We Are Witnessing the Failure of Socialism

[BluePhantom]

During the debt limit crisis that enthralled the nation just months ago liberal economists like Paul Krugman and leftists on this board proclaimed that increasing the national debt, which currently stands somewhere around $15 trillion--up $2 trillion since the debt limit was increased--was not only necessary but desperately needed for economic growth and improvement.

These people told us that the debt and deficit isn't detrimental at all.

Well...dude. You are talking about a guy who argued that 9/11 was a great thing because it would boost our economy a mere three days after the attack.

"Our economy is so huge that the scenes of destruction, awesome as they are, are only a pinprick...Nobody has a dollar figure for the damage yet, but I would be surprised if the loss is more than 0.1 percent of U.S. wealth -- comparable to the material effects of a major earthquake or hurricane....So the direct economic impact of the attacks will probably not be that bad. And there will, potentially, be two favorable effects."

"...the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I've already indicated, the destruction isn't big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending.....Now it seems that we will indeed get a quick burst of public spending"

Reckonings - After The Horror - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

And?

Had that been done..instead of the war crime of Iraq..we'd be in better shape now. And the WTC would have been rebuilt.

Yeah...why am I not surprised that you would agree with Krugman, Sallow? Never let a good crisis go to waste right?

 

[occupied]

I happen to see this mess as more of a failure of capitalism to be an overall benefit to society, if it were so great the world would not be so unstable. We need both working together, not this stupid adversarial boom and bust, winner take all bullshit.

Government makes the world unstable, not capitalism. Government has been the major player in every financial boondoggle since the Civil War. Government meddling in credit markets is what causes credit bubbles.

Socialists are always trying to blame capitalism for their disastrous policies. Every few years they come out with some new scheme to solve the problems they created the last time, the result is an even bigger disaster.

When are people going to learn?

Bullshit. How is anyone supposed to be able buy low and sell high if the markets remain stable? After every recent crash the same people have always came out better, and it ain't the government.

 

[bripat9643]

I love the way socialists portray socialist governments as the helpless pawns of sinister capitalists. If these government officials can't avoid gutting suckered by con artists, then what makes them qualified to run an economy? What makes them qualified to spend almost half of everything I earn?

That's what happened ace, and I didn't vote for the sucker that was asleep at the wheel while this was going on, George W. Bush. That's on you guys.

ROFL! So it's all the fault of BOOOOOSSHHHH? I'll remind you that the Obama administration has already been swindled several times. You're also admitting European governments got swindled as well.

So you're admitting government officials aren't competent to run the economy? Private corporations have all sorts of policies and procedures to avoid getting scammed, but government isn't capable of doing something similar?

Do you really think this is a good argument to defend socialism?

 

[Jarhead]

What happened in Europe, happened everywhere. A small cadre of elite market engineers fleeced everyone..and then got bailed out by the people they fleeced. All captains of the corporatism you guys embrace so heartily.

I love the way socialists portray socialist governments as the helpless pawns of sinister capitalists. If these government officials can't avoid gutting suckered by con artists, then what makes them qualified to run an economy? What makes them qualified to spend almost half of everything I earn?

That's what happened ace, and I didn't vote for the sucker that was asleep at the wheel while this was going on, George W. Bush. That's on you guys.

wait a minute....let me get a better idea of what you do and what you dont know.

The President of the United States is supposed to do what congress is slated to do?

So you do not hold anyone in congress responsible...you hold the man who expoects congress to do their jobs responsible?

Sure the bucjk stops with him...and he accepted like a man (unlike his successor)...

But you say the President was asleep at the wheel but congress is not to blame at all?

Wow.

Me?

I blame congress. They dropped the ball.

Heck, Bush asked Frank "whats up with Freddie...look into it"...and Frank said "Looked into it for ya boss......and all is cool with Freddy...no need to further invewstigate it"

And you blame Bush for that?

Wow.

 

[Sallow]

Well...dude. You are talking about a guy who argued that 9/11 was a great thing because it would boost our economy a mere three days after the attack.

