A Foreigner's Question

[SolomonVII]

Yeah, hey, I don't care if people want McCain in there, but to say that Obama is a socialist is bunk. We have a real European's opinion to back that one up. I just think it's intellectually dishonest to call him something that he's not. Oppose your opponent for what he is, not for what he isn't. And I think it's still a little conjectural, if not dishonest, to say he's a power-hungry socialist-in-the-closet too. Number one, the American people aren't going to elect a socialist as President; that much is true from the pathetic number of socialist candidate votes, if any. And number two, Congress would never let him swing that far; they'd do everything in their power to put him on ice politically.

It is not bunk. You can only make that claim by continuing to ignore the points of how what Obama is standing for is akin to a form of socialism.

It is amazing how the young have had their minds closed so shut as to not even entertain what other people are saying. That takes an education.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Isn't Gary L. Bauer to the political right of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Fated ... I made a typo. What I wanted to say was that "socialism" as a concept appears to mean something different to the American cultural psyche that it does in the UK.

 

[fated]

Fated ... I made a typo. What I wanted to say was that "socialism" as a concept appears to mean something different to the American cultural psyche that it does in the UK.

McCain is far less socialist than Obama if you put them on a spectrum. McCain, with his very strong belief in states rights is closer to subsidiarity, but fails to strongly support basic rights... really I just want basic rights alone assured by the federal government, and that does not necessarily includes work (but it can, obviously, include infrastructure). ..

Nationalized health care means rationing and euthanasia along with super high taxes and still not enough to go around. Its the quickest move to socialist failure.

 

[SolomonVII]

yeah by Euro standards Obama is centre-left
but I feel that if he could get away with it he would be a lot more left wing, in America you can not be a hardcore socislist and get power, and ohhhhh some people are just power hungry, that they will say anything to get elected

I just heard a interview with the biographer of Warren Buffet the other day, of how driven he was to make money in many parts due to the abuse his family suffered from his mother who berated them as being worthless.
People cannot rise to the top without somehow being driven. There is a hunger there for sure in Obama too.

It is almost a truism about politicians and power though. There are very few politicians that are of the saintly mold of a Thomas More.

Most certainly too, Obama and many key Democrats have viewpoints that fit the Social Democrat branch of socialism. They are not as overtly Marxist as Ayers and so many other who now dominate liberal arts education of the universities, but their viewpoints are akin to Christian Democrats of Europe.

John F Kennedy may still be a hero to them, but if he were to lead today the same way has he did in 1960, he would be called a Nazi and a Fascist by the Left just as Bush has been. It is not so much his ideals and vision, but his charismatic form that Democrats are now still in love with.

Form without substance is a dangerous thing.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

I would agree that McCain is to the right of Obama.

"Nationalised health care means rationing and euthanasia along with super high taxes and still not enough to go around."

No it does not. Where did you get this rubbish from? Especially the bit about euthanasia???

I work as a doctor in Britain in a completely nationalised health care system. I can tell you categorically that you are wrong. Do you have some evidence to back up these claims?

 

[SolomonVII]

Well, according to Gary L. Bauer in his October 27th speech in the Campaign for Working Families, Obama = Socialist. (And as far as I know, the Church is not for Socialism. It's neither fair nor does it work.) But the question is about life.

for Catholics the question is about life, yes.

 

[SolomonVII]

Gary L. Bauer ... the ultra right wing American neo-conservative Gary L. Bauer?

...

According to wkipedia he is against abortion, for family values, agrees with full funding of Iraq and supports Israel. He is a Christian evangelical as well.
I can see where that would make him a neo-conservative for, like Kennedy, he is more interested in spreading American freedom to the Arab world rather than engaging in the realism model of supporting strong men dictators in the region, or simply large scale bombing without rebuilding, as many paleo-conservatives have advocated.

But from the European point of view, what is it that would make him
an ultra right-wing conservative? Does he get that label because of his Evangelical values, or because he is against abortion and for tradition family values?

What exactly is the difference between a conservative, and and ultra- right-wing conservative? What exactly are you saying?

Am I assuming incorrectly in thinking that neo-con and ultra-conservative hold negative connotations in your mind? Would we be correct in assuming that you are saying that he is something akin to a fascist, when you use such labels?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Which one would be more Christian?

The one who doesnt have strong ties with criminals to further their agenda...perhaps?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Solomon ... yes you are assuming incorrectly that ultra right wing and neo-conservative have negative connotations for me.
The terms are descriptive; not perjorative.

Let me give you some explanation and a point of reference so you know where I am coming from.

I make my judgement re Bauer on his views regarding how the economy should be run and his views on immigration. On these points he could be judged to be somewhat to the right of, say, Margaret Thatcher. It's reasonable to describe her as right ring and so "ultra" in Bauer's case seemd a fair description. Bear in mind though that as far as I am concerned, ultra is an adjective of degree not of value.
Pro-life stance, championing family values and Christianity are neither right or left wing in British politics. How they have come to be identified with one particular shade in the US political spectrum puzzles me.
Neo-conservative again is merely descriptive. It's a movemnet in US politics. I think Bauer would describe himself as such.

The reason I pointed out his political flavour, if you remember, was because I think such a man may have other motives than semantic accuracy in describing Obama as a socialist.

 

[cowboysfan1970]

What a lot of Europeans don't understand is American history and that America is more conservative than Western Europe is and always will be. In Europe Russia is profoundly conservative. I think that's one of the reasons why there is a lot of conflict and mistrust between Russia and Europe.

