I go to college and my roommate and I are in the same political science class.
There was an argument that him and I had different views on.

I said Obama is not a socialist but does have some socialist ideas. (the robbin hood effect of taxing) taxes for the rich. Gov. money given to the poor. I see this as government intervention.

He argued that it is politically impossible due to the political spectrum. He is a liberal according to this spectrum. Nobody can be just a little socialist

Note: We are not trying to figure out if he is wrong or right just if he can by technical definition can he be considered a socialist.

Depends on who you ask. While I'm not a conservative I feel that he is and most conservatives believe he is. Most Democrats on here do not think he is. I understand your question about by definition, but most people operate on knee jerk response so your not like to get a definitive answer.

Go back to that technical definition. "Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources." President Obama is proposing none of this. He cannot be considered a Socialist on the basis of his health care proposal. He can be accused of having Socialist tendencies with regards to supplanting the insurance industry, and I am all in favor of that. The health care system itself, no way.

Wall Street, GM, GE to name a few that are now under common ownership (albeit we get nothing from it) because of his over zealous bailouts. I do like the idea of shortening the leash on the insurance industry and should also add pharmaceuticals, big oil, mining and natural gas to that mix and we're starting to go somewhere.

and taking down the unions...not as important as the others, but still needs to be done

There's a lot of groups that need taken down a peg and that list would be extensive.

see i agree with this and Obama does have some socialist tendencies. What we need to understand is that is not a bad thing in this case. Fear mongering has put such a negative view on socialism the west. Just like fear mongering has put negative fews on people in the east.

I guess what im trying to say is we can argue definitions all day its all about finding a dictionary with what you want to hear in it but, Instead lets just recognize that there is good and bad to all political ideals and theories.

Instead of being scared of words lets just understand them first.

Although some of Obama's policies can be construed as socialist in the classical sense, when we examine the whole body of policies, it is more sensible to call the Obama regime fascist.

Although some of Obama's policies can be construed as socialist in the classical sense, when we examine the whole body of policies, it is more sensible to call the Obama regime fascist.


ok i will bite, but you have to explain yourself if your going make that strong of a statement about our nations president

oh, he will...lol

I can do that for you {quote]Fascism ( /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[3] They advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation and the creation of an ideal "new man" to form a governing elite through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy including eugenics.[4] Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[5] Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the state.[6]This is a pretty good definition as liberals see it. This philosophy is practically straight out of the neo-conservative credo. Advocating absolute freedom for Corporations, absolute authoritarianism in matters of privacy and the bedroom. (Think Bushes' Patriot Act, women's right to choose, and gay rights). Liberals want strong regulation over how people are allowed to make money. Conservatives consider this to be "totalitarianism".

This is a pretty good definition as liberals see it. This philosophy is practically straight out of the neo-conservative credo. Advocating absolute freedom for Corporations, absolute authoritarianism in matters of privacy and the bedroom. (Think Bushes' Patriot Act, women's right to choose, and gay rights). Liberals want strong regulation over how people are allowed to make money. Conservatives consider this to be "totalitarianism".


i would have to agree with you, that sounds more like bush than obama... but barry is not far behind bush, tho... neither is by any means "for the people"

Many people say Obama is socialist because raising taxes is a form of government intervention.

How is making laws against two people getting married based on their sexual orientation not government intervention.

It's a very sloppy use of the word "socialism". Government intervention = socialism? The Nazis were socialists? If it doesn't involve the Govenment owning the means of production, then it can't be socialism.

A much better def: I agree

for that matter, how is ANY law not government intervention?

I kind of think that of the people, by the people, and for the people, requires the government to be part of those people (politicians are also citizens)and those people to be part of the government(citizens elect the politicians and vote on the issues),,,,ruling out the idea of a strict government dictatorship(IMHO)

I don't think you can look at what he has done in the presidency and just say whether or not he is a socialist. Maybe he is but thinks real socialist policies would be shot down by the people and then he would have 0 chance of being reelected. I am not saying he is or he isn't. I am saying we can't tell just by his actions. We would only know if we knew his true ideal of what this country should be.