From Yahoo,

By Ron Scherer Ron Scherer – Thu Jul 1, 2:49 pm ET

The assertion is getting louder: President Obama is a socialist, a wealth-redistributing wolf in Democrat's clothing gnawing at America's entrepreneurial spirit.

It's easy to buy "Obama is a socialist" bumper stickers on the Internet. Political commentator Dick Morris said, in a column circulated on GOPUSA.com, that conservatives are "enraged at Barack Obama's socialism and radicalism." Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich titled his new book "To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine."

So, is Mr. Obama trying to form The Socialist Republic of America? Or are the accusations mainly a political weapon, meant to stick Obama with a label that is poison to many voters and thus make him a one-term president?

As is often the case in politics, the answer is in the eye of the beholder. Some people feel genuinely certain that Obama aims to make America into a workers' paradise – a land where government-appointed pay czars tell Wall Street tycoons how much they can make and where the feds take large ownership positions in companies like General Motors (GM) and insurance giant American International Group (AIG). Even if Obama is not a card-carrying Socialist, they say, he displays a disdain of the private sector.

"You start with his apparent acceptance that there are major segments of the US economy for which it is reasonable for the US government to own or manage," says Michael Johns, Heritage Foundation policy analyst, "tea party" movement leader, and former speechwriter for President Bush. "Look at the auto industry, mortgage industry, the health-care industry to some extent, and, obviously, banking."

Others just as assuredly refute the idea that government involvement in failing industries defines a president as socialist – or that wealth is being redistributed from the Forbes 500 richest Americans to the nation's "Joe the plumbers."

What Mr. Johns, Mr. Gingrich, and others brandishing the "socialist" s-word are really complaining of is a return to the policies of John Maynard Keynes, the English economist who advocated vigorous government involvement in the economy, from regulation to pump priming, says labor historian Peter Rachleff of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn.

"Socialism suggests getting rid of capitalism altogether," says Dr. Rachleff. "Mr. Obama is not within a million miles of an ideology like that."

For what it's worth, socialists deny that Obama is one of them – and even seem a bit insulted by the suggestion.

"I have been making a living telling people Obama is not a socialist," says Frank Llewellyn, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America. "It's frustrating to see people using our brand to criticize programs that have nothing to do with our brand and are not even working."

Adds Billy Wharton,co-chair of the Socialist Party USA: "I am not even sure he's a liberal. I call him a hedge fund Democrat."

The socialism tag is nothing new for the White House. In speeches, Obama chalks up the criticism to "just politics."

But he also works to counter it, sprinkling speeches with words about the appropriate role of government. "Government cannot and should not replace businesses as the true engine of growth and job creation," he said June 2 at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

That may be one reason some tea partyers doubt that Obama himself is humming "The Internationale" before breakfast.

"I'm reluctant to call him a socialist, but his policies are socialistic," says Don Adams, treasurer of the Independence Hall tea party in the Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania.

Which policies qualify, precisely?

Gingrich, in his book, cites a "government takeover" of GM as specific evidence of the socialistic political shift.

The United States owned 60.8 percent of the common stock of GM and 9.9 percent of Chrysler as of April 21, the latest figures available. The government's goal, according to the Treasury, is not to be long-term investors.

"With the successful restructuring of GM and Chrysler behind us, the primary goal of the administration's auto efforts now is to monitor the investments and facilitate smooth exits from our investments in the companies," says US Treasury spokesman Mark Paustenbach.

OK, so maybe Obama wants to get out of owning the companies, allows Johns of the Heritage Foundation. But the government has already used its ownership stake to impose sweeping mandates and regulations on the companies, such as closing hundreds of dealerships, he says.

"They forced changes in management that should more properly have been left to the company's private shareholders," says Johns.

Not true, according to GM. The US did not exert pressure to close the 1,100 shuttered dealerships, says spokeswoman Noreen Pratscher. "The government has taken a very hands-off approach."

How about the Obama response to the crisis in the financial services industry? Has it veered into socialism?

The largest ownership stake for Uncle Sam in the financial world is AIG, which ran into financial difficulties (not bankruptcy) in September 2008 after a complex series of financial transactions turned bad. The US government still owns almost 80 percent of AIG, which has received at least $182 billion in government assistance.