Obama reminds me in many ways of Huey Long, the Senator from Louisiana in the 1940s. He introduced something called the "Share Our Wealth Law" which if passed would have limited income and assets that a person could have. Anything more and the government would come in a take it, and then redistribute it. If Obama gets elected and has a mandate in Congress then he might be tempted to enact something like that. If he does then he will kill any recovery or growth that our economy could have.

I used to think that Socialism and Communism were the same but they aren't. Socialism is where the government ownes and controls factories, airlines, and other major forms of production. In Communism the government ownes and controls everything. It's a very extreme form of government that disdains the individual and promotes the collective. Communist governments also insist on being a constitutional one party system that can't be voted out of office. "Freedom" and "communism" can't be used in the same sentence. I still wouldn't want to be under Socialism either.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Thanks for that. I have just realised a mistake on my part that may lead to confusion and the post above has helped me realise it.

Like many British I have an unfortunate habit of misusing the word "conservative". This is the name of a British political party which is right of centre and so we often use the word conservative to mean right wing.

This is a bad habit of mine as conservative actually means the opposite of liberal and has little to do with politics.

 

[fated]

Regulation also results in socialism. That's the western way. Which isn't to say that all regulation is bad, indeed, some regulation is necessary.

The way it works it that the more virtuous the society, the less regulation and legal structure is necessary. Obviously when there is less there is a need for more regulation and legal structure, which becomes oppressive and tyrannical for the virtuous, especially when the law is dictated by those lacking virtue, which makes the legitimacy of the state ever more questionable.

 

[benedictaoo]

The main point is, what ever your definition of socialism is, if Bams gets in we are headed that way.

He does want to cease our money via taxes and re distribute to those he chooses to re distribute it to and that in a nut shell is socialism and that leads to communism and one thing I fear we are head for as chastisement for our sins of allowing the killing of the unborn.

 

[Cjwinnit]

...championing family values...

I would question this. In many parts of the UK to put any positive aspect on a traditional family is a profoundly right-wing agressive action.

 

[AMDG]

He does want to cease our money via taxes and re distribute to those he chooses to re distribute it to and that in a nut shell is socialism and that leads to communism

You forgot to mention that he calls it "fairness" to take our hard-earned money and redistribute it to those who don't work at the same time he won't lift a finger to help his half-brother in Kenya (who lives in squallor) while he enjoys the life of a millionaire, and at the same time he lets his illegal alien aunt continue to live in a slum in Boston (while taking her little campaign funds). And speaking of campaign funds, doesn't strike anyone odd that one candidate broke his promise to take fair campaign funds (while tricking the other into signing papers for it), then raises 3 or 4 times more than the other and not offering to share a penney, but talking about all of us being "fair" and for us to redistribute our wealth" through taxation? Seriously, how is that not the socialism the Church speaks against?

 

[WarriorAngel]

I did some math...
A company employing [making 250k] 6 peeps and one manager will be paying out $102,000 in salary alone.
If taxes are raised to 40% for that company they will be paying out $100,000 on taxes.

The company must eat the losses of income thru theft and or loss. [Tax deductions never equal the rightful amount]

Plus that company must pay out insurances on the building and then the other operating costs to maintain business. Including costs for fuel for heating, and water, and other expenses on a monthly basis. And let's not forget leases on the building or rent.

The owner will procure very little at the end of the year..let alone end of the month.
So all in all, what will the owner do?

The manager will be chopped, the peeps will be cut to three and the owner will be forced to work hours where he could have paid someone who needs a job...
And another few options the owner would have would be to either shut down completely if this doesnt reduce his overhead or going overseas to rebuild and probably gain.

Anyone else see how this tax the rich structure is going to kill us?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

CJWinnit... I would disagree completely. The last MP I voted for because of his stance on abortion and upholding of Catholic family values was Sir David Alton (before he was "Sir"). His political party was Liberal Democrat and his view re the economy was left of centre (he'd probably be further left than Obama which to Americans would make him Stalinist; but as I have already observed, political definitions mean something different this side of the Atlantic).

Can you give some evidence to back your claim?

 

[Cjwinnit]

Can you give some evidence to back your claim?

In the north-east (and in my town in particular) a minority of children live in families with both parents and we did see those with both as a bit... odd. It's not something I can put my finger on, though I now can see the advantage of having both.

 

[cowboysfan1970]

One other common characteristic of Socialism and Communism is their belief that there is no God. To them The State is God. They are hostile to any form of faith.

"Tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no more" is a Socialist/Communist mantra. The problem with that is that if a government or society does that then who feeds the poor when the rich are gone? At first Obama will raise taxes on people with incomes greater than $250,000 a year. Then he will raise it again. Then there will be some sort of claim of budget shortfall and taxes will be raised on those earing more than $100,000 a year. Then on anyone earing more than $50,000 a year. That's the way it's happened in the past and you wait and see, that's how a President Obama will eventually do things. President Clinton did a very good job with the economy but Obama isn't proposing any of his economic plans. I think his will be more like Jimmy Carter's were. If he does these things he will be a one term president and the Democrats might lose the White House for 12 years.

What's most concerning to me is how, if elected, he's going to approach the terrorism problem? There is no shortage of people on the left that think that we can sit down and just talk to Al Qiada and reach an understanding with them. That will never happen. There is nothing that you can negotiate with someone that begs to give their life to take yours. I'm concerned that he's going to pull us out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban regain control of the country.