PDA

View Full Version : Economics Socialism - The Obama kind


irishjayhawk
06-04-2009, 10:03 PM
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/socialism%20chart.png

jjjayb
06-04-2009, 10:15 PM
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/socialism%20chart.png

Years Obama has been in office: .5

irishjayhawk
06-04-2009, 10:16 PM
Years Obama has been in office: .5

True.

I just think it's interesting to note this, especially seeing this board inundated with OBAMA SOCIALIST COMMUNIST WHATEVER posts and threads.

Der Flöprer
06-04-2009, 10:27 PM
I think a better question is how much money has been thrown at this whole fiasco by The Fed. I mean total dollars, including the bailouts. Unfortunately we'll never know because it's none of our business. It's not our money.

KC Dan
06-04-2009, 10:51 PM
A better question: Why isn't the Congress up in arms about TARP money being used by the Executive branch to buy two car companies without their approval? Especially after the Congress voted down a $14 billion auto bailout in December. Doesn't TARP stand for and sold as Troubled Assets Relief Program meaning troubled bank assets?

The executive branch clearly circumvented the Congressional purse strings responsibility and they are not outraged? Look at recovery.org and I dare you to find the transparency the fed claimed there would be. Write your congressmen and women. They need to answer to us. This is just insane.

Taco John
06-04-2009, 10:52 PM
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/socialism%20chart.png


The funny part is that you think you made a good point.

ANY amount of red is still red. Any amount of nationalization is unconstitutional.

irishjayhawk
06-04-2009, 10:53 PM
The funny part is that you think you made a good point.

ANY amount of red is still red.

I didn't make any point; merely provided perspective.

In fact, I probably agree with you. I've been on record here in the DC on the bailouts: I hate them.

KC Dan
06-04-2009, 10:54 PM
The funny part is that you think you made a good point.

ANY amount of red is still red. Any amount of nationalization is unconstitutional.Yeah, especially when 99.79% is held by foreign gov'ts??????? Touche' on the point.

Taco John
06-04-2009, 10:54 PM
Here is a good example of how terrible your point is:


http://www.carolhawkins.com/images/FPN-fire.jpg

Percent of this house not on fire: 90%

See, this house is not actually on fire.

irishjayhawk
06-04-2009, 10:57 PM
Here is a good example of how terrible your point is:


http://www.carolhawkins.com/images/FPN-fire.jpg

Percent of this house not on fire: 90%

See, this house is not actually on fire.

That's a terrible rebuttal. My graph clearly shows 99%. That house is not more than 1% on fire. :)

Taco John
06-04-2009, 10:58 PM
http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/6258/butterface3xc8lu.jpg

Percent of this girl that is ugly: 5%

See, go ahead and hit it. She's 95% hot.

irishjayhawk
06-04-2009, 10:59 PM
I don't even think you read my follow up post to you. The one where I probably agree with you but am just offering perspective.

Taco John
06-04-2009, 11:00 PM
I don't even think you read my follow up post to you. The one where I probably agree with you but am just offering perspective.


I'm just making it clear that it's not much of a perspective.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-04-2009, 11:01 PM
Fascism not Socialism, say it with me.

KC Dan
06-04-2009, 11:01 PM
I don't even think you read my follow up post to you. The one where I probably agree with you but am just offering perspective.btw, the feds are on the hook for at least $180 billion to AIG alone. I think your $82 billion is crap. We have nationalized a whole lot more... But, any is too much and TJ is right on there.

prhom
06-04-2009, 11:02 PM
Good example Taco John, I was going to say that if I kill 0.21% of the population then I'm not a murderer. By the way everyone, it's just an extreme example, I'm not saying Obama is a murderer! Just saying that it's a slippery slope.

It'll be okay to impune the rights of bondholders as long as it's only 10% of the creditors, and only a few rich speculators have invested in these bonds...

irishjayhawk
06-04-2009, 11:12 PM
btw, the feds are on the hook for at least $180 billion to AIG alone. I think your $82 billion is crap. We have nationalized a whole lot more... But, any is too much and TJ is right on there.

