They call Obama Socialist or Marxist

To start, we have gone a bit of track, discussing and debating the socialist ideologies rather than the fact Obama is infact a socialist. But I will adress you on you're first half. I have a prime example of the capitalist-socilaist balance you speak of. I am irish, and as you might know, we had the celtic tiger economic boom. Because we invested in the capitalist system, we got huge economic growth (6% was about the highest) and are now about as modern as the UK and U. S. But we have a socialist side to us, as our politicians aren't as comitted to being as far left or as far right as they can be. We have a welfare system which pays hard cash, not stamps. We also have medical cards for those who cannot afford health care. We have maternal leave for mothers,etc. But its because we relied on the capitalist system that we grew so much. Take a look at North Korea. They are a communist state and have an almost non-existant economic growth, as opposed to their southern neighbours. They have experimented with special economic zones, and are finding that all nations need the capitalist system to take off and grow until they can adopt a socialist stance. As for the american dream, the dream is that you can become something out of nothing. You're argument that the rich are closer to this is invalid, as the rich are already in the american dream and living it. Yes poor families divide faster than rich ones, and rich people get more money quickly than the poor. But when the redistribution of wealth happens, nobody gains no more than his fellow neighbour, Infact, this can lead to a slow loss of wealth over time, and eventually everyone becomes poor. The fact is, the rich have to be around. They provide the money to give us services that we demand and in return we pay them. It is true that the rich have a better chance of realising their full potential, but most don't. Take a look at any spoiled 'daddies girls' you see on TV and most of them aren't smart, but stupid. Most of the smart people come from upper middle class, not the off-springs off oil-tycoons or CEO's of Nike, but working parents. Yes, health can play a role in economics, but not in today's standings upon the modern world. The last epidemic to sweep humans was the spanish flu that killed millions. The only major outbreaks our amongst cattle, like foot and mouth disease. Every baby in the 1st world is vaccinated, so that they can't be stopped by disease. The only disease that attacks our work forces is the flu, which is easily protected against. Yes, HIV and AIDS leaves the economics of Africa in ruins. But war is the biggest problem, and kills millions un-neccasarily. On to Obama then. You say 'he is not going to tell Coca Cola that they have to stop producing coca cola'. He woudn't go that radical, but he would publicise health-care, re-publicise the social security and would publicise all education if he had the chance. I'm not saying I'm critical of this. But publicising things is socialistic. Its true that socialism is mainly about state-property, but it also carries the democratic ideologies with it. obama also advocates for greater workers rights, like minimum wage. Again, I dont disagree with this, its just this is socilaistic. I enjoyed this debate, and yes, lets debate obver those fascist republicans ! ! Grrr.