America's Useful Idiots

[M.D. Rawlings]

By Steve McCann
May 1, 2012
American Thinker

Many years ago, a phrase was coined by the leaders of the Soviet Union to describe those in the West who naively promoted the cause of Russian Communism when in reality they were held in contempt and were being cynically used by the Soviet hierarchy. The term "useful idiot" more than ever applies to a vast swath of citizens in the United States who have been cynically used by the hardcore left for a cause they are unwilling to understand.

Among the mysteries confronting those of us who have immigrated to the United States from countries that have experienced the devastating outcome of socialist/Marxist ideology is why seemingly successful and educated people could be so easily swayed to support those whose end-game is to transform the country into a socialist "utopia" and to control the day-to-day lives of all Americans. Among these "useful idiots" are a seeming majority of the Jewish population as well as many in business, and nearly all in entertainment and the media.

READ MORE

_____________________

Aside from what is, perhaps, at least at this point in time, an exaggeration (see the latter part of the sentence in bold), though not for lack of trying and ultimate intent, the article is on spot: "The Obama administration represents the culmination of this process, as leftists have, through an avalanche of mandates, regulations, and laws, begun weaving a suffocating web around the American free market, as they assume complete control of the economy.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This thread is especially timely given the hoards of useful idiots invading our cities today on May Day. See link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/221143-occupy-threatening-to-shut-down-new-york.html

 

[KevinWestern]

By Steve McCann
May 1, 2012
American Thinker

Many years ago, a phrase was coined by the leaders of the Soviet Union to describe those in the West who naively promoted the cause of Russian Communism when in reality they were held in contempt and were being cynically used by the Soviet hierarchy. The term "useful idiot" more than ever applies to a vast swath of citizens in the United States who have been cynically used by the hardcore left for a cause they are unwilling to understand.

Among the mysteries confronting those of us who have immigrated to the United States from countries that have experienced the devastating outcome of socialist/Marxist ideology is why seemingly successful and educated people could be so easily swayed to support those whose end-game is to transform the country into a socialist "utopia" and to control the day-to-day lives of all Americans. Among these "useful idiots" are a seeming majority of the Jewish population as well as many in business, and nearly all in entertainment and the media.

READ MORE

_____________________

Aside from what is, perhaps, at least at this point in time, an exaggeration (see the latter part of the sentence in bold), though not for lack of trying and ultimate intent, the article is on spot: "The Obama administration represents the culmination of this process, as leftists have, through an avalanche of mandates, regulations, and laws, begun weaving a suffocating web around the American free market, as they assume complete control of the economy.

Most of the mainstream American left are just left of center. Very few subscribe to an all out, socialist/Marxist type ideology. Most Americans (on the left) like the idea of having a free market, however recognize (or believe) that there's a need for certain social safety nets to be in place, especially for a country as rich and as bountiful as ours. That's really all there is to it.

Being in favor of temporary welfare for impoverished citizens does not (alone) qualify one as a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination.

As for regulations and a government that is growing larger and out of control (in both size and authoritarian reach), you can thank both Democrats AND Republicans for that. No need to single one party out because they're both to blame.

Some of the wild and unchecked executive powers that Obama is enjoying today were originally put in place under George W. Bush's administration after 9/11. He (as you know), is a Republican.
.
.
.

 

[francoHFW]

We're ALREADY social demoratic (socialist=ALWAYS democratic) and no one wants Marxist totalitarian, no capitalism- absolute fear mongering Pubcrappe for ignorant chumps...

The useful idiots were back in the 20-30s, dupes of an ultra secret Soviet dictatorship- the only useful idiots around these days are the tools of lying, cheating mega rich Pubs who've taken over the GOP. Only big lie propaganda machine too...

 

[Old Rocks]

Every modern successful nation has both capitalistic and socialistic elements. One of our most successful and admired creations is our National Park System. Pure Socialism. Taking the absolute best and most spectacular scenic assets out of the capitalistic system and preserving them for the use of all Americans. A government program, the Corps of Discovery explored an unmapped continent, and NASA went to the moon. And our capitalistic system created what was until recently the highest living standard on earth. And created a couple of Depressions along the way.

