Socialists find capitalism abhorrent. Social democrats want to reform and control capitalism through government regulation, rather than outlawing it altogther. That is their POLICY difference. But in actual living out of policy, there's remarkably little difference. Capitalism requires a free market. Social democracy decries and over regulates such a market. Socialism decries capitalism entirely.

We could argue about whether or not other social democrats would decrie or overegulate, but there's little doubt that Obama will, if given the chance. "Redistribution of the wealth" sounds great until you realize that it means taking from YOU what you have earned fair and square, and giving it to the guy on welfare who has no reason not to have a job. Socialism in all its forms looks SO good on paper, but in the end, "some animals are just more equal than others" after all. Name one regime that has successfully implemented a lasting government based on socialism of any kind, and had their country IMPROVE in standards of living, in the last 100 years. I am all for charity, humane care of the sick and poor, etc. It's where part of every paycheck I earn goes, it's why I am a foster parent, and why I am active in several outreach organizations. I just feel that there's a difference between giving people a chance to stand on their own two feet, ( a hand up) and taking away authentically earned income to give to people who have not even tried to make a living. ( a handout) I do appreciate the even tone and polite language. have a great day.

Branciforte asked me, "What is Obama going to do that is taking away your money and giving it to people too lazy to work? Can you think of something in particular, or is this something that someone told you?" Here's just one particular example: his Global Poverty Act, which will require the President and Congress to set aside .07% of the annual gross national product to be distributed around the globe to relieve poverty. Estimated cost: about $8 billion dollars annually. Who pays for that? Taxpayers. And what will it accomplish? It will give blank checks to the corrupt, largely socialist and totalitarian governments of several third world countries. The actual POOR in those countries will receive almost no benefit at all. That's one example.

The UK is a socialist state, and capital flows quite nicely, we have a national health system, social security and state pensions. Somehow we are still thriving. The problem as I see it, many Americans (especially republicans) have been indoctrinated with the same warped view, this is because the Health Insurance companies would go bust if universal health care was introduced, and the people would be able to get a health care system for less money. I blame Reagan and other Neo-cons like him for perpetuating this myth

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. -------------------------------------------- That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A . After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.

Even if they did, they don't care. Instead of tax money going into the pockets of businessmen like it did with Halliburton, the tax money is being directed to try and help out working class folks. Which is anathema to Republicans.

Obama is not a socialist and I cannot tell the difference between those who "claim" to be either of those labels. Out of 6 answers Moongrim came close to answering the rest went directly into rant mode. Ever wonder why the world is messed up?

DID YOU KNOW HE WAS PLANNING TO TURN THE US OF A INTO A PINKO COUNTRY WHILE HE WAS IN THE WOMB...IN KENYA...HE ALSO HATES PUPPIES

Do you know that it is possible to make up a word and give it a hair splitting definition that doesn't really change anything? Professors are good at that, they do it all the time. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck, even if you call it a social democrat duck.