T1B

So the government now owns (for all intents and purpose) GM and controls Chrysler. The White House is also deciding what cars they can make, vs letting the market decide (see new mpg rules). The government owns the majority of AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. At the same time they control huge chunks of the remaining banking industry. President Hussein wants control of student loans, wants to nationalize health care, and grow union membership. At the same time the EPA "reserves the right" to regulate any economic activity that has a carbon footprint, regardless of size. The freaks in Congress are saying the same thing, Barney wants to use his committee to regulate executive pay, and side show Pelosi said " climate change requires that every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory."

At the same time the media and members of this board try to laugh it off anytime anyone brings up the word socialism. Look no further than the editor of newsweek, Jon Meacham. In his latest story he mocks the ctitics of Pres Hussein for their calling him a crypto socialist. Meanwhile the same guy penned a cover story past cover story that said "We are all socialists now."

Hell, even recent polling show just how far the left is moving towards socialism. Republicans favor capitalism over socialism by an 11 to 1 margin. Dems on the other hand prefer capitalism over socialism by only 9%, 39% to 30%, with the remaining 31% unsure.

Freak show blogger and Dem activist Matthew Yglesias hoped the financial crisis offered a "real opportunity for massive socialism."

So if what you guys here claim is true and this is not a move toward socialism by the Prez and the Dems, what exactly would you call it?









(quotes taken from USAToday, Houston Chronicle, NYTimes, Jonah Golberg, and polling from Rasmussen Reports)

Maybe this guy was correct in the end---- "your Grandchildren will live under communism." Didn't Lenin say something to the effect that we'd be hung by the rope we sold ?
I hold out hope that 2010 will see a shift away from this madness. If not---sucks to be you younger folks.

Seater, you're obviously very confused--and for good reason. After all, you've been long programmed to believe--or at least express as an "opinion"--that "socialism" is some kind of evil entity. Okay, but now consider what international corporatization entails--and ask yourself "what's the difference"? That is, if giant international corporations effectively own governments--and they do--and they don't pay taxes--and they don't--why is this different from an overt socialist government owning its nation's industries, etc? As it has played out, the corporate capitalist whores truly loosed since the feeding frenzy of crime and connivance started by Reagan have themselves forced the sudden and very clear (and astonishing) completion of Karl Marx's droll and sober prediction of the inevitability of Socialism. And in particular he referred to the necessary assumption of all credit by the government. Now we can argue a good deal as to the brazen sleight of hand mixed with fear tactics used by Paulson and Geitner in ramming through the present radical policies (including GM, etc), but the facts of the Capitalist default are clear as day. And as you know the whole disgusting crime spree is directly based on the "derivitives" racket.


As far as a socialized National Health plan, you've also been programmed to believe this doesn't work in other countries like Canada, Japan, England, Sweden--all nations with much higher levels of health and education than the U.S. Well, Seater...listen...You've been lied to.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: As far as a socialized National Health plan, Canada, Japan, England, Sweden--all nations with much higher levels of health and education than the U.S.

Lefty, the Nationalization began under the watch of - shit, at the behest of W. Government bailouts were also on the agenda for the Republican nominee, John McCain.

Why do you blame this on Dems and Obama?

PSUFAN wrote:Lefty, the Nationalization began under the watch of - shit, at the behest of W. Government bailouts were also on the agenda for the Republican nominee, John McCain.

Why do you blame this on Dems and Obama?

PSU you missed my point. I am asking why the media and Dems are running away from calling it what it is? I private or when it suits them they are quick to jump on the merits of socialism. However, as soon as someone outside the left brings up the word socialism, they are laughed at or labeled as crazy.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: As far as a socialized National Health plan, you've also been programmed to believe this doesn't work in other countries like Canada, Japan, England, Sweden--all nations with much higher levels of health and education than the U.S. Well, Seater...listen...You've been lied to.

Uhhh, right. One only needs to take a trip to the Cleveland Clinic to see how well National Health plans are working in said countries. If Cleveland scares you go to Mayo, or Johns Hopkins etc. Each has high security wings where heads of state, royalty, etc, come to get treatment. Why travel around the world if the care is so great in your own country?

Bailouts aren't the same as takeovers

Fair point, sure. The bailouts were calculated efforts to pull tax monies out as gifts for banking executives...exactly the sort of thing that W's administration had focused on for 8 years.

Yep, thanks for reminding me - bailouts were simple thievery, while takeovers are efforts to keep important sectors of the economy afloat.

We're basically fucked for the next 3.75 years..........

I knew there was a reason I should've joined the Legion.......