Any talk of a pure capitalist system, or purely socialistic system, ignores the reality of lessons won at the cost of wealth and lives in the last two centuries.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

By Steve McCann
May 1, 2012
American Thinker

Many years ago, a phrase was coined by the leaders of the Soviet Union to describe those in the West who naively promoted the cause of Russian Communism when in reality they were held in contempt and were being cynically used by the Soviet hierarchy. The term "useful idiot" more than ever applies to a vast swath of citizens in the United States who have been cynically used by the hardcore left for a cause they are unwilling to understand.

Among the mysteries confronting those of us who have immigrated to the United States from countries that have experienced the devastating outcome of socialist/Marxist ideology is why seemingly successful and educated people could be so easily swayed to support those whose end-game is to transform the country into a socialist "utopia" and to control the day-to-day lives of all Americans. Among these "useful idiots" are a seeming majority of the Jewish population as well as many in business, and nearly all in entertainment and the media.

READ MORE

_____________________

Aside from what is, perhaps, at least at this point in time, an exaggeration (see the latter part of the sentence in bold), though not for lack of trying and ultimate intent, the article is on spot: "The Obama administration represents the culmination of this process, as leftists have, through an avalanche of mandates, regulations, and laws, begun weaving a suffocating web around the American free market, as they assume complete control of the economy.

Most of the mainstream American left are just left of center. Very few subscribe to an all out, socialist/Marxist type ideology. Most Americans (on the left) like the idea of having a free market, however recognize (or believe) that there's a need for certain social safety nets to be in place, especially for a country as rich and as bountiful as ours. That's really all there is to it.

Being in favor of temporary welfare for impoverished citizens does not (alone) qualify one as a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination.

As for regulations and a government that is growing larger and out of control (in both size and authoritarian reach), you can thank both Democrats AND Republicans for that. No need to single one party out because they're both to blame.

Some of the wild and unchecked executive powers that Obama is enjoying today were originally put in place under George W. Bush's administration after 9/11. He (as you know), is a Republican.
.
.
.

But the author of this piece is not talking about "temporary welfare" or assistance programs by any stretch of the imagination, but the clear intent and policies of the hard-left faction currently in control of the Democratic Party—policies intended to entrench and grow a constituency of dependency and sloth.

That both parties, including the Republican Party on occasion, have imprudently expanded the power of the federal government is beyond dispute, but make no mistake about it, the Democratic Party of the Twentieth Century onward has always led the charge on behalf of big government with the Republican Party of the latter Twentieth Century, especially, mostly trying to block or reverse the former's policies.

Though I would take him over any democratic candidate hands down, I'm not a great fan of George Bush's presidency either; but once again, the author is not talking about the debatably heavy-handed executive powers exerted, putatively, in the name of national security, but about the heavy-handed—unnecessary and destructive—executive powers exerted by the current president over the prerogatives and processes of the free market.

 

[g5000]

Birthers, tea partiers, welfare queens, Occupy Wall Streeters.

All useful idiots. Hordes upon hordes of them. Its the invasion of the brain snatchers!

Death panels, food stamp president, one percenters, evil corporations, imperialism. These memes quickly metastasize because the intellectual capacity of a critical mass of people has shrunk down to the size of a bumper sticker. Their immunity to ignorance has been lowered through the suppression of critical thinking. The incessant, repititious parroting of talking points dominates the political landscape. The mindless mumble and move ever forward, consuming and destroying and converting all in their path. You can shoot them down by the thousands, but still they keep coming.

And the puppeteers like it that way. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars investing in marketing research on how to achieve the dumbing down of America. They have perfected the pod of purposelessness.

Don't fall asleep!

 

[Old Rocks]

By Steve McCann
May 1, 2012
American Thinker

Many years ago, a phrase was coined by the leaders of the Soviet Union to describe those in the West who naively promoted the cause of Russian Communism when in reality they were held in contempt and were being cynically used by the Soviet hierarchy. The term "useful idiot" more than ever applies to a vast swath of citizens in the United States who have been cynically used by the hardcore left for a cause they are unwilling to understand.

Among the mysteries confronting those of us who have immigrated to the United States from countries that have experienced the devastating outcome of socialist/Marxist ideology is why seemingly successful and educated people could be so easily swayed to support those whose end-game is to transform the country into a socialist "utopia" and to control the day-to-day lives of all Americans. Among these "useful idiots" are a seeming majority of the Jewish population as well as many in business, and nearly all in entertainment and the media.