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php

That's the source. Your question as to the 82 versus 180 for AIG is a good one. I don't think he addresses it.

irishjayhawk
06-04-2009, 11:13 PM
I'm just making it clear that it's not much of a perspective.

It is a perspective because judging by people's reactions it's almost like the graph was reversed.

Fascism not Socialism, say it with me.

I have no idea what you're even talking about here.

KC Dan
06-04-2009, 11:13 PM
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php

That's the source. Your question as to the 82 versus 180 for AIG is a good one. I don't think he addresses it.Plus all the other monies handed out to banks, insurance co's, ect... It's f'n bonkers.

jAZ
06-04-2009, 11:18 PM
I thought Part 2 was the more interesting point...

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like_part_two.php

What Socialism Looks Like, Part Two
Commenter Michael Goodfellow (a great last name) emails:

I see Sullivan ran your "socialism" chart on his blog today. Too bad, since I think it's pretty silly. If you want to look at government share of the economy, I think you'd draw the graph showing Federal, state and local expenditures as percentage of GDP. [...] It would add up to at least 40% of the economy. Not a nice looking chart at all.

But I wasn't interested in the government spending as a percentage of GDP! The socialism charge that I've been hearing for the past week hasn't had much to do with the size of the federal government. The charge has been that the government now thinks it can run private industry -- GM, AIG, whatever -- better than, well, private industry. The point of the chart was that, if Rahm Emmanuel and Peter Orszag and Barack Obama really felt deeply in their hearts that they could run Caterpillar or Kraft Foods better than the incumbent management, you wouldn't see 99.71% of the nation's business assets remain in the hands of the nation's businesses.

But enough about that. Here is the chart Michael has in mind:

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/spending%20and%20GDP.jpg

I don't have a whole lot to say about this, except (1) I agree that it's "not pretty" and (2) If you're going to equate an increase in the deficit or in federal spending as a percentage of GDP with socialism, then every modern American president (with the partial exception of Bill Clinton!) is a socialist. In which case I'm not sure Barack Obama has a lot to worry about.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-04-2009, 11:20 PM
I have no idea what you're even talking about here.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=208578

SBK
06-04-2009, 11:37 PM
Fascism not Socialism, say it with me.

Bingo.

For some reason people don't think liberals can be fascists.....

SBK
06-04-2009, 11:38 PM
Here is a good example of how terrible your point is:


http://www.carolhawkins.com/images/FPN-fire.jpg

Percent of this house not on fire: 90%

See, this house is not actually on fire.

:LOL:

This is the best post I've seen all day, funny and to the point.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2009, 12:01 AM
A better example is to show that we have 6 of the Ten Planks with more being added under Obama. Ownership of the major means of production is also you and I....just wait to the tax hikes come to pay for everything this man wants. That's ownership of the people right there.

The kind Irish is showing is just an example of a different stripe of socialism. More the Soviet kind.

Taco John
06-05-2009, 01:51 AM
It is a perspective because judging by people's reactions it's almost like the graph was reversed.



It might as well be as far as I'm concerned. If 1% of my hair was on fire, wouldn't I want to put it out?

jAZ
06-05-2009, 02:33 AM
It might as well be as far as I'm concerned. If 1% of my hair was on fire, wouldn't I want to put it out?

You seem to ignore the fact that even Obama would prefer that the banking and auto industries have remained (and quickly return) private.

BigRedChief
06-05-2009, 07:22 AM
You seem to ignore the fact that even Obama would prefer that the banking and auto industries have remained (and quickly return) private.
Don't confuse them with facts. Hell, most of these people complaining about socialism don't even know what it really means because if they did they would realize that they still live in a free enterprise system despite their loudly proclaiming its dead in America.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2009, 07:40 AM
Don't confuse them with facts. Hell, most of these people complaining about socialism don't even know what it really means because if they did they would realize that they still live in a free enterprise system despite their loudly proclaiming its dead in America.

