jump to last post 1-22 of 22 discussions (172 posts)

More Evidence Obama's a Socialst -- Shrinking Government!

  1. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    There he goes again (with a nod to my buddy Ronnie Reagan)!
    Cutting government agencies, shrinking the government payroll and decreasing the deficit.
    Barack Obama is showing his true socialist colors again.

    President Obama asked Congress on Friday for the power to consolidate parts of the federal government, proposing a first step of merging several trade- and commerce-related agencies under a plan that the White House said could eliminate more than 1,000 jobs and save $3 billion over 10 years.

    Read the story
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … al_comboNP

    1. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      If gets the power and actually consolidates, thus cutting spending, I'll applaud him doing so. I won't vote for him but I will applaud his actions.

      Now, please excuse me while I step across the hall and beat the hell out of an IT guy.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Please no violence Longhunter! I don't want to hear that you have been charged with some kind of battery! smile

        1. profile image0
          Longhunterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          It was a joke, of course, Hollie. I merely kicked him out of office. He's alive and kicking since I'm such a nice guy.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
            Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Ok.smile

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image79
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      THREE BILLION DOLLARS?!   OVER TEN YEARS!!!

      WHY, THAT'S $$300 MILLION EACH YEAR!!! --- AND THIS YEAR ALONE THE GOVERNMENT BUDGET EXPANDED SOME $4 TRILLION!!

      OH MY GOD!!

      EVERYTHING I'VE EVER SAID ABOUT THE MAN IS WRONG!!! HE'S A SAINT!! HE'S A SPEND-THRIFT!!! HE LOVES CAPITALISM!!!

      ... Give me a @#&@&#%@#$%@&*#ing break.

      Just... seriously? Mighty Mom?  REALLY?

      Wow. We spent some $4 trillion+ this year, and you're advertising for $300 million.

      Which one is bigger?
      $4,000,000,000,000
      $300,000,000

      Just stop.

      This is clearly more "i can point to a drop of water in an ocean during my next campaign" Bullsh*t, and YOU, mighty mom, are falling for it.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image89
        Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Even if he cuts 100 jobs and $1,000 from the federal budget, it's still reducing the size of government.
        And that is simply intolerable to his detractors.

        Evan, look at yourself. You're shouting IN ALL CAPS.

        This is not a big piece of news.
        It's a little, symbolic thing.
        I'm not the one who fell for it.
        I put it out here just to see what kind of kneejerk "I know you are but what about the DEFICIT!!???" responses I would get.
        Honestly, I was not trolling for you, specifically.
        But YOU are the one who fell for it.
        Get a grip, man.
        smile

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I just lost SO much respect for liberals.

          I mean this with no malice: either you are actually getting paid to post this nonsense (I've been accused of this, and I know it probably isn't true), or you need to further your understanding of logic.

        2. EmpressFelicity profile image78
          EmpressFelicityposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Calm down, calm down lol

          I've long thought that people need to understand the difference between "reducing spending" and "reducing debt".

          If I cut back my personal spending, it wouldn't be any good unless I could cut it back enough to ensure that the size of my overdraft started to go down, month by month. If I reduced it by only a tiny amount, so that my overdraft continued to increase (albeit less steeply than before), you can just imagine the reaction I'd get if I went to my bank manager and said "Look Mr Banky, my overdraft is still increasing every month but because I'm spending a tiny bit less, the rate at which it's increasing is going down! Aren't I doing well?!"

    3. profile image0
      lenzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Aren't the conservative Republicans the ones who want to shrink government? They certainly aren't in favor of helping people with social programs. Isn't it the Tea Party members and Ron Paul anti-government types who want Obama out?  He's giving them what they want. Socialism depends on big government to administer the welfare, health and education programs that would make life better for the poor and the middle classes. If the Tea Party people were better educated, thy would know that.

      1. Repairguy47 profile image59
        Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        You should read more before you post.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image79
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Man, Lenz is SO right - Obama spent some $4 trillion, and now that he's cutting $300,000,000, fiscal conservatism is restored.

        Everyone knows that
        $4t
        is much smaller than
        $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

        I mean, come on! Just look at them!!! The bottom one is MUCH bigger!!!

    4. justmesuzanne profile image89
      justmesuzanneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      When Bush lumped a whole bunch of unrelated services together under the BS Department of Homeland Security so that he could sneak his private sector buddies such as Blackwater and Haliburton onto the federal payroll, nobody called him a socialist!