READ MORE

_____________________

Aside from what is, perhaps, at least at this point in time, an exaggeration (see the latter part of the sentence in bold), though not for lack of trying and ultimate intent, the article is on spot: "The Obama administration represents the culmination of this process, as leftists have, through an avalanche of mandates, regulations, and laws, begun weaving a suffocating web around the American free market, as they assume complete control of the economy.

Most of the mainstream American left are just left of center. Very few subscribe to an all out, socialist/Marxist type ideology. Most Americans (on the left) like the idea of having a free market, however recognize (or believe) that there's a need for certain social safety nets to be in place, especially for a country as rich and as bountiful as ours. That's really all there is to it.

Being in favor of temporary welfare for impoverished citizens does not (alone) qualify one as a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination.

As for regulations and a government that is growing larger and out of control (in both size and authoritarian reach), you can thank both Democrats AND Republicans for that. No need to single one party out because they're both to blame.

Some of the wild and unchecked executive powers that Obama is enjoying today were originally put in place under George W. Bush's administration after 9/11. He (as you know), is a Republican.
.
.
.

But the author of this piece is not talking about "temporary welfare" or assistance programs by any stretch of the imagination, but the clear intent and policies of the hard-left faction currently in control of the Democratic Party—policies intended to entrench and grow a constituency of dependency and sloth.

That both parties, including the Republican Party on occasion, have imprudently expanded the power of the federal government is beyond dispute, but make no mistake about it, the Democratic Party of the Twentieth Century onward has always led the charge on behalf of big government with the Republican Party of the latter Twentieth Century, especially, mostly trying to block or reverse the former's policies.

Though I would take him over any democratic candidate hands down, I'm not a great fan of George Bush's presidency either; but once again, the author is not talking about the debatably heavy-handed executive powers exerted, putatively, in the name of national security, but about the heavy-handed—unnecessary and destructive—executive powers exerted by the current president over the prerogatives and processes of the free market.

A free market that nearly put us into the Second Great Republican Depression. Far from being heavy handed, or destructive, the President's policies have not gone far enough in curbing the insane practices on Wall Street that created the economic debacle that we are still pulling out of.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Every modern successful nation has both capitalistic and socialistic elements. One of our most successful and admired creations is our National Park System. Pure Socialism. Taking the absolute best and most spectacular scenic assets out of the capitalistic system and preserving them for the use of all Americans. A government program, the Corps of Discovery explored an unmapped continent, and NASA went to the moon. And our capitalistic system created what was until recently the highest living standard on earth. And created a couple of Depressions along the way.

Any talk of a pure capitalist system, or purely socialistic system, ignores the reality of lessons won at the cost of wealth and lives in the last two centuries.

But, once again, the author is not talking about pure capitalism or ignoring the sort of concerns you raise, both real and imagined. He is talking about the hard left of the Democratic Party which clearly is bent on systematically imposing a European-style socialism on America. Neither your red herrings nor your evasions erase the truth of the author's indictment.

 

[Old Rocks]

I see no truth at all in that article, just a partisan hack peice.

 

[Foxfyre]

By Steve McCann
May 1, 2012
American Thinker

Many years ago, a phrase was coined by the leaders of the Soviet Union to describe those in the West who naively promoted the cause of Russian Communism when in reality they were held in contempt and were being cynically used by the Soviet hierarchy. The term "useful idiot" more than ever applies to a vast swath of citizens in the United States who have been cynically used by the hardcore left for a cause they are unwilling to understand.

Among the mysteries confronting those of us who have immigrated to the United States from countries that have experienced the devastating outcome of socialist/Marxist ideology is why seemingly successful and educated people could be so easily swayed to support those whose end-game is to transform the country into a socialist "utopia" and to control the day-to-day lives of all Americans. Among these "useful idiots" are a seeming majority of the Jewish population as well as many in business, and nearly all in entertainment and the media.