"Our economy is so huge that the scenes of destruction, awesome as they are, are only a pinprick...Nobody has a dollar figure for the damage yet, but I would be surprised if the loss is more than 0.1 percent of U.S. wealth -- comparable to the material effects of a major earthquake or hurricane....So the direct economic impact of the attacks will probably not be that bad. And there will, potentially, be two favorable effects."

"...the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I've already indicated, the destruction isn't big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending.....Now it seems that we will indeed get a quick burst of public spending"

Reckonings - After The Horror - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

And?

Had that been done..instead of the war crime of Iraq..we'd be in better shape now. And the WTC would have been rebuilt.

Yeah...why am I not surprised that you would agree with Krugman, Sallow? Never let a good crisis go to waste right?

That site is STILL being worked on. And Bush certainly didn't let it go to waste. He used it to attack an oil rich country that the PNAC cowboys have been just dying to topple for years. Iraq, had absolutely zero to do with 9/11. Yet over 100K Iraqis and some 4K Americans, died, because Bush rolled that country.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

During the debt limit crisis that enthralled the nation just months ago liberal economists like Paul Krugman and leftists on this board proclaimed that increasing the national debt, which currently stands somewhere around $15 trillion--up $2 trillion since the debt limit was increased--was not only necessary but desperately needed for economic growth and improvement.

These people told us that the debt and deficit isn't detrimental at all.

"It’s politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility. But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold." Op-Ed Columnist - Let’s Get Fiscal - NYTimes.com

If any of this were true then the socialist countries of Europe would be thriving. In reality unregulated deficit spending and debt is devastating the global market.

What is happening in Europe is a complete refutation of the left's steadfast faith that increased deficit spending during a time of glacial economic growth is what is needed to grow the economy.

Hell, what is happening today in America is a complete refutation of this administration's entire economic agenda.

Excellent and accurate!

Our downgraded President and his Failed Economic Theory should be set to expire in November 2012

 

[occupied]

We are seeing the fatal flaw of capitalism, it fails in the absence of growth. We are living on a world in decline, we are reaching the resource limits of our planet. Capitalism fails when there are no more worlds to conquer.

 

[bripat9643]

Government makes the world unstable, not capitalism. Government has been the major player in every financial boondoggle since the Civil War. Government meddling in credit markets is what causes credit bubbles.

Socialists are always trying to blame capitalism for their disastrous policies. Every few years they come out with some new scheme to solve the problems they created the last time, the result is an even bigger disaster.

When are people going to learn?

Bullshit. How is anyone supposed to be able buy low and sell high if the markets remain stable? After every recent crash the same people have always came out better, and it ain't the government.

You have me confused with someone who swallows the Marxist abradacabra. Capitalism doesn't depend on any "Boom-bust" cycle. Government is what causes those.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

American Progressives are to the economic left of genuine Communists

 

[Sallow]

I love the way socialists portray socialist governments as the helpless pawns of sinister capitalists. If these government officials can't avoid gutting suckered by con artists, then what makes them qualified to run an economy? What makes them qualified to spend almost half of everything I earn?

That's what happened ace, and I didn't vote for the sucker that was asleep at the wheel while this was going on, George W. Bush. That's on you guys.

wait a minute....let me get a better idea of what you do and what you dont know.

The President of the United States is supposed to do what congress is slated to do?

So you do not hold anyone in congress responsible...you hold the man who expoects congress to do their jobs responsible?

Sure the bucjk stops with him...and he accepted like a man (unlike his successor)...

But you say the President was asleep at the wheel but congress is not to blame at all?

Wow.

Me?

I blame congress. They dropped the ball.

Heck, Bush asked Frank "whats up with Freddie...look into it"...and Frank said "Looked into it for ya boss......and all is cool with Freddy...no need to further invewstigate it"

And you blame Bush for that?

Wow.