That would include you then. You think it is a discrete philosophy. It isn't. It takes different forms and shapes. It can be a welfare state where wealth is done via transfers which is indirect or direct like Cuba or Soviet Union. It can be soft totalitarianism or harsh. I mean Marx himself studied the earlier socialists, like the utopian socialists....and came up with his ten planks as way of finding their common denominators. It's just a matter of how you're going to control the major means of production in order to bring about egalitarian ends. That does not just include egalitarian ends in wealth either but on social issues where things that are different are treated as if they're the same.

I mean why do people call Sweden a socialism...including it being a socialism that works? ( which it doesn't). It's a huge welfare state.

Oh and Marx himself said "Democracy is the road to socialism."
And
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." ——Norman Thomas


Quote by:

Norman Thomas
(1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America
Source:

1948 - from an interview during the presidential campaign,
[Ed. note: Norman Thomas and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist Party Candidate, both quit American politics, agreeing that the Republican and Democratic parties by 1970 had adopted every plank on the Communist/Socialist and they no longer had an alternate party platform on which to run.]


You fall under what Thomas said. What we have today and what even Bill Clinton has promoted in his speeches around the globe is what is called " Third Way Socialism". That's when some free enterprise is kept in place—to make socialism work better. Of course much of it is managed and mercantilistic.

BigRedChief
06-05-2009, 07:52 AM
Oh and Marx himself said "Democracy is the road to socialism."
And
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." ——Norman Thomas


Quote by:

Norman Thomas
(1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America
Source:

1948 - from an interview during the presidential campaign,
[Ed. note: Norman Thomas and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist Party Candidate, both quit American politics, agreeing that the Republican and Democratic parties by 1970 had adopted every plank on the Communist/Socialist and they no longer had an alternate party platform on which to run.]
Despite your personal beliefs and views and having paranoid delusions and cherry picking quotes still doesn't make the U.S. a socialist state.

You are really going to try to make an argument that we are currently a socialist state?

BucEyedPea
06-05-2009, 07:56 AM
Despite your personal beliefs and views and having paranoid delusions and cherry picking quotes still doesn't make the U.S. a socialist state. Well I don't recall saying that. I've said we were 3/5ths socialist using the Ten Planks which we are. I've said Obama plans on adding more. Enough, perhaps to wrap it up. I say he's a Euro Socialist.

You are really going to try to make an argument that we are currently a socialist state?

See above.

Are we not a welfare state? ( or did you no read what I wrote?)

The quotes are not cherry-picked. They're statements by leading socialists.

Read The Nation for more evidence of what is advocated by Progressives. A sort of soft totalitarianism.

The paranoid delusions are by those who think they can't survive without the govt taking care of them. That's real fear man.
My posts are based on studying this subject nothing less. You are in denial.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2009, 08:08 AM
[9] The definition of socialism, then, may be said to be a formal economic system in which society exerts considerable control over the nation's wealth and property in the pursuit of social justice. "Considerable control" may or may not entail public ownership, while "social justice" usually depends upon the whims of a bureaucratic elite. Generally speaking, a market-based economy is antithetical to socialist principles, and some form of benevolent planning is advocated.

[10] Of course, such a definition of socialism is exceedingly vague, but the pursuit of "fairness"—the ultimate goal of socialism—is necessarily vague, given that each of humanity's several billion individuals has a unique view of what "fairness" entails.

[11] And it is precisely in this lack of specificity that the danger of socialism consists.

AND

[4] This brings us to the Marxian maxim at the heart of the definition of socialism, the famous, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." [This is what you voice dialy BigChief Fan] Both capitalism and communism, despite the latter's claims to the contrary, address only half of this problem.


(http://www.conservative-resources.com/definition-of-socialism.html) Says it for me. I can even get a dictionary definition is show how those apply to now too.

SBK
06-05-2009, 08:14 AM
$1 of every $6 in American income today comes from a gov't check or voucher. LMAO

That's sustainable.
Posted via Mobile Device

jjjayb
06-05-2009, 08:26 AM
You seem to ignore the fact that even Obama would prefer that the banking and auto industries have remained (and quickly return) private.