READ MORE

_____________________

Aside from what is, perhaps, at least at this point in time, an exaggeration (see the latter part of the sentence in bold), though not for lack of trying and ultimate intent, the article is on spot: "The Obama administration represents the culmination of this process, as leftists have, through an avalanche of mandates, regulations, and laws, begun weaving a suffocating web around the American free market, as they assume complete control of the economy.

Most of the mainstream American left are just left of center. Very few subscribe to an all out, socialist/Marxist type ideology. Most Americans (on the left) like the idea of having a free market, however recognize (or believe) that there's a need for certain social safety nets to be in place, especially for a country as rich and as bountiful as ours. That's really all there is to it.

Being in favor of temporary welfare for impoverished citizens does not (alone) qualify one as a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination.

As for regulations and a government that is growing larger and out of control (in both size and authoritarian reach), you can thank both Democrats AND Republicans for that. No need to single one party out because they're both to blame.

Some of the wild and unchecked executive powers that Obama is enjoying today were originally put in place under George W. Bush's administration after 9/11. He (as you know), is a Republican.
.
.
.

I strongly disagree. I think poll after poll, issue after issue, and analysis after analysis has proved that most Americans, certainly most mainstream Americans, are right of center. Do not confuse the fear of losing entitlements to which many Americans have become addicted as a shift to the Left. Such people are the useful idiots to those who use our money to keep themselves in power and increase theire own place in the lap of luxury, but the core values of many of those gradually being enslaved have not yet really changed all that much.

Every week Rasmussen does an analysis of basic issues as indicated in his contuous rolling polling:

From this past week:

26% Say Their Personal Finances Are Getting Better
Generic Congressional Ballot: Republicans 43%, Democrats 40%
29% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Despite media fixation on the scream of the week, most Americans remain focused on the essentials, and their views on them are consistent over time, even if the Political Class continues to ignore them.

Take the auto bailouts. They’ve been unpopular since day one, and they’re still unpopular. Admittedly, thanks to the political spin out of Washington, the bailouts are a bit less unpopular because many Americans incorrectly believe the government made money or broke even on them. But when informed of the real price tag, opposition is just as high as ever.

The majority of Americans nationwide still believes General Motors should have gone through the regular bankruptcy process instead of the federal government taking over in exchange for bailout money.

But then President Obama recently suggested that government investment is what has made America great. Voters express a lot more confidence in the free enterprise system. In fact, just 27% agree that government investments made America great. By comparison, 69% think the free enterprise system deserves the credit.

Unfortunately, and this is where the Political Class again enters in, many see crony capitalism at work in the free market system, especially when it comes to the awarding of government contracts. Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters believe most government contracts are given to the company with the most political connections rather than the one that can provide the best service for the best price.

For some, government is the answer to economic inequality in this country, but for most voters, it’s not. Only 22% believe society would become fairer if there was greater government regulation.

Most Americans still believe the price for a gallon of gas could top $5 in the next few months, and a plurality (44%), for example, now thinks government regulation is to blame for the higher prices.

Shareholders recently rejected the compensation package for top executives at Citigroup, the first action of its kind against those who run a major U.S. bank. Americans believe that executives at most major companies are paid too much, but few think the government should regulate CEO compensation. However, there is an exception: Nearly half support continued government regulation of executive compensation at companies that were bailed out. That’s true even if the company paid the money back.

Illegal immigration remains an area where voters would like to see the government do more. For years, most voters have said the nation’s immigration priority should be controlling the borders, just as they’ve repeatedly said the federal government’s current policies encourage illegal immigration instead.

In fact, the Obama administration is challenging Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigration which is intended in part to make the government do its job. The U.S. Supreme Court this past week held hearings on that challenge. Yet most voters nationwide agree with the Arizona law’s most controversial provision, automatic immigration checks of those stopped by police for traffic violations.

As Scott Rasmussen argues in his latest syndicated column, “Voters remember what many in Washington often forget: America is a nation of immigrants -- and of laws. The American people want both traditions to be honored.”

It’s important to note, too, that while most voters want tougher enforcement of immigration laws, 60% continue to believe American society is generally fair and decent.
. . . .
What They Told Us: Reviewing Last Week

The people who clamor for a king to save them are the useful idiots for those who use government to increase their own personal power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes. I see a growing trend of Americans who some, maybe for the first time, are seeing and embracing the concept of American exceptionalism and the virtue in a government that secures and protects our rights and then leaves us alone to govern ourselves and to have power over our own destiny.