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I did. So did Ron Paul.

        But we were both wrong, it was actually Fascism (which is really the same thing, but liberals always think they're different).

        1. justmesuzanne profile image89
          justmesuzanneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          The difference between Fascism and Socialism (and more) can be found here:

          http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TwoCowPolitics

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            They misrepresented socialism.

            It should say something to the effect of:

            "You can't own a cow because property doesn't exist."

    5. American View profile image54
      American Viewposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      For everyone that thinks this cut if it even happens, it is nothing more than a campaign stunt. I will be pleased with any cuts made so please do not think I suddenly am againsts cuts, but lets do real cuts. A 300 million cut in a year when he raised the budget projections by 400 BILLION means nothing. despite his cut we will still be adding to the national debt.

      1. American View profile image54
        American Viewposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        By the way, Obama is proposing a 3 1/2% pay raise for all federal emplyees. I have not done the breakdown myself but based on numbers I have heard that would be more than the 300 million he wants to cut. Wonder why you hear about the cut but not much on the pay raise. HMMMM

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Do federal employees pay no tax then? Do they not spend anything either?

          1. justmesuzanne profile image89
            justmesuzanneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Federal employees pay payroll tax just like all employees and people who receive social security benefits, welfare, and unemployment benefits. If their income is above a certain point, they also pay income tax.

            1. American View profile image54
              American Viewposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              The average Federal employyee makes a salary of around $82,000 per year. In addition their retirement and benefits package adds another $35,000 per year. There are almost 3 million federal employees not counting the military. Without a raise to the military, this will cost around 220 million dollars not counting the additional benefits they will recieve. So Obama's 300 million cut next year does very little to bring down the national debt.

              1. Pcunix profile image89
                Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                But a big tax hike on the wealthy would..

                But no, you don't want to do that, right?

              2. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                And how much is collected in taxes?

                1. profile image0
                  Longhunterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  It doesn't matter, John, just as long as we stick it to the rich for every last penny we can squeeze out of them.

              3. Roy Patterson profile image60
                Roy Pattersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Why don't we tax the rich 100% of their income and be done with it. Would even make a dent in the national debt if they did.
                Business people, who hire workers, create jobs. The more you tax them the less jobs they are going to provide.
                Try taxing companies like GE, who paid no corporate income taxes last year. We had to pay our taxes,Why didn't they?
                In my view, everyone should pay some income tax. The problem is over half the American public pay no federal income tax. Is that right? NO!

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  So you think business people pay wages out of their own pocket do you?
                  They don't, the people they employ pay their own taxes and the taxes of the people who employ them.

                  1. KFlippin profile image60
                    KFlippinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Clearly, you have no idea of what it means to be an employer and write a paycheck.  Whose pocket are those wages coming from - from which those taxes are paid?  Hmmmm?  Those they employ pay their employer's taxes?  Now there is an awesome new spin..........

                    Doesn't even seem pertinent or worthwhile to mention the 50% plus who don't pay a dime of taxes but live well enough to have McD when they choose - gotta keep that consumer economy 'stimulated' - right??

    6. KFlippin profile image60
      KFlippinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Three billion dollars over TEN years in potential savings!!!!!   Wow, I'm just so impressed, just wowed by this late breaking development.... oh?  but is this really a 'new' proposal?  or one resurrected to misdirect and wow the unwary and uninformed? And geez at this point we all have to speculate what the 'ulterior power grabbing motive' of this proposal actually is!  How sad is that.  That said, it would be nice to see even $3 Billion saved in waste from this admin.

  2. profile image58
    WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years ago

    "under a plan that the White House said COULD eliminate"

    It is all in the words.

    he is simply looking to centralize the power in a more condensed structure, so as to have a more effective hold over them.

    Yes, he is a Marxist Socialist... I would say he even qualifies as a Fascist...

