Do you think Obama believes in Socialism / Do you believe in Socialism?

[Hashemite]

I hate elections.

[Emperor SJoyce]

No. He's more of a fascist, really

[Yelnoc]

I exaggerate slightly, for effect. But seriously, what president in the last forty years has intervened a heavily in the market economy as Bush did in his final months?

Well, Nixon imposed wage and price controls 40 years ago.

[Lloyd Bentsen's Ghost]

The world had this argument for several decades during the twentieth century. In the early '90s, a general consensus was reached that a command-and-control economy was not an effective way to allocate resources. The only place in the world where socialism in the Cold War sense exists today is North Korea.

At some point, conservatives need to realize that they are trying to start an argument that no one else wants to have - because it ended nearly twenty years ago.

[milhouse24]

Do you think Romney believes in Nazism/Do you believe in Nazism?

Grow up.

It doesn't matter what you think or feel, but the media and the right wing media discusses the Obama/Socialism issue. 

You're just upset because "Socialism" is seen as a perjorative just like being labeled a "Liberal" is seen negatively. 

Many Liberals embrace socialism, and actually prefer Obama to be more Socialist. 

You can stick your head in the sand, and call out names, but it doesn't stop the media from discussing whether Obama is a socialist or the merits of Socialism. 

You are clearly reacting in an immature emotional way, rather than seeing the reality of Obama's current political situation as it is viewed by both liberals and conservatives. 

[milhouse24]

But it was George W. Bush who nationalized the banking and automotive sectors. Who's the socialist now?

Yeah, and Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents precisely because he ventured into Socialist policies of bailouts, and not to mention the Deficit spending Military Wars. 

Bottom line, huge government spending programs are unpopular for Obama, Bush, etc.

[mondale84]

But it was George W. Bush who nationalized the banking and automotive sectors. Who's the socialist now?

Yeah, and Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents precisely because he ventured into Socialist policies of bailouts, and not to mention the Deficit spending Military Wars. 

Bottom line, huge government spending programs are unpopular for Obama, Bush, etc.

Ummmm, no. People are hypocrites. People like to take, take, take from government, but they don't like to pay for it...

[Secretary Polnut]

But it was George W. Bush who nationalized the banking and automotive sectors. Who's the socialist now?

Yeah, and Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents precisely because he ventured into Socialist policies of bailouts, and not to mention the Deficit spending Military Wars. 

Bottom line, huge government spending programs are unpopular for Obama, Bush, etc.

Ummmm, no. People are hypocrites. People like to take, take, take from government, but they don't like to pay for it...

Exactly... it's like the mentality... "I get benefits, but I deserve them... those people get entitlements and don't"

If those programs are socialist, then a HELL of a lot of Americans of all political stripes are socialists.

[Governor Scott]

Do you think Romney believes in Nazism/Do you believe in Nazism?

Grow up.

It doesn't matter what you think or feel, but the media and the right wing media discusses the Obama/Socialism issue.  

You're just upset because "Socialism" is seen as a perjorative just like being labeled a "Liberal" is seen negatively.  

Many Liberals embrace socialism, and actually prefer Obama to be more Socialist.  

You can stick your head in the sand, and call out names, but it doesn't stop the media from discussing whether Obama is a socialist or the merits of Socialism.  

You are clearly reacting in an immature emotional way, rather than seeing the reality of Obama's current political situation as it is viewed by both liberals and conservatives.  

Ahaha.  Oh really, buddy?  I'm the one calling names?  I'm not the one who's asking loaded, counterproductive questions with the sole intention of trolling.  Words themselves are not inherently bad, but it is society and the media that make them perceived to be a certain way.  The word 'liberal' is simply not universally accepted as a negative term in the way that 'socialist' is, in spite of how you might like it to be.  Either you obviously have no concept of socialism as an ideology or you are just learning what it is, because otherwise you would not have opened a thread with such a fatuous, vague, blatantly hackish question like this.

I suggest you do your own homework and learn these terms instead of relying on Fox News for your political vocabulary.

