socialism

Don Quixote

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
gee, who would have thought that it would take a rep administration to bring rampant socialism to the u s of a

more government owned corporations that at any other time in us history

oops, fiscal conservatives waxing wroth about the bailouts
 
AssHatZombie said:
Still the the wrong word. Fascism is the word. Trillions of dollars going strictly to corporations, not individuals.
Click to expand...

You're both wrong .. this isn't socialism because it benefits no one but those at the top.

It isn't facism because power is not centralized under a dictator and nationalism and racism are not at its core.

This is a plutocracy by every definition.

A truth Americans can neither face, handle, or do anything about.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Still the the wrong word. Fascism is the word. Trillions of dollars going strictly to corporations, not individuals.
Click to expand...

yes, save the corporations at all costs but screw the little people

why are tax payers paying for bad loans that people and corporations made to get large commissions

where the hell are the investigations and fraud charges
 
blackascoal said:
You're both wrong .. this isn't socialism because it benefits no one but those at the top.

It isn't facism because power is not centralized under a dictator and nationalism and racism are not at its core.

This is a plutocracy by every definition.

A truth Americans can neither face, handle, or do anything about.
Click to expand...

i think u s of a voters only want to be left alone until they perceive (usually too late) that they are in trouble

just provide cheap gas and enough cheap toys
 
DonQuixote said:
gee, who would have thought that it would take a rep administration to bring rampant socialism to the u s of a

more government owned corporations that at any other time in us history

oops, fiscal conservatives waxing wroth about the bailouts
Click to expand...


Don, much like a modern communist will tell you that the Soviets and Maoists just didn't do communism the right way, the Tom Friedman/Republican conservatives will plead with us that the Republican Party simply didn't do deregulation and privatization the right way.

This is something communists, american conservatives, and libertarians share in common. No one ever seems capable of implementing their policies in exactly the right way. So their ideology forever remains some theoretical exercise printed on cappaccino-stained piece of paper. There's never a real world example demonstrating how it would work. So, for some reason, when the "free market" crash every time we go through one of these deregulation frenzies (1929, 1987, 2008), it was because the republican administration and their enablers simply didn't do it the right way.

But, we're past all that now. Everyone from Bush, to McCain, to Henry Paulson, to Alan Greenspan are overnight converts to strong government intervention and oversight of interstate commerce. The question is, what kind of socialists are we going to become? I think righwing chimpanzess see this as an opportunity (as Naomi Klein would rightly argue) to use public resources and money to bail out their friends - the corporate overlords who engineered this disaster in an environment of lax regulatory oversight. Basically, to privatize profit, and socialize loss. That's the new rightwing socialism. Then there are those of us who say, hell if we're going to be socialists anyway, let's do the Scandinavian style of socialism. Somehow, I think the American people could stomach free daycare for children, more than golden parachutes for a few dozen Wall Street tycoons. Call me crazy, but I think that's right. Off in the corner, on the other hand, you still have some extreme rightwingers fretting that we should get government and regulations even more out of the way, and the magic of the free markets will be unleashed.

I think the moral of the story is that, yes folks, bad shit even happens to rich folks. Much like Reagan's S&L bailout and today, we generally take care of our rich folks when tough times confront them. Why else vote Republican? God forbid we could ever find a trillion dollars to help working folks with health insurance, college education, and day care though!
 
Cypress said:
Don, much like a modern communist will tell you that the Soviets and Maoists just didn't do communism the right way, the Tom Friedman/Republican conservatives will plead with us that the Republican Party simply didn't do deregulation and privatization the right way.

This is something communists, american conservatives, and libertarians share in common. No one ever seems capable of implementing their policies in exactly the right way. So their ideology forever remains some theoretical exercise printed on cappaccino-stained piece of paper. There's never a real world example demonstrating how it would work. So, for some reason, when the "free market" crash every time we go through one of these deregulation frenzies (1929, 1987, 2008), it was because the republican administration and their enablers simply didn't do it the right way.

But, we're past all that now. Everyone from Bush, to McCain, to Henry Paulson, to Alan Greenspan are overnight converts to strong government intervention and oversight of interstate commerce. The question is, what kind of socialists are we going to become? I think righwing chimpanzess see this as an opportunity (as Naomi Klein would rightly argue) to use public resources and money to bail out their friends - the corporate overlords who engineered this disaster in an environment of lax regulatory oversight. Basically, to privatize profit, and socialize loss. That's the new rightwing socialism. Then there are those of us who say, hell if we're going to be socialists anyway, let's do the Scandinavian style of socialism. Somehow, I think the American people could stomach free daycare for children, more than golden parachutes for a few dozen Wall Street tycoons. Call me crazy, but I think that's right. Off in the corner, on the other hand, you still have some extreme rightwingers fretting that we should get government and regulations even more out of the way, and the magic of the free markets will be unleashed.