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

As far as a socialized National Health plan, you've also been programmed to believe this doesn't work in other countries like Canada, Japan, England, Sweden--all nations with much higher levels of health and education than the U.S. Well, Seater...listen...You've been lied to.

So the Canadian lady on the radio today who came to the US to get her brain tumor treated ( at her own and families cost) before it killed her was wrong about the Canadian health care system ? The one that could not treat her for several months ??

Socialized health care is based upon the premise that a certain percentage of the population will croak from their illness before the treatment is rendered. Sucks to be them.

I will just keep paying for my health insurance and stay the fuck away from socialized medicine.

Got to be a health care system / provider out there floundering around that O Muslim could take over to start the process...

mvscal wrote: Bailouts aren't the same as takeovers, idiot. So don't even fucking try.

so you'd have preferred that Chrysler and GM declare Chapter 7 bankruptcy and simply liquidate their assets?

wanna give me some sort of ballpark figure as to how many people in this country that such an have put out in the streets

mvscal wrote:Banking isn't a "critical section of the economy"?

It certainly is. What did TARP do to address it? Here is your answer, obvious to all not happily soaked in oppositional rhetoric - it was a last hand in the cookie jar for the sort of executives W was in office to serve. It didn't even occur to them to observe a facade of humility - they arrived to the handout sessions in their corporate jets. That's how we rolled for 8 sad years.

It will begin to become clear to you - we did nothing under Bush to help the banking sector but buy racks of golden parachutes, and accountability for those tax dollars was but a rumor, faintly voiced at best.

Now we are in a position where only takeovers stand a chance at saving a number of sectors - and our nation in the process. What you call "socialism" is a final, alarmingly critical stab at keeping the roof over our heads. You guys seem to think that standing on the sidelines and jeering is somehow constructive...not exactly sure why - what exactly do you imagine we'll gain by such a stance? Sure, sound off about Obama, who understandably you dislike...but fucking wake up and smell the flames licking at the crossbeams of our house, flames that were set and fanned by the both dangerously stupid and the unceasingly greedy folks that comprised the Bush administration - people you voted for, supported, excused, fawned over and applauded as they looted our nation.

No wonder you're hugging your knees in the corner mewling aimlessly about "Socialism" - you're confused by folks who are rolling up their sleeves and actually setting about the hard work of maintaining our nation. You so lack in direction that your decades-since discredited leadership figures are rolling back into the light to fill the void...because you have ...nothing else.

Felix wrote:wanna give me some sort of ballpark figure as to how many people in this country that such an have put out in the streets

Huh?

Socialism isn't even a glint on the horizon for you numbskulls.

Don't worry, all those banks and corporation that were gobbled up will be sold off and privatised as soon as you suckers finish paying off the debt. Nothing new here. Here in Canada we're hip to that old switcheroo, except when that shit is forced down our throats, we don't grin and proclaim it to taste like waffles and ice cream.

You're a nation of simpletons that has a lot of growing up to do.

Martyred wrote:Socialism isn't even a glint on the horizon for you numbskulls.

Don't worry, all those banks and corporation that were gobbled up will be sold off and privatised as soon as you suckers finish paying off the debt. Nothing new here. Here in Canada we're hip to that old switcheroo, except when that shit is forced down our throats, we don't grin and proclaim it to taste like waffles and ice cream.

You're a nation of simpletons that has a lot of growing up to do.

The debt can never be repaid, so it will have to be repudiated- after the bankers & politicians have looted everything of value. There'll still be suckers willing to buy up the worthless table scraps thinking that this time they won't get screwed

Build a gallows on Wall St.

Want to integrate that with a "market economy"? Sell refreshments.

Derron wrote: So the Canadian lady on the radio today who came to the US to get her brain tumor treated [..] before it killed her was wrong about the Canadian health care system ?

:?

Smackie Chan wrote:

Felix wrote:wanna give me some sort of ballpark figure as to how many people in this country that such an have put out in the streets

Huh?

no, the correct response is

English Mother Fucker, do you speak it

Jules

it should have read "wanna give me some sort of ballpark figure as to how many people in this country that such a move would have put out in the streets"

it's okay, I was ELIMINATED a long time ago

So stick with a single, socialised insurance payer. It doesn't effect wait times, increased cost, or anything else - it's quite cheaper.

Hospitals, doctors, nurses - are all private buildings and employees. Bed availability is all private. The capitalists seem to leave you with this impression that wait time for non-emergency cases is the result of the payment method.

Propaganda, comrade 88.

The media will, by and large, continue to portray everything -- the annointed one -- does in a positive light.

