Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has declares Barack Obama isn't technically a Socialist.
President Obama is not a socialist, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) told conservatives gathered at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference today.
“The question has been raised about whether or not our president is a socialist,” Paul said, according to Talking Points Memo. “I am sure there are some people here who believe it,” Paul said. “But in the technical sense, in the economic definition of a what a socialist is, no he’s not a socialist.”
Instead, Paul calls Obama a "corporatist."
"He's a corporatist," Paul continued. "And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican Party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country."
Paul said examples of President Obama's "corporatism" was evident in the heath care reform bill he signed into law last month. Paul said the mandate in the bill put the power over health care in the hands of corporations rather than private citizens. But he said the bill wasn't the only place where corporatism is creeping into Washington.
I am beginning to wonder if senility hasn't set in on Rep. Paul. The reason Obama left insurance in the hands of private companies wasn't because he is a "corporatist," but because he lacked political support to get the "public option" passed. Of course, heath care reform isn't the only segment of the economy where Obama has moved us closer to socialism. The US Government currently owns 60% of General Motors and significant percentages of Chrysler and Citibank, the nations largest bank. President Obama is supporting strong federal control of financial institutions and a takeover of our nations energy supply through Cap and Trade legislation. The roots of Obama's socialism are explored here.
4 comments:
Yah..we wouldn't want more regulation on financial institutions, because when left to their own devices they never completely screw the economy of the entire planet.
Ron Paul is not senile and if you have a substantive argument, why call names?
On the corporatist front, Ron Paul is to polite to say Obama is a whore and corporations run DC through lobbyists and Obama will do anything to stay in power and so has become corporatist in policy regardless of what ideology he had before he sold it.
Meanwhile, insurance companies are bailed out of covering an aging population without challenge every step of the way through the courts because instead of being able to be sued for saying your insurance won't cover something, they will merely lobby a govt agency to specify insurance won't cover it, and the agency by statute is immunized from law suit. Furthermore, 300 million people are forced to buy a product they don't want, regardless of cost.
That is the hugest corporate welfare bill we have, as I see it.
This and Jonah Goldberg's excellent book Liberal Fascism show that most "progressives" are really central planning corporatists in practice.
Perhaps you're right it is due to political expediency rather than his "true motives". But then it's a debate over motives instead of actions.
To your point about the public option and GM. Both are mostly a way to dictate the the behavior of private firms through a public option supported by the state. While the bulk of the industry is left "private". In other words using mostly "private" means for "social" ends.
Your other examples are more clear cut examples of "regulation" which benefits large firms by dictating burdensome regulations only large firms can absorb. For example Wal-Mart loves the minimum wage because it means only large stores have the scale to make up for the increased cost i.e. a local mom & pops doesn't need a fork lift operator.
In fact with cap-and-trade take a look at this piece showing how Goldman Sachs will make billions off of it. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532663,00.html
Is Obama really going to screw over such staunch Obama backers like Goldman Sachs to create a socialist Utopia? I doubt it.
Technically, Obama is not an American!
penny@dorne.info
Post a Comment