Will this usher in socialism?

[elvis]

Today's vote is a clear indication that it is not. Not sure what they will get done, but it is clear a nationalization of mortages and banks has NO support from the country. Congressional calls and e-mails were 9 to 1 AGAINST the bill.

We, as a people, would rather go into a DEPRESSION before agreeing to a socialist takeover of our finances.

That may be, but another version of this bill will eventually pass.

 

[elvis]

he answer is no, these loans would not have been given out.

The plan by the Democrats all along was for the economy to tank, then blame it on the Republicans. This is illustrated very boldly in Pelosi's "fuck you Republicans" comments before the vote, along with her "GOP ain't patriotic" comments the day earlier.

When I said loans, I meant the subprime loans issued by the banks that were issued to people who couldn't pay them back.

 

[glockmail]

When I said loans, I meant the subprime loans issued by the banks that were issued to people who couldn't pay them back.

I know. And banks would not have written them unless forced by the government to do it, which is exactly what happened, and why the Democrats are to blame.

Let the fucking Democrats bail out the banks. George Soros and Nancy "Fuck you" Pelosi have some dough.

 

[AshamedAmerican]

Mussolini once defined fascism as corporatism, because he called it the marriage of government and business.
But is this the correct definition?

The very shortest, simplest answer I can give you is the promotion of the interests of private corporations in government over the interests of the public.
In other words the rich guys who all own big corporations, (or have millions in stocks of big corporations) care more about ensuring that their wallet stays nice and fat than the fact that hundreds of millions of people could possibly be homeless, and starving soon.

Just two examples of the level of people we're talking about here.
Bush - arbusto oil
Cheney - haliburton
They are the elected representatives of the very people they are raping financially.
And believe me that isn't even the tip of the iceberg.

 

[elvis]

The very shortest, simplest answer I can give you is the promotion of the interests of private corporations in government over the interests of the public.
In other words the rich guys who all own big corporations, (or have millions in stocks of big corporations) care more about ensuring that their wallet stays nice and fat than the fact that hundreds of millions of people could possibly be homeless, and starving soon.

Just two examples of the level of people we're talking about here.
Bush - arbusto oil
Cheney - haliburton
They are the elected representatives of the very people they are raping financially.
And believe me that isn't even the tip of the iceberg.

Is it just me, or are all the news organizations and talk shows fighting to get Ron Paul on their shows now?

 

[eots]

fuck the bail out ..chicken little..the sun well still rise tomorrow..I thought we where americiams god dammit !.. doesnt that mean anything anymore.!!??.A CABAL of fucking elitist stole the nations wealth and now want you to willingly give up more..fuck em..we the people will figure it out ...even if it means defining are real needs..learning how to maintain and repair....but won't... don't need you or your elitist tea...dump the whole shit pile overboard and we will have a tea party...and left ..right.. makes no fucking difference ...because they all work for the same private corporation ... your just given two choices of who's going to fuck you up the ass. !!....the old white guy or the colored fella

 

[AshamedAmerican]

fuck the bail out ..chicken little..the sun well still rise tomorrow..I thought we where americiams god dammit !.. doesnt that mean anything anymore.!!??.A CABAL of fucking elitist stole the nations wealth and now want you to willingly give up more..fuck em..we the people will figure it out ...even if it means defining are real needs..learning how to maintain and repair....but won't... don't need you or your elitist tea...dump the whole shit pile overboard and we will have a tea party...and left ..right.. makes no fucking difference ...because they all work for the same private corporation ... your just given two choices of who's going to fuck you up the ass. !!....the old white guy or the colored fella

"All I know is that first you've got to get mad. You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, Goddamnit! My life has VALUE!' " -Network 1976

You have every right to pissed off to no end.
We elected and trusted these people, to make chioces for us, to look out for us.

