Obama

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Yes mu I am not an American though I work for the third most profitable company on the planet ... my boss is American his boss is Australian and his bossess up the chain are all Yanks.

I am in a cubicle just like you !! My cubicle has an adjustable desk so I can stand though ... which is awesome.

I have a lot of respect for my boss as he is very helpful, polite and supportive ... frankly you could not get a better team leader.

Yes marv the two party system here is similar to the US in many respects ... but you can't simply compare the dems with labor and the reps with Liberals here ... but in many respects they are similar.

I'd say Obama is a fairly centrist Dem due to fiscal policy restraints.

He would spend more if he had it ... but he doesn't.

I would say future govt's in the US will all have to have tigher policy with regard to budgets simply as the money is not there.

I am quite interested on how the Fed Res is buying and selling and building their balance sheet as they seem to be doing a very good job to counter the debt.

Anyone want to comment on that aspect as I don't know much about that area as such?



 


The Federal Reserve is practicing an accounting trick for the government that would get any private company's officers thrown in jail for a very long time. They are mainly involved with buying the federal government's debt (as treasury bills and bonds) with money they create out of thin air. So in essence they create an "asset" from absolutely nothing. The reason this hasn't come to bite anybody in the butt yet is that this previous chicanery had been on a much smaller scale and that currently the rest of the world's economies are so bad as to make this fraud less unpalatable than what others are doing. However this is completely unsustainable in even the medium term due to the amount of worthless assets being created by the Fed. We'll see this blow up in the Fed's and the government's face when the rest of the world comes out of the toilet and stops buying the balance of our debt that the Fed doesn't. Interest rates will rise as a result since we are unwilling to stop overspending and will have to continue to try to sell debt OR the Fed will have to buy all of the debt and we'll see a lot of inflation which will (properly) devalue the U.S. dollar. Our economy will absolutely go in the crapper as a result in either case. You can't get something for nothing for very long.

 
Not only that, but they more or less "control" inflation, as its been artificially kept low even longer than they've been making "new" money, which will certainly let more water out once the dam does go, which it will have to.
In many ways this is the same thing China is doing as it controls their monies "value", and again is why th9ings are in such a state of flux around the world, as both the largest economies are doing this.
Its also a simple way to keep energy costs down as you try to maintain or grow hint hint
 


What do you mean by that?
 
Regarding the OP's question whether Obama is a socialist or not, I went back and re-watched Dinesh D'Souza's movie; 2016: Obama's America.

Regardless of where you sit regarding D'Souza's documentary, the movie provides great insight into the people, places, philosophy, and ideology that went into forming the man that became President Barrack Obama.

Having grown up under the influence of his anti-colonialist biological father's ideology and the notion that Western countries (America especially) were to blame for exploiting the natural resources of the rest of the world for their own gain really explains Obama's dislike for oil companies, significant increase in America's refined petroleum exports since 2009, and unwillingness to take advantage of America's own natural resources.

Obama's mother was a well know member and supporter of the Communist Party and as his only stable parental figure, she greatly influenced the man that Obama becomes. His mother's hatred of capitalism was relayed in the movie through the telling of her marriage to Lolo Sotero. When Anne Dunham first met Sotero, he was fighting to overthrow Dutch colonialism and bring in the Communist party headed by Sukarno. In 1968, when General Suharto deposed Sukarno, the General opened Indonesia to foreign investment which brought about several decades of economic growth. What's important to understand is that Anne Dunham fell in love with Sotero when he was fighting to bring Communism into Indonesia, but when Suharto opened Indonesia to foreign investment, Sotero realized the inherent opportunities of capitalism and changed his views on communism. Anne Dunham then left Sotero, according to the movie, as a a result of Sotero embracing capitalism to create a new Indonesia and his rejection of Communist ideals. Anne Dunham's willingness to divorce a man over ideological differences shows her vehement belief in socialism and sets a tremendous example for a young and impressionable Barry Sotero.

His mother's influence combined with having been raised during his teenage years by his card-carrying Socialist Party Grandfather as well as having the well known Communist Frank Marshal Davis as his mentor explains Obama's disdain for America's wealth as well as his socialist-style wealth redistribution policies. These beliefs are further solidified as Obama enter college and associated with Black Liberation Theology,

Obama may be an American but he was not raised in a typical inner-city or suburban environment where their is a homogeny of culture and society. He did not partake in the typical American public education where there still is some influence about America's greatness, America's significant contributions to the world, the greatness of the Constitution, the belief in the rule of law, and the ideology that each man is free to pursue their own end so long as it does not inhibit another man's rights to do the same.

After re-watching the movie, I would say that Obama is a man with a very skewed perception of America but I wouldn't call Obama a socialist. His narcissistic tendencies seemingly are born out of a desire to prove himself to his absent father and reconcile the various influences in his early life that caused him to feel marginalized. I would say that he is a misguided and misdirected man who honestly believes that America needs fundamental change in order to live up to the ideal of America that was instilled by his anti-colonialist father as well as his communist mother, grandfather, and mentors. Obama is the perfect pawn of the progressive movement that has been subverting the American republic for the past 100 years. Obama is also, in my opinion, the last great hope for the progressives, as the aging Hippies and Boomers generation come to an end, to fundamentally transform America into the progressive ideal.