I think Rasmussens running polls on a wide variety of issues important to all of us is underscoring that in spades.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Most of the mainstream American left are just left of center. Very few subscribe to an all out, socialist/Marxist type ideology. Most Americans (on the left) like the idea of having a free market, however recognize (or believe) that there's a need for certain social safety nets to be in place, especially for a country as rich and as bountiful as ours. That's really all there is to it.

Being in favor of temporary welfare for impoverished citizens does not (alone) qualify one as a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination.

As for regulations and a government that is growing larger and out of control (in both size and authoritarian reach), you can thank both Democrats AND Republicans for that. No need to single one party out because they're both to blame.

Some of the wild and unchecked executive powers that Obama is enjoying today were originally put in place under George W. Bush's administration after 9/11. He (as you know), is a Republican.
.
.
.

But the author of this piece is not talking about "temporary welfare" or assistance programs by any stretch of the imagination, but the clear intent and policies of the hard-left faction currently in control of the Democratic Party—policies intended to entrench and grow a constituency of dependency and sloth.

That both parties, including the Republican Party on occasion, have imprudently expanded the power of the federal government is beyond dispute, but make no mistake about it, the Democratic Party of the Twentieth Century onward has always led the charge on behalf of big government with the Republican Party of the latter Twentieth Century, especially, mostly trying to block or reverse the former's policies.

Though I would take him over any democratic candidate hands down, I'm not a great fan of George Bush's presidency either; but once again, the author is not talking about the debatably heavy-handed executive powers exerted, putatively, in the name of national security, but about the heavy-handed—unnecessary and destructive—executive powers exerted by the current president over the prerogatives and processes of the free market.

A free market that nearly put us into the Second Great Republican Depression. Far from being heavy handed, or destructive, the President's policies have not gone far enough in curbing the insane practices on Wall Street that created the economic debacle that we are still pulling out of.

Nonsense.

It's curious that you breeze right over dunderheaded governmental policies and the reckless practices of the quasi-private companies of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, for example, which were at the epicenter of the housing-credit crash that caused the current recession or profoundly exacerbated a cyclical economic downturn: leftist politicians bullying the private sector to relax sound lending practices, sell and bundle high-risk mortgage products.

(And by the way, the current economy is not the worst since the Great Depression. That prize goes to the Nixon-Carter years of stagflation and stupid, governmentally imposed price controls.)

Then the Obama Administration, after incessantly complaining about the debt that the Bush Administration piled up, spent trillions more, further exacerbating our economic woes.

But of course anyone with an IQ above that of a gnat understood all along that Obama never intended to arrest out-of-control government spending. On the contrary, he knew along that he would drive the debt to its present level and beyond.

 

[asaratis]

But the author of this piece is not talking about "temporary welfare" or assistance programs by any stretch of the imagination, but the clear intent and policies of the hard-left faction currently in control of the Democratic Party—policies intended to entrench and grow a constituency of dependency and sloth.

That both parties, including the Republican Party on occasion, have imprudently expanded the power of the federal government is beyond dispute, but make no mistake about it, the Democratic Party of the Twentieth Century onward has always led the charge on behalf of big government with the Republican Party of the latter Twentieth Century, especially, mostly trying to block or reverse the former's policies.

Though I would take him over any democratic candidate hands down, I'm not a great fan of George Bush's presidency either; but once again, the author is not talking about the debatably heavy-handed executive powers exerted, putatively, in the name of national security, but about the heavy-handed—unnecessary and destructive—executive powers exerted by the current president over the prerogatives and processes of the free market.

A free market that nearly put us into the Second Great Republican Depression. Far from being heavy handed, or destructive, the President's policies have not gone far enough in curbing the insane practices on Wall Street that created the economic debacle that we are still pulling out of.

Nonsense.

It's curious that you breeze right over dunderheaded governmental policies and the reckless practices of the quasi-private companies of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, for example, which were at the very epicenter of the housing-credit crash that caused the current recession or profoundly exacerbated a mere cyclical economic downturn: leftist politicians bullying the private sector to relax sound lending practices, sell and bundle high-risk mortgage products.