In his book, Gingrich implies that government officials stormed into AIG's headquarters and took over the company. "They have taken over AIG, America's largest insurer," he writes.

The actual "takeover" of AIG occurred under President Bush in 2008, right after the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy.

The Congressional Oversight Panel, which lawmakers created in 2008 to review the regulation of financial markets, detailed in a recent report how it became impossible for AIG to find $75 billion in private funding to save itself as the financial markets crumbled that fall.

The takeover of an ailing company whose collapse might ruin the US economy is not socialism, says Van Gosse, a Socialist and historian at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa. "Let's just say AIG was profitable, and you thought it was better if it was in public hands. That would be socialistic."

To Dr. Gosse, the most socialistic move by the Obama administration to date is the massive reorganization of student lending. In late March, as part of the health-care overhaul, Congress voted to force out commercial lenders. The government was guaranteeing loans made by private companies who turned a profit on the loans.

As for the assertion that Obama is pushing through policies that redistribute income from rich to poor, to some extent that is happening, says economist Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com.

About half the growth in personal income during the Obama presidency has come from an increase in government payments for unemployment insurance, Social Security, and welfare, he says.

"The economic recovery act increased those transfer payments," says Mr. Zandi, noting that, regardless, the government would pay out more in jobless benefits and welfare during a recession.

Tax rates for the wealthy may also rise: Obama has said he will allow the Bush income-tax cuts to expire. The highest marginal tax rate would climb to 39.6 percent, up from 35 percent. The new health-care law, moreover, raises taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year.

"Does that make it socialistic?" asks Zandi, who supported Sen. John McCain in the 2008 election. "It's not what I would define as socialism, but there is certainly a redistributional aspect to all this. The changes are taking place at the margins; there is not a sea change."

Probably the last president to be tagged as a socialist was Franklin Roosevelt, who took office during the Great Depression.

"FDR tried all kinds of things and was accused of all kinds of things," says Tom Cronin, a presidential scholar at Colorado College in Colorado Springs. "But in retrospect, he is someone who helped capitalism survive."

He suspects that Obama and his appointees are firm believers in the free-market system. But, he adds, "It's a free country, and people can say what they want about their president."

Related:

Financial reform: Will the next crisis be handled differently?

House passes financial reform, but a Senate hurdle awaits

Student loan reform: What it will mean for students

 

 

Immigration Lunacy... Arizona... Continued

A friend visited my brother and I last night. He's a staunch Republican. So, as you probably know... Our conversations soon turned to politics. Now, the friend is a good person and he's a great musician. I believe he has a good heart and really thinks he knows what he's talking about. But, alas... he doesn't. We discussed the Arizona Immigration Bill, which he supports... and my bro and I are against. It made for a lively discussion! Well, there are several things in our discussion that I didn't have direct info... But, I'm going to post a few of them here; just for our friend, who claims to be a "Constitutionalist".
1. Okay... he being a "Constitutionalist" shouldn't agree with the first lines of the bill. Four times the word "Amending" was used. Four times the word "Revising" was used. Three times "Adding" was used. Wow, according to 'Constitutionalists' there was to be no change. That in itself is hyprocrisy.
2. The bill says that they want to discourage unlawful entry and economic activity by persons in the U.S. While I agree with this in some respects... Who's going to do the work? I can take you to a few dairy's, ranches, and farms in New Mexico.... The owners are hiring the illegal workers. Should I take things into my own hands? Guess I shouldn't because then there would be no one to pick/seperate the taters, chilies, peanuts, and other goods that we produce.
3. Our friend says that most of America wants change in the Immigration Policies... No Amnesty! Funny. Bush Jr. was all about amnesty. The Reps had all the chances in 8 friggen years to change policy and they didn't do it. Now, all of a sudden it's Obama's fault. That is plain stupid. And people that listen to the right wing zealots are not too bright, either.
4. I keep hearing that a "Lawful Stop" is the term used in the bill. Such as a speeding citation, theft, whatever... The bill does not say that, it isn't true. People claim to have read the bill... The bill says: "Any legitimate contact made by an official or agent of this state... Where reasonable suspicion exists is an alien". This could mean anything. If me and my brown skin were in a store, and a police officer came in; that is considered 'legitimate contact'. That officer can take me to jail if he/she believed I was here illegally. Is that fair and reasonable? I was born in these states, my mother, father, grandfather, and great-father. My direct relatives fought in wars for this country; for freedom... and this is what we are supposed to expect from one of our states? Our representatives?
5. It's so funny that the 'law' targets illegal immigrants so harshly, but barely touches on those that hire the illegal workers.... (Shortened) 'It is unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle to hire or pick up passengers if the vehicle blocks or impedes traffic.' That is so hypocritical. Okay... We are going to give you a ticket for blocking traffic, but go ahead and hire all those illegal immigrants in the back of your truck. Sheez.