And the American sheeple, by and large, will continue to drink the kool aid that is set before them ... because the American sheeple are, by and large, not bright.


Big time inflation is just around the corner.

BIG time.

If you're not in Gold, you prolly ought to get there.


When the American sheeple get a feel for the SERIOUS hosing Obama and the lib establishment has given them, they will turn on this "president."

Most of them.


But not the liberals.

They will blame George Bush.

Because that's the way liberals roll.

We are all Americans and we could move forward together as a nation if we could shake labels like liberal and conservative. The new president has been in office less than half a year. The state of the nation was low as he took over. He's taking a new approach because what has gone on in the past took us to a low point. Let's get behind him together as Americans right now so we can get on track.

I have a miserable life and wish I were dead!

PSUFAN wrote:
No wonder you're hugging your knees in the corner mewling aimlessly about "Socialism" - you're confused by folks who are rolling up their sleeves and actually setting about the hard work of maintaining our nation. You so lack in direction that your decades-since discredited leadership figures are rolling back into the light to fill the void...because you have ...nothing else.

Thanks for making my point PSU. You take some sort of back handed shot at those who disagree with the Prez, put "Socialism" in quotes as if we are losing our minds, but when in fact becoming more socialist is exactly what is happening. Why can't those of you who agree with the Prez say publicly that you support a move away from Capitalism towards Socialism? The debate would be much more honest if you did.

As for discredited leadership check with your puppet Prez Hussein, he spent a good part of yesterday blowing Ronnie's legacy.

Left Seater wrote:So the government now owns (for all intents and purpose) GM and controls Chrysler.

What happened? The Capitalists fail or something?

Left Seater wrote: Prez Hussein

Nice post you fucking bigot.

Left Seater wrote:Thanks for making my point PSU. You take some sort of back handed shot at those who disagree with the Prez, put "Socialism" in quotes as if we are losing our minds, but when in fact becoming more socialist is exactly what is happening. Why can't those of you who agree with the Prez say publicly that you support a move away from Capitalism towards Socialism? The debate would be much more honest if you did.

As for discredited leadership check with your puppet Prez Hussein, he spent a good part of yesterday blowing Ronnie's legacy.

Dear God you have become a whining little twat. Sorry, but you can't just scream SOCIALIST!!! at the top of your lungs and make it so. Just because Obama doesn't want to completely dismantle the legacy of FDR doesn't mean he's a socialist.

LS isn't screaming.

You step and fetch liberals just can't answer a simple question.

And the dominoes continue to fall. Just like the rest BSmack you fall in line.

Again, BSmack, no one is screaming socialism. Instead I am asking a question about why you guys support socialism in private, but shy away from it in public? Further if what Prez Hussein is doing isn't Socialism what would you call it?

poptart wrote:
If you're not in Gold, you prolly ought to get there.

One problem. FDR outlawed the private ownership of gold in 1932. The prohibition lasted until the late 1970's. FDR had no authority do do this, but he had the media and the congress in his pocket, just like Onogga does today. So he just did it. Nobody dared to put up much of a fight against FDR. There's no reason to believe Onogga wouldn't do the same thing FDR did and no reason to think he wouldn't get away with it.

Left Seater wrote:And the dominoes continue to fall. Just like the rest BSmack you fall in line.

Again, BSmack, no one is screaming socialism. Instead I am asking a question about why you guys support socialism in private, but shy away from it in public? Further if what Prez Hussein is doing isn't Socialism what would you call it?

Calling it common sense works for me. The government is infusing capital into an industry whose liquidation would gravely impact interstate commerce on all levels. Our government has always aided and abetted the transportation sectors of our economy from day one. Have you any understanding of the history of this country?

Common sense says to dump a bunch of money into a company that produces items that consumers don't want? Chrysler models are mostly crap that weren't selling well. No way would the liquidation of Chrysler hurt our commerce. Well other than the fact that a bunch of overpaid union hacks would see their take home pay drop to market levels.

Sure the transportation infrastructre has been supported for years, going back to land grants to Railroads, but it was always in areas that we the citizens wanted. Not to continue providing items the market deemed inferior.

Tell me you knew.

BSmack wrote: The government is infusing capital into an industry whose liquidation would gravely impact interstate commerce on all levels.

GM has 94000 employees. The treasury dept could cut each one of them a check for $500,000 and still not spend the $50 billion they've already poured down that rathole.

In any event, there's no reason to believe GM would have had to liquidate (chapter 7 bankruptcy) rather than reorganize (chapter 11). Of course with a true Chapter 11, the secured creditors would be taken care of, and the UAW would have been shit out of luck.