(And by the way, the current economy is not the worst since the Great Depression. That prize goes to the Nixon-Carter years of stagflation and stupid, governmentally imposed price controls.)

Then the Obama Administration, after incessantly complaining about the debt that the Bush Administration piled up, spent trillions more, further exacerbating our economic woes.

But of course anyone with an IQ above that of a gnat understood all along that Obama never intended to arrest out-of-control government spending. On the contrary, he knew along that he would drive the debt to its present level and beyond.

You are correct. Old Rocks is trying to spoil your argument with ridiculous extremes. Of course we have some social programs in the USA. That doesn't make full fledged socialism desirable. It has failed everywhere it's been tried.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course, The partisans and ideologues who will blindly believe and follow their leader(s) have to defend what the leader's schtick is on any given day.

We have a local politician who is running ads on local radio and TV stations claiming that the "Tea Party Republicans" want to cut your social security, Medicare, and other benefits. (The candidate) will not allow them to do that and will fight for you in Washington....yadda, yadda.

It is so blatantly dishonest that only the most gullible of the useful idiots will buy into it.

Unfortunately they are out there. And everywhere else too. Just look at the utterly stupid things people on USMB post about conservatives or Republicans or various individuals who speak for fiscal sanity.

 

[dilloduck]

Most of the mainstream American left are just left of center. Very few subscribe to an all out, socialist/Marxist type ideology. Most Americans (on the left) like the idea of having a free market, however recognize (or believe) that there's a need for certain social safety nets to be in place, especially for a country as rich and as bountiful as ours. That's really all there is to it.

Being in favor of temporary welfare for impoverished citizens does not (alone) qualify one as a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination.

As for regulations and a government that is growing larger and out of control (in both size and authoritarian reach), you can thank both Democrats AND Republicans for that. No need to single one party out because they're both to blame.

Some of the wild and unchecked executive powers that Obama is enjoying today were originally put in place under George W. Bush's administration after 9/11. He (as you know), is a Republican.
.
.
.

But the author of this piece is not talking about "temporary welfare" or assistance programs by any stretch of the imagination, but the clear intent and policies of the hard-left faction currently in control of the Democratic Party—policies intended to entrench and grow a constituency of dependency and sloth.

That both parties, including the Republican Party on occasion, have imprudently expanded the power of the federal government is beyond dispute, but make no mistake about it, the Democratic Party of the Twentieth Century onward has always led the charge on behalf of big government with the Republican Party of the latter Twentieth Century, especially, mostly trying to block or reverse the former's policies.

Though I would take him over any democratic candidate hands down, I'm not a great fan of George Bush's presidency either; but once again, the author is not talking about the debatably heavy-handed executive powers exerted, putatively, in the name of national security, but about the heavy-handed—unnecessary and destructive—executive powers exerted by the current president over the prerogatives and processes of the free market.

A free market that nearly put us into the Second Great Republican Depression. Far from being heavy handed, or destructive, the President's policies have not gone far enough in curbing the insane practices on Wall Street that created the economic debacle that we are still pulling out of.

The president is one of the bad guys too, Rocks. He has no interest whatsoever in curbing insane financial policies. He NEEDS them.

 

[Foxfyre]

But the author of this piece is not talking about "temporary welfare" or assistance programs by any stretch of the imagination, but the clear intent and policies of the hard-left faction currently in control of the Democratic Party—policies intended to entrench and grow a constituency of dependency and sloth.

That both parties, including the Republican Party on occasion, have imprudently expanded the power of the federal government is beyond dispute, but make no mistake about it, the Democratic Party of the Twentieth Century onward has always led the charge on behalf of big government with the Republican Party of the latter Twentieth Century, especially, mostly trying to block or reverse the former's policies.

Though I would take him over any democratic candidate hands down, I'm not a great fan of George Bush's presidency either; but once again, the author is not talking about the debatably heavy-handed executive powers exerted, putatively, in the name of national security, but about the heavy-handed—unnecessary and destructive—executive powers exerted by the current president over the prerogatives and processes of the free market.

A free market that nearly put us into the Second Great Republican Depression. Far from being heavy handed, or destructive, the President's policies have not gone far enough in curbing the insane practices on Wall Street that created the economic debacle that we are still pulling out of.

