hey ... where did you go?

By that silly round about way of making no sense, you have basically said that ALL money is socialism.

The entire point of money is it changes hands from A to B which is a redistribution. Without that it isn't money. Ergo, your argument is that all of society is socialism.

Must ... read ... all ... of ... post/dictionary/meaning of a word ... before answering.

No, Parados, not all money is socialism, government control of the money (similar to the "goods") flowing through an economy is the definition of socialism. You could be trying to say that I was ambiguous in that under the brief discussion point all control of money could be construed as socialism, but that's not the point you made in your post. (Your point: "You're silly, let me start by mentioning all money being socialism, then end by shifting the point to ... all society being socialism." ?!?) Responding to the reformulated point:

That could be a valid argument. Which would require a slightly longer discussion on the conceptual balancing between a. whether taxes can even be a direct or indirect "control" on the economy?, and b. what level of "control" would indicate a "socialist" theory of government? If you have views on either of those points, or others formulated to the angle of attack you're trying to grasp, I am very interested in thinking about them.

Just as I said.. You are arguing that money is socialism. Government prints the money which flows through the economy. Government controls how much money it prints so controls the flow under your ridiculous definition.

That leads us to the following:
Society can't exist without government.
Government can't exist without taxes.
"taxes are a distribution control on financial goods."
Ergo society by your definition is socialism.

That is actually an easy one Lusatian.

You ignore the word "and".

"And" requires that BOTH parts be present for it to be true.
"And" is not the same thing as "or."


If x is red and blue then you can't argue that x is ONLY blue without violating the boolean logic of "and".