You guys keep bringing up Freddie and Fannie. They had very little to do with anything. They didn't make the loans. Companies like "Quick Loans" and "Countrywide" did. And they were backed by bigger companies like Goldman Sachs. Around 2006..those toxic loans were DUMPED on Freddie and Fannie.

Is congress responsible for some of that? Sure. But it's very hard to get any sort of regulatory structure going when you have a President that hates regulation. The whole Enron meltdown..and about a million other things should have told Bush to bring back Glass Steagall or something like it.

 

[Jarhead]

And?

Had that been done..instead of the war crime of Iraq..we'd be in better shape now. And the WTC would have been rebuilt.

Yeah...why am I not surprised that you would agree with Krugman, Sallow? Never let a good crisis go to waste right?

That site is STILL being worked on. And Bush certainly didn't let it go to waste. He used it to attack an oil rich country that the PNAC cowboys have been just dying to topple for years. Iraq, had absolutely zero to do with 9/11. Yet over 100K Iraqis and some 4K Americans, died, because Bush rolled that country.

yeah...Bush took intel from Clintons days and intel from his days and intel from a dozen other countries....and showed it all to congress who gave him the thumbs up....

And congress was all for the war until the democrats found it to be politically expedient to oppose what they supported..

And when they were asked why they flip flopped they claimed that Bush cherry picked intel.

And when they were asked for proof that he cherry picked intel, they ignored the request and changed the subject to waterboarding and how the CIA lied to congress...and when they were asked for proof of that they said "we have more important things to concentrate on...like the economy"..

Alas...but there is till you...ranting and raving about Bush and hius war crimes.

The democratic party counts on those like you to do their dirty work.

 

[freedombecki]

During the debt limit crisis that enthralled the nation just months ago liberal economists like Paul Krugman and leftists on this board proclaimed that increasing the national debt, which currently stands somewhere around $15 trillion--up $2 trillion since the debt limit was increased--was not only necessary but desperately needed for economic growth and improvement.

These people told us that the debt and deficit isn't detrimental at all.

"It’s politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility. But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold." Op-Ed Columnist - Let’s Get Fiscal - NYTimes.com

If any of this were true then the socialist countries of Europe would be thriving. In reality unregulated deficit spending and debt is devastating the global market.

What is happening in Europe is a complete refutation of the left's steadfast faith that increased deficit spending during a time of glacial economic growth is what is needed to grow the economy.

Hell, what is happening today in America is a complete refutation of this administration's entire economic agenda.

We have a President who just can't say "no" to spending.

 

[Contumacious]

We Are Witnessing the Failure of Socialism.

Indeed.

I suggested that the parasites be sent to the North Pole, but they quickly brought to my attention the fact that those folks vote early and often.

So , we must wait for the welfare/warfare state to collapse. We must fucking reinvent the wheel because the bastards refused to learn from history .

.

 

[Sallow]

I love the way socialists portray socialist governments as the helpless pawns of sinister capitalists. If these government officials can't avoid gutting suckered by con artists, then what makes them qualified to run an economy? What makes them qualified to spend almost half of everything I earn?

That's what happened ace, and I didn't vote for the sucker that was asleep at the wheel while this was going on, George W. Bush. That's on you guys.

ROFL! So it's all the fault of BOOOOOSSHHHH? I'll remind you that the Obama administration has already been swindled several times. You're also admitting European governments got swindled as well.

So you're admitting government officials aren't competent to run the economy? Private corporations have all sorts of policies and procedures to avoid getting scammed, but government isn't capable of doing something similar?

Do you really think this is a good argument to defend socialism?

Not "defending" socialism. What I am doing is damning Corporatism. You guys put a "CEO" president into power.

Well..here are the results.

Like em?

 

[Sallow]

Yeah...why am I not surprised that you would agree with Krugman, Sallow? Never let a good crisis go to waste right?

