Since this board is mostly populated by Obama supporters, I'm curious as to what you have to say on this matter. Barack Obama's policies have, as far as I see them, some strong socialist influences, most notably his positions on free health care and taxation. Obama himself has used the words "Spread the wealth around" many times to justify his incredible tax hike on the upper class. Spreading the wealth around, basically, means taking from the rich and giving to the poor. People who work hard to be successful (like Joe the Plumber) shouldn't be penalized for succeeding. Critics will point out the fact that wealth is extremely concentrated into the far upper tiers of society, but they also fail to point out that the top 50% of wage earners in this country pay 97% of all federal taxes - the bottom 50% pays only 3%, so I'd say they're at least doing their share. Spreading the wealth is not what America does - that's what the USSR did - right up until their collapse.

Obama's ties to the far left are numerous, including his membership in the New Party (an american socialist political party) and in fact was one of their sponsored candidates. He was also a member of a radical far left racist church for 2 decades. He launched his political career in the living room of an admitted far left terrorist bomber. He describes in his OWN AUTOBIOGRAPHY that he picked his friends carefully, and that he picked Marxists and Socialists as his friends.

While listening to the radio, I heard an Obama supporter call a right wing talk show and explain that the reason he supported Obama was because of his socialist platform. After the host immediately asked if he was secretly a McCain supporter, he vehemently denied it and explained that he was serious. After answering 'yes' and 'no' respectively to the host's questions "You wouldn't happen to be a college student, would you?" and "Do you have a job?", and was soon hung up on after attempting to explain why socialism is the right way to go.

My question to Obama supporters is this: Do you agree that his policies are socialist in nature, if not why not, and if so, why don't you care?

I'm down with socialism. It's the exploitation of our broken society that allowed the ultra-ultra-rich (not the top 50%, more like the top 10% or even fewer) to get where they are, and since they owe their success to society, it only makes sense that they should be the ones to fund its operation - it certainly isn't benefiting the rest of us nearly as much. Of course the poor only pay a small amount of taxes - they don't have any money to pay tax with; it just makes sense to me. As for universal health care, I don't see how anyone is against it except through the misinformation, disinformation, and prejudice based on lack of exposure that always floats through these conversations.

I've never heard of the New Party, so I guess I'd have to get back to you on whether or not I care about that. I don't really know much about the church stuff, either. The "palling around with terrorists" crap that I've been hearing about is complete bullshit; the man is a giant in Illinois academia - anyone involved in that scene has been "palling around" with Bill Ayers (is that his name? I assume this is the guy you're talking about) for their entire career, and could he really have gotten to that position if he hadn't moved beyond his bomb-building roots? And you can't seriously tell me with a straight face that there aren't any vocal morons supporting McCain in this race (although how being in college and not having a job are a valid base to insult someone from is beyond me).

Are his policies socialist? I wouldn't say so, but if you'd say that Canada is a socialist country, I guess they are. Either way, they make perfect sense to me.

EDIT: And I'd point out that the USSR was not socialist, it was communist, although comparing your opposition to the USSR is a pretty good way to cast them in a negative light without technically invoking Godwin's Law.

I agree, what's wrong with socialism?

In response to Good Morning Blues:

Communism is the type of government, Socialism is the style of economics.They are exactly the same thing, just one pertains to the country's politics. That's why they go hand in hand. Just like our (America's) Democracatic Republic has a Capitalist economy.

And I can't trust someone who associates with an unrepentant terrorist. And yes, people like Ayers can get far in the educational system because there are many like him in high positions in that field.

Socialism is still basically only the rich rule and well everyone else is poor. The only thing that changes are who is the ruling class.

Theres a difference between keeping society from collapsing (I'm talking about some warefare and schools, not the crisis crap) America has always been know for the oppertunity it has. Almost everyone who has came to America didn't have a dollar to their name and yet now their decedents are doing pretty damn well for themselves compared to starving in the street of Tegucigalpa.

The only reason you think there is something wrong with capitalism is you been spoon feed thoughts that you are in reality unimportant and you will never be anything more then what you are. There are some minor socialist factors that is apart of just keeping society from imploding, but then there is Dictatorship of the proletariat and well, that's the last thing anyone but those who claim to represent proletarians wants.

lolwut?

What's wrong with free healthcare? Should someone do without having their hand put back on just because they can't pay a bill?