Yeah. Sure he does. Just like healthcare.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2009, 08:30 AM
$1 of every $6 in American income today comes from a gov't check or voucher. LMAO

That's sustainable.
Posted via Mobile Device

It used to be that one out of every three workers worked for the govt. I read that it's approaching half now. That's not good.That's how they keep a hold on power and get the goodies. By being a member of the Party.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2009, 08:31 AM
No I don't think Obama would like the auto industry to be returned to private interests. He wouldn't be able to use them for his social engineering in green technology. Instead of calling what they make "lemons" we'll have to call them "watermelons." Probably have pink interiors.

***SPRAYER
06-05-2009, 09:48 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6s6CdLQRCP0/SigLDIdrZRI/AAAAAAAAAaA/UfmME1T6ZqA/s1600-h/Obamopoly.gif

SBK
06-05-2009, 09:55 AM
You seem to ignore the fact that even Obama would prefer that the banking and auto industries have remained (and quickly return) private.

LMAO

If he wanted them to be private they would be.

What do you call it when someone tells you one thing, then does the exact opposite?
Posted via Mobile Device

King_Chief_Fan
06-05-2009, 09:58 AM
Despite your personal beliefs and views and having paranoid delusions and cherry picking quotes still doesn't make the U.S. a socialist state.

You are really going to try to make an argument that we are currently a socialist state?

getting there...getting there

KC Dan
06-05-2009, 10:09 AM
You seem to ignore the fact that even Obama would prefer that the banking and auto industries have remained (and quickly return) private.Is that why the gov't is making it next to impossible for banks to pay back TARP? Is that why there is virtually ZERO transparancy for those wanting to see where their TARP and stimulus money has gone? No, social engineering demands governmental control and he is not about to give that up. " Never waste a good crisis"

stevieray
06-05-2009, 10:11 AM
You seem to ignore the fact that even Obama would prefer that the banking and auto industries have remained (and quickly return) private.

LMAO

comedy gold.

Donger
06-05-2009, 10:17 AM
You seem to ignore the fact that even Obama would prefer that the banking and auto industries have remained (and quickly return) private.

You're kidding, right? You really believe that he wants that?

Taco John
06-05-2009, 11:49 AM
You seem to ignore the fact that even Obama would prefer that the banking and auto industries have remained (and quickly return) private.

You're right. I do ignore that fact. That's because it's an irrelevant fact.

Taco John
06-05-2009, 11:50 AM
You are really going to try to make an argument that we are currently a socialist state?


We are absolutely a socialist state. Maybe not to the extremes that you imagine define what socialism is. But Income tax, Social Security, and central economic planning through the Federal Reserve pretty much take care of the distinction "socialism."

banyon
06-05-2009, 08:55 PM
We are absolutely a socialist state. Maybe not to the extremes that you imagine define what socialism is. But Income tax, Social Security, and central economic planning through the Federal Reserve pretty much take care of the distinction "socialism."

Who would've guessed that Reagan, Eisenhower, Nixon, all socialists!

Mr. Kotter
06-05-2009, 09:34 PM
If you don't think heavy handed regulation...doesn't qualify as "held" for purposes of this question, you aren't as bright as I'd given you the benefit of the doubt of being.

banyon
06-05-2009, 09:36 PM
If you don't think heavy handed regulation...doesn't qualify as "held" for purposes of this question, you aren't as bright as I'd given you the benefit of the doubt of being.

I'm pretty sure held means "owned". Is that not the way you understand the term?

Mr. Kotter
06-05-2009, 09:41 PM
I'm pretty sure held means "owned". Is that not the way you understand the term?

That's my point. Companies and industries that are, now, heavily regulated by the feds, qualify in my mind as a step toward socialism.

By this standard, we aren't "socialist" perhaps; that doesn't erase the fact that over the past 80 years we keep creeping ever closer to a much more "socialistic" government---due to the extent of government control and regulation of our economy. Some was, and is, neccessary. So I'm not saying it's all bad.

But let's call it what it is: we have become increasingly socialistic. Thus this OP is, IMHO, a disingenuous attempt to divert attention away from that trend.

banyon
06-05-2009, 09:52 PM
That's my point. Companies and industries that are, now, heavily regulated by the feds, qualify in my mind as a step toward socialism.