I think the moral of the story is that, yes folks, bad shit even happens to rich folks. Much like Reagan's S&L bailout and today, we generally take care of our rich folks when tough times confront them. Why else vote Republican? God forbid we could ever find a trillion dollars to help working folks with health insurance, college education, and day care though!
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I also thing the most profound thing anyone has said during this was said by Sanders - if you're too big to fail , you're to big to exist. I would take that, and say, if you're too big to fail, you're a clear and present danger to the United States of America, period. Break em up. Let's stop this BS fed down our throats by billionaires and internet morons, that that's socialism. What we have now is socialism for the richest among us. They keep the profits during the good times, and charge the rest of us to bail them out when things go bad.

That's the regulation I want to see. I understand what Paulson is saying, and I understand we are going to have to give him the money, this time. What I don't accept is his BS "oh defintely we need regulations, and we are going to deal with that in the future". Nah. Let's deal with it today. If you're too big to fail, you don't get to exist. Period.

I want that in writing. NOW. It comes with the bailout. We know what will happen if we don't drastically change course. We saw all the little billionaires and the Neil Bushes on their knees during the S & L. They all swore the same thing then. Take me back baby! I learned my lesson this time. I'll never hit you again, you're my whole world.

Fast forward two decades and we just got the shit beat out of us again. Never again. In writing. NOW. Period.
 
BAC. It is fascism. The most salient aspect of fascist is the combination of corporations and state. The associations with racism are merely historical and not a defining characteristic. It's fascism.
 
Darla said:
I totally agree. I also thing the most profound thing anyone has said during this was said by Sanders - if you're too big to fail , you're to big to exist. I would take that, and say, if you're too big to fail, you're a clear and present danger to the United States of America, period. Break em up. Let's stop this BS fed down our throats by billionaires and internet morons, that that's socialism. What we have now is socialism for the richest among us. They keep the profits during the good times, and charge the rest of us to bail them out when things go bad.

That's the regulation I want to see. I understand what Paulson is saying, and I understand we are going to have to give him the money, this time. What I don't accept is his BS "oh defintely we need regulations, and we are going to deal with that in the future". Nah. Let's deal with it today. If you're too big to fail, you don't get to exist. Period.

I want that in writing. NOW. It comes with the bailout. We know what will happen if we don't drastically change course. We saw all the little billionaires and the Neil Bushes on their knees during the S & L. They all swore the same thing then. Take me back baby! I learned my lesson this time. I'll never hit you again, you're my whole world.

Fast forward two decades and we just got the shit beat out of us again. Never again. In writing. NOW. Period.
Click to expand...


" I also thing the most profound thing anyone has said during this was said by Sanders - if you're too big to fail , you're to big to exist. I would take that, and say, if you're too big to fail, you're a clear and present danger to the United States of America, period."

Damn right. That really caught my eye too, Darla. That one sentence Sanders wrote. I never conciously thought about that, but its so true. We shouldn't have to babysit companies that are too big to fail. We need another round of trust-busting. But, I'm sure even the Democrats are too chickenshit to bust up some mega corporations.
 
Failed conservative ideology, who would have thought that it would only help the rich and the results would hurt 'we the people'? What a shocker. (unless you study history) Who would have thought that it would push us closer to plutocracy and fascism and socialism for the rich? Crazy world huh?

IMO this election is more about liberal vs conservative ideologies than personalities. 4 more years of unrestrained conservative ideology will drive this country deeper into 3rd world status. But hey, these are 'smart' conservatives they know what they're doing. Just ask the junkie Limbaugh and Majority.
 
Crashk said:
Failed conservative ideology, who would have thought that it would only help the rich and the results would hurt 'we the people'? What a shocker. (unless you study history) Who would have thought that it would push us closer to plutocracy and fascism and socialism for the rich? Crazy world huh?

IMO this election is more about liberal vs conservative ideologies than personalities. 4 more years of unrestrained conservative ideology will drive this country deeper into 3rd world status. But hey, these are 'smart' conservatives they know what they're doing. Just ask the junkie Limbaugh and Majority.
Click to expand...

The rich will just invest elsewhere, live in their compounds and the working class will be stuck.

the final step will be to privatize the police so the rich can protect themselves from the vengence of the poor.
 
AssHatZombie said:
BAC. It is fascism. The most salient aspect of fascist is the combination of corporations and state. The associations with racism are merely historical and not a defining characteristic. It's fascism.
Click to expand...

I disagee my brother.

Power is not centralized under anybody or any nationalistic beliefs, thus it is not facism.

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.
 
Cypress said:
Don, much like a modern communist will tell you that the Soviets and Maoists just didn't do communism the right way, the Tom Friedman/Republican conservatives will plead with us that the Republican Party simply didn't do deregulation and privatization the right way.

