|Take a peek at all of the attempted legislation aimed at the BATFE. Let's also not forget about SOPA and all of the other attempts to regulate the internet...and his unwillingness to scrap the patriot act|
I agree those are all shitty. But how are they socialist? Just because regulation exists does not mean it is socialsim.
Nixon created the EPA. Does that make him a socialist?
I'm not trying to defend Obama, here. I agree he's a lackluster president and has done more than a few really shitty things. My point is that the far right likes to associate the term "socialist" with "evil anit-american freedom hater".
|WHAT!?! Then I want my $13,500 back next year on my tax return.|
Obama was unsuccessful at socializing healthcare. What we have is now "privatized insurance is mandatory". And I completely agree, it's shitty. And makes the problem worse in just about every way imaginable.
|Are we all on the same page here talking about "Federal Socialism"?|
Probably not. I'm referring to Socialism in general, not necessarily on a federal level.
Fox News and similar forms of media today are painting "Socialism" in frame similar to what "Communism" was in the 80s. Calling Obama a socialist, whether or not that's true, is meant as an insult. It's supposed to be derogatory. When really, there's nothing about Socialism that is derogatory. It has its flaws, and it has its ways that it can be abused (like everything else), but that doesn't mean it's the spawn of all evil.
Things like police/public education/etc are government run social programs. Everyone pays into them, and whenever we need them we can just call on their services, receive them, and not be handed a bill afterwards.
Ideally, healthcare should
be the same way. And while I agree with you that things like police and firefighting should be primarily handled on a local level, IMO things like education and healthcare should be handled on a federal level.
Healthcare in paricular isn't hard to accomplish in theory (in practice it's very difficult, but theoretically it's simple).
Medicare currently usually pays less for its services than private insurace companies do, since many hospitals bill themselves as non-profit, the government can actually analyze the cost of performing a specific medical procedure, include costs for medicine, wages, and administrative fees, and pay that dollar amount. Whereas private insurance companies have to pay whatever the hospital asks of them (which is often highly over-inflated -- don't ask me how that is legal, I still don't understand how it is)
So the solution here is to transition everyone over to medicare to bring costs of healthcare down. Costs would come out of increased taxes -- which is shitty -- but nobody would have to pay for private insurance anymore. And since medicare costs would be less than private insurance costs (not only because medicare has to pay less, but also because they don't have to turn a profit like private insurance does), people would end up with more take-home pay.
Granted I'm overly simplifying here, and there are downsides to that approach, but really I think it's the direction we need to start moving in. And good lord the ACA took us the exact wrong direction.
|From what I see Clinton is going to lose just from the email scandal which I find kind of strange, is that really the best thing people can complain about.|
The email scandal is simply the most recent and easiest to point to. Her questionable campaign finacing is another. And both of these things are indicitave of what Clinton is all about: She's a sleazy, corrupt politician who dodges accountability and public scrutiny every chance she gets.
|What do you think about Elizabeth Warren? Would you vote for her if she ran?|
I really like Warren. I like where her heart is at but whenever I hear her speeches they sound like empty rhetoric. I like that she gets on regulators ass and tells them to do their job. I like that she points out corruption when she finds it. But when it comes to her interviews, she always just spouts generic statements like "we need to work to help the middle class family". That's great and all, but what does that mean? How are you going to do that?
Bernie Sanders has a lot of the same ideas, but he actually has a plan. His public speeches and interviews are a lot more substantive.
The kind of things Warren is good at makes her better suited for the Legislative branch. I don't think she'd be super effective as president. And I think she knows that -- and I think that's why she didn't run. Which is another reason I really like her.
As for whether or not I'd vote for her? Probably. But it would depend on who else is running. It's hard to answer a hypothetical like that.