First of all, I was pointing out that there are already institutions in place that resemble your definition of socialism, I was not saying I agree with them (the auto insurance and the health insurance mandates). The mandates means that the health insurance companies will be guaranteed customers. That doesn't seem very socialistic to me, the promise that a corporation will make a lot of money at the expense of the common people and workers. It's a ceo's and stockholder's dream come true.

Yes the republic was set up to not infringe on a persons rights, so why is there such a large population of Americans, a majority being conservative, who fight against same-sex marriage, marijuana, and abortion? Opposing these are all infringements on a person's rights yet many believe the government should infringe on those rights. Are all those people, who happen to be mainly conservatives, communists? Generally, not at all.

If you remember Bush signed the $700 billion to bail out the banks and not obama. Also the bailout benefited the owners and corporations and not the common people or workers as a socialist action would. Sure the constitution doesn't say we need to bail out corporations or such but it also doesn't say we need to invade countries for imperialistic aims, spread capitalism around the world, or deny people certain rights because they conflict with the ruling religion. What i'm getting at is that, apparently in America the constitution, sadly, is merely a guideline of how to act or at least that is what most conservatives act like it is.

When you mention people being forced to resign and or take pay cuts, are you talking about the ceos and other positions of power or the workers? Ceos and related personnel might have been forced out by bailout conditions but workers were forced to resign or take lower payouts because the corporation decided to do that and not the government. Don't get me wrong, i think the bailouts were a terrible idea, and executed even worse but that is because the bailouts were constructed to help keep the corporations and the people running them able to continue their practices that brought about this mess in the first place.

Bush forced all this to happen, does that make him a socialist in your view? Obama inherited the mess and expectations of the country. The majority of his solutions and the end goals have been capitalistic in nature so really are saying he is a socialist because you dislike him and know that many Americans will accept that and blindly go along with that idea.

You could be helpful and actually offer a rebuttal instead of just down voting my argument because you don't agree with it.

I'm down voting your argument, if you want to call it such, because there isn't any. Also i have noticed that you down vote many arguments that are pro-animal rights or pro-vegetarian without any decent rebuttal, with the only apparent reason being that you don't agree with the opinion.

Seriously? Your argument basically said that it is the deers fault that it gets hit by a vehicle. Hunters aren't a reliable or major way to prevent accidents involving deer. The best form is to reintroduce natural predators (wolves, pumas) like MKIced said. Natural predators maintain an equalization that allows the ecosystem to function efficiently.

Obama isn't the best president, but he is certainly better than Bush.

Bush got the us into two wars.

Bush turned much of the Arab world against the US. Originally it was only the extreme forces within those regions that hated the us.

Bush oversaw the rise in corporate and political corruption

Bush oversaw the fall of the economy.

Bush increased hostility with Russia

Obama has inherited much of these problems.

This isn't to say that Obama doesn't have any fault. I do believe he could have done different policy choices but we still need to remember the mess he entered into. So far obama has managed to created better relations with russia and the arab world. Obama has also managed to halt the fast deterioration of the economy In addition Obama is smarter, better able to communicate, and more transparent tot he public.

I don't know when it was a crime to read communist literature but if he did read it at least he was able to see a different view of the world. I'm assuming that since you make a big deal about someone reading a book about communism or with such tendencies that you have never read such a book. If that is so how can you actually understand communism if you've never tried to learn from the root of the idea and Form you Own opinion.

why do so many conservatives etc... believe that who one associates with even if it was when they were young or for a short time, defines that person forever? I believe current actions by a person are a better way to define a person than the past associations.

It appears like several people on this site believe that, if a person promotes or believes in a particular course of action then that alone can make a person anything that is associated with that action. You mention that because Obama is suggesting mandated healthcare he is socialist. You assume that government mandates are socialistic and thus obama is a socialist. It also happens to be the case that mandates exist in countries ruled by fascists or democratically elected presidents. In the US we have laws (mandates) that you can't rob or kill someone. Does this make the US socialist what about the person who came up with this law? No. Also most US states mandate that you have car insurance. Does this make the US or advocates of such a mandate socialist? No. Fascists are often associated with state executions so would that make proponents of the death penalty in america fascists? No.