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

    1. profile image57
      joe scaliseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It amazes me how much fear exists out there about socialism and communism and now O bama is goin to be accused of fascism. My criticism of Obama is his inability to bull doze over politicians who purposely punish progress by dragging their feet so that they can regain power.  Read this following quote about fascism and tell me if sounds more like the Obama administration or the Bush/Cheney regime.
      "The first step in a fascist movement is the combination under an energetic leader of a number of men who possess more than the average share of leisure, brutality, and stupidity. The next step is to fascinate fools and muzzle the intelligent, by emotional excitement on the one hand and terrorism on the other." Bertrand Russell Freedom, Harcourt Brace, 1940

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image73
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Great quote! Sounds more like Bush-Cheney to me.

        1. justmesuzanne profile image89
          justmesuzanneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Me, too!

    2. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Make up your mind, he can't be a Marxist Socialist and a Fascist.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        He's really more of a fascist. I disagree with my earlier statements on these forums: Our government is slowly becoming fascist, not socialist.

        Socialist governments own everything -- You can't own anything because everyone owns everything.
        Fascist governments regulate everything -- you can own your stuff, but we're going to tell you how to use it.

        (Honestly, they're the almost the same. But everyone demands that they're different)

        1. profile image58
          WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          exactly... Fascism is Socialism with a capitolist veneer.

          Private ownership on paper, Govt ownership through massive regulations and oversite.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image79
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I wanted to change those last sentences: they ARE the same (how can you own something if someone else tells you how to use it?). I don't know why everyone makes the distinction.

          1. profile image58
            WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly... Fascists are Socialist.

            Hitler, Musollinni, etc... Socialists.

            It is the natural result of all the demented off-spring of Marx.

            And I agree, Ludwig von Mises and Hayek are top notch, and the Austrian School of Economics is the way we ought to be going.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              word.

            2. profile image57
              joe scaliseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Here is the defintion put forth buy an imfamous fascist. Argue with that.
              Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." Benito Mussolini
              Now even though I agree with Mussinlini description of fascism I believe we are becoming a Plutocracy.
              Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. The combination of both plutocracy and oligarchy is called plutarchy.[citation needed] (Wkipedia)

      2. profile image58
        WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        He can be a Marxist who undertakes a Socialist path, who ends up a Fascist, as did Hitler and Musollinni.

        Must I post the definition of Fascism again?

        And I do not care to hear your Hitler wasn't a Socialist BS.

        I have already destroyed that BS.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          No, you haven't 'destroyed' anything. You've just decided certain words don't mean what they actually mean, and using your made-up BS definition you're pretending you've made a valid conclusion.

          You go ahead and keep pretending, though. It's cute.

          1. profile image58
            WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            The, Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, is made up?

            http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

            You all are funny. you disniss scientists you don't agree with as dumb, and Encyclopedias you do not agree with as "made up".

            What a joke that is.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
              Jeff Berndtposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Heh, yeah, actually, it is. I did a whois on econlib.org. It's run by Liberty Fund, Inc., a book-mill with an axe to grind. They publish their own books, full of stuff that agrees with their philosophy.

              Just because someone wrote something down doesn't make it true.

              Heck, I once read in a book that it took 3 hours for a revolutionary-era British soldier to get dressed. It's in a book, but it's as false as the silly assertion that the Nazis were socialists.

              So, go ahead, keep playing make-believe.
              It's kinda cute.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Wikipedia:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
                "Fascists advocate: a state-directed, regulated economy that is dedicated to the nation; the use and primacy of regulated private property and private enterprise contingent upon service to the nation or state; the use of state enterprise where private enterprise is failing or is inefficient; and autarky."

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
                "An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme,[3] meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state."

                "Once in power, fascists usually adopted whatever economic program they believed to be most suitable for their political goals. Long-lasting fascist regimes (such as that of Benito Mussolini in Italy) made drastic changes to their economic policy from time to time. Stanley Payne argues that while fascist movements defended the principle of private property, which they held "inherent to the freedom and spontaneity of the individual personality", a common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism."


                ..... Sorry, Jeff. "Private property exists, but the government tells you how to use your property" is almost a perfect definition of fascist economics.

