Was Nixon a Socialist?

[Rich]

I am starting this thread as a bit of a continuation of a political discussion that de-railed another thread. I feel strongly enough about the issues raised that I decided to start this thread (probably against my better judgment). Please engage in this thread only if you can discuss political topics without insulting people in the discussion that hold a different viewpoint than you do.

I am really tired of the "Socialist" label being used as a political tool to bash the current administration, so I felt the need to post a couple of articles in this regard. People scream up and down that Obama is a Socialist and this country is headed down the path of Socialism, without any real explanation of what exactly they mean by that and why it is a bad thing. The health care reform law seems to be one of their primary arguments. Please read the following words from Richard Nixon, who tried to push a similar law many years ago, and then tell me, did you ever consider Nixon to be a Socialist? Here is the link: Nixon's Plan For Health Reform, In His Own Words

The real reason people are calling Obama a Socialist, in my opinion, is that they want to prey on American's long-standing fears of Communism. The same way they tried to scare Americans by saying he was a Muslim, that he wasn't a real American, etc. etc. It is a pattern of using pejorative labels to try to instill unreasonable fear in people. If you want a little perspective on what Socialism really is, read this one: Obama the Socialist? Not Even Close

If after reading these articles, you still think Obama is a Socialist, please list rational reasons why you think that label fits him any more than it fits George Bush or Richard Nixon or Mitt Romney. Be prepared to defend your reasoning with facts and logical analysis.

 

[amey01]

Wow - talk about throwing petrol all over the floor and leaving a full packet of matches!

Unfortunately I don't know enough about US politics to comment. I could comment in a more generic sense though. I look forward to seeing the responses. If it doesn't get out of hand and closed.

 

[shakham]

I didn't read the articles yet...Obama aside...

Aren't democrats fundamentally on the socialist side of capitalism? I didn't say pure socialist as that means Canada/UK and I don't see democrats as that extreme.

and...

Republicans are fundamentally on the capitalist side of capitalism?

An interesting side note....
I just found out that total taxes (federal taxes + provincial taxes + sales tax) in Alberta is lower than many US states. So it is possible to combine socialism and low taxes.

 

[Rich]

Wow - talk about throwing petrol all over the floor and leaving a full packet of matches!

Ha ha. Well, you know . . . I don't exactly have a reputation for timidity. I figure if Tom hasn't banned me by now, I must be bulletproof. (Kidding, Tom, just kidding)

Aren't democrats fundamentally on the socialist side of capitalism? I didn't say pure socialist as that means Canada/UK and I don't see democrats as that extreme.

and...

Republicans are fundamentally on the capitalist side of capitalism?

I think that is a fairly accurate generalization. Democrats tend to be pro-regulation of business and pro-social welfare programs; republicans tend to be anti-regulation of business and anti-social programs. Lots of other policy differences, but I do think you mostly nailed it as far as the systems of government/economy go. Unfortunately, the political discourse in this country has gotten such that they accuse each other of being at the extreme ends of the spectrum rather than on different sides of the middle.

An interesting side note....
I just found out that total taxes (federal taxes + provincial taxes + sales tax) in Alberta is lower than many US states. So it is possible to combine socialism and low taxes.

Interesting, indeed!

 

[jmschnur]

Actually I think the word socialist is not appropriate for either party.

I think the basic argument is whether their should be a social contract that ensures minimal standards for all. Whether this requires government ownership or control of individual enterprises is a different question.

I would hazard that most republicans do not believe that any social contract is important, whilst US Democrats believe in some standards the one should not be allowed to go below.

Rousseau (1762) wrote about the concept of social contract. If so it was well before any discussion of socialism that this was discussed in the context of western civilization.

The question of government control and regulation came later ( income tax, voting rights, anti trust , etc)


J

 

[amey01]

What I will throw into the argument now, is that you really do need both sides, and you NEED them to be different.

We all have our preference for left or right wing (I do also), but each side to get their turn at power occasionally.

If it was one-sided only then you might as well have a dictatorship.

 

[Rich]

Adam, I actually agree with you there. The U.S. population is split almost evenly between folks who lean left and those who lean right. I think it is necessary for both to have their day in the sun. The problem we have run into in our country over the last decade or two is that the vitriol and hateful rhetoric has risen to a level unheard of before. Where the parties used to confer, compromise and get things done, now you have intransigence, unwillingness to even discuss compromise, and efforts to completely block anything of value from getting accomplished. Both sides are guilty, but the most recent republican house has taken it to a new level of scorched earth policy than we have ever seen before. Not to mention the abject hatred and disrespect they show for the current president, mostly because of his skin color, in my opinion.

