Obama the socialist.

[ElNono]

What part do you take issue with?

You don't know that Bush created a new (back then) unfunded healthcare en lement during his presidency?

[SnakeBoy]

You don't know that Bush created a new (back then) unfunded healthcare en lement during his presidency?

Yeah I was kidding, being sarcastic, whatever, just pointing out that their isn't a tremendous difference between Bush & Obama (except for the type of rhetoric they use). I assumed you were looking to argue that Obama's healthcare en lement was fully funded or something.

[boutons_deux]

"I don't get why the big hub ub over calling him a socialist."

because It's A Lie that you dumb s keep repeating to fool the dumb sheeple, bubbas, red-staters, scrotum sucker losers into thinking it's true, like the numerous Big Lies that conservatives and Repugs have been repeating for years, WMD, Saddam-AQ, Saddam-WTC, "free market", govt is the enemy, terrorist fist bump, etc, etc.

[Stringer_Bell]

The way I see it call him whatever you want, as long as you are not lying and saying he reflects the ideals of our cons ution.

I agree, but would you say the same thing about Bush? That'd be the honest thing to do. Personally...I'd rather have a President (the SYMBOL of our country), ting on our futures via domestic policy (at the cost of dollars) than ting on our futures via foreign policy (at the cost of dollars AND human lives).

[boutons_deux]

"Would Bush have created a new unfunded healthcare en lement?"

Would he?

HE DID.

Medicare Part D,

Medicare Advantage,

$50B subsidies so for-profit insurers would offer Medicare Advantage (which costs govt 10%+ than standard Medicare),

denial of Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate single-buyer volume discounts with BigPharma.

All unfunded and done in 2003 Prez election year.

aka, "taxpayer funded" (Repug) Presidential campaign.

[Wild Cobra]

I agree, but would you say the same thing about Bush? That'd be the honest thing to do. Personally...I'd rather have a President (the SYMBOL of our country), ting on our futures via domestic policy (at the cost of dollars) than ting on our futures via foreign policy (at the cost of dollars AND human lives).

Are you serious?

I don't agree with your assessment to begin with on the foreign policy issue. The only way for president Bush not to on others would be to tuck our tails between our legs and let them have their way with us.

I don't know about you, but I'm not one to willingly be ed over.

[Wild Cobra]

"Would Bush have created a new unfunded healthcare en lement?"

Would he?

HE DID.

Medicare Part D,

Medicare Advantage,

$50B subsidies so for-profit insurers would offer Medicare Advantage (which costs govt 10%+ than standard Medicare),

denial of Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate single-buyer volume discounts with BigPharma.

All unfunded and done in 2003 Prez election year.

aka, "taxpayer funded" (Repug) Presidential campaign.

Who was paying for it anyway?

I am against most social spending programs except for our elderly and handicapped. Liberals like all spending programs except this part D. Why? I think it's because democrats promised to fix it for 40 years and never did and are pissed that republicans did.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Who was paying for it anyway?

I am against most social spending programs except for our elderly and handicapped. Liberals like all spending programs except this part D. Why? I think it's because democrats promised to fix it for 40 years and never did and are pissed that republicans did.

Well the GOP did find a way to not pay for it... I guess you are proud of this part of the fix..

[boutons_deux]

WC, Repugs fixed what EXACTLY?

They hate govt in principle and intended/intend to break it at every chance, not FIX it.

In practice, the Repugs spend as much as the Dems.

eg, $2T+ for Iraq and Afghanistan, totally unfunded, totally botched, totally useless.

[ElNono]

Yeah I was kidding, being sarcastic, whatever, just pointing out that their isn't a tremendous difference between Bush & Obama (except for the type of rhetoric they use). I assumed you were looking to argue that Obama's healthcare en lement was fully funded or something.

[Ignignokt]

Because he simply ain't socialist. You could probably call him social democrat but it's kinda long, probably hard to pronounce and doesn't bring up images of doom and gloom, gulags and other . No way to run a populist opposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

• A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidized programs of education, universal health care, child care and related social services for all citizens.
• An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by socialists), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
• Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labor rights (i.e. supporting worker access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market compe ion.
• Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example, funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.
• A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.
• A secular and a socially progressive policy.
• Immigration and multiculturalism.
• Youth rights and lowering the voting age.
• Fair trade over free trade.
• A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
• Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.

It mostly fits, I think.

but if you really want to find a socialist, few tips for what to look for:

• close to 0% unemployment (you'll get and keep a job, screw the bottom line) -- Cuba has it at 1.9%
• 100% or so tariffs on imports, perhaps even legal limits on what can be imported (you've got to protect those artificiality created jobs)
• government-controlled pricing of basic items - food, fuel... (because those artificiality created jobs don't pay so well you have to ensure that people don't starve)
• it's nowhere in rulebook, but socialist leaders are usually damn hard to get rid of and most often leave their positions feet first

Thanks for proving my point. Your argument is petty.