Poor rich people. God forbid they give back to the country that gave them the means and opportunity to become wealthy, and to its people who sustain that wealth.

And free health care? That will never work! Except in UK, France, Canada, Cuba...

nd socialism is bad because...?

And also, being rich is not always being succesful. People like Paris Hilton exemplify that. Aslo there is the people that work hard but aren't succesful. Sorry th system isn't the ideal you seem to have that hard working people get rich and poor people are just a bunch of useless ba******s that just lay around waiting tht the Governmetn will do everything for them.

There is also this thing about Finnland being in generl in a etter state that the US, and I'm pretty sure they have social security there, those ol' mean commies.

Good morning blues:

And I'd point out that the USSR was not socialist, it was communist, although comparing your opposition to the USSR is a pretty good way to cast them in a negative light without technically invoking Godwin's Law.

Yeah, the USSR was socialist. It claimed (falsely) to be communist, but it wasn't anywhere near Marx and Engels' vision of a communist utopia. The USSR was communist in the same way that the US is laissez-faire.

Booze Zombie:
What's wrong with free healthcare? Should someone do without having their hand put back on just because they can't pay a bill?

Health care is not a right. Just because it's important to staying alive doesn't mean it's a right. Food isn't a right, is it? Hobos are starving in the street, why shouldn't they get food just because they can't pay a grocery bill? People need cars to get to work - should the government buy poor people cars too? Should someone be deprived of transportation just because they can't pay a bill?

So far what I'm seeing is a shameless support for socialism. I'm actually pretty surprised.
Socialism is wrong because it takes away the incentive to work and takes away the power of the individual. When left wingers tell you that you're poor and destined to stay that way, STOP BELEIVING THEM! In America you work for what you get and you don't resent those who reap the rewards for their efforts. In the words of Glenn Beck, 'why should someone who worked hard their whole life have to cut a check for the guy who fucked up their order at McDonalds?"

timmyjay22:
In response to Good Morning Blues:

Communism is the type of government, Socialism is the style of economics.They are exactly the same thing, just one pertains to the country's politics. That's why they go hand in hand. Just like our (America's) Democracatic Republic has a Capitalist economy.

And I can't trust someone who associates with an unrepentant terrorist. And yes, people like Ayers can get far in the educational system because there are many like him in high positions in that field.

Socialism is completely compatible with capitalism; Communism operates on a planned economy. There aren't a lot of socialists out there advocating a planned economy.

I can see why people are disturbed by the Ayers thing, but I've never seen anything to say that Obama has anything more than a passing professional acquaintance with the guy, and even if not, he's certainly never been involved with him while he was still actively disruptive in an unlawful way. I should admit that I haven't looked into this issue very closely, however.

Rankao:
Socialism is still basically only the rich rule and well everyone else is poor. The only thing that changes are who is the ruling class.

Theres a difference between keeping society from collapsing (I'm talking about some warefare and schools, not the crisis crap) America has always been know for the oppertunity it has. Almost everyone who has came to America didn't have a dollar to their name and yet now their decedents are doing pretty damn well for themselves compared to starving in the street of Tegucigalpa.

The only reason you think there is something wrong with capitalism is you been spoon feed thoughts that you are in reality unimportant and you will never be anything more then what you are. There are some minor socialist factors that is apart of just keeping society from imploding, but then there is Dictatorship of the proletariat and well, that's the last thing anyone but those who claim to represent proletarians wants.

These days, people come to America without a dollar to their name and stay that way, because the country is not run by the people but by massive, litigious corporations. If you're penniless, chances are that you're an illegal immigrant, and you're stuck washing floors at Wal-Mart for 60 hours a week and sending your few bucks an hour back to your family. If you do manage to get citizenship, then what? You're penniless, so you can't afford training to take a skilled job. How can you be successful without a skilled job?

The reason I think that there is something wrong with capitalism is that its current incarnation is a system that equates happiness with wealth (which is a demonstrably false equivalency) and that it forces humans into unnecessary collective action problems. Capitalism is focused on making a few people rich. Wouldn't a system that focuses on making everybody happy be better? Socialism isn't this optimal system, but at least it recognizes that every human should have as close to equal access as possible to the resources that our world provides.

