WHY do you worry about Socialism?

[fastd]

Ex,

This is what I wrote:

3. Government did take over some banks, auto companies, and insurance companies.

I didn't say that the Government took over all industries; the government owns GM fired the former CEO, replaced another CEO, it is are telling some banks how to run their business, who they can hire, how much executives can earn, they are calling the shots at AIG...

[Excaliber]

Socialism, difficult to acurrately define. But as we see the term used here on CC it certainly implies a bad form of Government. I think we can all agree on that definition for the sake of THIS discussion.

When you become the major stock holder/investor in a company you get to call the shots. Like GM, the banks or who ever. I don't have a problem with the way the Gov is handling the bailout, specifically for GM, or the banks. I DO reserve judgment on the overall stimulus monies as there are still a lot of dollars left to spend. Perhaps we should STOP, NOW? Perhaps, the economy is well on it's way to recovery all ready and the rest of the TARP money should be halted? I don't know...

I recently sold my house, bought another one, I am totally up to speed on the nightmare it is to get a loan right now. Obama needs to kick some banking azz!! I'm not talking about sub prime folks here. Solid, long employed, good wage earning folks are being put through a meat grinder to get a loan for a house. If this is anything like a small business has to go through to get a loan right now, what a nightmare!

Once these corp's pay off the loan they can hire whatever CEO and pay whatever bonus' they want. As long as they are using MY tax dollars it better come with strings attached.

...Ernie wanders off and sprinkles a little more corn around the gate...

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Serious question. Just trying to cut through the constant stream of hyperbole around here to get some actual realistic facts.

The latest BS hyperbole email cirulation AND CC posts concern Argentina. It's a stretch to compare the two countries, but it makes terrific "paranoid headlines" and feeds the needs of conservatives.

Then there are the comparisons to former administrations and great country men of yester year. FDR, Truman, Eisernhower, G.W. (that would be WASHINGTON not that other guy ). It's nostalgic to look back, but it's not like life was "that good" in the "good old days". Soup lines come to mind, murders over Union issues, stock market collapse, race riots, war's. Yeah, things were great in the "old days".

So what REALLY is feeding this conservative paranoia that the USA is headed toward socialism? Is it health care? Is it bailing out Wall Street? Is bailing out the Auto makers? Is it "Cap and Trade", Global warming, WHAT? OR is much of it just kicking the dog because the Republicans lost?

I still have faith in this country that all these various issues are going to be worked out within our "checks and balances" system.

I'm not saying everything is going to be fine, but give me a break. You'd think the country is about to be over run by some foreign power that will enslave us all. You know, it just aint that bad...

Liberalism.

If history doesn't suit your ideals,twist it and ridicule it until it does suit your purpose.

Slowly, slowly, but finally, the country is learning that liberalism is the worst "ism" of all!

[Excaliber]

Which ones would you throw out Anthony?

[fastd]

Ex,

You made a lot of progress with your last post; you said that socialism is a bad form of government for our republic.

You said:
When you become the major stock holder/investor in a company you get to call the shots. Like GM, the banks or who ever.

Based on that, I think you are willing to admit that the Government is calling the shots at GM. Well that was my point before and it is unfair to dismiss it as "sensationalism".

When the Government made its stock investment in GM it subverted existing bankruptcy law; forced the banks, stockholders, employees and unions to take their deal. Many would argue that a normal bankruptcy would have served the company better but the Government exercised a power unprecedented in history. When people complain about "socialism", this is the kind of thing they are complaining about; why don't you understand that?

[Excaliber]

I still maintain the various "ism's" are not bad or good in and of themselves. It's how they are applied. This thread insists that the term, socialism, be defined strictly in a bad way. There seems to be no exact definition here, it's just "bad". I don't have a problem with that. I reserve the right to apply socialism within the confines of my own home, dictator that I am.

GM bailout:

When people complain about "socialism", this is the kind of thing they are complaining about.

I understand the frustration, but these bail out's arent anything like socialism, or a "take over". Jamo is correct, I tend to be to dismissive of the right's pain in these matters, I'll try to do better. In my opinion to use these term's so lightly, flippantly if you would, diminishe's the definition. As used here it is designed to denigrate the Government, Obama in particular, startle the people and instill fear. It is, therefore, "sensationalistic". But OK, being mostly Type A kinda guys around here, that's to be expected to some degree.

Onto GM:
Now as I recall GM had a window of time to proceed with a normal or expediated bankruptcy filing. They could not get-r-done within that time frame. The administration was left with few choices. Let GM continue to fail, which would compound the immediate economic crisis, or take action to stabilize the company.

Did they make the rignt call? Maybe... Or, should GM simply have been allowed to go through a lengthy and ugly bankruptcy? The same question could be posed for the Chrysler, the various banks, AIG, stock market, etc.

Should the Government simply left ALL of them to the ravages of "natural selection"?

