Republicans Bring Socialism to America

[Billo_Really]

Tuesday 09 December 2008

Let the record show that it was George W. Bush, the rich Texas Republican, who brought socialism to America, so don't blame it on that African-American Chicago Democrat community organizer who made it into the White House. The government takeover of the banking and automobile industries not only happened on President Bush's watch, it was also the deregulatory mania of this president's family, beginning with his father, which took this country into such starkly unfamiliar territory.

What a betrayal of free-market capitalism. And who would have thought that it would be the candidates backed by conservative pundits Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh who made it possible? You actually could trace the destruction of corporate capitalism to the much-ballyhooed "Reagan Revolution" of the movie actor who got his main training for the presidency as a huckster for General Electric, where he honed the message of "getting government off our backs." The revolution of unfettered corporate capitalism led to an era of unfettered corporate greed, which sowed the seeds of its own destruction.

I have to say that it must also be remembered that Bill Clinton has blood on these hands as well. On this issue, he whole heartedly took part in the rapid deregulation that has put this economy where it is now. Although it started with Reagan, Clinton didn't stop it and Bush just put the final nail on the coffin.

Thanks a lot, reps!

Why did you have to do it to our country?

 

[Keorythe]

Wow, is all I can say. I mean after all of the discussions on the economy you post this hack drivel from a website that hasn't even got its fact straight?

If anything I blame Bush for letting damaging regulations stay on the books instead of removing them. Regulators have no better foresight than do the firms they regulate.

In fact, the market has not been deregulated during the eight years of the Bush Administration, and most of today's deregulation traces back to the 1970s and 1980s. The last major act of deregulation was the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, enacted during the Clinton Administration and defended even today by Clinton for its positive effect during the financial crisis, as with the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America.

The "deregulation" argument overlooks that some of our most regulated entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - were the ones that failed. Indeed, since 1992, Congress has dictated that Fannie and Freddie devote more and more resources to buying low and moderate-income lenders with questionable credit - the crux of the subprime mortgage crisis.

Congress regulated the housing market similarly with the Community Reinvestment Act. This bill, first passed in 1977, pressured banks to lend money to homebuyers who were less likely to pay back their loans. In 1995, under the Clinton administration, it was expanded so that lending standards fell even lower. This revision eliminated basic criteria for lending, such as proof of income, source of down payment and credit history. The result was an 80-percent jump in bank loans going to low and moderate-income families.

Source

 

[PerryLogan]

As John Kenneth Galbraith said, “Milton Friedman’s misfortune is that his economic policies have been tried.”

This is a common paradox. The imposition of right-wing economic policies--deregulation, privatization, tax cuts for the rich--almost invariably leads to socialism.

It was the forced imposition of Friedmanism in South America that has radicalized most of those nations. The policies fail so miserably and are so universally hated, they send everybody spinning to the left.

During the last eight years, the U.S. has intensively applied the same right-wing economic theories that have gutted nations around the world--and sure enough, we find ourselves nationalizing corporations. The country is swinging to the left out of sheer necessity.

Global warming, environmental problems, food and water shortages, and the imminent economic implosion brought on by deregulation will require still more government intervention and regulation. It'll be a tough time for wingnuts.

 

[Keorythe]

As John Kenneth Galbraith said, “Milton Friedman’s misfortune is that his economic policies have been tried.”

This is a common paradox. The imposition of right-wing economic policies--deregulation, privatization, tax cuts for the rich--almost invariably leads to socialism.

It was the forced imposition of Friedmanism in South America that has radicalized most of those nations. The policies fail so miserably and are so universally hated, they send everybody spinning to the left.

During the last eight years, the U.S. has intensively applied the same right-wing economic theories that have gutted nations around the world--and sure enough, we find ourselves nationalizing corporations. The country is swinging to the left out of sheer necessity.

Global warming, environmental problems, food and water shortages, and the imminent economic implosion brought on by deregulation will require still more government intervention and regulation. It'll be a tough time for wingnuts.

Well I noticed you managed to ignore my previous post and responded with a blanket statement without anything to back it up.

South America's failures were due to heavy corruption and a return to Keysian micromanagement policies. I have no clue how you managed to link Conservative policies to socialism or other nations doing the same. I can point out how some conservatives politicians roll over and do it against the wishes of their constituents. No problem there. But just to point out, liberal socialist policies are the one gutting their nations. Heck they'll be gutting NYC pretty soon here. Don't confuse totalitarist regimes with Friedman market policies.

The nation took a turn to the left thanks to a war (which are never popular), a lame president who didn't bother to fight back, and a media run amok. The next year will be very interesting indeed.

 

[Billo_Really]

Wow, is all I can say. I mean after all of the discussions on the economy you post this hack drivel from a website that hasn't even got its fact straight?