 
After all the insight you posted about Obama. What would you label him as?

 


I do not think there is a singular word to describe what Obama is...I would use any number of words like; technocrat, facist, narcissist, or maybe even distributive egalitarian...but I thought I summed up my thoughts in the last last paragraph of my last post...
After re-watching the movie, I would say that Obama is a man with a very skewed perception of America but I wouldn't call Obama a socialist. His narcissistic tendencies seemingly are born out of a desire to prove himself to his absent father and reconcile the various influences in his early life that caused him to feel marginalized. I would say that he is a misguided and misdirected man who honestly believes that America needs fundamental change in order to live up to the ideal of America that was instilled by his anti-colonialist father as well as his communist mother, grandfather, and mentors. Obama is the perfect pawn of the progressive movement that has been subverting the American republic for the past 100 years. Obama is also, in my opinion, the last great hope for the progressives, as the aging Hippies and Boomers generation come to an end, to fundamentally transform America into the progressive ideal.
Click to expand...
 
Meanwhile the people are starving in China.The Communist party could not care one iota about them.Never trust China or Russia period. At least our country is not that bad compared to China so far.
 


The Chinese people who are starving live the cities that depend the government, but they do not provide what the government wants, therefore they starve.
People who do not live in the city fair better with food as they grow their own and generally rely very little on the government and provide food.

I'm not saying their farming communities and/remote towns fair better. The lifestyle of a city is one thing.. but what you see in China is what we on the 'right' of the fence are trying to avoid: People so dependent on the government that at some point the gov't must stop providing for them for the greater good.

Studies have been done on this condition: Workers, Helpers, and Moochers. Eventually, the moochers will cause enough trouble that the helpers can't keep up and everything falls apart. Studies were done on flocks of birds (shorter lifespan) to watch how groups were breeded our and eventually broke apart.
 


Their construction industry is a hobby for the elite's. Their economy is predominately based on their manufacturing sector.

 



What do you consider a moocher? Do the 25% of the american people who are obese and are putting a strain on our healthcare system qualify? What about the elderly?
 


Is there a politician around in this day and age who doesn't qualify as a socialist?

The last hold-out of what was once known as "liberalism," (what we call libertarian today) went out with Ron Paul, and in point of fact even he took part in the distribution of other people's wealth when he believed it was justified. He just voted against such things much more often than not.

Anyway, personally, I find the socialist accusation to be the lady who doth protest much. Politics is always socialist. Politics is always fascist. Republicans love to spend other people's money just as much as Democrats (see: Bush years) and Democrats love to murder foreign and domestic persons as much as any Republican Hawk (see: Obama).

There is no fundamental difference between one ruling class member and the other. If you want to see the end of this kind of mess, you reject the political system, not the current figurehead. (See: Rothbard, Hopper, Spooner) There is no common good, just the good of the politicians (and their lobbyist friends) who claim to (but never actually do) represent your best interests.
 
I liked the question put to Adam Corolla by Bill O'Reilly
Corrollas mom lived off of welfare, when he was 9 or 10, he told his mom, "why not just go and get a job?"
She told him she couldnt do that, as she would then lose her welfare, at which time, he looked straight into the camera and said "what would happen if we just stopped welfare? I mean really stopped it?""
He then made references to Mexico, where people there arent starving in the streets, and they have no welfare.
He came from there, saw what it did to his mother, as he compared it to astronauts and spcae, as they atropy from lack of use.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uOC8Fl-yo-k

So, either youve been there or not, and if you were there, you arent any longer, and if you arent any longer, then recognize that, and have others move along as well.
Anything to the contrary is socialism with negative effects
 
I was on welfare years and years ago and believe me they treat you like real shit when you go down to apply for it.It is no paradise to be on welfare.

 
Back then, you were supposed to work, and people assumed you should be working.
Not so nowadays, just check my link, the "mom" watches her kids as they play in a play zone for kids, hands the people at the "store" her list of groceries, they bag it, and run it out to nher car, I suspect its a lil different today than in your day marv?

This is just proof of what some are refering to as the entitlement society weve become, thru government intervention, and as Carrolla said, too many people on welfare rots us from within, as not everyone needs it, and instead of being shamed, as in your case marv, they extoll all the benefits of it, like the commercial weve all paid for, besides the services.
I guess if Obama thinks this set up it OK, then yes, he is a socialist, barring what everyone needs to do to contribute, since that never seems to come up, and is why I always mention how far away he is from JFK and what JFK wanted of America and Americans, as opposed to what we have today
 
You have been watching too much tv JDJ. We have 4.4 million people on welfare, some of them work part time jobs. The cases you are talking about are the exceptions, not the rules.
 

You seem to me Marv as the type of guy who hated being on welfare and had the desire and esteem to pick yourself up and become self sufficient.

I grew up on welfare, living in welfare housing, and was one of the few kids who got free lunch at school. Back in the day, you were looked at differently, taken pity on, mocked, made fun of, and generally treated like crap for being the "poor kid". I can appreciate what you're saying.