EDIT:

Graustein:

Good morning blues:

And I'd point out that the USSR was not socialist, it was communist, although comparing your opposition to the USSR is a pretty good way to cast them in a negative light without technically invoking Godwin's Law.

Yeah, the USSR was socialist. It claimed (falsely) to be communist, but it wasn't anywhere near Marx and Engels' vision of a communist utopia. The USSR was communist in the same way that the US is laissez-faire.

I'm pretty well aware that the USSR wasn't a communist utopia, but it was based around a planned economy. Socialist policy most definitely existed, but the fundamental basis was the planned economy, not socialism.

Mistah Kurtz:

Booze Zombie:
What's wrong with free healthcare? Should someone do without having their hand put back on just because they can't pay a bill?

Health care is not a right. Just because it's important to staying alive doesn't mean it's a right. Food isn't a right, is it? Hobos are starving in the street, why shouldn't they get food just because they can't pay a grocery bill? People need cars to get to work - should the government buy poor people cars too? Should someone be deprived of transportation just because they can't pay a bill?

So far what I'm seeing is a shameless support for socialism. I'm actually pretty surprised.
Socialism is wrong because it takes away the incentive to work and takes away the power of the individual. When left wingers tell you that you're poor and destined to stay that way, STOP BELEIVING THEM! In America you work for what you get and you don't resent those who reap the rewards for their efforts. In the words of Glenn Beck, 'why should someone who worked hard their whole life have to cut a check for the guy who fucked up their order at McDonalds?"

Socialism doesn't mean "no capitalism" or "no incentive to work." Socialism means that those who profit most from society are responsible for its maintenance, and are responsible for keeping everyone at a certain standard of living. You're talking about the old American Dream, which sadly just doesn't apply anymore. Back in the day, yeah, anybody could create a business and do reasonably well for themselves if they worked hard enough. These days, the lower classes are trapped in their current status. If you're working two or three minimum-wage jobs, how are you going to improve your situation?

Additionally, I think that health care and food should be rights. What makes any other man more worthy of the Earth's resources than I? If you need it to stay alive, we as a civilization are well past the point where we can excuse denying it to anybody.

If you notice, the rich aren't the ones complaining about them getting taxed heavier. It's everyday people who recognize that hard work gets you further in life.

And I as a medical professional know that people who are in need of emergency care are not refused because of their ability to pay. The service is rendered, and the government typically ends up footing the bill.

Long-term care is a different issue, but if you look at most families "suffering" because they can't afford it, consider the jobs they are working. McDonald's really isn't going to take you places, even if you have been store Manager for the past 15 years. If you find a real career (construction is always in-progress and pays very well), you can afford the luxuries that other people do.

I don't want Obama's tax plan (nor McCain's), but, jeez, c'mon! Government fiddles with tax rates all the time. And yet every time they increases taxes on the top N% it's "socialism"? If you forget about the Bush tax cuts and just compare tax rates to, say, 1995, how much of an increase is it?

And, y'know, I looked at the some little graph of the various health plans from the Tax Policy Center, and I'm damn sure that "public" area under Obama's plan was only about 15-20% of the total (up from about 10% right now). Once again, another incremental alteration to an existing program is massive, rapid, balls-to-the-wall "socialism."

-- Alex

Some raise valid points about aspects of socialism we already incorporate, but what you have to understand about communism and socialism is that it's like red wine. In small doses, a glass or two, it isn't harmful - even beneficial. A couple glasses is fine - public schools and libraries. Three or four drinks is pushing it - welfare programs, social security...you start in on the 5th and 6th drinks - socialized health care, and you start getting tipsy. Soon you start drinking more and more - redistributing the wealth - and before long the red wine will have lost all health benefits and you'll end up face down on the floor pissing yourself.

Keep in mind also that Communism looks great on paper, guys.

This country would be torn apart by that kind of shift in policy.

Leave well enough alone.

"Some raise valid points about aspects of socialism we already incorporate, but what you have to understand about communism and socialism is that it's like red wine. In small doses, a glass or two, it isn't harmful - even beneficial. A couple glasses is fine - public schools and libraries. Three or four drinks is pushing it - welfare programs, social security...you start in on the 5th and 6th drinks - socialized health care, and you start getting tipsy. Soon you start drinking more and more - redistributing the wealth - and before long the red wine will have lost all health benefits and you'll end up face down on the floor pissing yourself."

