FOX News yakker Bill O’Reilly says Barack Obama isn’t a socialist. He notes in a recent op/ed that the American Heritage Dictionary defines socialism as a social organization in which the means of distributing and producing goods is owned collectively. “As long as he isn’t nationalizing industry or purloining private property,” O’Reilly wrote, “I don’t think the socialist label is accurate.”
O’Reilly, of course, is dead wrong.
Just because Obama hasn’t SUCCEEDED (yet) in nationalizing industry or purloining private property, doesn’t mean he doesn’t harbor those desires. Just look at what he’s attempted to do to the U.S. auto, banking and health care industries. I mean, by O’Reilly’s standard, Ron Paul isn’t a conservative/libertarian because he hasn’t yet succeeded in shrinking government.
Look, if President Obama had his way, the government would control the means of distributing and producing health care in America (as well as cars and banking). And he would purloin money from each and every one of us to pay for it by mandating that every American buy health insurance.
He’s a socialist
Wait….Bush got the government take over of the Banking industry started. By your logic he would be a socialist. Perhaps you should rethink this piece.
Actually Josh, in many ways Bush WAS a socialist..albeit socialist lite. Maybe socio-capitalist would be more accurate (this is essentially the system we’ve had since 1930). He did a lot of the same stupid things Obama is doing, just to a lesser degree.
apparently you know as much about socialism as you do the founding fathers… just enough to cherry pick your way though an article…
Swing and a miss, everyone. What Bush and Obama are practicing is called economic fascism. When you regulate, bully and legislate industry into becoming “partners” with government, the resulting mess is much closer to economic fascism than socialism. This is sometimes called crony capitalism, and that’s also pretty accurate.
Bush was a disaster for this country.
Obama is a disaster for this country.
I see no logical contradiction in those two statements.