And I'm not sure elvis I try to stay as far away from main stream media as I can.
I enjoy the truth.
If I wanted ANOTHER person to lie to me, I could think of better people.
But I would love to see ron paul get writen in, and elected. (eventhough the electronic voting machines would probably still tell us that he didn't win.)
He's the only candidate that would actually stand a chance of shaking things up.
These other two clowns are going to do whatever is expected of them by their owners.

 

[editec]

This is where your cousin is confused. It is precisely because we have not had a free market, that we are having these problems. Government meddling of all sorts has put us in this position. You can start with the Federal Reserve not allowing the free market to determine interest rates. This is just a start ... the list goes on and on. But it all starts with the Federal Reserve.

So obviously, socialism has been here for some time. But the heat is being turned up.

"In his Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, Karl Marx proposed 10 measures to be implemented after the proletariat takes power, with the aim of centralizing all instruments of production in the hands of the state. Proposal Number Five was to bring about the “centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”

If he were to rise from the dead today, Marx might be delighted to discover that most economists and financial commentators, including many who claim to favour the free market, agree with him."

Read the following post carefully ...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/59634-bailout-marks-karl-marxs-comeback.html


But again ... it is not a failure of free market capitalism. It is a failure due to socialist intervention.


Precisely. We do not have free market capitalism.

Brian

Brain, there is no such thing as a free market.

What's more I'm convinced an entirely free market is as mythical a beast as pure communism.

Government can no more stay out of business than business can stay out of government.

Neither cannot exist without the other.

We can do what we can to keep market and government out of each other's way, but keeping one completely out of the business of the other is simply impossible.

Taxation is an imposition on the free market.

The government making purchasing decisions is a distortion of the market, too.

What we should strive for is a FAIR MARKET, as much as that's socially possible.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Brain, there is no such thing as a free market.

What's more I'm convinced an entirely free market is as mythical a beast as pure communism.

Government can no more stay out of business than business can stay out of government.

Neither cannot exist without the other.

We can do what we can to keep market and government out of each other's way, but keeping one completely out of the business of the other is simply impossible.

Taxation is an imposition on the free market.

The government making purchasing decisions is a distortion of the market, too.

What we should strive for is a FAIR MARKET, as much as that's socially possible.

it all depends on your definition of "fair"

We've seen what "fair" mortgage lending policies have gotten us.

Personally, I like this definition:

marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism

I take it to mean that no one gets preferential treatment under the law. you know you either are qualified for a loan, a job, etc. or you are not.

 

[editec]

Mussolini once defined fascism as corporatism, because he called it the marriage of government and business.
But is this the correct definition?

Given that he REINVENTED FACISM, you mean?

I'd say Mussolini is probably the world's EXPERT on the meaning of the term, wouldn't you?

FWIW, Mussolininian fascism was NOT capitalism, neiother was it socialism.

Basically it was THUGGERY by GOVERNMENT.

In that way it really wasn't all that different than Stalinism.

I regret suggesing that this nation is fascist, or even that the corporatism that the libertarians want is fascism.

What the Libertopians want will inevitably become totalitarian, but somewhat different that Mussolinian fascist totalitarianism or the Salinist totalitarian socialism.

They're ALL crappy systems, folks.

All of them.

 

[Bern80]

The GOVERNMENT, one ACTUALLT RUN AS A DEMOCRACY needs to be the source of all money.

Not a group of insiders, but the PEOPLE.

This whole problem stems from that, ya know.

Honestly, what I think we are seeing now is the high cost of freedom. For the most part we are very free country. And as I keep saying, to a lot of these issues there is a major cultural and social component that people just don't see for some reason. For the most part this country has evolved and shifted from the point where are day to day lives are focused on survival and proving to pursuing wants instead. Really broadly we have develooped technology and services that cater to convenience and the pursuit of things we want rather than the things we need. Because those venture have become so prosperous most of us spend very little of our time on civic duties and obligations. We don't hold our leaders in check, we don't really participate in the political process, to the point that government has become so amorphous that it would be hard to participate and make a real impact even if you wanted to. The citizenry's lack of a real reaction shows that people don't feel there is a need to get really upset with government yet (like revolution upset).

