I am stating what occurs with corporate financing of political parties, Sawzaw. I am not saying I approve of it or think it's a good thing. The fact that there are no laws in place to prevent that sort of lobbying leaves the foxes in control of the henhouse. That is not a good thing...no matter which party wins the election.

Now..."socialism".   Your definition of socialism seems to assume that it must be universal (applying to ALL means of producing and distributing goods) in order to be socialism. That's ridiculous. It does not have to be universal, and it isn't, except under the most extreme forms of Communism...hell, even there it is probably not universal.

Your definition also leaves out the many forms of socialism which do NOT apply to producing and distributing goods at all, but to providing various forms of absolutely necessary public service, such as:

- a government
- a public educational system
- an armed forces
- a judicial system
- a police force
- public hospitals
- public libraries
- social security systems
- large media and communications networks
- environmental regulation agencies
- publicly financed scientific research efforts
- NASA and the space program
- public parks
- conservation areas to protect wildlife
- roads, bridges, sidewalks, traffic lights, traffic signs, airports, and other necessary transportation facilities
- a postal system
- and a great many other NECESSARY things which you seem to have forgotten about?

All of the above are socialist instititutions because:

1. They are paid for by taxes
2. Their personnel are hired and employed by the government
3. They exist for the benefit of the general public and the maintenance of a functioning society
4. They are done not for profit, but because it is something that NEEDS to be done for its own sake, regardless of profit.

That is what socialism is for. It is NOT for taking away all your private enterprise and taking over all your production of goods. (That part is done just fine by capitalism.) It is NOT for establishing the kind of dark dictatorship you imagine in the lunatic pipedreams that have been fed to you by several generations of fools in the USA who are living on scary myths that they don't even begin to understand.

Every modern society has a great deal of socialism in place right now, because there is NO way you can possibly run a society without it. You have it. We have it. Everyone does. We have it because we must.

Your definition is misleading. It's incomplete. It's wrong. It's selectively ignorant. It was written by someone who can only think in terms of a completely full glass or a completely empty glass, but apparently never even grasped the concept of a glass that is half full or that has two liquids mixed inside it.

I believe in a society in which both socialism AND capitalism play a healthy part, and guess what? That's exactly what I have in Canada. It's what you have in the USA too, only you apparently don't know it.

I have seen NOTHING to indicate that Obama intends to convert society so that "producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy". How could he? It is asinine to think that he would want to do that or that there would be even the ghost of a chance of him doing that in the USA (or in Canada) (or in Europe).

Therefore, if that is your definition of socialism, then you cannot accuse Obama of being "socialist", because nothing the man has said or done suggests in any way that he has intentions of having the government take over the producing and distributing of all the goods in your society.

Really, it's just ridiculous to think he would try to do that! It's asinine. No one could do it even if they wanted to.

You might as well accuse him of witchcraft and vampirism too, while you're at it. That would make about as much sense.

No American politician can possibly alter your society to make it what you think of as "socialist". Not a chance. And none would attempt to.