Obama is not a Socialist

As the onus is on my opponent to demonstrate that Obama is not a Socialist, I will use this round for the refutation of his claims. Definition of Socialist:A person who advocates or practices SocialismObservation 1: I do not have to prove that the United States has a Socialist economy in order to win this debate, because the resolution states that the subject is Barack Obama, not the US.Observation 2: Since a Socialist is someone who advocates or practices socialism, if Barack Obama is not proven to be completely barren of socialist inclinations or completely without a history of advocating socialist policies, Con automatically wins the debate.WallStreetTheroistI like the sound of that :)I will start with a simple statement that Obama did not join a socialist party.This statement is simply false. Obama became a member of the New Party in 1996; this is evident in 1996 newspapers, flyers, and newsletters that proved Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party. [1] The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992 and dissolved in 1998, to amalgamate far left groups and push the U.S. closer toward socialism on the economic continuum by goading the Democratic Party even further to the left in an economic and political sense. [3] It held views of social democracy, a reformist democratic socialist political ideology that stemmed from the 1920’s with the ideas of men like G. D. H. Cole, R.H. Tawney, and Carlo Rosseli who fused socialist and liberal ideals. [4] One would wonder why he would join the much less radical Democrats, than to simply go on with his beliefs. B.O. has to run as a democrat to achieve power, because 3rd parties have too many legislative, populous, and stigmatized barriers to success. This is due to the reality that in a plurality system of voting like in the United States, a two-party system will develop and third parties will be essentially door mats (absent the unlikely event of massive political shift). This is called Duverger’s Law. [5] This is why an Austrian Economist, Libertarian like Ron Paul is constrained to running for the Republican Party if he wants a chance of winning; this is why Democratic Socialist leftists like Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders (an openly Socialist Senator) are constrained to the Democratic Party. [6] Even if he was using the Democrats to achieve a shot to rise to power, fellow Democrats would soon realize when his policies cross the lane.Democrats are not particularly averse to Liberal-Socialist ideologies. Again, Bernie Sanders is openly Socialist, and he was democratically elected to the highest legislative position in the US government. Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, endorses nearly every policy that will expand the size, scope, and power of the presidency. [7] Obama supported Bernie Sanders' campaign.Socialist policy of Nationalizing industries. These include the bank, hospitals, and education system.Barack Obama socialized the losses of several financial institutions and automotive manufacturers onto the American people; thus, nationalizing the industries’ losses. [8]Banking- B.O. has great confidence in the Federal Reserve Bank and the System in which it operates. A central bank is a socialist institution that seeks to influence the market artificially, the opposite of capitalism. A central bank is actually a fundamental plank of Communism. Obama has met with Ben Bernanke many times and has asked for advice in issues of macroeconomic policy and other policies. [9] He supports the FDIC, Wall Street Reform, and other banking regulations that increase the size of government in those sectors and manipulate control over the banking system.Health Care- Obamacare would force people to buy health insurance by law. This is a statist-Socialist policy that would artificially increase demand for health care while doing nothing to increase supply. Central planning like this leads to shortages, and in this case human lives are at stake. In 2008, there were 1,131 U.S. public hospitals. These hospitals represented 21.9 percent of all hospitals in the U.S. [10] The number of public hospitals is expected to rise greatly with the passing Obamacare. Furthermore, Obamacare will artificially create government jobs for switching the US’ medical records from paper to digital. This, as Hazlitt would point out, will destroy other productive jobs in the economy. Socialist central planning like this is a net-harm.Education- Obama supports public education (a plank of Communism). Furthermore, he supports, advocates, and is striving to get more government in higher-level institutions. Government-guaranteed student loans from banks have been raising the costs of tuition far above inflation for decades now, yet B.O. wants to do away with the middle-man and issue government-guaranteed student loans directly from the government. [11]His health care advocates for people to buy health care, which is not nationalizing health care, as the government does not pay for it.The Ludwig von Mises Institute addressed that this way, “Obama explicitly states that he wants to force the redistribution of income from healthy to unhealthy individuals but with the illogical belief that somehow this scheme will reduce the costs to everyone.” [12] One cannot switch to socialist healthcare overnight; however, Obamacare is a giant step in that direction.Another policy pushed by Socialists, that is less known is the abolition of classes. Obama is a strong advocate of the heavy progressive income tax (on of the planks of Communism), which taxes the rich a higher percentage than the poor (many of whom do not pay income taxes). He proposed the Buffett Rule which would ensure the rich are taxed at a minimum of 30%. [13] With all of the Marxist literature Obama has read, I'm sure if it was that easy to abolish classes, he would do it overnight.Socialism also believes in equal chance for all. So does Obama. That’s why he is an advocate of socialized education, health care, banking, etc.In fact, he spent government money to bail out many large corporations that are privately owned.This is phrased in contemporary political discourse as, “privatizing profits and socializing losses,” and it is a socialist policy. The classical political-economic argument socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor which states that through the use of lobbyists and special interest groups, some businesses receive government aid, called corporate welfare, ensuring a flow of resources toward ineffectively managed companies from the taxed middle and lower classes. The showing of favorable treatment toward some corporations in the act of blending corporation and state is not capitalism or the proper role of government; it is the beginning of Corporatist Social Democracy and Socialism itself. [1] http://www.wnd.com...[2] http://www.americanthinker.com...[3] http://www.netplaces.com...[4] Steve Bastow, James Martin Third way discourse: European ideologies in the twentieth century pages 74-75.[5] http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu...[6] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[7] http://www.albensonjr.com...[8] http://www.pbs.org...[9] http://endoftheamericandream.com...[10] http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov...[11] http://www.collegescholarships.org...[12] http://mises.org...[13] http://www.politico.com...