If you examine the healthcare plan that obama offers you will see that as a whole it is capitalistic or at least not socialistic. I already mentioned in another post but for your convenience I will point out more about the capitalistic nature of the plan.

1) The public option is a vast pool of resources that is bought in bulk from other health providers. In actuality the plan is merely a government insurance company that promises to be cheaper yet remain competitive with other companies.

a) The government won't fix prices that operations or prescriptions must adhere to. The prices will drop because the government can buy in bulk and thus create savings.

2) The public option is an OPTION you don't have to choose it. You have the OPTION of keeping your own insurance company that you purchased or get from your employer.

a) being able to choose your provider means that the market is still the ultimate manipulator of prices. If the government provides cheaper and better healthcare, using market strategies then it will because of the market that you decide to purchase that healthcare.

3) This plan retains the health insurance companies and allows them to choose their own prices and methods. It does not close them down or set artificial price ceilings or floors.

a) it merely requires that the insurance companies don't drop already paying customers if they have a precondition.

b) it also requires that the insurance companies don't discriminately price their services or products based on someone's' health.

If you are judging obama and his actions, and this bill is a reflection of his actions, on one association between the actions and the methodology then shouldn't you be saying he is a capitalist? There are more capitalistic features in the bill than socialistic and the capitalistic ones are also of a greater magnitude.

I feel like i'm gonna repeat my self again but obviously you haven't payed attention so far. I'm gonna break it down for you. First some definitions from http://www.merriam-webster.com which i assume is credible in your opinion.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Now that you know where i'm coming from you should be able to realise that obama is in fact a capitalist. That is if you actually listened to him and what he did and didn't get your marching orders from the likes of rush limbaugh or glenn beck.

1) The automakers bailout was a capitalistic move because he gave huge sums of money to the corporations so that they could keep going without challenging the business structure at all.

a socialist as you should know would have abolished the position of ceo and either given COMPLETE control over to the workers of each plant or fully nationalized the company so that the government owned it. giving money without gaining official control or ownership doesn't constitute a socialist action.

2) His remedy for the healthcare system in the US is also capitalistic because he seeks to maintain private health companies with them giving few concessions.

A socialist would have made a plan to abolish all private health insurance companies and create a sole organization to run healthcare. merely adding an additional insurrance company(which happens to be owned by the government) does not make this plan a socialistic move.

i could go on but i'l be lucky if you really read all of what i just wrote. If you still believe he is socialist(which sadly you probably will) please respond with a list of defineite policies obama has taken that make him so.

Also I down voted your argument not because i disagree with you but because your argument contained no substance or support. You make big claims and believe that we should just accept them at face value.

Obama is not a socialist or socialistic.

He has not advocated for state or worker control of private enterprise. He has merely given some corporations a lot of money. He doesn't control or own them.

Expressing a desire to help those in need does not make you a socialist. It shows that you are human.

Not being overly religious doesn't make you socialist.

Opposing religion in politics doesn't make you socialist. It also doesn't mean you hate religion. It just means that you think they shouldn't influence each other.

Obama certainly isn't as openly religious as Bush but he isn't going to persecute religion like how Bush and his followers persecute non-believers. More people are free to live their lives without government influence because Obama believes in the separation of church and state.

Healthcare reform is important for several reasons.

1) Economical.

- Currently it is very inefficient with a lot of cooperate bureaucracy and paper work that drives up costs.

- A sick workforce is harmful to the national economy

- providing Healthcare to employees is a strain on business budgets

2) Ineffective

- The current system's first goal is to make a profit by using healthcare as a product. Currently it is more profitable to deny claims than to provide healthcare.

- people often receive more than they need in terms of tests and drugs and thus possibly taking resources away from those who could need them.

3) Social

- The current system favors those who are least in need, while punishing those who most need it.

- health care benefits can prevent dissatisfied workers from leaving their job for one that they will like more but doesn't provide health care.

I believe that government run healthcare will work better than cooperate healthcare. Maybe in America the government can't do any thing socially good but other western nations' governments can.

We have let corporate healthcare show us how expensive, ineffective and unjust it can be. Our neighbors above us and across the ocean have shown how government run healthcare can be cheaper, efficient, and more just.