That site is STILL being worked on. And Bush certainly didn't let it go to waste. He used it to attack an oil rich country that the PNAC cowboys have been just dying to topple for years. Iraq, had absolutely zero to do with 9/11. Yet over 100K Iraqis and some 4K Americans, died, because Bush rolled that country.

yeah...Bush took intel from Clintons days and intel from his days and intel from a dozen other countries....and showed it all to congress who gave him the thumbs up....

And congress was all for the war until the democrats found it to be politically expedient to oppose what they supported..

And when they were asked why they flip flopped they claimed that Bush cherry picked intel.

And when they were asked for proof that he cherry picked intel, they ignored the request and changed the subject to waterboarding and how the CIA lied to congress...and when they were asked for proof of that they said "we have more important things to concentrate on...like the economy"..

Alas...but there is till you...ranting and raving about Bush and hius war crimes.

The democratic party counts on those like you to do their dirty work.

No President has ever been denied a war.

 

[Jarhead]

That's what happened ace, and I didn't vote for the sucker that was asleep at the wheel while this was going on, George W. Bush. That's on you guys.

wait a minute....let me get a better idea of what you do and what you dont know.

The President of the United States is supposed to do what congress is slated to do?

So you do not hold anyone in congress responsible...you hold the man who expoects congress to do their jobs responsible?

Sure the bucjk stops with him...and he accepted like a man (unlike his successor)...

But you say the President was asleep at the wheel but congress is not to blame at all?

Wow.

Me?

I blame congress. They dropped the ball.

Heck, Bush asked Frank "whats up with Freddie...look into it"...and Frank said "Looked into it for ya boss......and all is cool with Freddy...no need to further invewstigate it"

And you blame Bush for that?

Wow.

You guys keep bringing up Freddie and Fannie. They had very little to do with anything. They didn't make the loans. Companies like "Quick Loans" and "Countrywide" did. And they were backed by bigger companies like Goldman Sachs. Around 2006..those toxic loans were DUMPED on Freddie and Fannie.

Is congress responsible for some of that? Sure. But it's very hard to get any sort of regulatory structure going when you have a President that hates regulation. The whole Enron meltdown..and about a million other things should have told Bush to bring back Glass Steagall or something like it.

you do not understand the roll of freddie and fannie.

If you did, you wouldnt have said what you said.

They are a clearing house of sorts. They were the ones who bought those loans..and resold them again.

Do you know what they do before the buy those loans?

They are SUPPOSED to have underwriters review them...every sigle one of them....that is why they couldnt afford to stay afloat without governemnt intervention...it is very expensive to have an underwriter review loans......

So what did they do?

They claimed to have reviewed the loans for viability....and sold them off.

Now...why is that a bad thing?

Becuase people believed that if FM siad they were viable, then they were viable....giving the pourchasers reason to believe they were a worthy investment.

Forget it Sallow.

It is all Bush's fault....whatever floats your boat.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's what happened ace, and I didn't vote for the sucker that was asleep at the wheel while this was going on, George W. Bush. That's on you guys.

wait a minute....let me get a better idea of what you do and what you dont know.

The President of the United States is supposed to do what congress is slated to do?

So you do not hold anyone in congress responsible...you hold the man who expoects congress to do their jobs responsible?

Sure the bucjk stops with him...and he accepted like a man (unlike his successor)...

But you say the President was asleep at the wheel but congress is not to blame at all?

Wow.

Me?

I blame congress. They dropped the ball.

Heck, Bush asked Frank "whats up with Freddie...look into it"...and Frank said "Looked into it for ya boss......and all is cool with Freddy...no need to further invewstigate it"

And you blame Bush for that?

Wow.

You guys keep bringing up Freddie and Fannie. They had very little to do with anything. They didn't make the loans. Companies like "Quick Loans" and "Countrywide" did. And they were backed by bigger companies like Goldman Sachs. Around 2006..those toxic loans were DUMPED on Freddie and Fannie.

Is congress responsible for some of that? Sure. But it's very hard to get any sort of regulatory structure going when you have a President that hates regulation. The whole Enron meltdown..and about a million other things should have told Bush to bring back Glass Steagall or something like it.