When you have an economy teetering on the brink of depression, and the republicans do things like fail to raise the debt ceiling and threatening a default on our debt, that is simply inexcusable. Republicans have systematically voted to raise the debt ceiling every single year . . . until this president took office. They have made clear, in my mind, that they wish to destroy our economy so that they can blame it on this president and use it to win the upcoming election. That is criminal, in my opinion. For example, already this year the republican house has held 32 separate votes on bills to repeal the health care legislation that was passed two years ago, but the President's jobs bill has languished in 12 different committees without ever receiving a vote. And then they try to blame him when the unemployment numbers don't get better. Sickening, really.

But, honestly, that isn't the point of this thread. The point of this thread is to discuss the labels that are being thrown around and what they really mean and who they really apply to. One of the republican tactics that is commonly used is to throw out derogatory labels to instill fear of this President and his policies. First, they called him a muslim; then a radical; then he wasn't really a citizen. Now they are screaming he's a socialist at the top of their lungs and every chance they get, in order to play on American's fear of communism from the cold war. I just wanted to bring a little reality to the situation and get those who are willing to say such things in a public forum (and you know who you are) to try to explain their views in rational, reasonable way. Not just throw hyperbole out there, but actually explain their views with reason and fact. They don't consider Romney a socialist. They never considered Nixon a socialist. Yet Romney instituted a health care plan in his state exactly like what Obama has instituted nationwide. Nixon tried to do the same thing forty years ago. I would like to hear how people calling Obama a socialist can reconcile that notion with Romney and Nixon. Interestingly, none of those folks have responded to this post.

 

[Hocky]

What I will throw into the argument now, is that you really do need both sides, and you NEED them to be different.

We all have our preference for left or right wing (I do also), but each side to get their turn at power occasionally.

If it was one-sided only then you might as well have a dictatorship.

Both sides are the problem. You don't need both sides, you need many sides. The Dem vs Rep system is loaded with failure. The 2 party system needs to stop.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Rich,

You're such a trouble maker but I love ya anyway.

Nothing insightful from me other than the fact that a majority of the electorate, IMHO, don't seem to care about reading / analyzing issues in detail so they can have an informed opinion and just rely on the simple and trite one liners (aka branding) that most elected officials (and their surrogates) seem to use these days. This is then further reinforced / broadcast by most media outlets.

Kinda like herding cattle.

Gordon

PS: Heard a great one liner from a friend last week. Say the following with a slow, german accent, which is the way my friend talks.

You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your facts.

 

[twich54]

I am really tired of the "Socialist" label being used as a political tool to bash the current administration, so I felt the need to post a couple of articles in this regard. People scream up and down that Obama is a Socialist and this country is headed down the path of Socialism, without any real explanation of what exactly they mean by that and why it is a bad thing..

yes....it's 'FOX' but another view point FWIW, I'm sure the 'experts' can explain the '48%' figure.............

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/12/america-coming-civil-war/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz20QKBmRqm

 

[Kevin]

Rich- I disagree with your assessment that "skin color" is mostly to play. I assure you that plently of hatred and disrespect was pointed at George Bush as well. I could probably fill a paragraph with Alan Grayson quotes alone. Wasn't there a mock trial of Bush held in the basement of the Capitol building by some democratic congressmen? Concerning the socialist aspect of the the current president, I don't get much into labels. I don't think he wants goverment to control the means of production, but I do believe he wants government control over as much of the economy as possible. The administration can easily do this through regulations to hamper or control some businesses while providing stimulus to those businesses they favor.

I was knee high when Nixon proposed a health care plan. So I can't comment on how those plans may have differed or were similiar. But I wonder if any high positioned leaders were saying at the time that we "first need to pass the bill to find out what is in it"? Concerning Romney, his was a state plan. I'm all for states to have the right to pass their own laws as long as it doesn't impact surrounding states. He was the governor of a highly democratic state working with a strongly democratic legislature. He has said that the plan that passed wasn't the one that he would have passed, but his vetoes on some provisions were overridden. He was the governor, the plan is his, but it is a Massachusetts plan, it doesn't impact me me sitting here in Virginia.

I lean more towards being a libertarian than a republican, but like I said, I don't like labels and so I don't really label myself. I believe that I should work hard for my money and that I should have as much control over how it is spent as possible, while believing strongly in protecting the enviroment, and also enjoying a slim in the privacy of my own home when I want. What label do you put on that? I think that it is good to want to give people a helping hand, but I also know that that generosity can easily be taken advantage of by people who don't believe in helping themselves.

 

[shakham]

Both sides are the problem. You don't need both sides, you need many sides. The Dem vs Rep system is loaded with failure. The 2 party system needs to stop.

I agree with this. I feel how little the government is in-tune with the people. A bunch of social elites almost to the level of a quasi-societal dictatorship like in a 3rd world country.

