Burns: The word “socialism” has been tossed around quite a bit ever since the election of President Obama. Many conservatives have gone so far as to use the “s-word” to discredit the president’s agenda and to instill fear and uncertainty into the minds of American voters.I’m not sure if President Obama perfectly fits the “socialist” label. But many of the president’s policies certainly do seem like a progressive’s wet dream come true. Because you hail from a region more heavily influenced by socialism, I’m curious to find out precisely where you believe Obama’s “progressive” ideology ends and “socialism” begins?Vieira: Talk of President Obama’s “progressive” ideology never ends, and the concept of socialism in America is well put between quotes. Socialism is something totally different from what Obama proposes. In a time of economic crisis, some of Obama’s less free market-centered ideas boosted his campaign and subsequent rise to presidency. But not even a shadow of socialism is present in the choices the government and this nation make. It seems to me the fear that part of the American people have of socialism in Obama comes from prejudice and an outdated notion that government-run social policies are evil.Burns: First off, whether President Obama perfectly fits the “socialist” stigma is, in my opinion, pretty irrelevant. Arbitrary political designations like “democrat” or “republican” or even “socialist” and “fascist” don’t mean much to me.From my perspective, today’s prominent political philosophies all share the same mystical philosophy that a small group of people (aka the government) can solve complex problems using legalized force. Maybe the president isn’t a “socialist,” but more a progressive. I just don’t see the point in lecturing people on what I consider arbitrary political “distinctions.”Vieira: So, you are actually saying President Obama is progressive, and not socialist. I also think the political/ideological denomination doesn’t mean much. But it seems to me there’s a lot of resentment in the American people when it comes to changing economic policy. As progressive as Obama’s proposals are, this resentment will never allow real socialist ideas to thrive because socialism indicates government regulation and ownership of the means of production.If the government is not supposed to work on solving societal problems, why bother to have a government? I don’t see any coercion here. I see a government elected by the people taking measures to contain the economic crisis. I see American government using force to solve other countries’ “societal” problems, for sure. Obama’s “progressive” proposals are an attempt to regulate an economic crisis that probably came from the lack of it. I’m not saying it will work or that I think it’s right. But that’s my perception of what is happening now. Burns: I highly doubt Americans would willingly pay taxes to fund wars and other unpopular government initiatives unless there was some implicit coercion (see: IRS agents). But putting that aside, I find it interesting you cite the financial crisis as evidence of the need for more government intervention. There’s pretty convincing evidence that central bank mismanagement and bad government policies were the two biggest players in our financial collapse. Regulations might have proven ineffective, but it was certainly not from a lack of effort. It’s just hard for the government to regulate the problems it itself helps create.I don’t deny the need for regulatory reform. I just don’t see your logic behind using government intervention to solve the problems created by government interventions. America already has one of the most highly regulated economies in the world. If progressives truly believe the best way to prevent economic downturns is through massive government controls, they have a lot of explaining to do regarding our current crisis.Vieira: I don’t say government expansion is the solution, but I understand the government is for and by the people. Anyway, what do you think would be a good solution for the current situation?Burns: An actual change in direction would be a nice start. The president promised, “change” during his campaign. But so far, I haven’t seen anything but a continuation of the failed government policies that have strangled the free market and hurt the people they were intended to help.If the president believes in real “change,” he should first end the wars and then rethink his economic initiatives. Price controls, government mandates and forced redistribution (aka “social justice”) aren’t new or revolutionary proposals. They’re just “newspeak” for the same old “progressive” economic fallacies that have been cleverly recycled, repackaged and resold to the easily cajoled American public.Vieira: I can’t argue with you on the actuality of the proposed “change,” but I can assure you the way the world sees the United States with Obama as president has definitely changed. Free market may not be the solution, but socialism certainly isn’t either. Seeing the government’s attempts to solve the nation’s problems as politically oriented attacks is unproductive. And whoever ends up president will have a hard time making people happy.Burns: Agreed. I might not be a huge fan of the president’s policies, but at least we can agree on one thing: Thank God John McCain isn’t president.Scott Burns is a 20-year-old economics junior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter  @TDR_sburns.Marcelo Vieira is a 32 year-old jazz cello graduate student from Brazil. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_mvieira.—-Contact Scott Burns at [email protected] Marcelo Vieira at [email protected]