While that is an interesting metaphor, I don't see it as an accurate one. A shift in policies from extreme capitalism to slight socialism is not a fall down a hill. You speak of capitalism as if it is perfect....it's not. No system of economy is perfect. A mix, however, is beneficial to those involved.

I grow rather weary of the argument that everyone that is well-to-do got there by being the most hard-working. Most often they got it by being related to the right people or knowing the right people.

What's wrong with a bit of socialism? We've been brainwashed since youth to cringe at the mere mention of the word, as if it's a step away from communism. The most common argument I hear against socialism is that competition would be removed if the rich don't make obscene amounts of money, and that's just not true. The rich will still be better off than the rest of us. We can be a capitalist society, while still providing the necessities to those who lose the competition. There's a difference between buying the homeless man food and buying him an HDTV.

I suppose it's just a part of my religious beliefs. I don't want my fellow Americans to starve in the streets while Mr. Exxon buys his 3rd Rolls-Royce. I don't really care if the guy fucked up his grades in high school, he doesn't deserve to die for it, does he?

I'm beginning my first year here at the University of Pennsylvania. I'm fairly certain I'll be successful. Still, I don't want the losers to die.

Azeban:
I grow rather weary of the argument that everyone that is well-to-do got there by being the most hard-working. Most often they got it by being related to the right people or knowing the right people.

What's wrong with a bit of socialism? We've been brainwashed since youth to cringe at the mere mention of the word, as if it's a step away from communism. The most common argument I hear against socialism is that competition would be removed if the rich don't make obscene amounts of money, and that's just not true. The rich will still be better off than the rest of us. We can be a capitalist society, while still providing the necessities to those who lose the competition.

I suppose it's just a part of my religious beliefs. I don't want my fellow Americans to starve in the streets while Mr. Exxon buys his 3rd Rolls-Royce. I don't really care if the guy fucked up his grades in high school, he doesn't deserve to die for it, does he?

I'm beginning my first year here at the University of Pennsylvania. I'm fairly certain I'll be successful.

Sure, Exxon makes huge profits, but they also pay huge amounts of taxes - that one company paid more money in taxes than the bottom 50% of the entire country paid put together.

And if that guy who effed up stops sitting around waiting for the government to pay for his life, he can find a job and fight for his well-being rather than lay back and accept his fate.

timmyjay22:
And if that guy who effed up stops sitting around waiting for the government to pay for his life, he can find a job and fight for his well-being rather than lay back and accept his fate.

Find a job where? McDonald's? Wal-Mart? What if he's an illegal immigrant? What if he's a heroin-addicted hobo? Are these people employable? Will anybody hire them? Would you hire them?

hippieshopper:
I agree, what's wrong with socialism?

A lot. For one, if the government freely takes money from the those that work hard to earn it, and gives it to those that do nothing, there's literally no incentive to work. Therefore, with no one willing to hold a job for fear of having their money taken, the economy falters. Even if Obama only raises taxes on those making over 250k a year and starts heavily taxing corporations, to be able to cover the ridiculous amounts of money he plans on spending for things such as "free" universal health-care, he'd have to take 95% or more of the upper classes income. You may say, "That's fine with me. I want some free cash so let's stick it to the man!" Trouble is, who is it that employs the average person? That's right, the rich cats. The company owners. The upper class. If they start losing most of their income, one of three things will occur. 1: Either they'll close up shop because it can't turn a profit or they'll go bankrupt. 2: They'll pack up and relocate their business overseas. Thus, taking their products, money, and jobs away from the American public. 3: These companies will, to have any hope of covering the taxation and still turn a profit, raise the price of their products. Thus, passing the burden onto the average citizen so that, in the end, those making under 250k end up having to pay the taxes anyway. In any of these cases, the economy will likely take a huge hit and collapse. You think it's bad now with the bankrupting of a few banks, imagine what it'll be like if it happens to every market and every industry. Socialism seems like a great idea that some (mostly those that are too lazy to do things themselves or just want everyone else to give them what they need) hold in high regard, but fact is, it never really works out as planned.

However, I have to add that I think our current form of a "free market" is also flawed. A free market only works if there are solid, logical, and fair safe-guards in place that are strongly enforced instead of just suggested.

