Comments on: Agenda Setting And Obama’s Socialist Leanings

By: DENENEWHITE

DENENEWHITE — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:21:00 +0000

I am confused Obamas campain in 2008 offered change, the American people agree to try these ideas and elected Obama President of The United States of America. Now correct me if I am wrong, did it not take more than 10 + years for our country to just about sink, how can the people expect to be pulled out of the water to shore within four years. Obama seems to be focused on the people and the communities not the institutions which are responsiable for our current status. Let’s not continue to be passive thinkers and take an active role in fighting for what’s most important.

By: Obama a socialist? Are people that ignorant?

Obama a socialist? Are people that ignorant? — Fri, 20 May 2011 17:14:46 +0000

[…] […]

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 05:09:06 +0000

In simple English…

Gov’t runs shit… Socialism.
People run shit… Free market.

It comes in degrees. It’s not rocket science.

By: Basta

Basta — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:14:02 +0000

Yes. Add another category for assets previously held. We’ve had about 200 years for these things to accrue. Then measure the profit margins of those businesses vs. private businesses.

By: geoff robertson

geoff robertson — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:11:22 +0000

I must point out that the graph does not list “all corporate and business assets” but only the ones “not held by the United States Government”.
What would the chart look like if the corporate and business assets currently
held (or controlled) by the United States Government were added?
Geoff

By: Steve Layton

Steve Layton — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:13:39 +0000

The problem with the graph is that private assets are valued as a revenue stream and government assets are valued at cost. The difference between a company’s market capitalisation and its book value is nearly always large and positive. A more accurate graph would show percentage of GDP used by both sectors which is closer to 20%/80%. The graph compares apples and oranges and implies a meaningless hyperbolic conclusion.

By: micah

micah — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:51:10 +0000

You could draw the same graphic, and change the labels to “percentage of white owned farms seized by the government” and apply it to the first 6 months of the mugabe administration in Zimbabwe.

By: Basta

Basta — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:54:33 +0000

Eli, you’re right. Of course Obama isn’t hasn’t nationalized a significant amount of businesses (yet–it’s still very early in his term) but I dislike the idea in any degree. Businesses that fail should fail. I know that sounds mean and insensitive to a lot of people, but really. The bailouts did NOT preserve capitalism–they actually go directly against the capitalist grain. I’m a registered republican and I can’t understand why Bush’s approval rating shot up after he initiated the first bailout. It was his death-rattle for me. It’s annoying, though, living in a system where you disagree (more or less) with both sides. At the rate that nationalization is happening, I’m a little worried. More so I’m afraid of the burgeoning change of thought people are going though, starting to believe that socialism is a good thing. How many self-identified socialists have cropped up in the last nine years? America has always been a capitalist country–and that has made it the most freely prosperous nation in the world.

“The problem wish socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” –Margaret Thatcher

By: Eli Witherspoon

Eli Witherspoon — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:34:57 +0000

I hate to say it, but Obama being socialist has nothing to to with the AMOUNT of corporate consolidation that happens. It has to do with the methods in which he does it, which yes, are reminiscent of socialism. The graph is a typical tactic that tries to bend the stats in your favor. Almost all statisticians and journalists know this.

By: a westie

a westie — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:16:09 +0000

It seems to me that politicians are saying socialism and meaning one thing, while hoping the people hearing the speeches will perceive something far more dangerous. To say we’re becomming more socialist rather than the government is nationalizing failed large businesses is like saying two cars smashed into each other when they really just tapped fenders. It’s technically true, but it implies something major that just didn’t happen.

By: Lost Left Coaster

Lost Left Coaster — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:30:03 +0000

My impression is that they were trying to save capitalism with all these bailouts.

By: George

George — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:13:13 +0000

Whether or not, or to what extent Obama is a socialist can be discerned by his willingness to nationalize sectors of the economy. How much private business he has successfully annexed so far is mostly irrelevant to discerning his personally ideologies.

I agree, socialist is hyperbole. I think statist is a more accurate and less loaded term.

By: Anne

Anne — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:16:42 +0000

I'm constantly baffled at the idea that "socialism" means a bad thing in the US.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:14:37 +0000

Interesting graphic, though it depends on a bit of a simplistic understanding of what it can mean to hold a political identity of “socialist” and how that does or does not connect to particular practices when holding office. I’m sure you wouldn’t have to look too far in Europe in the current neoliberal era, for example, to find politicians who tenaciously cling to the identity of “socialist” even though they have, while in power, markedly decreased state ownership over productive enterprises. And it avoids what I think is the more important point: Even the 0.21% of corporate and business assets currently held by the U.S. government have been temporarily nationalized in order to revitalize current relations of production and private accumulation, not in any sense to challenge or undermine them. Which is too bad.

I’ve always thought, as an interested and bemused outsider, that it is too bad that most people in most parts of the U.S. don’t have more opportunity to meet and know _actual_ socialists…it would soon make it clear how hilarious and ridiculous these assertions about Obama and company really are.

By: T B

T B — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:09:56 +0000

I see now that you have made similar points, Ole.

I tend to agree with your specific points. The waters have been muddied, and the language has been stretched and mangled.

Apparently there are people who talk about “market socialism.”

In Canada, there are people who think that the NDP is a socialist party. (The NDP club at the campus in this city presented themselves as socialists in one of their event promo flyers, for instance; and the event had something to do with Jeopardy or Bingo — i.e. competing for money.) The NDP don’t call for any sort of outright socialist economy, however.

Those are just a couple of additional examples.