              2. profile image57
                joe scaliseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                whobeyoube you seemed to ignore this post...very conservative of you.
                Here is the defintion put forth buy an imfamous fascist. Argue with that.
                Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." Benito Mussolini
                Now even though I agree with Mussinlini description of fascism I believe we are becoming a Plutocracy.
                Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. The combination of both plutocracy and oligarchy is called plutarchy.[citation needed] (Wkipedia)

        2. justmesuzanne profile image89
          justmesuzanneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          From: Adolf Hitler: Biography

          "Hitler saw socialism as part of a Jewish conspiracy. Many of the socialist leaders in Germany, including Kurt Eisner, Rosa Luxemburg, Ernst Toller and Eugen Levine were Jews. So also were many of the leaders of the October Revolution in Russia. This included Leon Trotsky, Gregory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Dimitri Bogrov, Karl Radek, Yakov Sverdlov, Maxim Litvinov, Adolf Joffe, and Moisei Uritsky. It had not escaped Hitler's notice that Karl Marx, the prophet of socialism, had also been a Jew.

          "It was no coincidence that Jews had joined socialist and communist parties in Europe. Jews had been persecuted for centuries and therefore were attracted to a movement that proclaimed that all men and women deserved to be treated as equals. This message was reinforced when on 10th July, 1918, the Bolshevik government in Russia passed a law that abolished all discrimination between Jews and non-Jews.

          "It was not until May, 1919 that the German Army entered Munich and overthrew the Bavarian Socialist Republic. Hitler was arrested with other soldiers in Munich and was accused of being a socialist. Hundreds of socialists were executed without trial but Hitler was able to convince them that he had been an opponent of the regime. To prove this he volunteered to help to identify soldiers who had supported the Socialist Republic. The authorities agreed to this proposal and Hitler was transferred to the commission investigating the revolution.

          "Information supplied by Hitler helped to track down several soldiers involved in the uprising. His officers were impressed by his hostility to left-wing ideas and he was recruited as a political officer. Hitler's new job was to lecture soldiers on politics. The main aim was to promote his political philosophy favoured by the army and help to combat the influence of the Russian Revolution on the German soldiers...."

          (Later within the same document..)

          " One change suggested by Hitler concerned adding "Socialist" to the name of the party. Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

          "Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

          "In February 1920, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) published its first programme which became known as the "25 Points". In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. "Foreigners" and "aliens" would be denied these rights.

          "To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education."

          So clearly, Hitler was a "socialist" in name only and only when it applied to the "Aryan race" and only when it suited him!

          SOURCE: Adolf Hitler: Biography ~ http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm

      3. Pcunix profile image89
        Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        They have no idea what any of these words mean, so why not just pile them on?  If it sounds bad, he must be one!

        1. profile image58
          WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Fascism is Socialism, PC.

          Please learn the definitions of the words you use before you cast stones.

          1. Pcunix profile image89
            Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Op. cit.

            1. profile image58
              WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Fact cited...

              (from the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.)

              As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

              Man learn what you speak of before you sling the BS.

              Now go study up.
              http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

              1. Pcunix profile image89
                Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Sure.  Like I said, you have no idea what words mean.  Try Wikipedia for a far more complete and infinitely more intelligent exploration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

                Fascism has some roots in socialism.  So does our system.  But you don't understand any of that - you just like stringing bad sounding words together.

                1. profile image58
                  WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Wiki... what a joke.

                  lol

                  As I said.. you all do not like the scientists beliefs, you dismiss them. you all do not like a definition, you dismiss and Encyclopedia.

                  Speaks volumes to all who are watching.

                  it is amazing... I post direct quotes from Marx, Hitler, and Engals, and I am told I am making them up, I give the links and nothing. I post a definition of Fascism from a well regarded Encyclopedia, and essays on NAZIs being Socialists by the likes of Mises, Heyak, and many others, and you all claim there are not valid. I post work by scientists credentialed in many many fields each, many of who are the top of thier fields, Luvtrop, Vieth, Gitts, etc, and you all say I am making it up... I post lnks... and nothin.

                  Then the next day you all spout about making up shit and invalid sources.

                  What a bunch of bull-shit you all sling.

                  And the definition in the Concise is very good... but I imagine you have not read it at all.

                  1. Pcunix profile image89
                    Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Indeed - you DO speak volumes. 

                    Not much  that makes sense to us, but quite voluminous.  And predictable.

                  2. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    It's not a matter of believing what somebody else wrote. It is a matter of looking at the evidence and drawing your own conclusions.

                    BTW, who's Engals? If you can't even get names right how can we believe any thing else you say?

                2. Evan G Rogers profile image79
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I checked out "Economics of Fascism" in wikipedia, Pcunix.

                  It pretty much supports what WhoBeYouBe and I are saying.