The poor pay 0% taxes and get free healthcare. The rich pay 15% taxes (aka capital gains). The middle class pays 25% to 35% taxes.

As for Rich's initial post...I read the articles, I agree that the stabs at Obama are more about politics and power (like in a 3rd world country) than is it about doing what's right FOR the country.

 

[Rich]

You're such a trouble maker but I love ya anyway.

Nothing insightful from me other than the fact that a majority of the electorate, IMHO, don't seem to care about reading / analyzing issues in detail so they can have an informed opinion and just rely on the simple and trite one liners (aka branding) that most elected officials (and their surrogates) seem to use these days. This is then further reinforced / broadcast by most media outlets.

Kinda like herding cattle.

Gordon

Hi Gordon, you know I love you too, man. I am a troublemaker, but the forum was getting kind of boring lately, what with ML reps laying low and all . . .

As for your comment, I agree. The majority of the electorate are sheeple who can't or won't think for themselves.

yes....it's 'FOX' but another view point FWIW, I'm sure the 'experts' can explain the '48%' figure.............

Dave, I read it, and disagree with something in just about every paragraph. Lots of sweeping generalizations that don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny. For instance, the guys says: "On one side are those who create wealth, America’s private sector–the very ones targeted by President Obama’s tax hikes announced Monday." Ummmm, no. Obama's tax hikes aren't aimed at everyone who works in the private sector. They are aimed at those making a quarter million or more a year in income -- the very rich. Lots of middle class private sector employees will keep their tax breaks under the plan Obama imposed. Likewise, not everyone who is rich and making tons of money is creating wealth, believe it or not. Many of them are happy to sit on the wealth they have. Just because they are making more than a quarter million a year doesn't mean they have a job, doesn't mean they are starting or running a business, etc. Lots of folks are just living off their investments.

Then the guy says: "On the other are the public employee unions; left-leaning intelligentsia who see the growth of government as index of progress; and the millions of Americans now dependent on government through a growing network of government transfer payments, from Medicaid and Social Security to college loans and corporate bailouts and handouts (think GM and Solyndra)." Ok, so our police and firefighters are now labeled as malcontents who just take from society. Right. Then there is that "left-leaning intelligensia." I like to imagine I fall into that group. But wait, I have started multiple businesses with my wealth, so I am actually a wealth creator. Crap, which bucket do I fall into? Then we add all the people who have worked all their life in the private sector and just want a little government help through their retirement. Now they are just considered takers. Forget that they spent so much of their life as makers. Or the college students who just want a loan to cover the inflated cost of an education, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of them will pay those loans off after they are employed in the private sector working to create wealth. Nope, they are just takers. Finally, there is that evil GM. Wait . . . isn't that a private company that is doing great now, creating lots of wealth? Oh no, just another taker.

So you can see that with just a very basic analysis the central premise of the entire article falls completely apart, which pretty well invalidates everything else the guy says in my book. If you start from a false premise, you reach a false conclusion. As for the 48% number, I couldn't figure that one out either. I don't put any validity into it based on the the lack of support for that number from the source he gave for it or from his own article.

Concerning Romney, his was a state plan. I'm all for states to have the right to pass their own laws as long as it doesn't impact surrounding states. He was the governor of a highly democratic state working with a strongly democratic legislature. He has said that the plan that passed wasn't the one that he would have passed, but his vetoes on some provisions were overridden. He was the governor, the plan is his, but it is a Massachusetts plan, it doesn't impact me me sitting here in Virginia.

Kevin, first of all, great post. Appreciate your input. We will have to agree to disagree on the racial issue. There was plenty of vitriol against Clinton too, but nowhere near the level we have seen the past four years. I come from a State with a lot of racism and I see how people express it while still trying to pretend that isn't what they are expressing. Witnessed it all my life. I have seen enough to be pretty confident in my assessment that racism is a large part of what is behind people's hatred of this President. Not everyone. Just a very good swath of the truly ignorant, and I think the talking heads try to play on that racism to instill fear in the extreme wing of their base.

As for Romney . . . what difference does it make whether his was a state plan or not? If it is socialist at the federal level, it is socialist at the state level, no? Either Romney supported and passed a Socialist health plan or he didn't. If he didn't, then neither did Obama. If he did, then he was as much of a Socialist as governor as Obama is as President. The only distinction is that he is talking out both sides of his mouth because he is pandering to a more conservative audience now, while Obama has the luxury of pandering to his natural base.

The poor pay 0% taxes and get free healthcare. The rich pay 15% taxes (aka capital gains). The middle class pays 25% to 35% taxes.

Actually, this is not entirely true. The poor pay plenty of taxes. They pay sales taxes, they pay property taxes, they pay gasoline taxes. They just don't pay much or any income taxes, and that is because they are making very little or no income. And they don't really get much in the way of free healthcare, because the system pushes them out without really giving them the kind of healthcare that you or I get when we go in with insurance.