[The Mikado]

I believe it exists, yeah.  I'd assume Obama does too.

[Third Party]

do you think Obama believes in Socialism?

No, because Obama is a multimillionaire and a Neocon.

Do you support socialism?

Yes, I do.

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

This is seriously one of the worst threads I've ever had the displeasure of reading and everyone in this thread who says Obama is a socialist should be banned for trolling. I sincerely hope that none of you actually believe that Obama is a socialist. Believe me, if Obama were a socialist, you would wish he was as capitalist as he actually is. It's people like you all that make me ashamed to be a Republican, a Fiscal Conservative and wear the blue avatar. It literally pains me to read some of your posts. It makes me think 'I really hope this person is trolling, because if they're not, they belong in a mental hospital.' The idiocy of the right wing these days really knows no boundaries. Do I think the Republican Party is perfect? No way. Most of the politicians are idiots and/or whiter than white bread, but it's some of the GOP's cult-like followers, such as some of the posters in this thread, that really give me a visceral pain up and down my spine. Clearly you have no understanding of what socialism actually is. Stop turning on Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and repeating everything they say. I listen to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, but I don't go out and spew their talking points about as if they were factual. I try to do some research on the internet. The internet exists for more reasons than to sign up on political forums and spread lies about the Democratic Party, you know. Stop calling Obama a "socialcommumarxofascist" or whatever the standard neocon bullcrap term is. It makes no sense. Go on the internet and look up socialism, read about it, and I mean actually read about it. Let the knowledge flow throughout your system. I was taught an entire unit on socialism in school and it made me believe in socialism less than I had before. Because I came to the conclusion that it is an idiotic ideology that would never work in America and is nowadays only based on greed, troll-like class warfare and self-pity. I guarantee that if you read about socialism, learn what it is, and apply your knowledge to political debates, you will not become a commie pinko USSR-type socialist. If you do, whatever. You've opened your mind. I can guarantee you that watching (or even opening another tab and just listening) to a 5-20 minute video on YouTube informing you about socialism will not kill you. You will not die. Your heart will not implode, your brain will not melt, your bones will not turn into jello and your skin will not spontaneously combust. I'm sick of seeing these stupid threads and I'm sick of reading the same talking points over and over and over used by a different poster with a blue avatar from a different state. Stop. You're embarrassing your party and you're driving others to hate you and the Republican Party even more.

[hawkeye59]

I'm a social democrat, and Obama is not even close to being a social democrat, let alone a socialist.

[milhouse24]

Do you think Romney believes in Nazism/Do you believe in Nazism?

Grow up.

It doesn't matter what you think or feel, but the media and the right wing media discusses the Obama/Socialism issue.  

You're just upset because "Socialism" is seen as a perjorative just like being labeled a "Liberal" is seen negatively.  

Many Liberals embrace socialism, and actually prefer Obama to be more Socialist.  

You can stick your head in the sand, and call out names, but it doesn't stop the media from discussing whether Obama is a socialist or the merits of Socialism.  

You are clearly reacting in an immature emotional way, rather than seeing the reality of Obama's current political situation as it is viewed by both liberals and conservatives.  

Ahaha.  Oh really, buddy?  I'm the one calling names?  I'm not the one who's asking loaded, counterproductive questions with the sole intention of trolling.  Words themselves are not inherently bad, but it is society and the media that make them perceived to be a certain way.  The word 'liberal' is simply not universally accepted as a negative term in the way that 'socialist' is, in spite of how you might like it to be.  Either you obviously have no concept of socialism as an ideology or you are just learning what it is, because otherwise you would not have opened a thread with such a fatuous, vague, blatantly hackish question like this.

I suggest you do your own homework and learn these terms instead of relying on Fox News for your political vocabulary.

Newsflash, France just voted for a Socialist president.  This may surprise you, but not everyone believes being labeled a Socialist is a negative thing.  You're living in the past with the commies. 

[milhouse24]

But it was George W. Bush who nationalized the banking and automotive sectors. Who's the socialist now?