[lnfletcher]

"Which ones would you throw out Anthony?"
I say all of them! There is little difference between the two major parties!
Forced social programs are not needed! I believe from reading your posts, Excaliber, is that you truely do not believe Socialism is bad and you are playing games with others to entice them to respond, (Which I did also). The only reason that Social programs cannot be done away with is that after so many years of people being moved into these programs and their alternatives being removed, they now expect them and consider them a right just like we are being led to believe that health insurance is a right. There are plenty of countries that offer these social programs without forcing self reliant Americans to accept them.

[Excaliber]

Laws, regulations, HOA fee's, social security taxes, medicare taxes, property taxes, the list is endless as to what we are "forced" to comply with. Is this what leads some to insist America is a Socialistic country?

To many programs? Maybe, which ones would you throw out? Food stamps? Medical? Social Security? Federally funded health clinics for the poor? NIH grants to study the sex life of shrimp? I propose some programs need to be eliminated. Others need better oversight, enforcement of regulations in some cases, additional regulation in others.

American citizens ABSOLUTELY HAVE A RIGHT to minimum living standards, that includes reasonable health care. You will be "forced" to comply with the laws of the land (resistance is futile).

The American people's voice has been heard as it regards Health Care Reform. The debate continues! No matter what the outcome some will not be happy, others will love it. That is Democracy at work, not socialism.

MY voice on one issue is this:
We need a public option for Health Care. I will use my voice to rally those who support my position. Annoy those who do not. I will vote to FORCE you to pay for this public option, the American people deserve it, they have a RIGHT to it. We can't afford it? OK, that's a reasonable argument... Then let's figure out a way to fund it that is fair and reasonable. I have a couple of ideas on how we can do that.

By the way, as GM is the basic topic at this point, I'd like to hear more on what folks think on that issue. Should have left them alone, let them fail on their own?

[lnfletcher]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

To many programs? Maybe, which ones would you throw out? Food stamps? Medical? Social Security? Federally funded health clinics for the poor? NIH grants to study the sex life of shrimp? I propose some programs need to be eliminated. Others need better oversight, enforcement of regulations in some cases, additional regulation in others.

American citizens ABSOLUTELY HAVE A RIGHT to minimum living standards, that includes reasonable health care. You will be "forced" to comply with the laws of the land (resistance is futile).


MY voice on one issue is this:
We need a public option for Health Care. I will use my voice to rally those who support my position. Annoy those who do not. I will vote to FORCE you to pay for this public option, the American people deserve it, they have a RIGHT to it. We can't afford it? OK, that's a reasonable argument... Then let's figure out a way to fund it that is fair and reasonable. I have a couple of ideas on how we can do that.

By the way, as GM is the basic topic at this point, I'd like to hear more on what folks think on that issue. Should have left them alone, let them fail on their own?

Why do they have a right?
Yes, let them fail. I remember AMC pacers, it didn't bring down the country to let them fail.
The majority of the people do not want the public option. If the politicians had put this forward during their election, they would not have been elected and they most likely will be thrown out after the damage is done.

[bomelia]

I promise I will concede the point Earnie if you can point to the location in the bill of rights that calls this out:

"American citizens ABSOLUTELY HAVE A RIGHT to minimum living standards"

Now, you have to show me since you claimed it. Is that not a fair request?

Mike

Blykins, you should be aware of the baiting technique used in liberal circles. It is done in such a way with feigned kindness, feigned reason, and feigned "smilies". Liberals like nothing better than to get you to blow your top and get all emotional. Trust me, no where in our bill of rights is the one Earnie called out. And as such, he will (a) not answer this, (b) respond with a question, (c) publicly explode, (d) send me a nasty email/pm.

[RAZOR]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I still maintain the various "ism's" are not bad or good in and of themselves. It's how they are applied. This thread insists that the term, socialism, be defined strictly in a bad way. There seems to be no exact definition here, it's just "bad". I don't have a problem with that. I reserve the right to apply socialism within the confines of my own home, dictator that I am.

GM bailout:


I understand the frustration, but these bail out's arent anything like socialism, or a "take over". Jamo is correct, I tend to be to dismissive of the right's pain in these matters, I'll try to do better. In my opinion to use these term's so lightly, flippantly if you would, diminishe's the definition. As used here it is designed to denigrate the Government, Obama in particular, startle the people and instill fear. It is, therefore, "sensationalistic". But OK, being mostly Type A kinda guys around here, that's to be expected to some degree.

Onto GM:
Now as I recall GM had a window of time to proceed with a normal or expediated bankruptcy filing. They could not get-r-done within that time frame. The administration was left with few choices. Let GM continue to fail, which would compound the immediate economic crisis, or take action to stabilize the company.

Did they make the rignt call? Maybe... Or, should GM simply have been allowed to go through a lengthy and ugly bankruptcy? The same question could be posed for the Chrysler, the various banks, AIG, stock market, etc.

