bbs.english.sina.com
bbs.english.sina.com
Thread
Print

Obama suspected of socialism

Obama suspected of socialism

In the US the President’s inauguration is traditionally a high-day for the nation. For the time of the inauguration people should forget about all their disagreements and unite watching the manifestation of the American dream – namely the 44th president of the US.

However this year’s inauguration became an exception from the rule. Not only because the number of people who came to watch the ceremony was twice as little as than 4 years ago but because the stream of accusations addressed to the re-elected president was unstoppable. The most painful accusation, from the point of view of an average American citizen, is accusing someone of being a socialist.

For the first time Obama was labeled “European socialist” by his main opponents, the Republicans, when he was running for presidency in 2008. Then many observers attributed it to the excitement of political struggle. They said that post of the president of the world’s largest capitalistic country was not an appropriate place for a socialist.

But the problem is that today Americans can really feel a stronger presence of the state in their lives. Not only Republicans but also representatives of other oppositional parties and movements (let’s call them a hybrid opposition) are criticizing Obama for this. For example – Gary Johnson, the presidential candidate from the Libertarian party and former governor of new Mexico Gerry. In an interview with our radio station Johnson noted that the US has a corporate tax which ranks second highest among the developed countries. This leads to an increase in prices on commodities.


Obama cannot be called a socialist in the European sense of this word, not even mentioning the Soviet meaning. He did not create a large public sector in the economy. His government provided financial aid to banks, which are the symbol of capitalism, helping them pay their debts.

The influence of socialism can be seen in Obama’s social policy. For example trying to make healthcare sector services accessible for everyone in the US he created only a large red-tape mechanism. Here is a statement from Jill Stein, who was the presidential candidate from the Greens.


The expression “targeted social assistance” does not sound bad at all reminding of an old Soviet slogan “To each according to his needs”. But in the context of a market economy noone’s needs can be satisfied without money. They must be paid for from the budget. It is for the sake of the state budget governments even used economy theories to scientifically prove that the needs of the poor are in fact small. The notorious “targeted social assistance” is usually accompanied by numerous conditions. An army of bureaucrats are checking how these conditions are being implemented. It is mainly an average tax payer who usually represents the lower part of the middle class who has to pay for it. Here is one more statement from Jill Stein.


If Gary Johnson accuses Obama of being a socialist, Rocky Anderson a candidate from the Justice party on the contrary says that Obama represents the interests of the large capital and bureaucrats. But there is one thing all representatives of the hybrid opposition agree on. They all are urging the US to stop wars and to cut costs on maintaining the US image of the global leader. In this context one comparison between the US and the USSR will be appropriate. After World War II the USSR conducted only one long term war which was the war in Afghanistan. That war seriously undermined the Soviet economy. The US starts several such wars every ten years and they cost Washington much more than the Afghan war cost the USSR. This is where higher taxes come from and this leads to socialistic trends. There is nothing new about it.

TOP

Thread