Socialism and Obama

Great Debates
1

I have a conservative friend whom I talk politics with every few months. We were talking Friday night and he says he likes none of the candidates because they all are talking socialist programs such as health care.

The discussion centers around personal responsibility and how government programs while well intentioned seem to create a feeling that the government should be taking care of people and gradually erodes personal responsibility. Doing some reading about it I found this article. I found it pretty interesting.

I still think Obama is the best candidate of the three and plan on donating and voting for him. I do however agree that while we want to encourage a society that helps the less fortunate that is not the purpose or job of government.

My friend also takes exception to anything that smacks of income redistribution. He feels it unnecessarily punishes people who are motivated, determined, creative, innovative, while providing others with a reason to remain unmotivated and allow others to pay the bill. {yes it’s an oversimplification} He supports a free enterprise system.
I found the analogies in the linked article interesting and this

as well.

I support freedom of choice. If someone chooses to get an abortion that’s between them and their doctor. Doesn’t freedom of choice also extend to the middle class and up not being forced to pay the bills of others?

So, is Obama steering us toward a more socialist type society? How bad is that? How do we move forward from where we are and avoid that?

2

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I have a conservative friend whom I talk politics with every few months. We were talking Friday night and he says he likes none of the candidates because they all are talking socialist programs such as health care.

The discussion centers around personal responsibility and how government programs while well intentioned seem to create a feeling that the government should be taking care of people and gradually erodes personal responsibility. Doing some reading about it I found this article. I found it pretty interesting.
[/QUOTE]
Much as I would question opinion pieces about McCain from an Obama supporter, I similarly question why you’d give weight to an opinion piece about Obama from a Ron Paul supporter.

I’m pretty sure that libertarians are going to see every candidate as more socialist than themselves, so I’m not terribly concerned about Obama (or Clinton and McCain, for that matter) pushing us towards a socialist state based on her opinion.

I do think it’s one of the purposes or jobs of the government. Hell, even Ron Paul wanted to make sure Medicare had enough money.

That’s not just an oversimplification, it’s probably not even very accurate. It’s also not as if Obama invented income redistribution. That’s been in place in various forms for a very long time.

as well.
[/QUOTE]
He was talking to a 5 year old.

Under those terms wouldn’t freedom of choice also extend to the freedom to not pay taxes for things you don’t like, such as the Iraq fiasco?

No, he’s not really steering us in that direction. UHC is coming in the near future, and that is true even if McCain wins. I don’t see anything stopping it from happening sometime in the next 5-15 years, no matter who is in power.

3

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I support freedom of choice. If someone chooses to get an abortion that’s between them and their doctor. Doesn’t freedom of choice also extend to the middle class and up not being forced to pay the bills of others?
[/QUOTE]
No, because that would lead to society turning into a hellhole, or outright collapse. Speeches about how you don’t owe anyone anything won’t keep the fire that started in a neighborhood that can’t afford a private fire department from burning down your home. They won’t stop the economy from collapsing when every road is a poorly maintained toll road. They won’t stop an epidemic that starts among the poor because they have no health care from spreading to you. And they won’t stop the starving man with a gun from robbing you when you refuse to feed him or his family - in fact, they’ll encourage him; he’s just applying your own philosophy. “I got mine, screw you” is only an appealing philosophy if you expect to be the one doing the screwing.

And how many middle class families would be middle class if they paid their own bills ? If they had to pay for every service, every benefit they got ?

4

[QUOTE=DMC]
Much as I would question opinion pieces about McCain from an Obama supporter, I similarly question why you’d give weight to an opinion piece about Obama from a Ron Paul supporter.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t care who wrote it or who they support. I’m discussing the sociological implications of the content.

I didn’t mean this to be a criticism of Obama but more a discussion about the socialistic implications of certain policies like UHC and the pros and cons. The point I make to my friend is how business has influenced policy and laws It’s drawing the lines of regulation and free enterprise so we reward innovation and motivation . It’s also about encouraging compassion for the less fortunate while still requiring them to be responsible for their own choices.

I wasn’t remotely trying to blame or accuse Obama for income redistribution so let’s not waste time on points I never stated.

Perhaps the economic and social aspects are to complex to address here. I wonder when government regulation developed.
I’m not implying that any move toward socialism is bad. Because the problem is multifaceted we have to take one step at a time. It’s not the governments job to insure health care or retirement. I can accept that it’s the governments job to set regulations that make health care available to as many people as possible. I’m not suggesting we radically change the system we have overnight. I am saying we have to be aware of long term goals. To many social programs that are government run encourage citizens to expect the government to take care of them. IMO that’s not a healthy attitude. It’s better to encourage free enterprise in a responsible and regulated private sector to provide services.

