Here Comes Socialism

[Zoom-boing]

The Obama presidency: Here comes socialism
By Dick Morris
Posted: 01/20/09 06:12 PM [ET]

2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.

TheHill.com

 

[jillian]

dick morris is such an angry little man, it's difficult to take what he says seriously.

and ultimately, it doesn't matter what you call it, because we have to do what we have to do, and economists on left and right are pretty much in agreement as to the broad strokes.

 

[Sunni Man]

You are dreaming Son!!

We haven't been a free-enterprise, market-dominated, and laissez-faire America, for a long, long time.

 

[sealybobo]

I hope so. Start with the banks. No reason a handful of bankers should be getting rich on the tax payers dime.

Republicans always want to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.

Why can't OUR government get some of the profits too when/if they bail someone out?

 

[Care4all]

Is our government giving $700 Billion in our tax dollars to the Banking Industry who was a major player along with the Fed, in creating this mess, considered socialism or fascism?

Care

 

[sealybobo]

You are dreaming Son!!

We haven't been a free-enterprise, market-dominated, and laissez-faire America, for a long, long time.

What we have is Fascism:

Shall we have a government of, by, and for We, the People? Or shall we be governed by a powerful elite made up of the super-rich, multi-national corporations, and well-paid shills who do their bidding?

It seems that the shift from FDR's vision of We the People to Reagan's vision of corporate governance has only happened in the past thirty years - when Reagan, in his first inaugural address, declared war on We the People by saying: "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

Thus, we see, the real battle here is between those who believe that free people can govern themselves - and have the right to keep out powerful interests that would corrupt government - and those who believe that a powerful father-figure is necessary for governance, the people should be kept largely in ignorance, the rich know best, and that We the People will only behave well when, as Hobbes wrote, there is "a common power to keep them all in awe."

ThomHartmann.com - The Robber Barons' Party

 

[DiamondDave]

I hope so. Start with the banks. No reason a handful of bankers should be getting rich on the tax payers dime.

Republicans always want to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.

Why can't OUR government get some of the profits too when/if they bail someone out?

How many times are you going to spout off the same bullshit?

"Republicans always want to privatize the profits and socialize the losses."... ridiculous.... Many conservatives and republicans want no such thing... yet you try and lump it into such a statement.... it would be like saying that all DEMs want to socialize the earnings and privatize all losses...

Here's a novel idea... keep it ALL private... earn what you earn.... reap the benefits of your success and reap the consequences of your failures... whether that be a company or an individual

Should the government earn interest or benefit from the stupid handout/bailout plans? ABSOFREAKINGLUTELY... these should not be just money give aways or interest free loans....

Should the government say that you or any company can only earn so much for your successes?? ABSOFREAKINGLUTELY NOT... and the government should not gets it's hands into or take over any business, including banks or auto industry or whatever else... the government should remain limited in what it is to do.. it is not your mommy, it is not your personal safety net for your failure, it is not your insurance company, and it is not there to take care of your personal responsibilities for you

 

[xsited1]

.... We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.
...

We are already there. The huge government bail-outs and 'stimulus plans' prove that.

 

[RodISHI]

The banks are not done asking for handouts. Shame people will keep paying for this mess and our fearless leaders will keep these giants alive because they are bought and paid for by them.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

dick morris is such an angry little man, it's difficult to take what he says seriously.

hahahahahaha...




gawd, he's an awful little man.

------


The Hooker, Line And Sinker
WaPo

Sherry Rowlands, the suddenly famous Virginia call girl, is taking all the credit for the downfall of presidential adviser Dick Morris. She says the Republicans had nothing to do with it.

"The only person in the world I knew politically was Dick Morris," she told the syndicated tabloid show "Hard Copy" in her first television interview. "Who do you call? I mean . . . you don't go in the phone book and look up Bob Dole." The two-part "Hard Copy" interview is scheduled to air on Baltimore's Channel 2 tonight and tomorrow night at 12:05 a.m. .

