They call Obama Socialist or Marxist

Thank you for your reply! It is nice to see that you are able to both vote for Obama, and to have critical thoughts on his politics. This is important in a democracy. First, I would like to address the idea that if one supports government intervention in the free markets in some cases, then one are ideologically socialist. In the case of the bank-bailout we can see that it was necessary to do something to minimize the effects of the crisis on the economy. This is more a pragmatic decision than an ideological one. It was opposed on ideological basis, but accepted on pragmatic basis. Both McCain and Obama supported the bailout, and President Bush did also. People with widely different ideological backgrounds found it to be necessary even though they didn't like it. In deep crisis one cannot let one self be limited by ideology. Actually – in total war, most democratic countries will need to be governed as a dictatorship. This doesn't mean that they have changed ideology. It is just a necessary evil, and they are probably fighting for their old ideology. Secondly. I think it is important to look at the goals, not only the means. The difference between socialists and Obama that i find most profound, is that the socialist wants equality as a goal, while Obama seems to see it as a precondition. Even Adam Smith, the father of liberalist economics, and who wrote about the rational self-interest, found it reasonable that the rich should contribute proportionally more than the poor. What was he thinking? Could it be that the rich has gained an unfair advantage? Is it easier to earn the second million than the first? I think it is. And I actually think that when you are amongst the rich, you get richer thanks to ordinary people. Consumers can lift people or organizations up, using the power of their dollars. So how unfair is it then to tax the rich a bit more? They will still increase their capital faster than the poor and the middle class. Of course one cannot overdo this; The socialists wants to abolish any social differences, by redistributing all the money – and thereby also reducing personal freedom. Obama seems to want to give more people the equal opportunities. And they can still end up where they want. according to their dreams. In a socialist country, the real suppression lies in that all your achievements are stolen from you, and thought of as something the people own. I have never heard Obama suggesting anything close of this. There is a logical fallacy called "slippery slope", and that is for example implying that "if we accept some regulation – we will soon have Stalinism". Each change has to be considered in it's own respect. Of course one could say that some of the things Obama wants to do has elements of socialism in them. That depends much on the definitions of what is the government duties. (should the police and army also be market regulated?). But to call someone socialist, implies that their goal is total regulation. I don't think this is true, because this is not the politics Obama is running for president with, and therefore I would call this a logical fallacy. If one taxes the rich a bit more, I don't think you are limiting their success – if we are doing so because of a flaw in the self-regulation of the market. People with money are more likely to get more money. And they are in this position much thanks to the "little people". In all societies it has been expected that the rich man in the community helped the community in tough times, or by for example giving money to the local hospital or sports arena. This is because the rich man wouldn't be were he was – if it weren't for the other people. He had to do this to stay popular and successful. Thirdly I have some thoughts about the American dream. I find other things to be more important as oppressors of the dream. And theses lies within the ultra-capitalist system. It seems to us in Scandinavia that people don't have the same opportunities in the US. If people are to have the same opportunities, then they also has to have as equal a starting point as the system can allow. People born in rich families have greater opportunities than those born in poverty. This is oppressing on the next generation, who have done nothing wrong but to be born in the wrong family. These differences are keeping the American dream out of reach for most poor people – in the real world. Of course; in theory it seems possible to rise from poverty to the top, but it rarely is possible, and it is rarely done in the real world. In the real world, and especially in capitalist countries, we se the same families having great power, generation after generation. In Norway we have this equality from early in life – and the children are unfortunately taught some things we don't like. This is inevitable. But the result is, that in Norway most people have a high level of education. You choose whatever career you want. If you want to be rich, you will probably become rich. And it doesn't depend on your parents income. To me, this seems like more in the spirit of the American dream. To sum it up: Do one really need to be socialist to believe that a better health-care system could improve the possibilities to realize the American dream? Disease does not distribute fairly. It can happen to the hardest working people, and the laziest. Is it fair that those who have rich parents get the best education? I think that it is possible to embrace some of the "socialist means", to strengthen the capitalist economy, and still not be a socialist. Disease in a society will reduce purchase power, and also reduce income of those who are healthy – to address these problems would bring prosperity to the whole country. People are still able to reach their dreams, but now they are doing it on top of a "layer" of safety and security. I find the health care-reforms to be a discussion on the same level as to whether the police and army should be regulated by the government. If the government provide people with safety and security, then they are more free to achieve their goals. And to point this out: taxes are not a socialist invention. Taxes has always been to provide safety and security (as far back as to when our security was provided by warlords).