The president is one of the bad guys too, Rocks. He has no interest whatsoever in curbing insane financial policies. He NEEDS them.

Yup. The useful idiots he bribes with them are his best hope to be re-elected.

 

[Truthseeker420]

 

[bripat9643]

I see no truth at all in that article, just a partisan hack peice.

Of course you don't, Rocks in the Head. You spout the party line regardless of facts.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Of course, The partisans and ideologues who will blindly believe and follow their leader(s) have to defend what the leader's schtick is on any given day.
We have a local politician who is running ads on local radio and TV stations claiming that the "Tea Party Republicans" want to cut your social security, Medicare, and other benefits. (The candidate) will not allow them to do that and will fight for you in Washington....yadda, yadda.

It is so blatantly dishonest that only the most gullible of the useful idiots will buy into it.

Unfortunately they are out there. And everywhere else too. Just look at the utterly stupid things people on USMB post about conservatives or Republicans or various individuals who speak for fiscal sanity.

The leftists on this board bitterly complained about the growth of the national debt under the Bush Administration because the leftist elite made that one of its leading talking points . . . even though the latter never had any intention of reducing the debt should it gain control of the government. Now the leftists on this board happily embrace the notion that austerity hasn't worked in Europe, which is nothing more than a leftist media campaign assessing the current state of affairs, albeit, without considering the facts that Europe's stagnant economies are still burdened by oppressive regulatory and entitlements regimes, that the governments of these economies initially employed Keynesian-style spending in the name of stimulus just like the Obama Administration.

In other words, now trillions more of debt is okay with them, despite the paltry improvement in the economy, predicted by conservatives based on the historical failure of Keynesianism . . . because the leftist elite has made that one of its leading talking points for obvious reasons.

As I have stated before, leftyism—from fascist socialism to Marxist socialism and everything in between—is a collection of slanders and slogans; its only significant ideological goal is big government.

 

[BlindBoo]

But the author of this piece is not talking about "temporary welfare" or assistance programs by any stretch of the imagination, but the clear intent and policies of the hard-left faction currently in control of the Democratic Party—policies intended to entrench and grow a constituency of dependency and sloth.

That both parties, including the Republican Party on occasion, have imprudently expanded the power of the federal government is beyond dispute, but make no mistake about it, the Democratic Party of the Twentieth Century onward has always led the charge on behalf of big government with the Republican Party of the latter Twentieth Century, especially, mostly trying to block or reverse the former's policies.

Though I would take him over any democratic candidate hands down, I'm not a great fan of George Bush's presidency either; but once again, the author is not talking about the debatably heavy-handed executive powers exerted, putatively, in the name of national security, but about the heavy-handed—unnecessary and destructive—executive powers exerted by the current president over the prerogatives and processes of the free market.

A free market that nearly put us into the Second Great Republican Depression. Far from being heavy handed, or destructive, the President's policies have not gone far enough in curbing the insane practices on Wall Street that created the economic debacle that we are still pulling out of.

Nonsense.

It's curious that you breeze right over dunderheaded governmental policies and the reckless practices of the quasi-private companies of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, for example, which were at the epicenter of the housing-credit crash that caused the current recession or profoundly exacerbated a cyclical economic downturn: leftist politicians bullying the private sector to relax sound lending practices, sell and bundle high-risk mortgage products.

(And by the way, the current economy is not the worst since the Great Depression. That prize goes to the Nixon-Carter years of stagflation and stupid, governmentally imposed price controls.)

Then the Obama Administration, after incessantly complaining about the debt that the Bush Administration piled up, spent trillions more, further exacerbating our economic woes.

But of course anyone with an IQ above that of a gnat understood all along that Obama never intended to arrest out-of-control government spending. On the contrary, he knew along that he would drive the debt to its present level and beyond.

"...the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), which was appointed by Congress to investigate the causes of the crash.1 Contrary to Wallison, the nine other members of the commission, including three others appointed by Republicans, concluded that Fannie and Freddie were not the main causes of the crisis."

Did Fannie Cause the Disaster? by Jeff Madrick and Frank Partnoy | The New York Review of Books

After the Bush Crash the spending was necessary. Cutting and deducing the budget would have brought on a depression.