My daughter’s American government teacher called Obama a socialist in her class today.
Friday? I’m dropping the hammer.
I haven’t talked about it much but this past September we made the decision to send all of our kids to school. It was a hard decision for my wife, but the economy dictated it. Raising five kids with college tuition looming is no joke. But they’ve all been managing. Nothing but As across the board.
I’m biased of course…but my kids are the shit. No problems claiming that here son.
But for them to stay that way? My wife and I have to be prepared to take on all comers. To get to them, you’ve got to go through us.
So when my daughter came home a couple of hours ago with a “hypothetical” it was on.
“Daddy, let’s say hypothetically that someone–not me of course Daddy–that someone else’s American government teacher called Obama a socialist.”
Off the rip there are a couple of problems here.
First there’s the minor problem that Obama isn’t a socialist. In the least. Hell…I wish he were. The tax increases he’s suggesting? McCain as early as four years ago supported them. If he can’t get this right it’s clear to me he doesn’t belong in a classroom.
Then there’s the issue of classroom pedagogy. There circumstances I can think of where it would be appropriate for this teacher to impose his political views on the classroom. But not this one.
Friday? I’m dropping the hammer.
It is unfortunate for so many scholars are looking through a smkoed glass and think that everything is fine. Let me ask some simple questions. Currently we are mostly free market economy. By and large the sponsors of Republican party are executives and those promoting free market capitalism and revenue generation methodologies. This is not a religious sociiety like India, not a left leaning socialist counries like in Europe nor an orthodox patriarchial society like in Japan. This is pure Capitalism. We thrive in making money and that's what we do.
McCain wants to make the society more productive by working with the taxes and minor modifications of stock market regulation. But by and large will continue in the similar terms as current government.
But Obama wants to “change” this fundementally. Obama has associations with radical left personalities. He has indicated quite clearly that he does not want anyone have too much money – this is totally against capitalism. The last one based on his explanation of “rich” people paying more taxes. Whichever way you see, the change that Obama represents are making the society more socialist. Well people are realizing this too late, but god forbid if Obama wins, people wil live to see a state where govt will be all the more heavier with federal heath care, federal funds for education – thereby imposing socialistic curriculum etc to start with. Mark my words. I rarely go wrong.
You began your reply by noting you wanted to ask some questions….but you didn't ask any.
So I will.
1. What is socialism?
2. When McCain supported the tax increases that Obama is now suggesting, back in 2004, was he supporting socialism?
3. When you say “we thrive in making money and that's what we do” could you be more specific? Who is the “we” here?
4. How productive, based on traditional measures, have we as a country been over the last eight years?
Blacksmythe (love the name BTW – my uncle was a blacksmith), I have been fielding similar charges from McCain supporters for the last few weeks. As a fellow who has lived 9 of the last fourteen years overseas, I am actually struck by how close the American parties are compared to parties in other countries, where even communit parties often get at least 10% of the vote. As you point out, many of McCain's and Obama's positions are quite similar. Even more so before McCain had to start saddling up to the Right wing of his party.
All this stuff about socialism is completely muddled. Don't we have a mixed economy? And after all, who started the progressive income tax anyway? Wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt? He knew what freewheeling and unbounded capitalism could do. If socialism means government trimming the excesses of unbridled capitalism, then America has been socialist since the Teddy Bear.
Currently we are mostly free market economy.
rotflmbao…,
Saying this with a straight face after the bank bailout and nationalization must be kind of tough. But more to the point, since 1961, the U.S. has been an explicitly warsocialist economy. That's what Ike was on about with his warnings against the military industrial complex.
[quote]He has indicated quite clearly that he does not want anyone have too much money – this is totally against capitalism.[/quote]
It's debatable whether or not this is “totally against capitalism.” But how is this a bad thing? Only people who think that they will be the person with “too much money” benefit from this line of thinking. It is never a good thing, even in capitalism for one entity or one group of entities to corner any market. This is why we have monopoly laws. This is why the free market is dependent on government enforcing regulations to keep things “fair.”