                  1. Pcunix profile image89
                    Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Wow.

                    You leave me with nothing I can say without being extraordinarily rude.

              2. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                " Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century."

                1. profile image58
                  WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  The Right in Europe is not and has never been the Right in America.

                  Stop obfuscating... you have lost the battle.

                  1. Pcunix profile image89
                    Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    He, she or it will never understand that we don't pay a lot of attention to obvious sock puppets.

                    But it should keep trying.

                  2. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    But Hitler, for instance, was a European and therefore his political stance must be judged by European and not American standards.

                  3. Evan G Rogers profile image79
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    WhoBeYouBe: they're catching you in a trap. Don't use words like "the right" and "the left".

                    You agree, thankfully, that "the right" in Europe is different than "The right" in the US.

                    However, "the right" is a false nomer. Since we are using a 2 dimensional line to measure things:

                    <---Left------------------------------------------Right-->

                    We can only measure ONE variable.

                    However, the list of variables between "the left" and "the right" are too many to count.

                    If we were to use the terms "the left" and "the right", and appropriate people who share similar views, then you would find:

                    Stalin, Mao, Mother Theresa, and Ghandi are all "the left";
                    and
                    Ron Paul, Bill O'Reilly, Mussolini, and Hitler are on the right.

                    Obviously this is nonsense.

                    You can only measure ONE variable per axis, and politics encompasses too many variables to be measured even in a 3-d world.

                    Don't be tricked!

                    I will point you to Walter Block for a greater understanding. It's a great presentation and well worth the half-hour: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 5187088847

          2. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I think that would be a very wise thing for you to do. It won't take you long, no more than five minutes to learn the difference between fascism and socialism.

            1. Pcunix profile image89
              Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Naw.  Saying that Obama is a fascist socialist is too much fun.  For him and for us smile

        2. justmesuzanne profile image89
          justmesuzanneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          "They have no idea what any of these words mean, so why not just pile them on?  If it sounds bad, he must be one!"

          Good point! ;D

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            That's a horrible argument.

            If you can't decide how to use your property, then you don't own it. If the person deciding how to use your property is the state, then the state owns your property.

            State ownership of all property is socialist.

            The only difference between fascism and socialism is "who does the state hate?"

            1. Pcunix profile image89
              Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Oh, so now there IS a difference?


              I thought you said they were the same?

              So if there is a difference, is Obama still a fascist socialist whatever in your .. umm .. seemingly very confused mind?

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Pcunix, we're talking economics.

                Remember the OP?

                1. Pcunix profile image89
                  Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  No, we were talking about your insistence that the person who used the "fascist socialist" phrase to  refer to our POTUS did so with legitimate reason.

                  How conveniently you have forgotten that.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Alright, let's do that.

                    Economically speaking (which is implied to everyone who isn't a liberal when you're talking about government spending), Obomba has given trillions in welfare and warfare companies. He has also increased the number of regulations this country has regarding how one can use their property.

                    This is fascist. He's stealing money from some people (through bonds, taxes and inflation) and deciding how to spend it. This is fascist.

                    Economically speaking, there's no contest. Even you haven't denied this.

                    We could even say that his foreign policy is a bit fascist: he sure does like to bomb brown people.

      4. justmesuzanne profile image89
        justmesuzanneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Or there's the 2 cow explanation:

        http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TwoCowPolitics

  3. dungeonraider profile image84
    dungeonraiderposted 5 years ago

    Sounds to me that the President plans to do a little house cleaning.  If you have ten federal agencies all created to deal with, say, the economy, how does anything ever get done?  I think this plan is long overdue, though it might not be popular in Washington.

    1. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It would be nice if did a little house cleaning in his own office - getting rid of the Czars. That would be a great place to start.

      How about then eliminating the NEA and DHS then scaling back drastically the IRS. The First Lady has 18 staff members. Cut it back to say five. Nannies are extra.

      No, I'm not picking on Michelle as she has the same number of staff as past First Ladies.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The Drug Czar would be my first choice.

        1. American View profile image54
          American Viewposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          All the Czars need to go, cut Congress and the Prez salary by 25%. A good place to start.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            But you said that " A 300 million cut in a year when he raised the budget projections by 400 BILLION means nothing."

            Surely the Prez and congress don't earn in excess of 1200 million!

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image79
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Paul's proposal is to cut the Prez pay to $39k.

