Thanks, Al!

I'm a socialist (social democrat, not communist) and can say with absolute conviction that the ideas presented above aren't socialism. Certainly there are huge chunks of it that would be embraced by socialists, but not just them.

Several of those policies are civil rights issues, equal rights issues. Some are issues ensuring economic stability and private ownership.

The workers rights issues -- corporate leaders etc don't like to be reminded that the health of the US economy is dependant on a large middle class with plenty of disposable income. The fact that the minimum wage is ridiculously low, covers a very large portion of the work force (even if we don't count those who make less or barely make more) and is not offset by health insurance or other benefits, is nibbling away at and shrinking that middle class.

A lot of the mechanisms removing capitalism from pure laissez-faire (everything goes) capitalism are there to prevent capitalism from destroying itself. Even the famously right wing german chancellor Otto von Bismarck understood this when he devised what is known as Bismarck-socialism (or carrot and stick socialism), which is not socialism at all. It is merely the idea that some aspects of socialism may be introduced into an otherwise right wing society to alleviate the most pressing and undisputedly legitimate concerns (such as conditons leading to class-specific famine or authority abuse - which is often seen as the proximate cause of the popular revolutions in both France and Russia  - as opposed to the political revolution that accompanied them) . The purpose of this would be to prevent socialism by diminishing the perceived need for socialism.

And trying to put partly disabled workers back into the workplace instead of putting them on disability or welfare? Seriously? In Europe many people on the right love the idea. A quadruplegic in the workplace is like a poster boy for their mantra that anyone who doesn't have a job doesn't want a job.  It's a truly bi-partisan issue. The only conflict lies in who pays for it.

Paid sick leave? In our country studies have shown that when people have access to paid sick leave * (note) they take off a few days when they first get sick instead of infecting other employees, and recover before their immune system becomes so compromised that they might need a much longer period of convalescence. In short, paid sick leave (and not everyone takes advantage of the 4 by 3 system either, by the way) reduces overall absences and ultimately benefit businesses.

*(in our country even up to 4 times 3 day leaves without the need for a doctor's note. Except in professions like mine, as call-in transportation workers we don't get paid sick leave for anything other than work place injuries.)

What I have not seen Obama arguing (and which would be clear signs of socialism) would be for the government to profit directly from harvesting natural resources on government land (logging, mining and oil drilling) instead of farming the work and profits out to private business.

I don't see him arguing in favor of nationalising businesses (In my country, when one of our major banks needed to be bailed out because the shareholder's capital - which is supposed to be something like 10 to 20 percent of the bank's capital -had dwindled to less than zero due to unwise investments and the bank was essentially bankrupt, the government solved it by locking the shares at zero and taking over the bank until it was solvent again. At which point the government owned all the shares and took the profit when it went back on the stock exchange. I can't see the US government doing that in a bail out. )  

I don't see him arguing the central principle that truly defines socialism: Government operated businesses on a large scale for the profit of the people as a whole. ("The workers owning the means of production")

I think a lot of Americans just use "socialism" as a buzz-word for "big government". What you have is more like social liberalism. Liberalism being protecting freedom through the absence of government intrusion and social liberalism being protecting freedom through limited and specifically targeted government intrusion in order to safeguard against more severe infringements on actual liberty by non-governmental means.

Is he going to increase the amount of federal workers by 6 million?

------------------------------------------------------------ ---------

I dearly wish this were an impossibility.  There was a time, not so long ago, when government employees didn't count in the sample for unemployment figures.  They were used to cook the books back in 1985.

Knut wrote: And trying to put partly disabled workers back into the workplace instead of putting them on disability or welfare? Seriously? In Europe many people on the right love the idea. A quadruplegic in the workplace is like a poster boy for their mantra that anyone who doesn't have a job doesn't want a job.  It's a truly bi-partisan issue. The only conflict lies in who pays for it. Paid sick leave? In our country studies have shown that when people have access to paid sick leave * (note) they take off a few days when they first get sick instead of infecting other employees, and recover before their immune system becomes so compromised that they might need a much longer period of convalescence. In short, paid sick leave (and not everyone takes advantage of the 4 by 3 system either, by the way) reduces overall absences and ultimately benefit businesses.

All you've done is throw out sound-bite talking points - all of which were thrown right back at you.

Huh?  That has been a large portion of your entire contribution to this thread.  You throw out Obama sound-bite talking points all the time. 

And I haven't heard peep one out of you in terms of adult intellegent answers to any of our questions about proof of Obama's socialism or how Wright has influenced him.

Reading comprehension For The Win. Obama is nothing but buzz words, fluff and no details.  He has grand ideas but never mentions how those ideas would be implemented or paid for.  Of course, it's obvious the answer is significant tax increases so he doesn't want to say it.  I very clearly pointed out some very specific things he supports that I am against and think are bad earlier in the thread.  They are things you think are good and responded as such.  Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean that it isn't an adult intelligent answer.

The majority of your replies to me seem to be veiled (and some not so veiled) personal attacks rather than actually facing the issues I bring up.

Let me be clear here - if you want to continue to be the running joke of the thread, that's your right, but I'd advise you to go out and do a little research and come back when you're ready to debate with the grown-ups.

Did you push people lockers while you were in high school?  Just trying to get an idea where your responses are coming from.

Nice try, Jon.

Oops!  Freudian slip typo again - I'll let your threats and not-so thinly veiled attacks go - but let me address some of the points you're trying to make.

That has been a large portion of your entire contribution to this thread.  You throw out Obama sound-bite talking points all the time. 

Prove it.  I haven't edited one post in this thread.  Go back and look at my posts and show me where this is true. 

The majority of your replies to me seem to be veiled (and some not so veiled) personal attacks rather than actually facing the issues I bring up.

Bad mind-reading.  Tsk tsk.  How do you know what my intentions are?  And by the way - that's just factually wrong.  You bring up these aforementioned talking points about Rev Wright and he's a socialist and he's going to cut the military - and I showed how they were either irrelevant or factually wrong each time.  You asked for a reply from Obama supporters and I took the challenge and answered.  I asked for replies from Obama non-supporters and where were you?  Keith gave a great answer to my question.  No talking points or buzz words - just facts and good logic. 

I'd suggest you go back and re-read your own posts before you start pointing fingers.