A valid point. I remind you, I’m not criticizing Obama at all. I’m discussing the balance between aide to the poor and personal responsibility. I’d like to hear more about Obama’s views on this balance.

We don’t get to decide on a personal or daily basis where our tax dollars go. We do get to consider which policies we support and what changes we want to make to improve them.

That’s the general consensus. It’s because I believe Obama will be our next president I’m asking. I want more people to have better access to health care , but I also want the policies to steer us in a better direction for future generations.

5

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No, because that would lead to society turning into a hellhole, or outright collapse. Speeches about how you don’t owe anyone anything won’t keep the fire that started in a neighborhood that can’t afford a private fire department from burning down your home. They won’t stop the economy from collapsing when every road is a poorly maintained toll road. They won’t stop an epidemic that starts among the poor because they have no health care from spreading to you. And they won’t stop the starving man with a gun from robbing you when you refuse to feed him or his family - in fact, they’ll encourage him; he’s just applying your own philosophy. “I got mine, screw you” is only an appealing philosophy if you expect to be the one doing the screwing.

And how many middle class families would be middle class if they paid their own bills ? If they had to pay for every service, every benefit they got ?
[/QUOTE]

Since I didn’t suggest “I got mine screw you” I’m wondering how this is relevant to the OP? I’m talking about a proper balance between social services in a modern society and personal responsibility. For example, IMO a flat tax is fair since 10% of $200,000 is a lot more than 10% of $20,000. Making people pay a higher % because they earn more seems unfair. Tax on consumption also makes sense because people can decide what they can afford. If you want a Lexus rather than a Chevy you pay more taxes.

I agree that we can’t let the economic differences continue to get greater and greater.

6

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It’s drawing the lines of regulation and free enterprise so we reward innovation and motivation.
[/quote]
And what makes you or your friend think that a society where failure means starving to death will do anything of the sort ? Extreme conservatism and caution is a more likely result.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It’s also about encouraging compassion for the less fortunate while still requiring them to be responsible for their own choices.
[/quote]
People are neither omniscient or omnipotent. People fail due to things they could never have forseen or overcome all the time. The idea that if you just try hard enough you’ll succeed is myth.

And letting people starve is quite a lot of responsibility to hold them to.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It’s not the governments job to insure health care or retirement.
[/quote]
Yes, it is, because no one else will on any consistent basis.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
To many social programs that are government run encourage citizens to expect the government to take care of them. IMO that’s not a healthy attitude. It’s better to encourage free enterprise in a responsible and regulated private sector to provide services.
[/quote]
And in all to many cases, free enterprise simply won’t do it, because it won’t profit them. If it’s more profitable to let the sick and old die, that’s what private enterprise will do. And in a democracy, it’s the government’s job to do whatever the people tell it to do, including take care of them.

7

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Since I didn’t suggest “I got mine screw you” I’m wondering how this is relevant to the OP?
[/quote]
That’s exactly what you are pushing; you just didn’t word it that bluntly.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I’m talking about a proper balance between social services in a modern society and personal responsibility. For example, IMO a flat tax is fair since 10% of $200,000 is a lot more than 10% of $20,000. Making people pay a higher % because they earn more seems unfair.
[/quote]
Since they have clearly benefited more, it’s fair. And since the alternative is social collapse as all the money flows to them and stays with them, it’s necessary, fair or not.

And what makes you think it would be a mere 10% ? The whole point of a flat tax is that it lays more of the burden on the common people than on the wealthy; they’d get another tax cut, and we’d make up the difference.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Tax on consumption also makes sense because people can decide what they can afford. If you want a Lexus rather than a Chevy you pay more taxes.
[/quote]
And conveniently, it hurts the poor and middle class more than the rich. “I got mine, screw you” again.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I agree that we can’t let the economic differences continue to get greater and greater.
[/QUOTE]
Except that’s the inevitable result of what you want.

8

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I don’t care who wrote it or who they support. I’m discussing the sociological implications of the content.
[/QUOTE]
When we’re discussing the implications in regards to a given candidate, I do care who wrote it (and why). It’s much easier to discuss someone’s actual positions than the jaundiced view of their positions from someone who isn’t a fan. The latter can sometimes be worthwhile, but it’s not a good starting point, in my opinion. Why not discuss the areas in which your friend disagrees with the actual stances Obama acknowledges on his own website?

You certainly appear to have made the OP pretty Obama-centric. There are plenty of UHC threads out there, or you could start a new one. We could even discuss the policy differences between the candidates. I didn’t get that impression from the OP.

It’s actually “business” that is going to be the group that tilts the balance in UHC’s favor.

You’ll get no argument for me on this one, and I doubt you’d get one from Obama, considering his stance on such things as responsible fatherhood.

