They call Obama Socialist or Marxist

Thank you again for posting a response. The debate will get good ffrom here on in. Firstly, I agree, one cannot stick to their ideologies in times of crisis. But the question is, when to re-appose your ideologies after the smoke has cleared. Lets take this scenario. McCain is voted into office and runs an 8 year term. If, after the first 4 years, the economy restabilizes, he's going to de-regulate the banks and let the free-market thrive again. This is his Republican ideology. If Obama is voted into office, and after the first 4 years the economy re-stabilizes, he isn't going to de-regulate alot. This will slow the rate at which our economy will grow, as the rich pay more back to the poor, their wealth growth rate under Obama is less than under McCain. Secondly, Socialism has a broad definition, and is often described differently by experts. On all levels, Socialsm has the goals of: 1. Narrowing the gap between rich and poor, 2. Taking power and reducing the influence of corporations and CEO's and 3. Generally putting more government in to peoples lifes. The means of which are 1. Taxing the rich heaveirly than the poor, 2. Publicising sectors such as education and health care and 3. Introducing laws where states can't decide on their own laws and of course, point no.2. If you have even vaguely followed the elections, you will know Obama supports and would implement all 3 of the above. His tax plan gives tax breaks to those who earn under 250,000, he would publicise health care and take away supsidiries for children going to private schools and finally he would keep roe vs wade intact, not allowing for states to choose for themselves and increase gun control, which again, woudn't let states choose. (for what it's worth, I support gun control and am pro-choice, but feel ideologies should be implemented on the most local level possible). To challenge your quote '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', I have laid out above that socialism is not total regulation, but infact communism is(Stalinism to be precise). Socialism was designed as the blueprints of Communism but some thought ' This is infact a better ideology than communism '. Obama isn't heavily socialist, he is lightly socialist, moderate at best. Also, Obama is a supporter of a 'nanny-state', where there are more regulations and restrictions. for example, California, a largely democratic state, has numerous nanny laws, such as no smoking in public. Obama even banned his own campaigners from wearing green in china, as to not offend anyobody. Although Obama is for green energy, McCain would give tax breaks to green business' and clean car companies. Obama would just put more regulations in place. Thirdly, A powerful, rich family doesn't necesarilly mean the children are born into a perfect world with the best possible education and vica versa. The man with the highest recorded IQ in the world is Kim Ung-yong, a man with the IQ of 210. He is korean, and born in the 1960's, so whether he's from north, south or before the war, he surely comes from a poor or middle-class background. This is proof that your brains doesn't rely entirely on your education. It is true that powerful families remain in control for decade after decade like royalty, but like this, the wealth is continually divided up as generations progress, companies sometimes weaken and split and this cycle will start over as other big companies emerge or companies will be bought out.The American Dream is that you can become anything , and you argue that in a more idealogical Socialist system, you have an equal starting point. But often, even the best of people come from the slums(Rappers often come from Ghettos with nothing and make something of themselves) in a capitalist system, bacause they are not oppressed in any way. To answer you're question 'Do one really need to be socialist to believe that a better health-care system could improve the possibilities to realize the American dream?'. Health care isn't a factor in the American Dream. The factor is 1. Money and 2.The Economy. Free health care can cost the government alot sometimes, and this can lead to cutbacks in other areas, such as community centres which can inspire people. You also say 'Disease does not distribute fairly. It can happen to the hardest working people, and the laziest.' There is no fault with that. It is 100% true. It most heavily hits the elderly, who are often well off with a pension. However, this includes the people who were sucessful corporate tycoons,businessmen,lawyers,judges,etc. with huge inheritance to pass on, so why should they be given free health care? Yes, health care to people who make ends meet with just enough to add into their sons tuition fee's or their pension, but not tycoons who, yes have provided us with essential services and products, but can fend for themselves with their tidy little profit. To summarise: 1. Obama would have socialist ideologies should the recesion end whilse he is in office, 2. Obama is light/moderate socialist, with goals and means that match socialistic ones and 3. he American dream isn't limited to the well-off and health-care isn't a factor in it. To end, you argued that Health care is comparable to police and Military being privatized as they provide security and safety. The under those circumstances, the PMC's(private Military companies) in the U.S. should be outlawed and acquired by the government. There are more contractors than troops in Iraq, and the PMC's rely on war as funding, so they would lobby for as many war's as possible, reducing safety and security. Doing this would substantially increase the safety and security as it bolsters the army's strength and prevents any military in the U.S. being bought up to attack it's own nation.