Go back
I thought Obama was a Socialist?

I thought Obama was a Socialist?

Debates

Clock

I've been hearing a lot from the GOP these past 5 years that President Obama was a Socialist, born in Kenya who is hell bent on destroying America's capitalistic system. Well...I think the "birther" thing has simmered down. But if Obama is a Socialist, why does the unemployment rate continue to drop, the economy continue to heal, and why are America's stock market's at or near all time highs???

http://finance.yahoo.com/

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

The economy is doing better despite him. It's a show of how strong the American economy is at fighting agatinst the Maoist, Stalinist, Mugabe-esque, Lennonist and Leninist influence.

Or it could be that the President really doesn't have that much conrol over the economy - good or bad.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Stock market is at a high because people like the pumping. The rich who bought when the market dropped will be selling soon. The idiots who are buying when the prices are high will be selling when the market drops.

Did the financial problems of Euorpe stop?

Did the financial problems of the US government stop?

The only future we have is a train wreck.

But even in a train wreck, the stock market still fluctuates, which means the rich can still take advantage of it. 😀

Yes, Obama is a Socialist, but he works for the rich elites so all he can do is force US citizens to buy insurance owned by rich people. LOL.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

I think that is a very disingenuous statement.

The markets are very sensitive. They don't like
political instability no matter where it is, USA or Europe
or Asia. It does matter who is in power and it does matter
what they do while they are there. If the market is not happy
with a political leader or their party's policies they are not
afraid to show their disdain by showing falls in stock.

Economics and politics are linked and will always be.
Good political policies mean growth and jobs and low
inflation. So the stock market will bounce upward.
Bad policies will reflect badly in the markets.

Poor growth and lack of job creation will mean loss
of stock values.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody

Poor growth and lack of job creation will mean loss
of stock values.
Really? Last jobs reports here in the US were terrible, yet stocks continue to climb.

Clock

Originally posted by Eladar
Really? Last jobs reports here in the US were terrible, yet stocks continue to climb.
You should try it over here. In Ireland we have 14% unemployment.

Where you are is a paradise compared to that.

I'm looking for work for the last 2 years.
I'd rather be in the land of opportunity anytime.

Thank God for what you have. Think of others worse off.

I know I'm lucky though, there are lots of people in the world
more worse off than me.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
I think that is a very disingenuous statement.

The markets are very sensitive. They don't like
political instability no matter where it is, USA or Europe
or Asia. It does matter who is in power and it does matter
what they do while they are there. If the market is not happy
with a political leader or their party's policies they are not ...[text shortened]... badly in the markets.

Poor growth and lack of job creation will mean loss
of stock values.
Stock markets are like any other market, more dollars chasing the same goods pushes prices up. Normally we consumers look at rising prices negatively, but if we don't buy stocks, or are already fully invested we look at things differently.

Government debt monetized means more nominal dollars in the market. It results in inflated market prices, both for investors (considered good news)and for consumers (considered not so good news).

Of course none of that has anything to do with Socialism.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
You should try it over here. In Ireland we have 14% unemployment.

Where you are is a paradise compared to that.

I'm looking for work for the last 2 years.
I'd rather be in the land of opportunity anytime.

Thank God for what you have. Think of others worse off.

I know I'm lucky though, there are lots of people in the world
more worse off than me.
If the US government weren't fudging the numbers, our unemployment would be worse than that.

Clock

Originally posted by normbenign
If the US government weren't fudging the numbers, our unemployment would be worse than that.
The way they calculate unemployment numbers is a joke. For example, once you give up you are not considered unemployed anymore.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by normbenign
If the US government weren't fudging the numbers, our unemployment would be worse than that.
Yes but you have what? 300 million Americans?

The population of Ireland at best is only 5 million people.
14% of that is a shocking amount.

There are more people in New York than all of Ireland.

You have to take things in perspective.

Yes there is a worldwide recession right now.
But some places are doing better than others.
America in my view is doing better than Europe.

And some countries in Europe are faring better than others.
Holland, Germany, France and Finland are good examples.
Bad examples are Ireland, Britain, Spain, Italy Portugal and
Greece and because of Greece more recently Cyprus.
This was due to poor lending practices and little or no
regulation.

Those who were clever and wise and had good strict regulation
were Canada Germany and Australia. No recession there.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
Yes but you have what? 300 million Americans?

The population of Ireland at best is only 5 million people.
14% of that is a shocking amount.

There are more people in New York than all of Ireland.

You have to take things in perspective.

Yes there is a worldwide recession right now.
But some places are doing better than others.
America ...[text shortened]... and wise and had good strict regulation
were Canada Germany and Australia. No recession there.
The actual unemployment numbers in the US is probably in excess of 20%, and the larger the population, the bigger that number is.

The matter of regulations solving problems raises the obvious question, "What regulations, and how? The most regulated nation on Earth was Russia, and the Soviet Union after 1917.

Is that a model we ought to emulate?

Clock
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by bill718
I've been hearing a lot from the GOP these past 5 years that President Obama was a Socialist, born in Kenya who is hell bent on destroying America's capitalistic system. Well...I think the "birther" thing has simmered down. But if Obama is a Socialist, why does the unemployment rate continue to drop, the economy continue to heal, and why are America's stock market's at or near all time highs???

http://finance.yahoo.com/
Last month's job report was a rather poor one. Obama's record on job creation has been weak. I think he's done some good things, certainly, but 4.2 years into his administration that the real unemployment rate (taking into account people who have given up looking for work) is still probably well over 10%.

Obviously, President Obama is not a socialist, but is jobs performance is the last thing I'd point to if you're interested in showing his success.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by normbenign
If the US government weren't fudging the numbers, our unemployment would be worse than that.
Nothing's stopping you from looking at the U-6 unemployment number, which by the way is reported by the dept. of Labor.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by normbenign
The actual unemployment numbers in the US is probably in excess of 20%, and the larger the population, the bigger that number is.

The matter of regulations solving problems raises the obvious question, "What regulations, and how? The most regulated nation on Earth was Russia, and the Soviet Union after 1917.

Is that a model we ought to emulate?
That wasn't ordinary regulation. That was a dictatorship.

You cannot compare ordinary prudent banking regulation
to what happened in Russia after they murdered the Tsar.

When Stalin took over in 1923 his Russia was different to
what Lenin and Trotsky wanted.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
That wasn't ordinary regulation. That was a dictatorship.

You cannot compare ordinary prudent banking regulation
to what happened in Russia after they murdered the Tsar.

When Stalin took over in 1923 his Russia was different to
what Lenin and Trotsky wanted.
All socialism, whether full blown communism, national socialism, fascism, or democratic socialism require significant government force to operate.

Prudent banking regulation differs from 100 or more years of intentional inflation, which has failed repeatedly, and continues to produce instability when it is used.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.