As far as I know, the existence of Communism and Socialism does not indicate a "welfare state". In fact, Marxists as well as other socialists have criticized the existence of such states as a "patch-up-job" of capitalism.
Actual communism would be worse than a welfare state, but the welfare state in itself is already a bad leftist egalitarian myth and horror.
Yes. It's not that we (or at least I) don't support the free market and the right to do business. What we hate is powerful corporations that put strangleholds on society. I whole-heartedly support small businesses run by average citizens, the only problem is when you have large businesses on the national level competing with small businesses on the local level. The fact of the matter is that the larger business is going to appeal to the average consumer more so than the small business. I really don't know how to reply to this, so I'll simply ignore this statement.
And rightwing Democrats, such as Obama. They broke the bank - they outborrowed and outspent every other US administration ever, by trillions of dollars, with the possible exception (depending on how you keep the books) of Roosevelt during the height of WWII. I go by the traditional dictionary, in which politicians backed by large private corporations and the privately wealthy, and generally acting in their interests, are "rightwing", politically. If you go by these traditional, dictionary usages and meanings, you can discuss politics using meaningful words. If you instead insist on describing large taxpayer handouts to private banks, which remain private and keep the profits, as "socialist" and "left", you can no longer use these important political terms to make any sense at all. There is nothing less socialist than handing billions of dollars to huge private banks, and even giving one of them control of the nation's money supply, OK? There is nothing socialist about mandating that people currently depending on the government for whatever medical care they need instead purchase private medical insurance from private corporations. That's the opposite of socialism. It is on the opposite end of the scale from "left". You can't get any less "left" than that. Private, capitalist, corporate power is rightwing. By definition. It's not my private definition, it's the meaning of the term in political discourse for generations now. Only the rightwing libertarians are rightwing - those who want to establish what power they find necessary in private corporations and wealthy individuals, rather than community politics. The left libertarians want to establish what power they do find necessary in community politics, with private corporations being under that community control.
Technically Mao, was not a communist, he was a Stalinist (or a Maoist, which is an extension of Stalinism). Communism, is the belief in a classless, stateless society, to which end Maoism obviously did not preach.
That's a load of bull if I ever heard it. He wants Socialized healthcare which is a huge Left wing thing. I didn't post this check it again. Times change, as do definitions. Left wing is Democrat. Liberitarians are for the Constitution and hate corporations. There is a difference between the definitons you use and the ones everybody in the United States use. Contradiciton if I ever heard one.
Obama supported Wall Street bailouts and supported mandates to requiring people to buy insurance from companies that have an antitrust exemption and can legally collaborate to set any price that they want. It seems that Obama and most of the Democrats support rigged market crony capitalism. I associate support for rigged market crony capitalism with the Republican Party, monarchists and third world right wing dictators. I don't associate support for crony capitalism with communism, socialism or the Democratic party. It seems that Obama and the Democratic party are no longer the Party for the labor and small business but are rather Republican party light while the Republican party has abandoned it's old principles like fiscal responsibility and has in it's place embraced hysteria and delusion. We have two Parties now Republican light AKA the Democrats and Republican loopy AKA the Republicans. Obama is not remotely socialist and calling him socialist is loopy.
Lots of them are Ayn Rand followers who think corporations are the apotheosis of free human accomplishment. I don't know what he wants, but I do know what he has advocated and pushed for - private insurance takeover of medical care - and what he has taken off the table - single payer, all forms of socialization of medical care not already established and immovable (and he's cutting funding for them). Confusing your vocabulary will not change the times, or the world. It will just prevent discussion, muddle thought, and incapacitate those who oppose power with reason.
Really? Because I am one and I know quite a few of them, who don't like corporations. Wrong. The opposite is true. The bill he's pushing is for federaliztaion of healthcare. The complete opposite of private healthcare.
You are an internet poster, who may be a Democrat attempting to mislead me - according to you. But that's beside the point, because regardless of who you know, libertarians who love corporations and want them freed of government regulation are very common. You don't get to define "libertarian" to suit yourself either, you see. That is a very common kind of ignorance and misapprehension, from people who claim to be supporting the Tea Party. Should I assume that the real Tea Party folks are not so crudely uninformed and illiterate? That you are some kind of Democrat disinformation agent?
Now you see the light. You need to know that what you're hearing is the actual stance the party is taking. Me a Democrat? How wrong you are. Possibly some, but certainly not all. Just look at the Democrats who voted against the healthcare bill. They weren't the stereotype Democrat. Never did. Every Liberitarian believes strongly in the Constitution. Ok, explain how it doesn't push for federalization? And I never claimed to support them. I am informed. And yes you should assume that Tea Partiers are informed, at the very least about their own positions. Again, me a Democrat? What a incredibly wrong statement.
And you have to read the posts. We are talking about the healthcare bill pushing for the federalization of healthcare.
"Federalization of health care" is a meaningless statement. The health care system if fairly complex. Providers? Payment? Insurance market regulations? What is it you're talking about?
Watch this video at about 1:54 min in. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIo4vQ1RKGc Obama himself talks about the gradual plan to eliminate private insurance, and replace it with Socialized Medicine. Infact, watch the whole video. All from the horses mouth.