Is Obama a Socialist?

[MMI]

Is Obama a Socialist?

I do hope so ....

[DuncanONeil]

Is Obama a Socialist?

I do hope so ....

Why!?!?

Besides where has socialism not failed?

[leo9]

Besides where has socialism not failed?

NOT failed? Well, most European nations, at one time or another. And Canada, India, Vietnam (once they finally won the right to choose it) and dare I mention China?

Only in America could a politician be called a socialist - like it's a bad thing - for pursuing moderately right-of-centre policies that have been the norm for decades in the rest of the developed world. He looks strange to you because you're used to the "centre" being what most other countries consider the hard right. And he was elected, in case you hadn't noticed, because unregulated free-market capitalism had failed.

(Yes, we all know that the plan was for the crash to happen *after* W left office, so he could blame it on the Dems. But the fact that he couldn't even engineer an economic disaster right is why they lost.)

[DuncanONeil]

Since the question was about socialist countries I will I will ignore all comments regarding the current and preceding US administrations. That is rightfully a completely different subject.

A current list of socialist countries contains 27 that were formerly socialist. obviously they have all failed!
As to currently socialist there appear to be none. A listing contains five but four of the five are also identified as communist. Since communism is the result of a failed socialist state QED socialist states have failed. The single state listed as socialist and not communist is North Korea. It is, or should be clear, to most everyone that there is no way that North Korea can be listed among the successful states.
Even your own words; "(M)ost European nations, at one time or another.", support the contention that socialism fails!

NOT failed? Well, most European nations, at one time or another. And Canada, India, Vietnam (once they finally won the right to choose it) and dare I mention China?

Only in America could a politician be called a socialist - like it's a bad thing - for pursuing moderately right-of-centre policies that have been the norm for decades in the rest of the developed world. He looks strange to you because you're used to the "centre" being what most other countries consider the hard right. And he was elected, in case you hadn't noticed, because unregulated free-market capitalism had failed.

(Yes, we all know that the plan was for the crash to happen *after* W left office, so he could blame it on the Dems. But the fact that he couldn't even engineer an economic disaster right is why they lost.)

[leo9]

Since the question was about socialist countries I will I will ignore all comments regarding the current and preceding US administrations. That is rightfully a completely different subject.

A current list of socialist countries contains 27 that were formerly socialist. obviously they have all failed!
As to currently socialist there appear to be none. A listing contains five but four of the five are also identified as communist.

Since you and the rest of Obama's detractors have been equating "socialist" with "communist" from the start (otherwise you wouldn't be using it as an insult), it's a bit late to move the goalposts and exclude communist states from the dicussion. The more so since most of them call themselves socialist, so you are essentially arguing within your own private framework which you invented to give the answer you want.

By any strict economic definition the USA has not been a purely capitalist state since the 1930s, at the very latest, so even before the current crisis it could by your strict terms be already described as a failed capitalist state. It is more realistic to recognise that all working economies contain elements of both private and public enterprise, and we define them as "socialist" or "capitalist" according to which predominates.

In most developed democracies the balance swings from capitalist to socialist and back according to political trends, which is why I said that most European countries have had socialist periods. In my lifetime the UK has seen a period of predominantly socialist organisation from the '50s to the '70s, when even the Conservatives shared the concensus that most important things should be done by the state, and a predominantly capitalist period from the election of the Thatcher government to the credit crisis, when the Labour Party accepted the concensus that most things were best done by private enterprise. In between the pendulum passed through a midpoint of fully mixed economy, and is swinging back to there now. This cycle is normal all over the democratic world, except in the US, where the swing to the left hits an ideological spanner and bounces back to the right ahead of time. It will take more than the first black President to unjam the works.

[steelish]

Since you and the rest of Obama's detractors have been equating "socialist" with "communist" from the start (otherwise you wouldn't be using it as an insult), it's a bit late to move the goalposts and exclude communist states from the dicussion.

I don't want to live in a Communist country either. If I did, I would move to one.

[DuncanONeil]

First you do not know if I am in fact an "Obama detractor" Second I did not exclude anything. You are reading something into my response that is not there. While at the same time ignoring the substance and turning the focus away from the subject and on to me personally. I believe such an action is incorrect within the confines of this forum.

Since you and the rest of Obama's detractors have been equating "socialist" with "communist" from the start (otherwise you wouldn't be using it as an insult), it's a bit late to move the goalposts and exclude communist states from the dicussion. The more so since most of them call themselves socialist, so you are essentially arguing within your own private framework which you invented to give the answer you want.

By any strict economic definition the USA has not been a purely capitalist state since the 1930s, at the very latest, so even before the current crisis it could by your strict terms be already described as a failed capitalist state. It is more realistic to recognise that all working economies contain elements of both private and public enterprise, and we define them as "socialist" or "capitalist" according to which predominates.

In most developed democracies the balance swings from capitalist to socialist and back according to political trends, which is why I said that most European countries have had socialist periods. In my lifetime the UK has seen a period of predominantly socialist organisation from the '50s to the '70s, when even the Conservatives shared the concensus that most important things should be done by the state, and a predominantly capitalist period from the election of the Thatcher government to the credit crisis, when the Labour Party accepted the concensus that most things were best done by private enterprise. In between the pendulum passed through a midpoint of fully mixed economy, and is swinging back to there now. This cycle is normal all over the democratic world, except in the US, where the swing to the left hits an ideological spanner and bounces back to the right ahead of time. It will take more than the first black President to unjam the works.