Yeah, and Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents precisely because he ventured into Socialist policies of bailouts, and not to mention the Deficit spending Military Wars. 

Bottom line, huge government spending programs are unpopular for Obama, Bush, etc.

Ummmm, no. People are hypocrites. People like to take, take, take from government, but they don't like to pay for it...

Exactly... it's like the mentality... "I get benefits, but I deserve them... those people get entitlements and don't"

If those programs are socialist, then a HELL of a lot of Americans of all political stripes are socialists.

Americans complain more about Activist Government than inactive governments.  When they see Big Government spending lots of taxpayer dollars on programs they don't agree with, such as war, or other things, then the public rises up. 

Whether its facism or socialism or anything that resembles greater Government involvement in the daily lives of citizens, people become skeptical.  Basically, anything resemebling authoritarianism, rather than personal freedom.

[Redalgo]

In terms of economic ideology, I consider President Obama a neo-mercantilist with some strong capitalist and relatively modest, social democratic influences. The recent interventions in the economy were nationalist and populist, not socialist, in nature - the state becoming involved in the markets to promote the national interest and nudge outcomes of market forces toward desirable ends - in this case in an appeal to "the masses" as opposed to "the elites." Barack, being a social liberalist and therefore not especially authoritarian at heart, is much more moderate in how far he runs with this stuff compared to the leaders of other, more clearly neo-mercantilist nations such as the PRC, Japan, Russia, and South Korea.

As for me, I basically take social liberal values to socialist conclusions, but reject the idea of nationalization of the economy as being tantamount to transferring ownership or even control of the means of production to the workers. The "size" of government has nothing to do with whether an economy is capitalist or socialist. Both models are compatible with many forms of government, ranging from anarchism at one extreme to totalitarianism at the other. It is simply that many people - especially Americans - have for decades been fed propaganda that socialism is an economic system of fear and authoritarian oppression whereas capitalism is one of freedom and democracy, which is a laughably false dichotomy.

The kind of socialism I believe in may be interpreted as democratic or market socialism, a form of welfare capitalism, or as some sort of mixed system. A lot of opinions circulate out there about what is and is not capitalist or socialist, after all, and no amount of deliberation here in this thread is going to build up consensus in bringing all of those opinions into harmony. But what I will say is the most hardcore rightists and leftists on economic matters - purists who refuse to mix models at all - are an extremely small minority indeed. Also, variations of liberalism and socialism are not (and never were) the only major political-economic ideologies competing on the global stage.

[Sibboleth]

I consider President Obama a neo-mercantilist

Stop.

[Redalgo]

You have a great opportunity to set a misconception straight. Why has your only contribution to this thread thus far been a pair of curt, uninformative reminders of your appalling lack of tact? O.o

[AmericanNation]

In terms of economic ideology, I consider President Obama a neo-mercantilist with some strong capitalist and relatively modest, social democratic influences. The recent interventions in the economy were nationalist and populist, not socialist, in nature - the state becoming involved in the markets to promote the national interest and nudge outcomes of market forces toward desirable ends - in this case in an appeal to "the masses" as opposed to "the elites." Barack, being a social liberalist and therefore not especially authoritarian at heart, is much more moderate in how far he runs with this stuff compared to the leaders of other, more clearly neo-mercantilist nations such as the PRC, Japan, Russia, and South Korea.

As for me, I basically take social liberal values to socialist conclusions, but reject the idea of nationalization of the economy as being tantamount to transferring ownership or even control of the means of production to the workers. The "size" of government has nothing to do with whether an economy is capitalist or socialist. Both models are compatible with many forms of government, ranging from anarchism at one extreme to totalitarianism at the other. It is simply that many people - especially Americans - have for decades been fed propaganda that socialism is an economic system of fear and authoritarian oppression whereas capitalism is one of freedom and democracy, which is a laughably false dichotomy.