Butthe primary difference here Marv, as Jaydeejohn is pointing out, is that folks like you and I learned from that experience and used it to better ourselves. Generational welfare existed back in the day, but it was not as widely accepted. Now, it is the new normal to have 4th and 5th generation welfare families. The kids are raised to believe that they deserve that benefit, that they are not expected to better themselves, and they are entitled to a lifestyle (not a subsistence as welfare was intended) at the cost and expense of everyone else.

Generational dependence on the government for a lifestyle is a goal of progressivism. Anything to grow the State and make the State indistinguishable from the People. All things the People need begin and end with government. I refer you to the Obama slideshow, "The Life of Julia" as the epitome of the progressive end game.

 


I guess saying only 4.4 million people are on welfare depends on what statistic and measure you use. The 4.4 million number does not include the people on food stamps (46.7 million) and people receiving unemployment assistance (5.6 million); all of which are forms of welfare. If you were to account for these forms of welfare, the total number of people rises greatly to 56.7 million!

But then again, if you use the measure of the number of families where at least one person living in the household are receiving some form of government assistance, then the number jumps to 108 million!

None of the above statistics include folks receiving SSI or Medicare benefits who are under the legal retirement age to receive such benefits (under the age of 64) in which we can add another 6.1 million people.

So, taking into account all forms of government assistance available, the number of people on welfare ranges anywhere from 62.8 to 114.0 million!

 


Nationally in 2011, Rector said, the average number of recipients was approximately 100 million -- nearly a third of the U.S. population, he noted. According to the bureau’s employment data, 140 million people had a job that year.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jan/11/chain-email/chain-email-says-11-states-have-more-people-welfar/

These are people receiving aid without contribution, excluding old or infirm.
If you choose to narrow it down to TANF, then yes, those numbers are correct, but thats only those who rely strictly upon the government.
The numbers I gave are those who receive some form or other of support, who could most likely either do without, or save and do what theyre getting from welfare/us.
Thats the difference here, and trying to be disingenuous isnt whats called for.
Welfare comes in many forms, whether youre working or not, its at best a artificial minimum wage, at worst pure socialism that atrophies its recipients.
Now, guess as to whether the 100 million getting some form costs us more than the 4.4?
 
Both of you have comments that are all over the place. I thought we were talking about people living solely off the government? Isn't this what you are proposing by continually saying we are an entitlement society? Some people need help with food, so they have food stamps. This goes up during a recession, it will go down. I bet they feel pretty embarrassed when they do use food stamps.

This does not mean they are living off the government, they still have to pay their bills. We are talking about getting a welfare check in the mail as your only source of income correct?

Also, a huge percentage of the people you guys are throwing into your version of "welfare" are elderly and sick people that cannot fend for themselves.

Food stamps and unemployment aren't welfare. Neither is medicare or medicaid.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Looks like it was 4.1, must of been using old numbers.
 
Would you say they are entitlements that people deserve?

 
I think that food stamps are a great idea to help people out when they are having a rough time in their life. Also medicare and medicaid are essential for the poor and elderly. The exponential rise of the cost of healthcare is the root cause of the problem with these programs. It may become inevitable that we have to cut some of these two programs because of healthcare costs but saying that it is welfare and should be cut completely is just ignorant of your fellow Americans struggles.

Unemployment and welfare should have incredibly stringent standards to make mooching almost impossible. If there truly are 3rd and 4th generation families on welfare then there needs to be consequences for not contributing to our society. I tried to research this idea a little more but the resources are scarce.

Also, a lot of people on welfare are people with disabilities. Nothing you can do there really.

Unemployment has some serious requirements to qualify for, but I think the maximum you should be able to be on unemployment in most cases is 2 years.
 


My comments were *intentionally* all over the place to underscore how specious the "entitlement society" debates can be. I absolutely believe the entitlement mentality wholly exists as I have witnessed and interacted with many minorities who openly state they are owed free food, education, cars, clothes, or whatever simply because they are a minority. And, you can bet your last dollar they absolutely and unequivocally BELIEVE that someone from the government should be giving it to them.

I disagree on what is or is not considered welfare given that Webster defines welfare as..."financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government". The thought that food stamps, unemployment, medicare, and SSI are not actually being welfare contradicts that definition. Welfare as defined does not recognize degrees of financial or other assistance.

However, I totally agree with you on the generational recipients, and they do exist, there are plenty living two towns away from me. Resources and statistics regarding these generational recipients are scarce because these families know how to game the system as well as apologetic case workers showing them the loopholes so they can continue to receive benefits. For example; case workers urging women to have more children, changing the name of the beneficiary from the parent to the child, changing addresses, getting a relative to have power of attorney over a recipients children, legally changing your name, claiming hardship or injury, and so on...

Please don't get me wrong, as rich as America is, I consider welfare a societal benefit. It is necessary to help those who are physically unable to help themselves or are honestly left with no other means. But, as you eluded to, there should be limits on the amount and time benefits can be received. In the end, I object to a political ideology that uses welfare as a means to grow the size and scope of government, maintains welfare recipients as a voting bloc, and demonizes anyone who does not agree with their views on welfare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom