This thread is dedicated to all the folks that mix-up Obama and socialism. In my opinion, Obama and fascism would make more sense considering corporations run this country. Either way check out this link: http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php Examine that pie chart gentlemen! I didn't vote for Obama nor do I like him, but these are the facts. If anyone cares I'm a registered Republican, but will change to Independent soon I did not vote for either candidate and supported Ron Paul. Lastly, please don't bring up any bullsh!t argument that Obama spends a lot. All president have spent a lot, regardless of party. Bush spent more than Clinton! Two parties representing 330+ million people is a joke.
Consult the pie chart please... Code: <img src="http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/socialism%20chart.png"> Socialist is a broad term... but in terms of narrowing the gap between the rich and poor, well all presidents aim towards this, even Bush. Otherwise they would all oppose any welfare programs.
obama is a clown, but what is more sad is that after thousands of years most humans are the same crap, they cheer and clap for the same shit, they buy into the same stupid lies, their mental capacity shrinks rapidly as they grow older, by the time they are half way into their teenage years they are total morons, what a sad state, after so many generations, they still have to find someone to praise and believe in, no self-respect, so mindless, their desires are a more important factor in their life than respect for their own being, it pushes them to praise and bow before others, what cheap and pathetic souls
interesting comment found on that page: "This may be a useful corrective to the silly ravings of the right, but in reality it only confirms our greater national delusions concerning the public/private or government/market dichotomies. By many conventional estimates the "government" accounts for over 40 percent of the "economy," but it is hardly clear what this means. Economies do not stop at national borders and governments maintain all fiat currencies and property laws through which "economies" operate, to point out only the obvious. In our recent troubles, the legal status of the Federal Reserve as a private institution and the revolving door between government jobs and, say, Goldman Sachs have made these specious distinctions even more absurd. I have never yet heard anyone who touts the superior efficiency of "free markets" provide an example of this metaphysical entity that is not supported, stabilized, institutionalized, defined, and operated through a complex system of supposedly "inefficient" government structures. The only thing approaching an international market system, as far as I know, it the illegal drug trade. The unmentionable dichotomy between an investor class and those who rely on wages is far more realistic than the government/market paradigm used to fog the issues." --Nelson Alexander
another comment: "The federal governmenet is over a third of the national economy. Military, intelligence, gov't services, border patrol, TSA, hospitals, the list goes on an on. Now we took over Fannie and Freddie, the U.S. took huge ownership stakes in america's largest banks (Bank America, Citibank, and others) we now own America's largest insurance company (AIG), we own two automakers, we subsidize the postal service, we prop up the railroads, we subsidize national farming, and 1 in 6 dollars "earned" by individuals is coming from the U.S. government."
You forgot to mentions schools. We pay all those teachers salaries and dont forget Nasa! We dump about 1% of our net taxes into that every year.
Yes, I agree that the American government has grown excessively large. But the point is that Obama is not responsible for this. Funding for military, intelligence, gov't services, border patrol, TSA, hospitals, schools, NASA were in all place before Obama. Subsidies of all kind also existed under Republican presidents. The U.S. under Republican presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., also had same programs and they spent like drug-addicts trying to get their fix. Bush Jr. spent apparently 5x more than Clinton by the middle of his second term and he rarely gets any slack for it. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51342) Here is a link to Bush's resume: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Politicians/Bush_accomplishments.html Both parties are for big-government. Financial conservatism for the Republican party has been out the window for decades. Only a few congressman from lonely states adhere to traditional conservative platforms. And btw, Bush also supported all the TARP bullsh!t in Fall of 2008. He selected Bernanke and has no issue with the Fed. He wouldn't have done anything different than Obama and the Democrats. It's a shame. I dislike Obama, but to criticize him is just lunacy and hypocritical. Bush is the same. The only aspect that makes him "more conservative" is that he is against gay marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research... social issues. Ron Paul!