If this thread isn’t about Obama, he could have been left out of it. I’m now confused what you want topic you’d like to debate.

In a nutshell, many of his policies are geared towards helping the working poor, i.e. those who are actually making an effort to support themselves.

Which was kind of my point. You choose your politicians because they will implement or remove that which you want implemented or removed. That’s about as far as our “choice” goes when it comes to legislative issues.

That’s a perfectly valid topic, but I don’t see why we’d need such a focus on Obama to cover it. If you want to know his stance on the issue, here it is. I’m certainly open to discussing that if that’s really the purpose of the OP.

9

Its the label. A lot of nations have medical coverage for their citizens. It is a humanitarian gesture not a political one. As the wealth in this country piles up in the billionaires pockets, we care less and less about the poor. If that trend pleases you, then that says a lot about you. I hope in America we do care about the populace.

10

Saying people should take care of themselves sounds good in theory but it usually sucks in practice.

If people had to pull themselves up, most would never be able to do so. Poor people wouldn’t be able to afford to send their children to school to be educated, so their children would grow up uneducated and likely to remain poor themselves. Meanwhile the wealthy could make sure that their children were taken care and ready to inherit their wealth. A few generations of this and you’ll see society going back to nobles and serfs. People don’t all begin from the same starting line; you’ll often find that those who are preaching self-reliance are the ones who made a fortunate choice in their ancestors.

Society benefits when as many people as possible have a good chance to succeed. It’s great when most people can take care of themselves. But it’s also important to help those who can’t take care of themselves so they can hopefully be able to improve themselves to the point where they can become self-supporting citizens.

11

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And what makes you or your friend think that a society where failure means starving to death will do anything of the sort ? Extreme conservatism and caution is a more likely result.
[/QUOTE]
Comon now! The private sector, charities and churches are free to help the poor and prevent people from starving as much as they like. Conservatism doesn’t object to that one bit. The objection is to government mandated support. Let’s try and stay realistic.

an idea which I have not promoted.

irrelevant as I have already pointed out.

I find this to be a contradiction. This is supposed to be a government of the people, so the policies we vote in place such as welfare is a reflection of our desire to help the less fortunate. My question is whether that is the best way, or, how can we tweak the system so that it does offer support while still promoting personal responsibility.

I hope free enterprise , rather than business in bed with our government, would offer more people the chance the opportunities to earn their own way rather than rely on subsidies. I assume that’s what most people would prefer. The ones that don’t need a dose of reality. Yes I’m aware some people have issues beyond their capability to cope with. I’m not talking about that in this thread.
It’s the governments job to lead as well. That means promoting opportunity and self reliance. If the people want something that is not good for them it’s the job of a leader to convince them they’re mistaken rather than blindly giving them whatever they decide they want.

12

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
That’s exactly what you are pushing; you just didn’t word it that bluntly.

[/QUOTE]
False. Nothing I said promotes that. My preference is that we are more charitable in practice.

I don’t agree but I won’t pursue this tangent.

Any evidence that any of that is factual?

13

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Comon now! The private sector, charities and churches are free to help the poor and prevent people from starving as much as they like. Conservatism doesn’t object to that one bit. The objection is to government mandated support. Let’s try and stay realistic.
[/quote]
I am. And the realistic position is that private citizens and churches WON’T stop people from starving, or otherwise suffering. That’s exactly why government aid was introduced in the first place.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
an idea which I have not promoted.
[/quote]
Yes, you have, with your speeches about personal responsibility. Holding people responsible for being poor is a claim that THEY are at fault. Not bad luck, not forces beyond their control.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
irrelevant as I have already pointed out.
[/quote]
And how is people starving to death irrelevant ?

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I find this to be a contradiction. This is supposed to be a government of the people, so the policies we vote in place such as welfare is a reflection of our desire to help the less fortunate. My question is whether that is the best way, or, how can we tweak the system so that it does offer support while still promoting personal responsibility.
[/quote]
It’s the best, and only way.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I hope free enterprise , rather than business in bed with our government, would offer more people the chance the opportunities to earn their own way rather than rely on subsidies.
[/quote]
No, it’ll just let them die. Free enterprise isn’t about charity.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It’s the governments job to lead as well. That means promoting opportunity and self reliance. If the people want something that is not good for them it’s the job of a leader to convince them they’re mistaken rather than blindly giving them whatever they decide they want.
[/QUOTE]
There’s no virtue in self reliance. Americans are taught to value self reliance, individualism and all that because it makes them easy victims for anyone with more power or organization.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
False. Nothing I said promotes that. My preference is that we are more charitable in practice.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s true. History has already show what your philosophy brings, and it’s wealth to the rich, and starvation to the poor. And little if any middle class at all.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Any evidence that any of that is factual?
[/QUOTE]
History. Letting private charity help the poor was the norm for a very long time; private charity didn’t help much at all.