By this standard, we aren't "socialist" perhaps; that doesn't erase the fact that over the past 80 years we keep creeping ever closer to a much more "socialistic" government---due to the extent of government control and regulation of our economy. Some was, and is, neccessary. So I'm not saying it's all bad.

But let's call it what it is: we have become increasingly socialistic. Thus this OP is, IMHO, a disingenuous attempt to divert attention away from that trend.

It's a mixed economy, as you know. There are certainly different points along that range before you reach "oh noes" armageddon.

Taco John
06-06-2009, 12:31 AM
Who would've guessed that Reagan, Eisenhower, Nixon, all socialists!


Guessed? What's to guess? People who know what socialism is would have "guessed."

You seem to have this dopey idea that socialism is based on the personalities implementing it. I will never understand why you insist on tieing yourself to such a shallow outlook. You should stop fawning over politicians and develop a coherent philosophy.

banyon
06-06-2009, 01:26 AM
Guessed? What's to guess? People who know what socialism is would have "guessed."

You seem to have this dopey idea that socialism is based on the personalities implementing it. I will never understand why you insist on tieing yourself to such a shallow outlook. You should stop fawning over politicians and develop a coherent philosophy.

My philosophy is perfectly coherent; as a bonus it works in the real world and explains actual phenomena and has practical (and not just fantasy) applicability.

Like for instance, how your rigid and fringe ideology requires you not to be able to keep from calling Reagan a socialist in this instance, which is of course absurd. See? Not useful.

Taco John
06-06-2009, 03:52 AM
My philosophy is perfectly coherent; as a bonus it works in the real world and explains actual phenomena and has practical (and not just fantasy) applicability.

Like for instance, how your rigid and fringe ideology requires you not to be able to keep from calling Reagan a socialist in this instance, which is of course absurd. See? Not useful.


It's amusing to me that you think that I should be hung up on the same fence you are hung on. I'm rigid. The man who believes that people should have equal rights across the board, and the liberty to do whatever they want, provided that they're not infringing on the liberty of another. Rigid and fringe. The sad thing is, the sheep herded masses have made this true. Republicans don't even know what Republicanism even means anymore. It's turned into a hodge podge of reactionary policies that look nothing like Republicanism. Still, being on the fringe doesn't amount to being in the wrong. We're talking about not only a party, but an entire nation rushing off a cliff like a bunch of lemmings. Being on this "fringe" isn't such a bad place to be.

I didn't call Reagan a socialist. You did. It was your trap, and I set it off without any regard for it. I don't spend much time thinking about Reagan. If you have a specific reason why you think that I should argue that he made specific socialist measures, I'll hear it. Otherwise, I think he's just another quasi-Republican president trapped in Wilson/FDR-created socialist paradigm.

Regardless of whether you believe the truth to be fring or not, this nation has been a socialist nation since the inception of Social Security. But that was just a brick in the wall. It started before that with the creation of the Federal Beurau of Central Economic Planning - otherwise known as The Federal Reserve. Brick by brick this socialist paradigm has been laid. Brick by brick, president by president, Democrat or Republican, year after year, the brick have been getting laid (see how little impact your imaginary point about Reagan has with me -- It's pea shooter material). And now we're seeing the capstone: control of industry. We didn't get to this point overnight where the American people would sit cowed while the free market is being replaced with presidential fiat.

And now I get to sit here and watch the latest genuinely mindless rationalization. "It's only .26% of American Industry so it doesn't matter." Yeah. The first brick in the wall is only .26%. What's the next one going to look like? And the dozens after that?

Oh, but it's not socialism. It's happening in America, so we'll call it "Rescue" or "mixed economy." As though it's not socialism that is being "mixed" into the economy.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2009, 09:49 AM
It's amusing to me that you think that I should be hung up on the same fence you are hung on. I'm rigid. The man who believes that people should have equal rights across the board, and the liberty to do whatever they want, provided that they're not infringing on the liberty of another. Rigid and fringe. The sad thing is, the sheep herded masses have made this true. Republicans don't even know what Republicanism even means anymore. It's turned into a hodge podge of reactionary policies that look nothing like Republicanism. Still, being on the fringe doesn't amount to being in the wrong. We're talking about not only a party, but an entire nation rushing off a cliff like a bunch of lemmings. Being on this "fringe" isn't such a bad place to be.

