Stephells the Soviet
I personally think that Communism would help this broken Economy, because instead of individual wealth we all would share. The reason why Russia and China failed was because their borders were way to large. Russia and China needed to have a big army to protect they're big size. but with all they're attention on Military power and not on the economy itself which defeated the whole purpose of communism. They wasted all the peoples money on Military and didn't spend it so that everyone in China and Russia had a nice equal Life.
But the United states is Relatively smaller compared to Russia and China, so it would work better, and since we have some of the most latest technology I don't think military is a issue and if everything is equal for everyone there won't be any homeless people. As long as we keep a good balance of Military and Economy.
As an actual communist, I'm going to address some things in your original post before I read any more of this thread. First and foremost is the poll that, I can only hope, is a joke. Obama is not a communist, not even a progressive social democrat. Obama is a capitalist, just like every president in history before him (with the possible exception of FDR, whom is debatable). Asking whether or not Obama would be a good "leader of communism," as if an ideology transcending individual dictatorship can be controlled, is a clear no. It's similar to asking whether or not Charles Manson would be a good leader for the Catholic Church- they have nothing to do with each other- the question is retarded.
Second, is the argument that the policies of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China failed to produce a functioning socialist system comparable to the successes of the capitalist in the United States because their, "borders were way too large," is the grossest over-simplification that I have ever heard. Many factors led to the demise of the USSR as well as the general decline of socialist ideology in China, most of which had nothing to do with the size of the nation. Good examples might be their reliance on military doctrine as well as a lack of checks and balances in the central government. What destroyed the Russian economy wasn't military spending alone, nor was such spending required for its large size, the problem with the Russian economy was economic liberalization in the 1960s combined with greater quotas from the politburo who had built themselves into a separate party class above the proletariat, which led to increased demand for worker productivity without offering any compensation. This alienated the workers from their own socialist system. The same can be said for China after the rise of Deng Xiaopeng as to the regression of communist ideology- though the Chinese economy itself has actually grown thanks in part to controversial communist policies spearheaded by Mao and his comrades during the GPCR (something you address here as an unnecessary stress on the military?)
This is not to say that the military didn't play a key role in putting stress on the Soviet system, by the end of the Cold War, Russia alone had anywhere from 20,000 to 25,000 nuclear warheads, when it is said that only a couple hundred are needed to be detonated at once in order to disrupt Earth's atmosphere enough to send to world into what is known as a nuclear winter. To ignore the military entirely doesn't give the problem true comparable merit, but neither does blaming the militarist policies of the USSR and PRC alone entirely.
Third, your assumption that geographic landmass has anything to do with a negative impact on the economy is lost on me. In the contemporary world where national representatives can video conference over their computers from two opposite sides of the planet, I don't think geography has much to do with anything- maybe it did in 1917, but not so much anymore, not so much in the 1950's even, when the communist system was expelled from Russia in favor of State Capitalism, nor in China two decades later. If anything, the landmass of the United States would be a positive as it would guarantee your hypothetical scenario US more resources than, say, Vietnam had. It is geographic boundaries which ultimately undid many aspects of the "socialism in one state policy"- without trade, they could not acquire necessary resources needed for technological progression that the capitalist had free range to.
The homeless can be provided for relatively cheaply- the idea that giving the homeless a building to live in and keep the heat going would cost more than a few million dollars per year, especially when the failures and inadequacies of the capitalist means of production has left us with so many vacant buildings is laughable. Communism isn't necessary for human rights, what you're talking about sounds like mild democratic socialism. Communism would never work in the US anyways, not until world revolution. Socialism, which is a staunchly anti-colonialist perspective, cannot work for an economic system which relies so heavily on the parasitic relationship it holds with the third world. It would ultimately fail.