14

[QUOTE=DMC]
When we’re discussing the implications in regards to a given candidate, I do care who wrote it (and why). It’s much easier to discuss someone’s actual positions than the jaundiced view of their positions from someone who isn’t a fan. The latter can sometimes be worthwhile, but it’s not a good starting point, in my opinion. Why not discuss the areas in which your friend disagrees with the actual stances Obama acknowledges on his own website?
[/QUOTE]
You’ve answered that you don’t believe Obama would head us toward socialism. Thats one part of the question. The second part is about a balance of supportive programs for the poor and promoting personal responsibility.

The subject is leans more toward the socialist aspect or lack of it with a UHC system, as well as the other things I’ve mentioned.

Really, how so?

okay

I’ve read my OP a couple of times. It doesn’t seem that hard to understand. It’s about socialism and income redistribution with Obama’s UNC plan as one example, rather than being about Obama with any intention at criticism. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear.

Right, but in between elections we have discussions about what we want implemented or removed and why. What’s the best way to address certain problems. That’s the discussion here. I’m not even opposed to UHC. It would benefit me. I just want to discuss where the lines are drawn between government programs and personal responsibility. How much can we delegate to the private sector?

Perhaps the last part should have read “Are we headed for a more etc” since that was the real question. I used Obama as an example. Sorry for the confusion.

15

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Its the label. A lot of nations have medical coverage for their citizens. It is a humanitarian gesture not a political one. As the wealth in this country piles up in the billionaires pockets, we care less and less about the poor. If that trend pleases you, then that says a lot about you. I hope in America we do care about the populace.
[/QUOTE]

Holy Smokes! It seems you’re reading something into the OP that isn’t there. I’m talking about the best way and/or the proper balance to care for the populace. I’d rather see people be self sufficient because our economy is healthy and people have works that pays a living wage. I’m only suggesting that too many government support programs don’t really fix the economy so that people can be self sufficient. Instead they create the false {IMO} concept that it is the governments job to provide for it’s citizens. People need to be encouraged to take responsibility for themselves. Not in a “nobody cares about you” way, but rather “it’s your responsibility as a citizen to do all you can rather than expect a handout”

That doesn’t mean not helping those truly in need. Is does mean encouraging or even requiring people to do all they can.

16

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Saying people should take care of themselves sounds good in theory but it usually sucks in practice.

If people had to pull themselves up, most would never be able to do so. Poor people wouldn’t be able to afford to send their children to school to be educated, so their children would grow up uneducated and likely to remain poor themselves. Meanwhile the wealthy could make sure that their children were taken care and ready to inherit their wealth. A few generations of this and you’ll see society going back to nobles and serfs. People don’t all begin from the same starting line; you’ll often find that those who are preaching self-reliance are the ones who made a fortunate choice in their ancestors.
[/QUOTE]
Not what I’m proposing.

I totally agree. Part of the problem as I see it, is a discrepancy in pay scale. Not only are we losing too many jobs but too many jobs are paying less in comparison to soaring prices. It’s getting harder for lots of people who are working to afford the basic necessities. I’d rather see policies that help people earn their way and still help those who can’t help themselves rather than those who would rather not.
That’s the challenge and the balance I’m talking about.

17

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I am. And the realistic position is that private citizens and churches WON’T stop people from starving, or otherwise suffering. That’s exactly why government aid was introduced in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
The government hasn’t stopped it either.

I’m going to save us both some time. I’m not interested in your unrealistic sweeping generalizations about this subject any more than your ideas about the evils of religion.

If you can’t have a more realistic and nuanced discussion then let’s not have one.

18

As far as the flat tax argument goes, isn’t it a law of economics that the more progressive a tax system is, the more stable the economy is automatically as a result and better able to ride the waves of an economic downturn?

19

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
The government hasn’t stopped it either.
[/quote]
Not all of it, no, but far more than private charity ever has.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
If you can’t have a more realistic and nuanced discussion then let’s not have one.
[/QUOTE]
You are promoting ideas that have been disastrous and unjust for centuries, apparently under the impression that THIS TIME they’ll work out fine. I’m not the one who has a problem with realism here.

20

I still can’t tell if you want to have a debate on UHC, Obama, socialism, or what, so I’ll bow out for now, but since you asked how business is going to be the one that tilts the balance in UHC’s favor, I thought I should provide cites that many of them are getting on board.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19982715/

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/2008/03/12/health-care-nfib-ent-hr-cx_mf_0312nfibhealthcare.html

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2006/nf20060123_1965_db013.htm