This is something communists, american conservatives, and libertarians share in common. No one ever seems capable of implementing their policies in exactly the right way. So their ideology forever remains some theoretical exercise printed on cappaccino-stained piece of paper. There's never a real world example demonstrating how it would work. So, for some reason, when the "free market" crash every time we go through one of these deregulation frenzies (1929, 1987, 2008), it was because the republican administration and their enablers simply didn't do it the right way.

But, we're past all that now. Everyone from Bush, to McCain, to Henry Paulson, to Alan Greenspan are overnight converts to strong government intervention and oversight of interstate commerce. The question is, what kind of socialists are we going to become? I think righwing chimpanzess see this as an opportunity (as Naomi Klein would rightly argue) to use public resources and money to bail out their friends - the corporate overlords who engineered this disaster in an environment of lax regulatory oversight. Basically, to privatize profit, and socialize loss. That's the new rightwing socialism. Then there are those of us who say, hell if we're going to be socialists anyway, let's do the Scandinavian style of socialism. Somehow, I think the American people could stomach free daycare for children, more than golden parachutes for a few dozen Wall Street tycoons. Call me crazy, but I think that's right. Off in the corner, on the other hand, you still have some extreme rightwingers fretting that we should get government and regulations even more out of the way, and the magic of the free markets will be unleashed.

I think the moral of the story is that, yes folks, bad shit even happens to rich folks. Much like Reagan's S&L bailout and today, we generally take care of our rich folks when tough times confront them. Why else vote Republican? God forbid we could ever find a trillion dollars to help working folks with health insurance, college education, and day care though!
Click to expand...

i used to be an advocate of anarchy until i realized that it could not work

if you do not have a way to make something work then stop advocating it or attempting to make it work - you will fail
 
Darla said:
I totally agree. I also thing the most profound thing anyone has said during this was said by Sanders - if you're too big to fail , you're to big to exist. I would take that, and say, if you're too big to fail, you're a clear and present danger to the United States of America, period. Break em up. Let's stop this BS fed down our throats by billionaires and internet morons, that that's socialism. What we have now is socialism for the richest among us. They keep the profits during the good times, and charge the rest of us to bail them out when things go bad.

That's the regulation I want to see. I understand what Paulson is saying, and I understand we are going to have to give him the money, this time. What I don't accept is his BS "oh defintely we need regulations, and we are going to deal with that in the future". Nah. Let's deal with it today. If you're too big to fail, you don't get to exist. Period.

I want that in writing. NOW. It comes with the bailout. We know what will happen if we don't drastically change course. We saw all the little billionaires and the Neil Bushes on their knees during the S & L. They all swore the same thing then. Take me back baby! I learned my lesson this time. I'll never hit you again, you're my whole world.

Fast forward two decades and we just got the shit beat out of us again. Never again. In writing. NOW. Period.
Click to expand...

palin and the failure of big business may do more to support the liberal or dem cause than anything else
 
Cypress said:
Don, much like a modern communist will tell you that the Soviets and Maoists just didn't do communism the right way, the Tom Friedman/Republican conservatives will plead with us that the Republican Party simply didn't do deregulation and privatization the right way.

This is something communists, american conservatives, and libertarians share in common. No one ever seems capable of implementing their policies in exactly the right way. So their ideology forever remains some theoretical exercise printed on cappaccino-stained piece of paper. There's never a real world example demonstrating how it would work. So, for some reason, when the "free market" crash every time we go through one of these deregulation frenzies (1929, 1987, 2008), it was because the republican administration and their enablers simply didn't do it the right way.
Click to expand...

So you champion some sort of mixed economy (i.e., the status quo) as the ideal. Guess what, your ideal fucking blows.

We were in a mess in the late 70s - early eighties.

Cypress said:
But, we're past all that now. Everyone from Bush, to McCain, to Henry Paulson, to Alan Greenspan are overnight converts to strong government intervention and oversight of interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

LOL. With the exception of Greenspan, they have never advocated anything but that.
 
This is intellectually dishonest, RS.

Out of the multitude of countries that have had hybrid economies for decades, and for the forty years in Post New Deal era, when american prosperity was unrivaled in world history, you're going to pick out two years of the Carter adminstration that were beset by oil shocks and inflationary pressures? Two fucking years, out of all that history of relatively sustained prosperity in hybrid economies?

Are you freaking kidding me?


RS, please cite me an example of a prosperous and successful nation on the planet that employs an economy that strictly adheres to what Libertarian Party Platform says an economy should look like.

If you can't name a single country, we have nothing more to discuss. Your purist Libertarian theories exist on paper only, and there's nothing empirical we can point to too demonstrate the viability of your ideology. No disrespect, but in that case the ideology is all mental masturbation. There's no evidence of it actually being employed successfully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top