Left Seater wrote:Common sense says to dump a bunch of money into a company that produces items that consumers don't want? Chrysler models are mostly crap that weren't selling well. No way would the liquidation of Chrysler hurt our commerce. Well other than the fact that a bunch of overpaid union hacks would see their take home pay drop to market levels.

Sure the transportation infrastructre has been supported for years, going back to land grants to Railroads, but it was always in areas that we the citizens wanted. Not to continue providing items the market deemed inferior.

Tell me you knew.

The election of Obama out front should have told you that this is what the majority of citizens want. No matter how much you cry and stomp your feet, that simple fact won't change.

Sorry, I don't remember anyone saying they wanted cash thrown at a dying brand. Where did Prez Hussein say that on the campaign trail?



Link?

Left Seater wrote:

PSU you missed my point. I am asking why the media and Dems are running away from calling it what it is? I private or when it suits them they are quick to jump on the merits of socialism. However, as soon as someone outside the left brings up the word socialism, they are laughed at or labeled as crazy.

I think you've missed your own point.

Are we moving more towards socialism? Yes, and we have been, as a nation, for more than 75 years now.

So, why do the dems "run away from calling it" that? Because a large portion of Americans have been conditioned, since before the Cold War began, to associate socialism with communism, even to the point where many Americans don't know the difference between the two terms.

But, you've missed your own point, because its not just the dems running away from it. Every political party has been for decades, despite the fact that under every single president, and congress, we've had we have still moved more towards socialism each year.

Basically, politicians run from "calling it what it is", because the general American public is too uneducated to understand what they have been voting for, for decades is for more socialism. The public does, and has, wanted America to adopt some socialistic policies, from Social Security, to many people who want National health care. The rub is that, many of the same people who do want these things, do not want them to be called socialism.

Let's see how the capitalists enjoy their system when the poor are breaking into their homes. Hungry people don't stay hungry for long.

Left Seater wrote: Further if what Prez Hussein is doing isn't Socialism what would you call it?

Ahhhh..Redistribution ? Bailouts ? Government assistance ? Market assistance ? Market stabilization ?

Anyone ?

Onions wrote:Let's see how the capitalists enjoy their system when the poor are breaking into their homes. Hungry people don't stay hungry for long.

Which is why us capitalists defend the second amendment.

IndyFrisco wrote:

Onions wrote:Let's see how the capitalists enjoy their system when the poor are breaking into their homes. Hungry people don't stay hungry for long.

Which is why us capitalists defend the second amendment.

You think the poor aren't bringing guns to the fight?

Onions wrote:Let's see how the capitalists enjoy their system when the poor are breaking into their homes. Hungry people don't stay hungry for long.

Unlike the poor downtrodden suppressed "poor" ...a capitalist (i.e. income producers - job providers, etc..)are so used to the libs trying to take their money, that they have learned how to keep what they earn beyond that the gubmint don't take from them in taxes.

The "poor" are going to be too busy lining up in front of gubmint buildings for their hand outs..a lot safer since O Muslims home boys are going to be throwing the cash out the windows at them..instead of taking a chance on the capitalist busting a cap into them for the criminal act of home invasion for the purpose of burglary.

Continue fellating the President and his administration...

Onions wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:

Onions wrote:Let's see how the capitalists enjoy their system when the poor are breaking into their homes. Hungry people don't stay hungry for long.

Which is why us capitalists defend the second amendment.

You think the poor aren't bringing guns to the fight?

The stolen guns they get on the street.?.or the legal ones that O Muslim is trying to take ??

Where the fuck they be getting guns ?? The "poor" will be fighting among themselves for the guns.

They best be getting their pitch forks and sling shots ready..O Muslim will take the guns to prevent just such an insurrection..keeps them "poor" mother fuckers in line with the socialist line...

Derron wrote:

Onions wrote:Let's see how the capitalists enjoy their system when the poor are breaking into their homes. Hungry people don't stay hungry for long.

Unlike the poor downtrodden suppressed "poor" ...a capitalist (i.e. income producers - job providers, etc..)are so used to the libs trying to take their money, that they have learned how to keep what they earn beyond that the gubmint don't take from them in taxes.

The "poor" are going to be too busy lining up in front of gubmint buildings for their hand outs..a lot safer since O Muslims home boys are going to be throwing the cash out the windows at them..instead of taking a chance on the capitalist busting a cap into them for the criminal act of home invasion for the purpose of burglary.

Continue fellating the President and his administration...

you shit all over the poor so you can live large