I guess the point I'm makeing is that you're right government needs to be by the people. But it isn't just our system keeping people out of the process, it's a combination of that and indifference on the part of the citizenry.

 

[editec]

it all depends on your definition of "fair"

Absolutely true.

We've seen what "fair" mortgage lending policies have gotten us.

No we haven't. I know you cling to that lie, but it isn't true. Look at the numbers and you'll know it isn't true.

Personally, I like this definition:

marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism

Something to strive for, isn't it? We do NOT live in anything remotely approaching a meritocracy. In fact we move further from it every year.

I take it to mean that no one gets preferential treatment under the law. you know you either are qualified for a loan, a job, etc. or you are not.

Yes.

Capitalism, one regulated by a level playing field, actually works quite well.

Income inequity inevitably makes the playing field less and less level over time, and yes, I DO belive that taxation is one way to deal with that propensity, but as to setting up the game to reward merit?

I suspect you and I are closer to agreeing about what that means than not.

 

[Bern80]

Something to strive for, isn't it? We do NOT live in anything remotely approaching a meritocracy. In fact we move further from it every year.

Based on conversations with you and our differing beliefs as to how most people get to wherever they are, I think you may be suprised at the outcomes if we had a true meritocracy.

Yes.

Capitalism, one regulated by a level playing field, actually works quite well.

Income inequity inevitably makes the playing field less and less level over time, and yes, I DO belive that taxation is one way to deal with that propensity, but as to setting up the game to reward merit?

I suspect you and I are closer to agreeing about what that means than not.

What do you mean by level playing field? How do you have true capitalism, which by definition says the playing field won't stay level, and keep a level playing field. You say it would work well, unfortunately if you regulate it to that extent it isn't really capitalism anymore.

 

[editec]

Honestly, what I think we are seeing now is the high cost of freedom. For the most part we are very free country. And as I keep saying, to a lot of these issues there is a major cultural and social component that people just don't see for some reason. For the most part this country has evolved and shifted from the point where are day to day lives are focused on survival and proving to pursuing wants instead. Really broadly we have develooped technology and services that cater to convenience and the pursuit of things we want rather than the things we need. Because those venture have become so prosperous most of us spend very little of our time on civic duties and obligations. We don't hold our leaders in check, we don't really participate in the political process, to the point that government has become so amorphous that it would be hard to participate and make a real impact even if you wanted to. The citizenry's lack of a real reaction shows that people don't feel there is a need to get really upset with government yet (like revolution upset).

I guess the point I'm makeing is that you're right government needs to be by the people. But it isn't just our system keeping people out of the process, it's a combination of that and indifference on the part of the citizenry.

Sadly true.

One of the things one discovers when one starts down the road as a reformer in the poltical game is that people are simply not interested, not even when you can PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that their leadership is ripping them off.

Certainly, if we have a very engaged body politic, the body politic would be far better off.

Nice to find at least one thing you and I can agree on, Bern.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sadly true.

One of the things one discovers when one starts down the road as a reformer in the poltical game is that people are simply not interested, not even when you can PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that their leadership is ripping them off.

the acceptance of the Wall Street Bail Out Q.E.D.

 

[AshamedAmerican]

Honestly, what I think we are seeing now is the high cost of freedom. For the most part we are very free country. And as I keep saying, to a lot of these issues there is a major cultural and social component that people just don't see for some reason. For the most part this country has evolved and shifted from the point where are day to day lives are focused on survival and proving to pursuing wants instead. Really broadly we have develooped technology and services that cater to convenience and the pursuit of things we want rather than the things we need. Because those venture have become so prosperous most of us spend very little of our time on civic duties and obligations. We don't hold our leaders in check, we don't really participate in the political process, to the point that government has become so amorphous that it would be hard to participate and make a real impact even if you wanted to. The citizenry's lack of a real reaction shows that people don't feel there is a need to get really upset with government yet (like revolution upset).