If anything I blame Bush for letting damaging regulations stay on the books instead of removing them. Regulators have no better foresight than do the firms they regulate.



Source

I bet you think there is nothing wrong with derrivitives. That not regulating something that is 3 times the collective GNP of all the nations in the world combined, won't impact our daily lives. Why is it that after the 29 crash, Roosevelt signed into law Glass-Steigle and we had 50 years of prosperity, then that SOB Phill Gramm comes along and we are back where we were in the late 20's?

 

[jujuman13]

Sorry folks but your all wrong.
The person who founded the USA as an Independent Nation, formed a National Army.
That Army was funded by Government and thus was a Social act.
Since then anything supplied by Government can be deemed to be Socialist.

 

[Black Dog]

Sorry folks but your all wrong.
The person who founded the USA as an Independent Nation, formed a National Army.
That Army was funded by Government and thus was a Social act.
Since then anything supplied by Government can be deemed to be Socialist.

#1 A "person" did not found the USA. It was an act of the 2nd Continental Congress. Forming a national army for defense is not a "socialist act" in and of itself.

#2 The 2nd Continental Congress went into deep debt financing the then Continental Army under George Washington...

"The Congress attempted to pay for the conflict by issuing paper certificates and by borrowing from domestic and foreign sources. The continental currency, and its state-issued equivalents, depreciated sharply in value and sparked a debilitating inflationary period. The effort to raise money for paying soldiers and purchasing arms and supplies remained a problem for much of the war." - Second Continental Congress

No money was taken from private citizens under threat of force or taxed in any way. This is also not a socialist act. In fact it was the opposite.

#3 Everything provided by the government cannot be called socialism by definition...

"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." - socialism definition | Dictionary.com

If this were the case every nation on earth would be considered socialist, but they are not.

 

[ARealConservative]

I bet you think there is nothing wrong with derrivitives. That not regulating something that is 3 times the collective GNP of all the nations in the world combined, won't impact our daily lives. Why is it that after the 29 crash, Roosevelt signed into law Glass-Steigle and we had 50 years of prosperity, then that SOB Phill Gramm comes along and we are back where we were in the late 20's?

so your 50 years of prosperity include the time we declared ourselves bankrupt and told the rest of the world we would no longer honor our financial agreement of backing their holdings of dollars with gold.

I love how liberals treat increased regulation as deregulation.

It's like nutso world right now. The audacity of hype will fix it all though. :roll:

 

[Arch Enemy]

Will someone please tell me why socialism is such a horrible thing?

 

[jujuman13]

Socialism if it were to be workable would be marvelous.
Think of it, the state cares for you from cradle to grave.
Pay for your health care, your education, gives you a job, gives you a house or apartment, clothes you, provides you with a pension, subsidizes your electricity/gas bills, does not take money from you by way of any taxes.
Eden, Heaven.
The problem is that SOMEONE has to pay for all this largess, so who does pay?
Let me give you an example of what Socialism does to Nations.
Russia, without their reserves of Energy would be a bankrupt nation.
Venezuela same.
Britain, not so great anymore, teetering on the edge of Bankruptcy.
USA, believe it or not, bankrupt.
All the above nations seem to believe that their Governments can be all things to all people.
Sorry but this simply is not so.
Why is Socialism so bad?
It destroys the necessity of a person having to work so that they can pay their own way through life.
If the state provides everything, why should they work?
Even if they do have to work, why should they work efficiently?

 

[danarhea]

Socialism if it were to be workable would be marvelous.
Think of it, the state cares for you from cradle to grave.
Pay for your health care, your education, gives you a job, gives you a house or apartment, clothes you, provides you with a pension, subsidizes your electricity/gas bills, does not take money from you by way of any taxes.
Eden, Heaven.
The problem is that SOMEONE has to pay for all this largess, so who does pay?
Let me give you an example of what Socialism does to Nations.
Russia, without their reserves of Energy would be a bankrupt nation.
Venezuela same.
Britain, not so great anymore, teetering on the edge of Bankruptcy.
USA, believe it or not, bankrupt.
All the above nations seem to believe that their Governments can be all things to all people.
Sorry but this simply is not so.
Why is Socialism so bad?
It destroys the necessity of a person having to work so that they can pay their own way through life.
If the state provides everything, why should they work?
Even if they do have to work, why should they work efficiently?

A government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you have.

-Davy Crockett

 

[American]

Sorry folks but your all wrong.
The person who founded the USA as an Independent Nation, formed a National Army.
That Army was funded by Government and thus was a Social act.
Since then anything supplied by Government can be deemed to be Socialist.

Except for the part of the Constitution that says provide for the common defense.