As for Morris's downfall, Rowlands said: "Someone as intelligent as he is should have kept his lip buttoned when he unzipped his pants. I mean, how can you maneuver worlds, and he can't even control what he's doing in his own room with a paid lady?"

 

[Tech_Esq]

What we have is Fascism:

Shall we have a government of, by, and for We, the People? Or shall we be governed by a powerful elite made up of the super-rich, multi-national corporations, and well-paid shills who do their bidding?

It seems that the shift from FDR's vision of We the People to Reagan's vision of corporate governance has only happened in the past thirty years - when Reagan, in his first inaugural address, declared war on We the People by saying: "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

Thus, we see, the real battle here is between those who believe that free people can govern themselves - and have the right to keep out powerful interests that would corrupt government - and those who believe that a powerful father-figure is necessary for governance, the people should be kept largely in ignorance, the rich know best, and that We the People will only behave well when, as Hobbes wrote, there is "a common power to keep them all in awe."

ThomHartmann.com - The Robber Barons' Party

You are such a dork. Don't you realize there will always be haves and have nots in this world? All the form of government does is predetermine how many (as a percentage) and who. Don't worry, under any form of government, you will always be a have not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You are such a dork. Don't you realize there will always be haves and have nots in this world? All the form of government does is predetermine how many (as a percentage) and who. Don't worry, under any form of government, you will always be a have not.

are you this mean in real life?

 

[Tech_Esq]

are you this mean in real life?

I'm a big fuzzy ball of joy in real life. Bobo just brings out the worst in me.

 

[sealybobo]

How many times are you going to spout off the same bullshit?

"Republicans always want to privatize the profits and socialize the losses."... ridiculous.... Many conservatives and republicans want no such thing... yet you try and lump it into such a statement.... it would be like saying that all DEMs want to socialize the earnings and privatize all losses...

Here's a novel idea... keep it ALL private... earn what you earn.... reap the benefits of your success and reap the consequences of your failures... whether that be a company or an individual

Should the government earn interest or benefit from the stupid handout/bailout plans? ABSOFREAKINGLUTELY... these should not be just money give aways or interest free loans....

Should the government say that you or any company can only earn so much for your successes?? ABSOFREAKINGLUTELY NOT... and the government should not gets it's hands into or take over any business, including banks or auto industry or whatever else... the government should remain limited in what it is to do.. it is not your mommy, it is not your personal safety net for your failure, it is not your insurance company, and it is not there to take care of your personal responsibilities for you

How many times will I say it? Until people understand whats going on.

And sorry for lumping all you assholes together. Just realize when I say YOU GUYS or REPUBLICANS, I mean your party leadership. Sure you might want what is right Dave. I believe you do. So realize, I'm never bashing you. I'm bashing the cock suckers you vote for.

And I'm sure Dave that from time to time you have made generalizations about Democrats. At least the ones I'm making are true and relivent.

And "socializing the losses and privatizing the profits" is one of the main ways the GOP have bankrupted this country. It also exemplifies what hypocrites you guys are.

Do you think I would even be saying what I say if you guys weren't saying what you say? I'm mearly responding to your lies and propoganda.

So when right wingers talk about privatizing social security or medicare, I remind them that their way will cost us more, not less. Sure one or two CEO's will make more under your way, but who gives a rats ass?

 

[DiamondDave]

How many times will I say it? Until people understand whats going on.

And sorry for lumping all you assholes together. Just realize when I say YOU GUYS or REPUBLICANS, I mean your party leadership. Sure you might want what is right Dave. I believe you do. So realize, I'm never bashing you. I'm bashing the cock suckers you vote for.

And I'm sure Dave that from time to time you have made generalizations about Democrats. At least the ones I'm making are true and relivent.

And "socializing the losses and privatizing the profits" is one of the main ways the GOP have bankrupted this country. It also exemplifies what hypocrites you guys are.

