Duel of Fates wrote:Crater, who are you going to go through for student loans? The government, under Obama, has taken total control of this. If you need a student loan, you will be dealing with the government. That sounds like a nationalized industry.
Obamacare is not healthcare reform, it is a nationalizing the health insurance industry and affects 1/6 of the economy. I didnt say it was single payer, but a major step towards that end. Most of the liberals over the years have been pushing for single payer though, so . . .
The bank bailouts, auto makers bailouts, subsidizing "green energy" companies.
Pushing the narrative that capitalism is a failure, and then implementing policies that make it nearly impossible for businesses to grow, and in some cases to simply survive.
If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and walks like a duck . . .
I'm aware that there are student loans provided by the government (piloted under a variety of Presidential administrations). As far as I know they are not, and have never been, the only option. I cannot find any evidence to support your claim - the ASA, for example, still lists private or state loans as options. Not necessarily attractive ones compared to the federal plans, but available. (Also, the socialist action here would be to simply pay for the students outright, not to end up making a profit by issuing loans that cannot be escaped with bankruptcy.)
I can't find your "1/6 of the economy" number on any nonpartisan sources, so I'm not clear what effects you're claiming it will have. Anyway, we're in agreement that it's a step closer to a single-payer system, but is not one, and was in fact a plan proposed by conservative thinkers as an alternative.
The bank and auto bailouts seem to support a narrative of "The government is controlled by the wealthy and by big business," or "the government felt that it was necessary to step in and stop the economic crisis from worsening," depending on how charitable you feel. Nether of those actions seem motivated by socialist thought. Nor is the result (the companies remain unchanged) indicative of socialist actions.
Green energy subsidies are a (poor and delayed) attempt to address the looming climate change problem and the possibility of running out of renewable fuels. It's possible they could have done better by setting up their own research divisions, but it would be roughly the same amount of money going to the same places. And it would have been more socialist, since there wouldn't be private companies involved at all.
I have not seen the Democratic party claim that capitalism is a failure. It could have been an extremist member of the Democrat coalition - there are plenty of extremists in both parties who don't represent the whole.
Overall, it looks like you started from a conclusion (Obama's government is socialist) and went reaching for evidence that looked like it remotely supported your position. I'd suggest that you reconsider from a neutral perspective. I'm going to guess that you get most of your news from Fox and/or conservative talk shows and opinion pieces? Perhaps you should try some different sources for a while. (Not CNN or MSNBC though, they're absolute jokes also. Maybe BBC. Would you have a heart attack if I said I'd heard good things about Al Jazeera America?)
Nite - I have no experience with Common Core, but I'm guessing it's worked out like No Child Left Behind, and like most educational reforms ever. Well-meaning ideas, which fall apart when faced with the realities of underfunded schools, underpaid and undertrained teachers, and unmotivated students. It certainly would be nice if they took action to, say, double or triple funding for underprivileged schools. Unfortunately that would get kicked out of Congress for "socialism."