As a final note, just to clarify, I hate both candidates. Obama speaks in prophetic rhetoric and makes promises he, in all honesty, simply can not keep. McCain, to me, seems like a colossal tool. He's not Bush, but then again, he seems like he has no idea what he's doing. So, I'm not sure which would be worse in office. Someone that would cause a total upheaval of everything this government was founded on and likely cause it to falter; or someone that seems like a bumbling fool that would have to learn everything as he goes. I hate to say it, but I almost wish Hillary was still in the running. I hate her with a passion but damned if she doesn't seem like a better choice then the two jackasses we have as our current choices.

Mistah Kurtz:
Sure, Exxon makes huge profits, but they also pay huge amounts of taxes - that one company paid more money in taxes than the bottom 50% of the entire country paid put together.

Source, please? It's not that I think you're lying. It's that I want to see the exact language in your reference.

-- Alex

"I completely agree with you, work is hard, and I'm not good at it. I shouldn't be left to die, I deserve to be taken care of, it's my right. God bless you."

I see your sarcasm, and I raise you this; Socialism doesn't mean necessarily mean handouts, my friend. You will still have to work. Most likely at government-created jobs.

Mistah Kurtz:

Sure, Exxon makes huge profits, but they also pay huge amounts of taxes - that one company paid more money in taxes than the bottom 50% of the entire country paid put together.

Intellectually dishonest statement; a lot of that "bottom 50%" (and where did you get such a figure, might I ask, for accuracy sake?) don't pay any taxes because they're so poor they don't pay taxes, at least not an income tax.

Given how I worked for Exxon-Mobil in some capacity I feel safe to say I have more than an inkling of what I'm talking about when I say yes, they did make record profits, especially since profits is what you wind up with AFTER taxes.

But back to the matter at hand. Socialism is the idea that everybody gives back to the country they live in and everybody is helping everybody else (more or less, there are multiple interpretations). I don't see why that's a bad thing for this country. We've spent who knows how long creating a massive gap between the middle and upper classes because of how the system has been run so far (usually by Republicans I might add), so at this point I'm willing to welcome any change.

Paying less taxes should not be a reward for making more money. You make more money, you give more of it to the government. It's simple, really.

I'd also like to point out in the 1960s and 70s (at least I think those are the decades, I'm sure someone will correct me) England instituted a lot of socialist policies that saved them from financial ruin. I highly doubt America will suddenly become socialist in all aspects, maybe some things will be added to the socialist programs we already have (public libraries, public schooling, fire dept., police dept., postal service) but we'll still remain a capitalist nation.

Working in absolutes is not the way to think about this, at all.

I'd be quite happy if the previous decade's tax cuts were undone and a few holes were closed up. (OMG SOCIALISM!)

In his little talk with "Joe the Plumber", Obama claimed Joe's hypothetical fantasy-land actually-he's-not-very-successful-in-real-life income of $250k/yr would be taxed at 39% instead of 36%, which he said would put it back to where it was under Bill Clinton.

So, if what Obama says is true, I don't think the tax increase is really all that much of a problem.

-- Alex

Mistah Kurtz:

Booze Zombie:
What's wrong with free healthcare? Should someone do without having their hand put back on just because they can't pay a bill?

Health care is not a right. Just because it's important to staying alive doesn't mean it's a right. Food isn't a right, is it? Hobos are starving in the street, why shouldn't they get food just because they can't pay a grocery bill? People need cars to get to work - should the government buy poor people cars too? Should someone be deprived of transportation just because they can't pay a bill?

So far what I'm seeing is a shameless support for socialism. I'm actually pretty surprised.
Socialism is wrong because it takes away the incentive to work and takes away the power of the individual. When left wingers tell you that you're poor and destined to stay that way, STOP BELEIVING THEM! In America you work for what you get and you don't resent those who reap the rewards for their efforts. In the words of Glenn Beck, 'why should someone who worked hard their whole life have to cut a check for the guy who fucked up their order at McDonalds?"

AS far as I know there are places were people may get free food. Yes incredible "hobos" getting free food. And public transportation is a news to you? Give it a try is pretty good, and more eco freindly. And yes things like food, health and everything necesary to live should be guaranteed, becasue humans have the right to live.

By the way in the URSS they had more incentives on working than just the walfare. You could literally become a hero. Also ther was nothning better than being a worker. If you salcked off it was almost a crime.

And also I insist that woking hard is different than succeding. The system is far from perfect so you get useless assholes with a lot of money and hard working people struggling to live.