            That's a 90% cut.

            1. American View profile image54
              American Viewposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Add up ALL federal employees.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Right-o. Just pointing out that Paul is on the same wavelength as you.

      2. justmesuzanne profile image89
        justmesuzanneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Department of Homeland Security needs to go. It does nothing but persecute We the People and funnel tax dollars into corporate pockets.

        1. profile image0
          Longhunterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I agree 100%.

  4. mljdgulley354 profile image60
    mljdgulley354posted 5 years ago

    Really? Where is this truly going to lead? What do you suppose our military guys are going to be asked to do in the next few years? Maybe beginning this year.

  5. Repairguy47 profile image59
    Repairguy47posted 5 years ago

    Its an interesting time to do this, he could have started doing this when he first took office. But he decided that a much disliked health care bill was way too important to ram down the throats of Americans than to actually do something we would like. Now with very little time left he decides a conservative stance is the way to go, convenient?

  6. profile image0
    oldandwiseposted 5 years ago

    Everything he does is a game of telephone. Conspiracy theories 101, for his every move. Maybe, just maybe, he has a good idea or two. But as soon as he tries something he's attacked. I hear, go back to the constitution. The pieces to the puzzle back when the constitution was written is quite different from todays events. Why set new ideas as bad because back when heck was a pup it worked then? Then we get into interpretation as what our founding fathers really meant. Then we have to ask ourselves did their vision of America today exist in the minds back then? I think some yes, and some no. Bottom line is simple, if we all can't get along and stop fighting each other along the way, nothing will change for the better!

    1. Repairguy47 profile image59
      Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Everything he does is a chess move, nothing he does is genuine. He is looking to extend his time as president and too many people like the OP fall for his BS. I disagree with Evan on Ron Paul but he has definitely pegged Obama.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I highly encourage Ron Paul's message of Austrian Economics. It allows you to immediately recognize BS and to point out exactly where the BS is, AND how the BS will create further BS down the road.

        Begin your mind with "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt -it's free online

        1. Repairguy47 profile image59
          Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks, but I can recognize BS without being taught how, I wish more people could.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Then how can we disagree on Ron Paul?

            1. Repairguy47 profile image59
              Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Because I'm actually from Texas and know Ron Paul, he's insane. But feel free to support whomever you like.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                You know him? How? Do you take bike rides with him?

                were you delivered by him?

                Or are you just using the word "Texas" to make me think that you know him?

                Texas is big, you know.

                .. I have my suspicions that you've never actually met him.

                1. American View profile image54
                  American Viewposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Evan,

                  I have said the same thing to you many times before. I do not know where you live, but I am sure you know your congressman better than I would. Well Paul is from Texas and we see his BS year round.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    I don't even know who my senators are. They're just a bunch of status-quo turds.

                    But, don't change the situation - You said that you know Ron Paul. And that he's insane.

                    How so? Does he have Schizophrenia?

  7. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Funny the town I live is socialist. It is a non-profit government. Nothing fascist about it. Fascism is government controlled for private and corporate interests as opposed to the whole. Go Forty-niners.

    1. profile image58
      WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      There are many differing degrees of Marxian ideology.

      Many.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        No there aren't. There are some variations in communist thinking..

  8. Billjordan profile image66
    Billjordanposted 5 years ago

    Obama wanting down size government that's a miracle I don't believe my ears socialism is all about big government in control.

    1. Druid Dude profile image59
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Obama's a SOCIALIST... My God man, do you know what this means? He's a social animal...which is better than being a ANTI-social animal. At least Obama can be released into a mixed crowd without mishap. The Anti-social animal is hiding in the coner, frothing at the mouth.

  9. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Obama is a socialist like I am an atheist. He is cia.

  10. Hollie Thomas profile image61
    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago

    @ John Holden, Yes, Duh!! You've forgotten all those Marxists Ideologies from the Simpsons!! Honestly!

    1. Pcunix profile image89
      Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Even Homer is often smarter than some of what we see here.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Homer is some of what we see here. lol Where's TMMason of late?? Just asking, he'd normally enjoy a thread like this???

        1. American View profile image54
          American Viewposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Not sure who gets tossed more TMMason or Lovemychris. Then there are those that should get tossed and nothing happens.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Anyone who uses a war criminal for an avatar should probably be tossed out.

