He replied very emphatically that socialism for the common man is a good thing...Is this really the consensus of Obama supporters and why they support him so excitedly.
Hmmmm. I guess I will be your huckleberry.
This is not the concensus of why people support him. Much less "excitedly so". Like all groups of people, I think there are many reasons. Some support him because they believe he is the better choice. Some support him because in their view he is the "lesser of two evils". Some support him because they dislike Romney.
I am an independent voter. I have never voted a straight ticket. I don't care much on the state/local level about party affiliation. I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I do not believe that most voters fall into the false dichotomy of only the left or right.
From a fiscally conservative viewpoint, both the Rs and the Ds overspend. It is sooooo annoying. I think either candidate will continue that, just as their predecessors did.
From a socially liberal viewpoint, I do not like the positions Romney has taken. I much prefer those of Obama.
So I think I will likely vote for Obama. It is a moot vote. I live in Texas. I hope that explains that not all those who support Obama support him because of socialism.
Now let's discuss socialism. That term is one who evokes fear in most of us. So I think we need to first define it. I googled and couldn't find one common definition. The most common aspects I could find were that "socialism is in one form or another the use of taxpayer funds being used collectively to benefit society as a whole, despite income, contribution, or ability". I don't know that I agree with that definition. Under it, such group things that are beneficial to all society are socialism. That would include the military, highways and roads, police, fire depts, postal service, garbage service, prisons, public schools ... and those are the ones I can think of at this moment.
I think there is another category that technically falls under "socialism". Social Security comes to mind. But since I have paid into it (involuntarily) for 35 years and soon will be able to benefit from it ... I don't advocate its dismantling. I am annoyed/offended that in the 60's, congress passed a law that changed the way it was accounted for. They count it both as a liability (it is a separate fund afterall) and yet they count it as revenue for budgetary purposes. So when they say they ran a budget deficit of $X, that has been reduced by the excess social security funds that they issued a treasury note for. No other entity in the world does that, to my knowledge.
Then there are the safety nets. This is where I think it gets tricky as to where to draw the line. We have medicare for the elderly. That is socialism. But I support it. There is something about casting aside someone who is elderly that bothers me. By the same token, I do not support the common practice of heroic procedures for the elderly. Where to stop is difficult to agree upon.
Food. I grew up poor. I starved. I went to bed hungry too many times. So I may view this somewhat differently. I think children need to be assisted at times. To allow children to starve in order to lower my taxes is not palatable to me. I do think this area is abused by adults, but that does not change regardless of who is president.
I think there are socialist programs that need to be revised or eliminated. Among them ... government agencies such as the EPA, FDA, etc. Corporate welfare & subsidies, the farm subsidies, the tax code, support for PBS, museums, symphonies and arts, etc.
In summary, we live in a sound bite world today. Yet when the dust is settled, most of the issues are way more complex than can be resolved with a sound bite.
