FDR was at least as much a Socialist as Obama, probably moreso. He gets my vote as worst US President ever for exactly this reason. He set the country on the path that is, perhaps, about to reach its destination.

LBJ half as much, but still very much a socialist.

Truman and GWB, meh, yes they supported some socialistic programs, but by no means did either of them have an expansive vision of government solving all problems by becoming the parent of us all.

All of which is pretty much moot, it seems to me. Obama is a Socialist, which is the point. FDR, and to a lesser degree, LBJ, Truman, and GWB, also either believed in some socialistic ideas or supported some socialistic programs. So what? Obama’s still a Socialist, and at least as dangerous as FDR. The criticisms of those who decry Obama’s socialism are on-point.

Let’s put Harry Truman’s attempt to nationalize the entire steel industry into it’s proper context. President Truman did it during a labor impasse and the country was at war (Korean War). The Steel industry was necessary to produce the munitions and material for War. As CinC, President Truman took this wrong headed action, but not as a socialist. Sen. Obama on the other hand uses phrases like spread the wealth and redistributive change talking about the Warren Court. His past associations have been with a communist (Frank Marshall Davis) and Bill Ayers put his judgement in question or shows his intellectual sympathies. Now if FDR kept Henry Wallace as VP in 1944 and he was President during the Korean War, then you can say that was a socialist action (but if Wallace was President, the Korean War wouldn’t have happen and Post War Europe may have been even in more desperate configuration under Soviet influnce, but I digress). Is Sen. Obama a Socialist or Marxist the wrong words to describe him? Maybe, but its not like we are calling him Nazi or Fascist which is banter about from the left and which is much harsher and he hasn’t been called the dreaded c word, a Communist.

as for the 401k thing… I heard Obama proposed it. I was in error, its just House Democrats who are proposing it.

And no I don’t think Mitt is a Socialist. But I think Romneycare ends up Nationalizing health insurance. It pushes private companies out of the market except for those who are “To big to fail.” if we were to go nationally it would likely push 90-100% of the private health insurance industry out of the marketplace if what we have seen in Massachusetts happens nationally.

So thats only one industry Obama is wanting to Nationalize… and not all at once

I assume you mean Barack, not Barry, who is probably your shrink. But I should delete the rest of this comment, because not only are you stupid and anonymous, but you started almost immediately by writing words that are such literal nonsense and falsehood that perhaps you will serve as some sort of example — in too many ways. It only took you a couple of sentences to write this:
Barry’s socialist desire to confiscate most of the wealth generated from private property isWhat on earth are you talking about?!in a practical and logical sense, indistinguishable from the state owning title to the property.
You mean in the sense that both are, with respect to Barack Obama, complete inventions of your fevered brow? — RDC

After all, the value of private property ownership is the utility (i.e. wealth) that it provides its owner.

Furthermore, while Barry didn’t mention single payer health care in his radio interview, he has acknowledged that his ultimate goal is single payer health care. That would constitute nationalization of almost 20% of our economy. That is socialism pure and simple and if you don’t think that is one of the primary reasons that conservatives oppose his candidacy then you don’t have a clue.<>
If you don’t realize I’m a conservative who opposes Obama’s candidate then it’s you who doesn’t have a clue! — RDC
Go the the “QANDO” blog as one example of many if you wish to see conservative/libertarian criticism of Barry’s health care policy. Nonetheless, there are a multitude of reasons to oppose Barry’s candidacy (e.g. reviving Clinton’s law enforcement non-response to islamic terrorism, union strong arm tactics like card check, carbon emission cap and trade system to combat non-existent anthropogenic global warming just to name a few) and his health care policy is at the top of the list with those other nonsensical ideas. In regard to suppression of free speech, Barry and his fellow Democrats are in favor of re-implementing the fairness doctrine which exempts the main stream media that has so vigorously promoted his candidacy for the last year. They know it will stifle conservative talk radio and that is the only reason they support it. You are wrong on almost every point. Perhaps you should stop digging any deeper into the hole you have made for yourself.

Good idea. I’m closing comments in the hopes that you and the other hominids who have only recently learned to walk upright will darken some other door with your crank theorizing. What a dark time for the conservative movement! — RDC

However, I take exception to the label “big-government liberal”: first, because it is a contradiction of terms; second, because I don’t see how someone can favor big government without being socialist.

As to whether Obama can be fairly described as a socialist: living outside the US, I am more concerned about his attitudes, and the attitudes of his party, on foreign policy, multiculturalism, and freedom of speech.