Good morning blues:

timmyjay22:
And if that guy who effed up stops sitting around waiting for the government to pay for his life, he can find a job and fight for his well-being rather than lay back and accept his fate.

Find a job where? McDonald's? Wal-Mart? What if he's an illegal immigrant? What if he's a heroin-addicted hobo? Are these people employable? Will anybody hire them? Would you hire them?

They allowed themselves to be a heroin-addicted hobo, so it is not for the good citizens of the U.S. to have to raise that person up in the world, it's for themselves to do so.

Illegal immigrant? Should have come over legally. Enough said. If they can't do so, it is not our governments job to baby their needs if they don't ask for it, since typically they sneak over instead of contacting Immigration services, etc.

Vigormortis:
A lot. For one, if the government freely takes money from the those that work hard to earn it, and gives it to those that do nothing, there's literally no incentive to work.

What, you think socialists would tax the rich so thoroughly that it would be cheaper to be middle-class? Nobody's that stupid.

Good morning blues:

Vigormortis:
A lot. For one, if the government freely takes money from the those that work hard to earn it, and gives it to those that do nothing, there's literally no incentive to work.

What, you think socialists would tax the rich so thoroughly that it would be cheaper to be middle-class? Nobody's that stupid.

I actually covered this in my argument above. The upper class does not need to make an obscene amount of money to provide motivation to work hard. They just need to be doing slightly better than we are.

Azeban:
What's wrong with a bit of socialism?

A better question is, "Don't we already have a bit of socialism?"

Because, of course, we do. There's no such thing as a perfectly capitalist economy, or a perfectly socialist one, because neither of these would work. The government already owns many of our schools and universities, as well as roads and other public property. We also have police, firefighters, etc. Lots of "socialist" things already exist in America, and in pretty much all other countries with governments. Having some socialist policies doesn't mean you aren't a capitalist at all; it's not like Obama wants to put all the transportation systems under the federal government or something.

Calling anything "socialist" bugs me a lot, since it's often misused and always meant to sound scarier than it is. We're already socialist--partially, that is. It's nothing to be afraid of.

timmyjay22:

Good morning blues:

timmyjay22:
And if that guy who effed up stops sitting around waiting for the government to pay for his life, he can find a job and fight for his well-being rather than lay back and accept his fate.

Find a job where? McDonald's? Wal-Mart? What if he's an illegal immigrant? What if he's a heroin-addicted hobo? Are these people employable? Will anybody hire them? Would you hire them?

They allowed themselves to be a heroin-addicted hobo, so it is not for the good citizens of the U.S. to have to raise that person up in the world, it's for themselves to do so.

Illegal immigrant? Should have come over legally. Enough said. If they can't do so, it is not our governments job to baby their needs if they don't ask for it, since typically they sneak over instead of contacting Immigration services, etc.

I can understand the "illegal immigrant" argument you have there, but claiming that we should just let addicts rot is mind-boggling to me. Nobody chooses to become addicted to heroin; they do it as a result of poisonous circumstances.

But let's put that aside, and talk about the people who make up the actual bulk of the poor: single mothers. Single mothers make up a massive chunk of recipients of social welfare programs - well over 50%, if I'm not mistaken. So how about this: you're a single mother. You have no skills. You have one or two or three or more children. How about you? Where are you going to find a job? Wal-Mart? McDonald's? The answer is both, and you're going to be working far too much to gain the skills required to bring yourself of your children out of poverty.

There are economic incentives to supporting the lower classes in addition to fulfilling higher social goals that many people focus on. To give one basic example, if everyone in the country is guaranteed a basic level of health insurance (which is all that Obama's plan promises, it does not make health care a government-run agency) there will be less sick days taken by the working class.

A great example would be Wal-Mart. We all know that Wal-Mart loathes to provide services such as health insurance to its employees. If the government steps in and offers an affordable plan, then Wal-Mart is off the hook, its employees are more likely to work more days and Wal-Mart saves all the money it would have spent on health insurance.

This is actually one of the main reasons why I am largely pro-free market but like the fact that the government can step in and plug the holes which the free market allows. This is precisely why it's almost insulting to call plans like Obama's socialist, the government is interacting with the free market to create a more optimal solution. If the government spending money is "socialist" then color this current administration bright red. (Red like Russia... not like the GOP)