"A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single-payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care “exchanges.” Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare."
Has he told Timmy to sell off the GM stock? No?
He’s a socialist.
I can't believe that Ron Paul actually got that wrong. Socialism is NOT "a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses." That's Communism.
Socialism might be called "Communism-Light" because the state takes so much of the incomes of individuals and businesses, but in a purely Socialist system, there is still private property ownership. It's just not worth a damn, because you have a hard time profiting from it, due to taxes.
Ron Paul:
“When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President’s policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term – corporatism – forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.
Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist.”
Ok, he’s a national socialist democrat; Nazi.
The main difference is that Mussolini also wanted to restore the glories of his country, not like our clown.
Splitting hairs. Call it what the people understand. Trying to educate them on different words will lose the issue through noise.
P.S. Obama does not believe in private ownership of corporation. He believes the government should own them, therefore, “corporatists” is not the proper term for Obama. Communist or Marxist is the correct term.
= de jure socialism
Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government.
= de facto socialism = fascism
I think Mark Levin has it right. Obama is a statist which is a more general term than socialist, fascist, communist or the like. In fact, all are types of statist. The important thing to keep in mind is that the differences among socialism, fascism, communism, etc. are not nearly so relevant as the differences between all of them and capitalism, the chief of which, in my mind, is the degree of government control. Capitalism involves far less government control. Unfortunately, how we characterize Obama tends not to be important because the majority a U.S citizens has no idea what any of them mean to them. Notice how the left never refers to the right as capitalists. Instead, they call us intolerant, uncharitable, unable to accept change, wealthy, etc., all terms with negative connotations that the average voter can relate to. Taking a page from their book, I prefer to call the statists suppressors, taxers and spenders, dictators, destroyers of democracy, property confiscators, etc. We must be careful not to call them things like dishonest, corrupt, power hungry and other names because these are traits not unique to statists; they exist everywhere.