Nope. Socialism is when government owns the means of production and/or distribution channels. We do have some "socialized" services if you will, since some things are so big that they can only be, or done better, as a group. Things like:
- Police
- Fire Departments
- Military
- Postal Services
- Manage the building of roads and infrastructure, eminent domain, etc.
If Obama was truly a socialist, he never would have let GM buy back out of the rescue plan. Nor the banks from their TARP money. He would have nationalized it all. Since the word "Socialism" is a loaded term in this country, it is used merely to incite discord.
Even "Obamacare" is not socialism. The big insurance companies are making out like bandits...PRIVATE insurance companies. I wish they would socialize healthcare ala the Scandinavian model, or even the British model. All of the scare tactics about those systems are baseless. We spend more and get less in the USA. We deserve, and can do, much better.
You have not shown that Obama is not a Socialist in ideology by anything you have said here. Let's just stick to the quote. Is shared prosperity not a socialist ideology?
Obamacare, as it was envisioned by Obama, was completely a government program.
His goal was to put all insurance companies out of business and have the government run it. He just couldn't get it done.
Anyone who thinks that doesn't qualify as socialized medicine is incapable of coherent thought.
The same applies to many of his programs to fundamentally remake America, He just couldn't get them done, either. But the desire was there and still is.
Obama was raised from a very early age to hate America and everything it stands for. It shows.
Of course you are. You just can't make up your mind if Obama wants it socialized or not.
He clearly does, yet you claimed he isn't a socialist. You can't have it both ways. I think most people here know what he is. So do you. You just can't bring yourself to admit it. Not sure why.
Prove Obama wants to redistribute wealth. Note also that during the Bush years, the accelleration of redistribution to the top 1% continued unabated. This article from BusinessWeek in 2004 says that the top 1% back then held more household wealth than the bottom 90% combined, a concentration not seen since the 1920s.
"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."