The kind of socialism I believe in may be interpreted as democratic or market socialism, a form of welfare capitalism, or as some sort of mixed system. A lot of opinions circulate out there about what is and is not capitalist or socialist, after all, and no amount of deliberation here in this thread is going to build up consensus in bringing all of those opinions into harmony. But what I will say is the most hardcore rightists and leftists on economic matters - purists who refuse to mix models at all - are an extremely small minority indeed. Also, variations of liberalism and socialism are not (and never were) the only major political-economic ideologies competing on the global stage.

Perhaps Obama is triangulating Classical Liberalism --  Anarchocommunism --and-- Socialism

[Redalgo]

In hindsight, incidentally, the neo-mercantilist pitch was a stupid idea and seems to have been an ill-conceived ramble on my part for tying in statist behavior with a non-socialist paradigm of political economy. Keynesianism is capitalist though, so I don't know why I opted to complicate things so much. Oh well. xD

[asexual trans victimologist]

In terms of economic ideology, I consider President Obama a neo-mercantilist with some strong capitalist and relatively modest, social democratic influences. The recent interventions in the economy were nationalist and populist, not socialist, in nature - the state becoming involved in the markets to promote the national interest and nudge outcomes of market forces toward desirable ends - in this case in an appeal to "the masses" as opposed to "the elites." Barack, being a social liberalist and therefore not especially authoritarian at heart, is much more moderate in how far he runs with this stuff compared to the leaders of other, more clearly neo-mercantilist nations such as the PRC, Japan, Russia, and South Korea.

As for me, I basically take social liberal values to socialist conclusions, but reject the idea of nationalization of the economy as being tantamount to transferring ownership or even control of the means of production to the workers. The "size" of government has nothing to do with whether an economy is capitalist or socialist. Both models are compatible with many forms of government, ranging from anarchism at one extreme to totalitarianism at the other. It is simply that many people - especially Americans - have for decades been fed propaganda that socialism is an economic system of fear and authoritarian oppression whereas capitalism is one of freedom and democracy, which is a laughably false dichotomy.

The kind of socialism I believe in may be interpreted as democratic or market socialism, a form of welfare capitalism, or as some sort of mixed system. A lot of opinions circulate out there about what is and is not capitalist or socialist, after all, and no amount of deliberation here in this thread is going to build up consensus in bringing all of those opinions into harmony. But what I will say is the most hardcore rightists and leftists on economic matters - purists who refuse to mix models at all - are an extremely small minority indeed. Also, variations of liberalism and socialism are not (and never were) the only major political-economic ideologies competing on the global stage.

Perhaps Obama is triangulating Classical Liberalism --  Anarchocommunism --and-- Socialism

What is the graph supposed to mean?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I consider President Obama a neo-mercantilist

Stop.

Al is right, trying to re-invent terms that clearly only work in a historical context is dumb.

[Politico]

Socialism is government ownership over the primary means of production. Does Obama want the government to nationalize FedEx, Apple, WalMart, and Boeing? The question is absurd. Of course not. And no, I do not believe in Socialism. It was discredited decades ago.

This. However, Obama is undeniably anti-business, does not demonstrate an understanding and appreciation of markets, and believes strongly in government intervention in the form of regulatory burdens along with the subsidization of failed/failing/will-fail entities at the expense of successful entities. Obama is not openly socialist, but that may be solely due to political constraints. Or maybe not. In your heart, you know he's not forthright.

[AmericanNation]

Perhaps Obama is triangulating Classical Liberalism --  Anarchocommunism --and-- Socialism

What is the graph supposed to mean?

It's a basic two axis graph.  "Statists" could also be called individual liberty and "in favor of private property" could be called economic liberty.  The lines are depicting the general development or evolution of these "isms" from one to another over recent (300 years or so) history.  I think it does a perticularly good job of showing classical liberalism's relationship to everything and also how Fascism/Nazism isn't right of center whatsoever it is "right" relative to socialism/communism.  Most people don't understand that relative relationship to each other or have any concept of a useful spectrum, so this is somewhat helpful.       

[Sibboleth]

How anyone could take a chart like that even half seriously is beyond me.