Obama’s “Socialism”
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Economy, ObamaWith government now taking ownership stakes in banks and car companies, all we’ve been hearing is how we’re riding a slippery slope towards the dreaded “S” word.
Well, Conor Clarke of The Atlantic put together a handy dandy pie chart to show just how serious this problem is…
Oh my…how long before we reach 0.5%?!?!
Let’s remember that Obama has said repeatedly that the government is taking an ownership stake (meaning owning stock, not controlling the companies) only for the time being. He wants AIG and GM to eventually go private again. But because the bottom dropped out of our economy, letting these companies fail during a uniquely and unnaturally economically depressed time might not be in the best interests of our long term strategic goals.
Oh, and there was that whole cascading worldwide economic collapse thing. That might have pissed some people off too.
So remember this pie chart the next time somebody talks to you about socialism. And then point them towards the actual definition of the word. That should be a good way to start a debate.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009 and is filed under Barack, Economy, Obama. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:56 am
The people I commonly see complaining about the US’ slide into socialism aren’t the type who are interested in a debate. They just want to rant, no matter what the facts really are.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:01 am
“Torture numbers long enough and they’ll tell you anything you want to hear.”
How about a handy dandy chart that shows the CHANGE in government ownership since Obama took office? Even though many on this site refuse to acknowledge the word, it *is* socialism, and it’s on the rise.
And while I can certainly appreciate the calculated words of Obama when he says that he has no long-term interest in government ownership, I can’t believe it. If government ownership were so egregious to him, then there would have been a specific plan–a set of criteria, perhaps even a rough timetable–for when and how the government would relinquish control of these companies back to the private sector. That little tidbit has been categorically missing from all of these socialist moves, and gives little confidence in or credence to the claim that these are temporary and distasteful (but necessary) moves.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:28 am
I’m getting a little Amtrak deja vu. I don’t see these companies going private again any time soon. Socialism has become a catch phrase in the past 6 months for people who don’t care for reality, data, or commen sense. 0.5%…Here we come!
June 4th, 2009 at 10:05 am
“How about a handy dandy chart that shows the CHANGE in government ownership since Obama took office? Even though many on this site refuse to acknowledge the word, it *is* socialism, and it’s on the rise.”
Just make sure to have a graph with Bush in it as well, because TARP and the AIG bail out and the first GM loans were his creations. (And rightly so in my opinion, back to the cascading economic collapse.)
“And while I can certainly appreciate the calculated words of Obama when he says that he has no long-term interest in government ownership, I can’t believe it. If government ownership were so egregious to him, then there would have been a specific plan–a set of criteria, perhaps even a rough timetable–for when and how the government would relinquish control of these companies back to the private sector. That little tidbit has been categorically missing from all of these socialist moves, and gives little confidence in or credence to the claim that these are temporary and distasteful (but necessary) moves.”
The time table depends on hundreds of factors and metrics. Sort of like how you can’t provide a timetable for a war before you fight it. Having ownership of these firms is a major political liability though (it’s not popular in either party), so it’s safe to say we will divest when it’s prudent to do so.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:44 am
So how about some common-ground building? What should the criteria be for re-privatizing Chrysler and GM?
June 4th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Jon, I agree with you 100% that Bush started this problem. And the economic collapse was a governmental scare tactic. These companies are going into bankruptcy now, and no one is screaming that the sky is falling like they were back in October. And Obama, in a spirit of hope and change, could have changed course instead of fulfilling and extending the last, great, horrible idea of George W. Bush. But he has made those who said “he’s a closet socialist!” look awfully right by not doing so. And you’re right, this is going to be an albatross around the Dem’s necks.
However, I think a simple, basic plan for GM and Chrysler to re-privatize isn’t too much to ask. I’m happy to throw a timetable out the window as long as we have some specific criteria to work toward. What about:
–Profitability for x months?
–A wage structure (for both executives and line workers) that can be competitive globally?
–A significant reinvestment in the US and its economy (righty code word: stop selling government repo’ed companies to China. I’m talking to you, Hummer.)?
–Repayment of the billions that We The People loaned the companies?
What are some other ideas?
June 4th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
According to this the government only has $82.3 Billion in firms. WTF where did that $12 trillion they spent in the last 6 months go?
Actual = 45% if you add the bail outs 30% you get 75%
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_cha rt_pie2.png
Just to demonstrate that graphs can do anything.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30387447@N04/3595400871/
June 4th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Its not just government-owned industry that constitutes socialism. It is also the re-distribution of wealth, increased government regulation of private enterprise, and manipulation of money. And it didn’t begin with Bush. It really started under President Wilson, got magnified by Hoover & FDR, and entrenched by LBJ’s “great society.” Bush and Obama are mearly continuing a long legacy of eroding economic liberties in this country.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
. . .mearly continuing a long legacy of eroding economic liberties in this country.
Which I guess explains why we passed our economic peak in, what, 1916?
June 4th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Libby:
Loan guarantees are not ownership.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Obviously, Jon is right that the problems started under Bush where we were promised a less intrusive government but got 8 years of massive government expansion including the disastrous DHS.
BUT, I can’t help agree with exiledindependent that a basic proposal for how or when we get out of the auto business isn’t that much to ask.
In Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech, joked that, “a government program is as close to eternal life as we’ll ever know”. Ain’t that the truth. When the government takes control of something, it’s hard for them to relinquish control. Kyle was spot on about the Amtrak deja vu.
Remember the fights over deregulating the exchange rates, the airlines, the rails, etc? Government Motors may well be here to stay. Call it what you want, but it is – in actual fact – a drift toward Europeanized, Socialized government. Period.
We should be afraid.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
We passed the peak of economic liberty, yes. Technological advancement, no; however, I believe we would have colonies on Mars by now and no poverty whatsoever in this country if we stayed on the right track.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Jimmy:
In the intervening years we became the greatest economic, military, diplomatic, cultural and scientific power in the history of the world. Not enough? You’re going with colonies on Mars?
There’s not the slightest proof that life would have been better if we’d followed a more libertarian path. In fact, had we not added a dollop of pacifying socialism in the 1930’s we’d very likely have gone communist or fascist. It was our flexibility that saved us from such radicalism.
The vast bulk of what could conceivably be construed as socialism is Social Security and Medicare. Everything else — even TARP and GM — is small beer by comparison. Are you for eliminating SS and medicare?