Great discussion guys. Thanks for being able to disagree without being disagreeable.

 

[tsv_1]

Slightly tangential to the core topic, but thought I would add that it's really easy to make generalizations. We've all done it and there are many examples to point toward. That said, while it's easy to simply roll our eyes at everyone in Washington, there are some level headed people there who should not be lumped in with the trilobites. As an example, living here in Maine, I've had my issues with our current governor (who behaves like a prepubescent bully more often than not), however, and this is coming from a left-leaner mind you, I have nothing but respect for our republican senator Ms. Collins. She "gets it".

5000 consecutive votes

 

[Rich]

Great point, Todd. I lean pretty far left myself, but strongly supported our republican governor of the past eight years because he was one of the most intelligent and capable governors we have had in a long time. I even have a picture of him holding my child! The current republican governor, unfortunately, is a dolt with less intelligence than most canines and is a complete embarrassment to a State that has an incomparable history of embarrassing governors. I have some lawyer friends who are running for judgeships. They are quite liberal in their core beliefs, but are running as republicans because that is the only way to get elected here with all the straight-ticket conservative voters.

*edit* Ummm, actually, I just saw your governor's comments comparing the IRS to the Nazi Gestapo. I think maybe you have us beat as far as embarrassing idiot governors. I feel much better now. Thanks, Todd.

 

[Kevin]

Rich- I think the terms racist, racism and other racial terms have been used with greater frequency and in many cases inappropriately. Someone mentions the black cloud of debt, and people infer that the "black cloud" is code for Obama. Charges of racism (as well as homophobe, sexist and others) in some cases appears to be used to curb speech on a topic, and I'm a firm believer in free speech. I have a bs in biology, so I guess my scientific mind makes me tend to stick more with what I can prove when making opinions and arguments much more than a reliance based upon my suspicions. I don't doubt however that you see racism, as I do too, I only doubt that it is 'mostly' the reason people are so against Obama.

Concerning Romney's health bill being a Socialist plan, I guess I never really did give my opinion on that. I would say that it definitely points the needle towards that direction as opposed to a free market plan. He has received a great deal of flack from conservatives for it as a result. As to wether or not the new health law will end up being good or bad is up for debate to me. I see things I agree with, but I also know that a good amount of stuff is packed within its many pages that only time will tell the true costs. I find it interesting that while the citizens of Massachusettes did and still do support their state law, they actually voted Scott Brown into office who was running as the one person who could stop the national health law from passing.

 

[twich54]

I don't doubt however that you see racism, as I do too, I only doubt that it is 'mostly' the reason people are so against Obama.

Kevin, those of us that cherish our 2nd amendment rights have a different reason.

 

[Rich]

I don't doubt however that you see racism, as I do too, I only doubt that it is 'mostly' the reason people are so against Obama.

I didn't say it was mostly the reason people are so against him; I said it was mostly the reason for the abject hatred and disrespect they show for him. Never in my life has a sitting President received the kind of ridicule, disrespect, and outright hatred from the other side of the aisle that he has had to endure. Whether it is the birther movement, people going on national television and claiming he is a muslim, sitting Congressman interrupting his speech to call him a liar to his face, racist pictures of him being passed around by republican leaders, the Governor of Arizona wagging her finger at him like he was a spoiled child, and on and on. No other sitting President, not even Bush 2, has had to endure so much outright hostility, disrespect, and thinly-veiled hatred. So, as I said, we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

 

[Rich]

Kevin, those of us that cherish our 2nd amendment rights have a different reason.

Put your money where your mouth is Dave. What has Obama done in the past four years to specifically limit your 2nd Amendment rights? Wait, didn't he just sign legislation to allow you to carry in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges, which wasn't allowed before? So Obama has actually expanded your right to carry guns beyond what Bush allowed! Let that sink in for a moment. And, didn't Obama embrace Scalia's opinion overturning the DC Gun Ban? Why, yes he did. Now what about Romney? Has he ever supported Gun Control Laws?

I own about a dozen guns and love shooting. I have no remorse in supporting Obama. At least he is a known. Romney? He is simply a political weathervane, turning with the breeze.

 

[twich54]

Put your money where your mouth is Dave. What has Obama done in the past four years to specifically limit your 2nd Amendment rights?

For starters I'll list three names...................

Eric Holder.....Justice Kagan ........Justice Sotomayor

The two Supreme Court Justices mentioned combined with the fact that if re-elected three of the current justices would be over 80 years of age before his term ends does concern me. As for Eric Holder....................check out his 1995 C-Span video !

Seriously though Rich, you're the only gun owner I know (yes I'm sure there are some I don't know !) that would EVER trust a Dem from Illinois !