Do you think I would even be saying what I say if you guys weren't saying what you say? I'm mearly responding to your lies and propoganda.

So when right wingers talk about privatizing social security or medicare, I remind them that their way will cost us more, not less. Sure one or two CEO's will make more under your way, but who gives a rats ass?

Yet YOU support "cock suckers" who support the opposite end of the supposed spectrum that you cry against... and you ASSUME that REP leadership all wants to live by your supposed slogan of "privatize the profits and socialize the losses"...

The statements and assumptions you are making are neither true, nor relevant... they simply fit the myth that you wish to PORTRAY as truth

 

[sealybobo]

are you this mean in real life?

Actually, I didn't think it was that bad.

But what he doesn't realize is that he too will never be anything more than a have not, and here's why.

The GOP spent so much money that a million dollars aint what it used to be. So asshole can save all he wants until he is 70 years old. If he saves $5 million, that won't be a fortune like it used to be. Not with Bushflasion.

And I doubt he'll save that much, because he'll have to put his kids thru school, which will cost a fortune.

Or some healthcare problem will come up and bankrupt him.

 

[sealybobo]

Yet YOU support "cock suckers" who support the opposite end of the supposed spectrum that you cry against... and you ASSUME that REP leadership all wants to live by your supposed slogan of "privatize the profits and socialize the losses"...

The statements and assumptions you are making are neither true, nor relevant... they simply fit the myth that you wish to PORTRAY as truth

Can you give me an example of this?

I'll give you an example. Bush used tax payer $ to build the Texas Ranger stadium and then he sold it for a profit. That's bullshit coming from a guy who wants government to stay out of the "free markets", because if that pussy bush couldn't find investors to build that stadium, then it shouldn't have happened.

And I don't even give a fuck if Texas or Green Bay want to use tax payer money to build stadiums.

The only reason I bring this up is to shoot down your "free market" lies.

So in reality, your "free market" talk is all fantasy.

 

[DiamondDave]

Can you give me an example of this?

I'll give you an example. Bush used tax payer $ to build the Texas Ranger stadium and then he sold it for a profit. That's bullshit coming from a guy who wants government to stay out of the "free markets", because if that pussy bush couldn't find investors to build that stadium, then it shouldn't have happened.

And I don't even give a fuck if Texas or Green Bay want to use tax payer money to build stadiums.

The only reason I bring this up is to shoot down your "free market" lies.

So in reality, your "free market" talk is all fantasy.

Give an example? You post the example daily. You wish to take more profits from those who succeed, and companies that succeed, to give to those companies and individuals that do not or cannot succeed

As for your 'Bush' example... funny, I do not remember anyone on here supporting anything remotely close to taxpayer benefit to a sports stadium renovation to be resold with the benefits going to a private owner..... IF HOWEVER the taxpayers do fund a stadium that is still owned by the community and leased to the sports franchises, deriving income and taxation income from it's running for the community, and the owner of the team then sells the TEAM and not the STADIUM, there is nothing wrong with the sale.... for as the team ownership benefits from the agreement with the community and is only selling that which he or she owns, it is no different than selling any other business that does not own the building it occupies, but the sale simply transfers the use agreement of said facility.. and that that is taken into account of the valuation of the business/franchise

That IS free market..... contracts, leases, and agreements with the 'landlord'.. whether that landlord is the local government owning a stadium or a private property owner leasing to a business

It is your support of a socialist type system that is the 'lie' or the 'fantasy'... or the thought that it would be better being the 'lie' or the 'fantasy'... a system revolving more around free market is inherently more realistic and better off for a free society

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

then wtf are capitalist managers begging for tax payer funded bailouts?

the only socialism I see is corporate socialism.

 

[dilloduck]

then wtf are capitalist managers begging for tax payer funded bailouts?

the only socialism I see is corporate socialism.

Tell Obama to put an end to it.