I guess the point I'm makeing is that you're right government needs to be by the people. But it isn't just our system keeping people out of the process, it's a combination of that and indifference on the part of the citizenry.

Well put.
At this point it would be almost impossible to make any real changes.
Other than that one word I totally agree with you on this though.
People are way too comfortable and complacent.

The general public are like moose standing in the road, they will just stand there for hours staring at you with a blank look in their eyes and it will take ALOT to force them to do anything (even to help themselves) but once they get a little uncomfortable and/or spooked... Look the hell out here comes a pissed off freight train.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Honestly, what I think we are seeing now is the high cost of freedom. For the most part we are very free country. And as I keep saying, to a lot of these issues there is a major cultural and social component that people just don't see for some reason. For the most part this country has evolved and shifted from the point where are day to day lives are focused on survival and proving to pursuing wants instead. Really broadly we have develooped technology and services that cater to convenience and the pursuit of things we want rather than the things we need. Because those venture have become so prosperous most of us spend very little of our time on civic duties and obligations. We don't hold our leaders in check, we don't really participate in the political process, to the point that government has become so amorphous that it would be hard to participate and make a real impact even if you wanted to. The citizenry's lack of a real reaction shows that people don't feel there is a need to get really upset with government yet (like revolution upset).

I guess the point I'm makeing is that you're right government needs to be by the people. But it isn't just our system keeping people out of the process, it's a combination of that and indifference on the part of the citizenry.

Our people don't really want the government to be "by the people" because our people are generally too lazy and uninformed to be bothered. Prior to WWII no one retired, you worked pretty much until you died. Social Security and retirement age in 1940 was two years AFTER avg life expectancy. We also had no "free time". Only the extreme wealthy did things like travel on a vacation or play golf. About all the average american did was go fish and take in a ball game once in a while or go to the local barn dance on a Saturday night. We cooked meals from scratch, made our own bread and pie crusts, did laundary on a wash board and hung it on a line to dry. Our houses were dirty because there was no such thing as a vacuum cleaner. We were hot in the summer, no air conditioning.

It wasn't until the 1950's that we began to grab onto the concepts of "pursuit of happiness", and "leisure time" as we began to finally get some labor saving technologies. And it wasn't until the 1970's that average life expectancies increased to the point we even bothered with "retirement" concerns.

And now we feel we are ENTITLED to these things by right of birth. What a pile. The only thing you are ENTITLED to in life, is to die when you wear out.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Absolutely true.



No we haven't. I know you cling to that lie, but it isn't true. Look at the numbers and you'll know it isn't true.



Something to strive for, isn't it? We do NOT live in anything remotely approaching a meritocracy. In fact we move further from it every year.




Yes.

Capitalism, one regulated by a level playing field, actually works quite well.

Income inequity inevitably makes the playing field less and less level over time, and yes, I DO belive that taxation is one way to deal with that propensity, but as to setting up the game to reward merit?

I suspect you and I are closer to agreeing about what that means than not.

Level playing field means ensuring equal opportunity to as much as possible. We already largely do that today. Education is free through grade 12 and there is so much scholarship money for so many classes of people most can get through undergrad with minimal financial commitment.

It has NOTHING to do with equal outcomes and that's what liberals don't get. In a free market/capitalist system you will have a great deal of "income inequality" because people are DIFFERENT. We are NOT created equal. Not even close. If you are lazy, stupid, and of poor character in a free market system you WILL be POOR. Simple as that.

 

[Diuretic]

..

And now we feel we are ENTITLED to these things by right of birth. What a pile. The only thing you are ENTITLED to in life, is to die when you wear out.

No-one's stopping you doing without anything, go right ahead and dump everything you feel you're not entitled to.

 

[Zoomie1980]

No-one's stopping you doing without anything, go right ahead and dump everything you feel you're not entitled to.

I've earned everything I have. No one gave me anything.

The reality of life in this world, be it individual or a nation-state, is that you are "entitled" only to what you can take and what you can keep. THAT is the fundamental axiom of the human condition.