These are a few things to consider... I'll be back with more. Hopefully, you have all read the 1070 law. I look forward to all comments.

Until next time... Carry on.

Tariffs

Seems a cant friend of mine is dead set on seeing the American middle class killed off. Can someone tell me please why it is that cant’s are so dead set on making sure the American middle class is decimated.

Seems these cants cannot or will not see reality. You hear them talking about giving “tax breaks” to corporations so they have a friendly environment in the US, I say screw that, so many Corporations from this country have said to hell with American workers , we got NAFTA passed so we can move off US shores set up shop in China, India Mexico and pay these people a pence of what American workers were paid. And now you hear these same people wanting to give more tax breaks to those corporations,  to hell with that I say, if a corporation creates jobs in this country and keep those jobs in this country so be it give them the breaks they need, put tariffs back in place to give those business a fair a market give them all the breaks you want, a business moves off our shore for cheaper labor, then they should have to pay tariffs to bring their goods back to our markets, and if you moved jobs off our shore not only should you have to pay tariffs, but you should also have to pay a yearly access fee to our markets. Yup I said it, access fees to our markets, we are the biggest consumer market in the world and to have a company such as a certain shoe maker move off our shores so they can pay someone 3 dollars a day, and ship those same shoes back here for shipping fees only and sell you those shoes for 100.00 your damn right they should have to pay an access fee. I don’t care about foreign owned corporations and anyone who moves jobs off our shore foreign owned at that point and should be treated as such.

 

When we get cants to realize they are the ones being decimated by these corporation instead of by the “illegal immigrants” maybe we can start to fix this country, but when you have a group of people who bury their heads in the sand and would rather blame brown people for their problems instead of the reason for the problems were created we will continue to o go down a path of self destruction.

 

Sorry for the rant I just get so pissed when I hear nonsense.

Stimulas

The stimulus has not even been used up half way and does not go into full effect in till the end of 2010 and Obama according to ants is responsible for 18 months of a crisis that Bush and his cronies created. According to Beacker head the recession and the collapse started in 2005 which was still under complete can’t control and so to blame Obama and the dems for the colossal screw up of the cants is not only being unfair but is also being unrealistic.

Cants want us to forget about Bush and the Bush policies that got us to where we are at and in fact cry about it when it is brought up, but then they go back to when “Reagan” was president. Well the Bush policies were the Reagan policies on steroids and as Bush jr, Reagan ran the largest deficit in American history at his time, in fact Reagan deficit was larger than all previous president combined. Cants will say that that was due to carters admin. Cants fail to realize that in reality Obama plans are moving along faster than Reagan’s did and cants also seem to forget that Reagan raised taxes 11 times, all due to fiscal responsibility. Today’s cants want to run the deficit high and not pay for it, and when you try to pay for it they complain about paying for it. The deficit we see now was created mostly by Bush and the cants from 2000 to 2006, with two wars unpaid for, Medicare plan in the trillions un paid for and tax cuts in the trillions un paid for. In fact here is policy for you if we keep the bush tax cuts in place like the cants want us to do, we will lose over 22 trillion in revenue over the next ten years therefore dwarfing anything the dems want to do.  but nope it’s the dems fault is all we hear from the spend everything cants.

 

The major blow to our economy and the current fall of the stock market over the last week is all due to the cants blocking unemployment and the stalling of the recovery of the economy, most parties involved in economics, all agree to get the economy rolling that the government needs to spend,. The only ones questioning this are the same one’s who question global warming even in the face of both catastrophes as they unfold before us.

 

How can you trust a group of people who think education is a bad thing, and that scientist and the educated are your enemies, this is the questions Americans should start asking themselves.