Social Democrats are Socialist. They are the more liberal of the two branches of Socialism. They are the reformers, who advocate state control of capital in a market economy rather than those who advocate the complete nationalisation of the economy.

Infact, in europe, Social Democrats consider themselves Socialist. It's only in america where that word has a negative connotation that you see bag social democrats try to dissociate themselves from that word. Instead they rename themselves in order to scam the public under new monikers like "progressives" etc. They do this all the time by renaming unpopular policies like the "stimulus" bill, to a newer more empathetic name like the "jobs" bill.

Under your purity definition, CHina would not be considered socialist. But your definition is crap and decieving.

[Stringer_Bell]

Are you serious?

I don't agree with your assessment to begin with on the foreign policy issue. The only way for president Bush not to on others would be to tuck our tails between our legs and let them have their way with us.

I don't know about you, but I'm not one to willingly be ed over.

Yes, I'm serious (for once!). Not letting "them" have their way with us? NEWSFLASH, they totally could've done it under the Bush administration and right now if "they" wanted to...all Bush did was ensure the Islamofascists have more propaganda and dead bodies to parade in front of a new generation of terrorists. What have Iraq and Afghanistan accomplished for our security that couldn't have been solved by saying "alright, world, ya'll, we're bringing everyone back and doing for ourselves now without you (in regards to energy and like that)?" Didn't the Republicans (the only other choice in our politcal dramedy theatre) want to "drill baby drill and stop our dependence on foreign oil?" Guess what, we have no need to be in the Middle East if it isn't for oil because it sure as isn't for security here and in that region. They will blow each other up regardless if we are there, they did it before and they will do it after. "They" could bend you and me over right now without the slightest need for OUR consent, they could reduce us back to space dust regardless of the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" mentality.

But "oh noes, the socialist black dude from Kenya wants to bankrupt us all, take away our money"...that's much worse atrocity, ya. Far worse to create a system of healthcare (no matter how inconvenient for 60% of the population) than a system of nation building and idiocy (no matter how safe it makes 60% of the population feel)

[Winehole23]

Under your purity definition, CHina would not be considered socialist. But your definition is crap and decieving.

Nomenclature is a .

From the standpoint of ideological purity not only are most Republicans not even conservative, they are factually socialist in the very sense you applied the word to Obama.

[Winehole23]

The continual growth of the US debt, government and spending has been an unmistakably bipartisan effort.

[v2freak]

I noticed some people think that if you dislike Obama, it means you liked Bush or vice versa. This is a very interesting concept. For example, person A may say: "Obama is doing this..." and person B will say "Bush never did that??"

Also, it's a petty thing but why say "repug" and "dem" when on a keyboard you could just say republican and democrat.

[Winehole23]

It is petty. Some people think its cute.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I noticed some people think that if you dislike Obama, it means you liked Bush or vice versa. This is a very interesting concept. For example, person A may say: "Obama is doing this..." and person B will say "Bush never did that??"

Also, it's a petty thing but why say "repug" and "dem" when on a keyboard you could just say republican and democrat.

What most of have a problem with is those who are complaining about Obama were silent during the Bush years..

For example , after we went to war and evidence came out after the fact that the administration misused intelligence to justify the war.. silence........and now we have the same people calling Obama the biggest liar ever because all healthcare negotiations weren't on CSPAN.. comprende?

[TeyshaBlue]

What most of have a problem with is those who are complaining about Obama were silent during the Bush years..

If you say so.

[rjv]

He has been on record of supporting socialized medicine and single payor

he has? when ? perhaps some links and statements would be nice.

[rjv]

Nomenclature is a .

From the standpoint of ideological purity not only are most Republicans not even conservative, they are factually socialist in the very sense you applied the word to Obama.

here, here. but now you are just making too much sense for this thread.

[z0sa]

Congresspeople and senators nearly always parodying party lines over the wills of their local voters and taxpayers is socialist IMO. Nothing is good for an entire nation of 307 million people; progress is important, but not at the expense of the "little" people's will.

[Winehole23]

progress is important, but not at the expense of the "little" people's will.

Who is "little" people?

[CubanMustGo]

I'm curious - what part of socialism entails opening up more offshore areas for drilling so that oil companies can profit from it?

[Winehole23]

Good question, GME.

Maybe fascism will start to supplant socialism as the slur of first resort. It's more accurate, but unfortunately for GOP aficionadoes, it also includes the GOP.