No national health, still have Bush tax rates, loans to auto makers instead of, say, nationalizing car manufacturing?
Also, it's only "class warfare" if the middle or working classes try to fight back.
Barack Obama said:I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House.
No more then Reagan was for supporting medicare.So when Obama said:
. . . that wasn't advocating for socialized medicine? It seems to me that that's his end goal. He's a very smart guy and he realizes, as he intimates in this speech, that the road to his end goal is long. But I think it's obvious that he certainly would like certain aspects of the economy socialized. Furthermore, he advocates straight-up wealth redistribution. "At some point you've made enough money." "Spread the wealth around."
So explain again how he's NOT at least socialist-leaning?
No more then Reagan was for supporting medicare.
Whatever. Obama is a socialist, whatever makes you feel good.The difference is that Reagan didn't create Medicare. In fact, he vehemently opposed the creation of Medicare. But that was some time before his Presidency. By that time, Medicare and SS were firmly entrenched and it would have been political suicide to advocate cutting or eliminating it. He did, however, advocate cutting Medicaid.
So explain again how he's NOT at least socialist-leaning?
In Romney's case, the kennel falls off the roof of the car.
So explain again how he's NOT at least socialist-leaning?