Sweden calls itself a socialist state, and there are people in this world pretty that pretty much agree with that statement. The only true socialist states that I consider anti everything we believe in are Cuba, China, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam. They are truly Communist Socialist Nation's. Differences: Socialists are "biased" towards peaceful and incremental changes; communists promote proletarian revolution. Socialists are in favor of a strong and centralized state apparatus that owns and manages the economy; communists are opposed to any state apparatus at all. Obama: which garden path is he trying to lead such a diverse country as the U.S. We are a Democratic Republic today, 300+ million people will not accept what he is trying to do. No way can one compare Obama with Bush, Obama needs help from Pelosi to destroy America, Bush needed no help.
Again, the Swedish government owns a smaller percentage of tis country's GDP than the US government does in comparison. One reason for this is that though Sweden's taxes are high and so is government spending, little of it goes towards the actual acquisition of property. For example, money going towards school vouchers could be cashed in at a private school just as easily as at a state-owned school. If cashed at a private school, then it's not acquiring property, but merely paying for a service. In the US, part of the reason for the government owning such a large percentage of GDP has to do with the sheer amount of real estate and military equipment owned by the military. So, based on public ownership of property alone, we cannot accurately determine what state is more socialist.
Now again, granted pretty well everyone will agree that Sweden is a social-corporatist state, with some arguing that though barely, it is still technically a socialist state, while others will argue that social corporatism is such a watered down form of socialism that it's no longer deserving of the name. Either way though, it's clear that we cannot stereotype socialists that easily.
As for Obama, I'd describe his ideas as more of a neo-corporatism, not socialism.