Fannie and Freddie had little to do with anything....you need a break, you're not making any sense

 

[Jarhead]

That site is STILL being worked on. And Bush certainly didn't let it go to waste. He used it to attack an oil rich country that the PNAC cowboys have been just dying to topple for years. Iraq, had absolutely zero to do with 9/11. Yet over 100K Iraqis and some 4K Americans, died, because Bush rolled that country.

yeah...Bush took intel from Clintons days and intel from his days and intel from a dozen other countries....and showed it all to congress who gave him the thumbs up....

And congress was all for the war until the democrats found it to be politically expedient to oppose what they supported..

And when they were asked why they flip flopped they claimed that Bush cherry picked intel.

And when they were asked for proof that he cherry picked intel, they ignored the request and changed the subject to waterboarding and how the CIA lied to congress...and when they were asked for proof of that they said "we have more important things to concentrate on...like the economy"..

Alas...but there is till you...ranting and raving about Bush and hius war crimes.

The democratic party counts on those like you to do their dirty work.

No President has ever been denied a war.

and no president has ever been given the right to declare war without congresses approval.

SO your post ius nothing more than a punt becuase you had nothing worthy to say in response.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yeah...why am I not surprised that you would agree with Krugman, Sallow? Never let a good crisis go to waste right?

That site is STILL being worked on. And Bush certainly didn't let it go to waste. He used it to attack an oil rich country that the PNAC cowboys have been just dying to topple for years. Iraq, had absolutely zero to do with 9/11. Yet over 100K Iraqis and some 4K Americans, died, because Bush rolled that country.

yeah...Bush took intel from Clintons days and intel from his days and intel from a dozen other countries....and showed it all to congress who gave him the thumbs up....

And congress was all for the war until the democrats found it to be politically expedient to oppose what they supported..

And when they were asked why they flip flopped they claimed that Bush cherry picked intel.

And when they were asked for proof that he cherry picked intel, they ignored the request and changed the subject to waterboarding and how the CIA lied to congress...and when they were asked for proof of that they said "we have more important things to concentrate on...like the economy"..

Alas...but there is till you...ranting and raving about Bush and hius war crimes.

The democratic party counts on those like you to do their dirty work.

Here's some information Congress should have had and that President Bush had.

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - CIA - Salon.com

In the end, 156 members of Congress from 36 states had enough information and personal insight and wisdom to vote against it.

 

[freedombecki]

During the debt limit crisis that enthralled the nation just months ago liberal economists like Paul Krugman and leftists on this board proclaimed that increasing the national debt, which currently stands somewhere around $15 trillion--up $2 trillion since the debt limit was increased--was not only necessary but desperately needed for economic growth and improvement.

These people told us that the debt and deficit isn't detrimental at all.

Well...dude. You are talking about a guy who argued that 9/11 was a great thing because it would boost our economy a mere three days after the attack.

"Our economy is so huge that the scenes of destruction, awesome as they are, are only a pinprick...Nobody has a dollar figure for the damage yet, but I would be surprised if the loss is more than 0.1 percent of U.S. wealth -- comparable to the material effects of a major earthquake or hurricane....So the direct economic impact of the attacks will probably not be that bad. And there will, potentially, be two favorable effects."

"...the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I've already indicated, the destruction isn't big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending.....Now it seems that we will indeed get a quick burst of public spending"

Reckonings - After The Horror - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

And?

Had that been done..instead of the war crime of Iraq..we'd be in better shape now. And the WTC would have been rebuilt.

The war crime of Iraq was committed over and over by Saddam Hussein. We'd be in better shape if our nation weren't so divided down party lines, and Congress authorized President Bush to go after terrorists and those who enabled terrorists. He did, and the Democrats renegged around election time to use the war to take Congress, decimate the economy and blame Bush in order to take away the good he did so their black man could do his marching orders of painting all Republicans (who abolished slavery off the face of the map) as racists.