I didn't call Reagan a socialist. You did. It was your trap, and I set it off without any regard for it. I don't spend much time thinking about Reagan. If you have a specific reason why you think that I should argue that he made specific socialist measures, I'll hear it. Otherwise, I think he's just another quasi-Republican president trapped in Wilson/FDR-created socialist paradigm.

Regardless of whether you believe the truth to be fring or not, this nation has been a socialist nation since the inception of Social Security. But that was just a brick in the wall. It started before that with the creation of the Federal Beurau of Central Economic Planning - otherwise known as The Federal Reserve. Brick by brick this socialist paradigm has been laid. Brick by brick, president by president, Democrat or Republican, year after year, the brick have been getting laid (see how little impact your imaginary point about Reagan has with me -- It's pea shooter material). And now we're seeing the capstone: control of industry. We didn't get to this point overnight where the American people would sit cowed while the free market is being replaced with presidential fiat.

And now I get to sit here and watch the latest genuinely mindless rationalization. "It's only .26% of American Industry so it doesn't matter." Yeah. The first brick in the wall is only .26%. What's the next one going to look like? And the dozens after that?

Oh, but it's not socialism. It's happening in America, so we'll call it "Rescue" or "mixed economy." As though it's not socialism that is being "mixed" into the economy.

:clap::clap::clap: Very well put. Bravo!

Bwana
06-06-2009, 09:56 AM
You seem to ignore the fact that even Obama would prefer that the banking and auto industries have remained (and quickly return) private.

LMAO

banyon
06-06-2009, 10:02 AM
It's amusing to me that you think that I should be hung up on the same fence you are hung on. I'm rigid. The man who believes that people should have equal rights across the board, and the liberty to do whatever they want, provided that they're not infringing on the liberty of another. Rigid and fringe. The sad thing is, the sheep herded masses have made this true. Republicans don't even know what Republicanism even means anymore. It's turned into a hodge podge of reactionary policies that look nothing like Republicanism. Still, being on the fringe doesn't amount to being in the wrong. We're talking about not only a party, but an entire nation rushing off a cliff like a bunch of lemmings. Being on this "fringe" isn't such a bad place to be.

A promise of equal rights without a mechanism to enforce the promise is hollow comfort. It does sound like it might be catchy in a jingle or something though. Of course your adherence to the theory is described as 'rigid" because it is inflexible in its ability to make real world distinctions which are obvious through a cursory historical review. The fact that the theory recommends everyone go buck wild in a pseudo-anarchistic melee shouldn't be conflated with an analysis of the theory itself. You're making a meta-analytical styled conflation here.

I didn't call Reagan a socialist. You did. It was your trap, and I set it off without any regard for it. I don't spend much time thinking about Reagan. If you have a specific reason why you think that I should argue that he made specific socialist measures, I'll hear it. Otherwise, I think he's just another quasi-Republican president trapped in Wilson/FDR-created socialist paradigm.

I know you disdain logical inferences, but that's what it clearly was. You stated that believing in Social Security, Income tax, and the Federal Reserve was suffcient to make one a socialist. Reagan agreed with those things, therefore he is a socialist. Q.E.D. It's a pretty basic modus ponens which you would think wouldn't be tough to follow.

Regardless of whether you believe the truth to be fring or not, this nation has been a socialist nation since the inception of Social Security. But that was just a brick in the wall. It started before that with the creation of the Federal Beurau of Central Economic Planning - otherwise known as The Federal Reserve. Brick by brick this socialist paradigm has been laid. Brick by brick, president by president, Democrat or Republican, year after year, the brick have been getting laid (see how little impact your imaginary point about Reagan has with me -- It's pea shooter material). And now we're seeing the capstone: control of industry. We didn't get to this point overnight where the American people would sit cowed while the free market is being replaced with presidential fiat.

