Is Obama a Socialist?

[steelish]

Actually, i don't think Obama is apologising at all, and nor should he, for America's existence (that apology, directed presumably at Native peoples

That's an assumption on your part. I never mentioned Native Americans. But he is running around the globe apologizing.

but i think that a little humility and apology would do America's image abroad no end of good, as it would/did the last imperialistic arrogant Western nation that romped round the globe bringing it's short sighted, prejudiced and parochial views of "right" "democracy" and "freedom", namely the UK. That is not to say that all the fault lies on one side, but the trouble is that the politics you clearly - from your own posts- espouse (i.e. this nation was fine before "handouts" and "flower-power") are all about impossible, fictional ideals and black-and-white absolutes which not only play no real part in actuality, but, in particular, cause immense problems when you (the States) come onto contact with civilisations and societies far more ancient and complex than your own (e.g. Europe or, more importantly, the Middle East), especially when you do so with unbounded belief in your "superior knowledge"....as exemplified by the immortal quote for the US marine to the Iraqui citizens "Shuddup! We are here for your fucking freedom!" Oh, well done.

You're so right. We've never done anything to help defend other nations. Don't put the burden of some asshole's words on my shoulders. I didn't tell a citizen of Iraq to "Shuddup". Those words didn't come out of my mouth and I highly doubt the majority of the US would stand behind this soldier in his defense on that specific point.

In response to your statement of "romping around the globe and trying to cram our political views upon other nations"...I am against that as well.

As for "hand outs", it seems to me that the real measure of any civilisation is the way it treats the least of its citizens, so i suggest that the richest nation on earth needs to sort itself out if people are still homeless, hungry or dumping their parents in neighbouring states because of medical costs. Of course i might, and do, level all but the last accusation at my own country.

I have nothing against "hand UPS". I think "hand outs" keep those who are in dire straits right there...in dire straits. Rather than simply handing food stamps or welfare out to citizens, the program should have been designed to enable those capable of working to learn a trade and pursue job opportunities. Instead, money is blindly handed out to those who properly "fill in the blanks".

From the 1930s on, New York City government provided welfare payments to the poor. By the 1960s, as whites moved to the suburbs, the city was having trouble making the payments and attempted to purge the rolls of those who were committing welfare fraud. Twenty individuals who had been denied welfare sued in a case that went to the United States Supreme Court, Goldberg v. Kelly. The Court ruled that those suspected of committing welfare fraud must receive individual hearings before being denied welfare. Journalist David Frum considers this ruling to be a milestone leading to the city's 1975 budget disaster.

After the Great Society legislation of the 1960s, for the first time a person who was not elderly or disabled could receive a living from the American government. This could include general welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits. In 1968, 4.1% of families were headed by a woman on welfare; by 1980, this increased to 10%. In the 1970s, California was the U.S. state with the most generous welfare system. Virtually all food stamp costs are paid by the federal government. In 2008, 28.7 percent of the households headed by single women were considered poor.

Before the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, welfare was "once considered an open-ended right," but welfare reform converted it "into a finite program built to provide short-term cash assistance and steer people quickly into jobs." Prior to reform, states were given "limitless" money by the federal government, increasing per family on welfare, under the 60-year-old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. This gave states no incentive to direct welfare funds to the neediest recipients or to encourage individuals to go off welfare (the state lost federal money when someone left the system). One child in seven nationwide received AFDC funds, which mostly went to single mothers.

After reforms, which President Bill Clinton said would "end welfare as we know it," amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population. Each state must meet certain criteria to ensure recipients are being encouraged to work themselves out of welfare. The new program is called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). It also encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals and imposes a five-year time limit on cash assistance. The bill restricts welfare from most legal immigrants and increased financial assistance for child care. The federal government also maintains an emergency $2 billion TANF fund to assist states that may have rising unemployment.

While Clinton's attempt seems "noble" and appropriate, it really does nothing to stem the flow of Welfare cases. Proving you've been out on a job search is about as difficult as a 19 year old securing fake ID to drink at bars. Billions of $$ are spent for workers to process welfare cases, instead of billions being spent to have caseworkers assigned to five or six cases apiece and work directly with the recipients to secure jobs, housing, etc. Welfare is handled similar to the DMV and licensing. Go up to a window, process paperwork, walk away with $$. How is that truly helping anyone to make their life better? (especially when they spend hours in line for the $$, hours that could be better spent in a Welfare run trade school or out job searching)

You call yourself "right of centre", but you seem to me to be fairly right-wing. And anyone on this site who seems to think that Obama is worse than W Bush has to be at best self-destructive. At least, however you feel about his politics, Obama is not a constant embarrassment, in the way W Chump Monkey was. If one is going to be the most unpopular Imperialistic nation on earth, i think on should at least try to look good doing it: Victoria may have been dumpy but she at least was regal. Philip is embarrassing, but we are a minor issue these days. W Bush was like a strategically shaved chimpanzee but without the social elan, tact, sense, intellect or delicious aroma. i was in Chicago when he was on telly about Iraq - "we're kicking ass!" - and i had sensible Americans coming over in the airport and apologising for their President, as well they might.

You obviously haven't seen ALL my posts. I disliked Bush with a passion. Every time he was on TV, I had to turn the channel. Our Republic, when founded was slightly right of center. Why is it that it seems radical now?

And, in the end, I don't think Obama is apologising for America's existence. i think he's started to apologise for some of the horrors, crimes and scandals which America has perpertrated globally with a blithe disregard to the welfare of people in other countries (again, do not imagine i am either unaware or forgiving of my own countries list) and that can only assist America in terms of it's world standing. You are rich and powerful, being gracious can only be a good thing, instead of throwing your weight around like an ignorant 18 yr old boy on too many steroids. Your allies (who if they are like us, are probably allies cos of your fiscal clout, rather than through real allegiance) will appreciate this, and your enemies....well if they are not won round, you might at least comfort yourselves with having actually tried to calm things, rather than making things worse.

lots of love and flower power

ROFL! Flower power? That's rich. The "flower power" children of the 60's are the ones who now have Obama's ear. Bill Ayers and his wife, for example. At one time they had a plan to take over America and eliminate (kill) all the "diehard" capitalists. Remember, the Jihad terrorists came to America and were peaceful at first, took flying lessons (as do many Americans) and lived as if they were one of us. They lived among us for over three years before the attack on the Trade Center took place. Why is it so difficult to believe that the radicals of the 60s who are now grown are not doing the same thing?

And then there are the slightly younger revolutionaries, like Van Jones. Just because he is no longer a Czar, doesn't mean he is without influence in todays American political arena.

How about we try and "calm" the storm that rages in America?