At Grupthink, you can vote for as many answers as you like, and rank them under "rank your votes." Your rankings will have an important effect on the overall results! More...
So the "proof" that Obama is Socialist is that he supports universal healthcare? In that case, I'm sure you consider every person who has ever worked for those commies at the police department, fire department, public works, city hall, Senate, and House of Representatives about the biggest bunch of Marxists you could imagine. I mean, the nerve of those Maoists to take their paychecks from *our* pockets!
What definition of socialism are you using here, Huwe? The traditional definition is a system that advocates the public ownership of the means of production. Last I checked Obama is not in favor of nationalizing all industry.
There is a large continuum of government action under the concept of capitalism. Even the nordic countries with their heavy government interventionism are essentially capitalist, as in having private ownership of the means of production.
However there is another term you can use that is somewhat vague but I believes conveys your general meaning, and that is mixed-economies or third way. Mixed economies are capitalist economies with some socialized industries and a level of social programs. This term however applies to most of the first world, so again it's a little vague but I think it can be used here to differentiates between socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.
My point here is that social programs do not a socialism make and that often times in the united states socialism is used as a pejorative for any government intervention in the economy. I'm interested in accuracy.
Comments
Leave a comment
His tax reform....it is socialist.
Oh, and his health care plan.
So the "proof" that Obama is Socialist is that he supports universal healthcare? In that case, I'm sure you consider every person who has ever worked for those commies at the police department, fire department, public works, city hall, Senate, and House of Representatives about the biggest bunch of Marxists you could imagine. I mean, the nerve of those Maoists to take their paychecks from *our* pockets!
What definition of socialism are you using here, Huwe? The traditional definition is a system that advocates the public ownership of the means of production. Last I checked Obama is not in favor of nationalizing all industry.
There is a large continuum of government action under the concept of capitalism. Even the nordic countries with their heavy government interventionism are essentially capitalist, as in having private ownership of the means of production.
However there is another term you can use that is somewhat vague but I believes conveys your general meaning, and that is mixed-economies or third way. Mixed economies are capitalist economies with some socialized industries and a level of social programs. This term however applies to most of the first world, so again it's a little vague but I think it can be used here to differentiates between socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.
My point here is that social programs do not a socialism make and that often times in the united states socialism is used as a pejorative for any government intervention in the economy. I'm interested in accuracy.