What we have in this country is a situation where people with a good deal of money exert pressure politically to get more of it for themselves. Making things less fair. Erasing competition. A person netting 250k a year needs to find something better to do with their money — investing, charity, enterprising– or suck up the fact that they have to pay more taxes on it.
While blacksmythe is definitely more qualified to tackle the substantive tenants of socialism and why Obama is not a socialist, I would like to take issue with your assertion that Obama has radical associations. Obama has associations with radical left personalities? Could you be more specific? If you're referring to Bill Ayers and his time working for an ANNENBERG FOUNDATION charity (hardly a liberal outfit), then that is dubious at best. Or his associations with Reverend Wright, I only ask have you ever been to church? Ministers say crazy shit sometimes, does that make everyone in the audience culpable? Furthermore, I've actually considered the comments made by Wright and trumpeted by the right wing media as “anti-American.” The two most commonly cited, his referring to the United States as the United States of KKK and in so many words blaming America for 9/11, when critically analyzed are not that outrageous. Mr. Wright grew up in a segregated America where it was GOVERNMENT POLICY in many states to discriminate against African Americans. It has since been proven that many government officials in state legislatures/courts were indeed members of the KKK. Even U.S. congressmen admitted being members of the KKK. So, was that comment that outrageous? Or is this just another attempt to present Obama as something “other” (aka black)? Furthermore, Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 for TWO SPECIFIC REASONS…1.) Our presence in Saudi Arabia and 2.) our unwavering support of Israel. I say nothing of whether these justifications are legitimate, but it is the reality. So, I ask again, is Rev. Wright really a Radical? Furthermore, isn't it kind of ridiculous that in the early stages of the campaign, the right wing media (FOX) dragged Obama through the mud for his alleged Muslim heritage, and then blasted him for his Christian ties? Which is it? Provide examples that are not easily dismantled talking points.
What about McCain's admitted ties to Gordon Liddy?
http://www.warsocialism.com/
By Hanson's measure, Bush has been the most profligate warsocialist executive here-to-date, and with his bank nationalizations and wall st. bailout, the most prolific pure socialist, as well.
Dr. Spence, Obama is a “socialist” in the same way that Bush is a “conservative. ” I have learned that such labels as presently used by the mainstream are immune to the facts that you bring to bear. These are code words for subjective identity based politics completely unhinged from symmetrically applied neutral and scientific criteria. For us words like conservative and socialist have a specific meaning and can be objectively verified. But for the folks like your daughter's teacher and sher747 who toss them around, these words are adjectives rather than nouns. They might as well be calling Barack ugly or fat.
It is so funny to hear the word socialist tossed around. It has been for quite sometime a bad word in American political discourse. Yet, when you ask someone a college student or older to explain it they cannot. Their response is that it is communism or some form of it. It is a simple matter of republicans using simplicity to get their point across even though it is grounded in no facts. I agree professor Obama is so far from a socialist it isn't even funny. Yet, when someone is reminded that Medicare, Medicaid, Soical Security, Unemployment Insurance all fall under a saftery net or something akin to socialism they respond Oh I didn't think about that. To those on the right this could just as well be 1917, 1921, 1934, 1948, 1956, 1964, were all their enemies are Reds. You should lambast that teacher for saying that to your child.
How did the hammer-dropping go?
I'm working on it now.
Socialism a form of economics where the worker is also the owner,but its not that clear in the real world neither is your task of reeducating a highschool teacher ,as you know Doc,there is a lesson in this affair,think it thru and do what best for your daughter
I googled around to find my comments back here. No offense, I cannot keep up with number of links I follow – even on twitter etc.
I still stand by what I said 4 months ago. Just thought of giving a piece of my mind on this big notion of “disciplining” the rich and what not.
The question I was intending to ask but left to judgement was the fact that where as the claim is to make a better place and a better administration, either then or now (4 months later) – what makes people believe that “failed” policies will succeed.