Should the Government simply left ALL of them to the ravages of "natural selection"?

Originally Posted by bomelia

I promise I will concede the point Earnie if you can point to the location in the bill of rights that calls this out:

"American citizens ABSOLUTELY HAVE A RIGHT to minimum living standards"

Now, you have to show me since you claimed it. Is that not a fair request?

Mike

Blykins, you should be aware of the baiting technique used in liberal circles. It is done in such a way with feigned kindness, feigned reason, and feigned "smilies". Liberals like nothing better than to get you to blow your top and get all emotional. Trust me, no where in our bill of rights is the one Earnie called out. And as such, he will (a) not answer this, (b) respond with a question, (c) publicly explode, (d) send me a nasty email/pm.

The problem is they use Obamas twisted interpretation of the Constitution. That the powers of the Federal Government is expressed in the negative, so that it tells the Feds what they can't do, but does not limit what they can
do. It's an argument of silence and leaves no limits on their left wing agenda. WE ARE DOOMED

[blykins]

http://commendatori.files.wordpress....ism_poster.jpg

I was always under the impression that if you work hard enough, you get what you want. Socialism is for the people down on the west end of town who sit on their front porches all day waiting for whatever checks the government will give them because they feel like the world owes them something and they're too lazy to work for it.

The people of the US have not been heard, because they DO NOT WANT THIS. It's the stupid liberals who believe they know what's best for everyone that want it...to the point where they will rush it through before giving anyone else time to view it or think about it.

Annoying....yes.

[Excaliber]

It's the stupid liberals...

Now that's the way to carry on a civilized and reasonable discussion. Let's try another one.

It's the stupid conservatives...

Yeah, now that's real productive dialog. If your looking to get a thread closed that is.

[blykins]

Just stating the truth. Stupid is the opposite of smart. Makes sense to me.

I have yet to hear you say anything that makes any sense Ernie. All you do is talk about how great Obama is, without ANY fact to support that whatsoever.

Obama's rating goes down with each day.

Anyone that votes for him next term has to be one stupid idiot.

[Jamo]

Folks...keep it nice.

[blykins]

Sorry, I'm sure that was directed towards me. I usually don't let things to get to me, but I will start biting my tongue.

[Excaliber]

You know, some truths are "self evident", Mike. Some things just don't need an explanation. Minimum standard's of living are what civilized countries around the world seek for their people. The right to life comes to mind. Pull away all the Government services and people will die. Every country has a plan to deal with the chronic poor, the tired, the helpless, the homeless Vet. What that plan is varies. How it's funded varies. Where to cease and desist with the Government programs vary. Some countries are forced to accept it, no vote, no voice. The USA has a robust form of Government that does give people a voice, a vote. Go America!

Corporations, should not and cannot be allowed to come to the Government time after time for a bail out. We need to either enforce existing regulations or create new ones to prevent this from happening in the future. One such plan is to limit the size of some of these mega corporations to keep them from threatening the US economy should they fail. We rely on other industries/Corps for National Security reasons, they MUST be rescued no matter what.

In these extraordinary times the economist's from both sides of the aisle came up with a rescue, a bail out plan that in their view HAD to be done. For the good of the country. It could be reasonably argued GM and Chrysler was not SO big, SO important that it warranted a bail out. I don't know if it would have been better to let them fail or not, I mostly slept through economic classes.

Infletcher, is it your opinion we should have let GM and/or Chrysler fail on their own and go into bankruptcy? What would have been the repercussions from that?

[lnfletcher]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

The right to life comes to mind. Pull away all the Government services and people will die.

"Right to life" - Abortion?
Good thing people aren't dying!
Health insurance does not equal health care.

Originally Posted by Excaliber

What would have been the repercussions from that?

Bankruptcy is for this purpose. They would have been protected and allowed to restructure.

Originally Posted by Excaliber

limit the size of some of these mega corporations to keep them from threatening the US economy

Antitrust laws.

More regulation only raises costs and lowers the quality of products, kills jobs.

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

You know, some truths are "self evident", Mike. Some things just don't need an explanation. Minimum standard's of living are what civilized countries around the world seek for their people. The right to life comes to mind. Pull away all the Government services and people will die. and go into bankruptcy? What would have been the repercussions from that?

Well, it says what it says. Who knows, so many of your posts are edited, you could be doing the crawdaddy. But still, your claim is much overexagerated and dangerous to the extreme if true.

Tom, that video was AWSOME. Earnie, what was your take on the video?

Mike

[bomelia]

BTW Ernie, what you have a right to is the pursuit of happiness, property rights (which by now have all but disappeared given that the government can take what they want and give it shmoes who do nothing), the are you breath, trial by jury, etc, etc.

But you have no right to heat. Clean water? That comes under the promotion of general welfare, as long as you PAY for it. You have no right under our constitution to medical care. But you get it anyways. And this comes under general welfare since a healthy is better than a sick one. As long as you PAY for it.

Mike