  11. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Heard he was banned again. Although I sometimes think he snuck back on.

    1. Pcunix profile image89
      Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Whobewhatever does sound like him, doesn't he?  Hmmm..

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        A lil bit smile

  12. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Yes amazingly so.

  13. Hollie Thomas profile image61
    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago

    Ah ha, was just wondering...

  14. Hollie Thomas profile image61
    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago

    Night all, I'm shattered and off to bed. 12.36am, here. smile

  15. Eric Newland profile image60
    Eric Newlandposted 5 years ago

    $300,000,000 a year down, $1,298,700,000,000 to go. Baby steps, I guess.

  16. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 5 years ago

    I'll take the force of truth over the power of propaganda anytime—especially if the truth has some humor attached to it . . .

    http://youtu.be/N5Up-k4Lho8

  17. dadibobs profile image59
    dadibobsposted 5 years ago

    Wrong side of the road!  Madam i am deeply offended! I nearly dropped my cucumber saaaaarrrrndwich into my tea!! lolololol

  18. profile image0
    The Writers Dogposted 5 years ago

    Hmm. We have the opposite here in Australia.

    The first act of every Liberal Government (Americans read "Republican" and Brits read "Tory") is to slash the public service.

    The first act of every Labor Govt (Americans read "Democrats" and Brits read "Labour") is to increase the public service.

    Under the Labor Government of Bob Hawke back in the 1980s, we even had a entire department set up to look into designing a surf board for women.

    I kid you not!

  19. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

    http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSeXp8bJrGvSZf69lI1MGhCV9Dsrvj_y4kfY6gWY6fmkNFPzAuwEA

    Sorry, couldn't resist.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Socialism is less important than voluntarism to a libertarian.

      It's just that socialism is enforced by the state, and thus is bad.

    2. justmesuzanne profile image89
      justmesuzanneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      LOL! Love it! big_smile

  20. dragonflyfla profile image53
    dragonflyflaposted 5 years ago

    Knowing Obama it is just another power grab wrapped around pretty words. You have to watch what he does, not what he says.

  21. Ralph Deeds profile image73
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    The government may be shrinking, but the shrinking middle class is a more important issue.

    Here is a Bill Moyers interview with the authors of "Winner Take All Politics":


    http://www.commondreams.org/video/2012/01/14

    Nearly everybody knows that inequality has increased but many don't realize that while middle incomes remained basically flat for the past 30 years, the top 1% increased 250%. And the top .1 percent went off the chart, thanks to what's been happening in Washington--tax cuts and loopholes benefiting the rich, business subsidies, globalization, skyrocketing health care costs and so forth. Big money politics is the single most important factor according to Hacker and Pierson.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      If rich people can buy politicians, then why do you want politicians deciding how to use the money you earn?

      Enforce the 10th amendment.

      1. steveamy profile image60
        steveamyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        as if state governments are not run by politicians?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image79
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          You're right, but it makes buying politicians more expensive.

          Each vote per state is much larger than each vote per country.

          Also, Buying off 50 states worth of legislative members is MUCH harder than buying off 200 people in Washington.

          Economies of scale.

          1. Pcunix profile image89
            Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Wrong.

            It's cheaper at the local level.

            Besides, much of the worse abuse comes from companies who would only need to buy up the State politicians to get the laws they want for their business in that State - if there was not Federal legislation to stop them.

            Federal corruption is visible everywhere and is much easier to stop.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image73
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              It sure is. Casino Jack Abramoff explains how he did it:

              Robert Frank in the February 2012 Harper's reviews Jack Abramoff's recently published unapologetic autobiography. Here is one of the most revealing passages from Frank's review of Abramoff's book.

              "The supremely interesting chapter of the superlobbyist's life goes conspicuously unmentioned in Capitol Punishment. Still, the episode appears to have left its traces. Abramoff's Washington is a place where everyone is a pawn of someone else: a bought man or even an 'asset' of some lobbyist or all-powerful interest. When he would dangle a lucrative lobbying job before a Capitol Hill staffer, Abramoff tells us, 'I would own him...His paycheck may have been signed by the Congress, but he was already working for me, influencing his office for my client's best interests.'"
              http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6039171_f248.jpg

  22. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 5 years ago

    http://www.arcamax.com/newspics/34/3484/348424.gif

 
working