Now, banking is ironically enough based on the notion that you have to repay your loans (often with some interest), and assuming that the banks haven't paid back all the billions they've been handed, why is it wrong to make them do so? How is this kicking them when they are down, when it is thanks to Obama's bailouts that the banks still are in business in the first place?
Furthermore, it should be noted that all the big banks still paid as much in bonuses to their employees despite being literally broke, so perhaps there is some merit to the argument that the banks should be made to pay up. After all, what sense is there to funnel taxpayer dollars into the banks, only for all that cash to end up in the pockets of the bankers?
In fact, Obama should have simply bought the banks outright and cleaned them up instead of propping up a house of cards with money the US government doesn't have.
China? China isn't capitalist in any meaningful sense of the word. It has a mixed economy that has moved closer to a free market model, but the means of production are ultimately owned by the state, not by private operators.Originally Posted by Henchy432
Russia, on the other hand, fucked itself in the ass by switching to capitalism back in the early 90's, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that point.
And finally the EU is not socialist. Where in the EU are the means of production collectively owned by the workers? I don't think you'll find many countries where this is true.
Then again, all this is quite besides the point, which was that Obama is in no way, shape or form a socialist politician.