Oh so obvious. When we say failed policies it is always that of Bush. People have such small memory. Socialict ideas like what Obama preached and now practising has been absolute failure in the past. Look Japan on bailouts. If you read history of France or UK it should be more or less clear. Those socialist economies did not stand the pressure of the globalization, leading to miseries for common people there. I have doctor friends in UK who don't want to get their medical treatment at the “government” facilities for the fear of illtreatment in their old age. There are people I know flocking to US from Canada to get their medical treatments. If you can pay gov $20K in taxes and get medical heath care that you could have got in good days paying $12K (as it stands now) for a year – how is that more favorable. The smoke glass is right in front of you. People are willing to surrender their freedom and willing to pay more taxes get lesser service and keep barking at gov later that things are not OK. That's where you all are headed. If the insurance companies are reguglated and the mandates removed (to cover illegals etc), then probably we have better rates on insurance. What everyone wants in the “free” stuff paid by the rich. Stinking welfare mentallity ! You may ask why not ? I think it is like a beggar asking for alms and I detest that feeling. I don't want the crimbs thrown to me by some rich, filthy guy who god knows how he made money. He could have sold his own to get the money he has. Why can't I pay for myself and get what I deserve than try to get more than what I can bargain. You will never be happy with others money. Just ask the lazy welfare recipients – who is happy ?
The reason people should have freedom to have as much money as possible is to encourage people to get to their best potential. The tax increase is the first step to kill motivation to do anything useful because you will know that your gain is minimal doing more than earning $250K today because the net income will remain the same if you earned say $300K. Now if you are not getting to $300K, how on earth will you get to $500K and beyond ? WHat a foolish thought that taxing the rich is OK. The small business wil lcutdown and trim to the level that gets them most advantage and who loses jobs ? Not Obama – its the minimum age earner.
If someone is able to manipulate (not lie to investors) his way up and earn big money I think it is justied. What I mean here is that if a person with some talent is able to blow up his horn and make it big then people who put him ahead are fools not the guy who goes ahead. If a person does something illegal and gets ahead, the law must get that person. I think everyone is equal under law, but with big Gov that will diminish. People with power will continue their illegal/unlawful activties, manipulate and keep getting richer. That is the Madoff, Freddie/Fannie, RBS (for those with local school education it is Royal Bank of Scotland) and so many others who did not get caught. I am OK with tax increase which justifies the end result of improving economy. Taxing the rich with an objective of distributing wealth to poor will never succeed. It vener had.
The proof will be in the puding. Obama is here. You have his agenda clearly laid out. It is the failed socialist policies and everyone thinks some miracle will happen and we will wipe out the 3 trillion dollar deficit in a split. Hopes don't diminsh my faith, but falso hope is doomed to peril.
I can debate on anyone on Teddy's concepts and failed New Deal and Socialism of FDR or any of the past economic trends, but this will do for now.
Last thing I wanted to hear from these democrat morons was that the 3 trillion dollar deficit was coming from previous administration. What nonsense ! It is hard to hear but to all those stand for socialism – the best days for America could very well be behiind us if you took that path. Right thing should have been to get the politicians who manipulated the laws like Barney Frank, Dodd and Pelosi to get their blame and cut the bureaucratic crap. Make sure SEC did their job well in identifying the culprits manipulating markets. None of those are happenning, but all we get is tax increase and fulfilling lorn forgotten liberal agenda as Christmas gift under so called Stimuls BS ! Great job AMericans ! What an election and what reverence for the ordeal that you don't understand will fail us. Hail Obama !
Obama’s a Socialist…according to my daughter’s teacher http://t.co/64NCJcJx
Wish he were, too. But is it the teacher’s province to make such a statement? Perhaps in the course of a larger discussion.
I’m remembering junior high during the McCarthy Hearings in 1954 – our teachers were not allowed to even voice the word “communism” for fear of being fired.
Free speech….
No, it wasn’t. First off he was a math teacher rather than a social studies teacher. Second he made the statement as an empirical truth rather than as a testable claim. There IS a way to use a statement like “obama is a socialist” as a “teachable” moment…even in a math class. This teacher had another agenda though.