And now I get to sit here and watch the latest genuinely mindless rationalization. "It's only .26% of American Industry so it doesn't matter." Yeah. The first brick in the wall is only .26%. What's the next one going to look like? And the dozens after that?

Oh, but it's not socialism. It's happening in America, so we'll call it "Rescue" or "mixed economy." As though it's not socialism that is being "mixed" into the economy.

Ah, yes, you can tell the ideological mettle of a theory when its proponents begin by demanding you recognize that they have a monopoly on truth. Again, in the real world, it's pretty easy and basic to be able to draw a governmental/economic spectrum between 1916 America and 1985 U.S.S.R., but your theory demands that we conflate them, even though they were completely different governments and places to live. Ironically, your revisionist labelling of America as "socialist" since the "bricks piled up" allowed us to become one of the strongest and most prosperous countries in the history of the world. How do you reconcile that? Where is the "strong hyper-libertarian" country that adhered strictly to the rigid ideological dogma that prospered and became so great?

banyon
06-06-2009, 10:04 AM
:clap::clap::clap: Very well put. Bravo!

Hey, look the other Mousketeer agrees.

patteeu
06-06-2009, 10:11 AM
Who would've guessed that Reagan, Eisenhower, Nixon, all socialists!

I think we've been a socialist country under all three of those men, but I also think it's worth recognizing whether each man sought to move us to the left toward greater socialism, as Obama is doing, or to the right toward less socialism, as Reagan did (albeit to a pretty small degree IMO).

banyon
06-06-2009, 10:13 AM
I think we've been a socialist country under all three of those men, but I also think it's worth recognizing whether each man sought to move us to the left toward greater socialism, as Obama is doing, or to the right toward less socialism, as Reagan did (albeit to a pretty small degree IMO).

So, you don't believe in a mixed economy or degrees of regulation either? It's one regulation and everyone is doomed? What country is it that youre holding up as this paragon of non-socialistic virtue?

I think Obama has you guys' perspective antennae out of whack.

patteeu
06-06-2009, 10:16 AM
My philosophy is perfectly coherent; as a bonus it works in the real world and explains actual phenomena and has practical (and not just fantasy) applicability.

Like for instance, how your rigid and fringe ideology requires you not to be able to keep from calling Reagan a socialist in this instance, which is of course absurd. See? Not useful.

Ron Paul withdrew his support for Reagan by the end of Reagan's term because Reagan didn't make sufficient progress in reversing the long-time trend toward ever greater socialism. That's one of the reasons Paul ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988.

Reagan wasn't a socialist, but he failed to do much to turn our country away from socialism. His was more of a holding action, but the desire of the American people for more and more government handouts proved too great to actually allow for a real reversal.

banyon
06-06-2009, 10:22 AM
Ron Paul withdrew his support for Reagan by the end of Reagan's term because Reagan didn't make sufficient progress in reversing the long-time trend toward ever greater socialism. That's one of the reasons Paul ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988.

Reagan wasn't a socialist, but he failed to do much to turn our country away from socialism. His was more of a holding action, but the desire of the American people for more and more government handouts proved too great to actually allow for a real reversal.

So you would disagree with Taco's definition then, that if you believe in Social Security, the Federal Reserve, and Income taxation, that you are a socialist?

patteeu
06-06-2009, 10:27 AM
So, you don't believe in a mixed economy or degrees of regulation either? It's one regulation and everyone is doomed? What country is it that youre holding up as this paragon of non-socialistic virtue?

I think Obama has you guys' perspective antennae out of whack.

There are no economies that fall into one pure ideology or the other. "Mixed economy" loses it's meaning if you recognize that every economy is a mixed economy. Of course there are degrees, but the degree in the US is getting frighteningly high for an economy that is supposed to be based primarily on capitalism and, worse, the degree has been climbing for at least the past ~75 years with no apparent end in sight and has recently increased dramatically.

I'm more interested in talking about the direction of our movement (which has been toward socialism generally over the past 75 years and is currently racing in that direction) than in which label best fits our current economy. I do think we are more socialist than ever before and I don't think that's a particularly good thing.

banyon
06-06-2009, 10:30 AM
There are no economies that fall into one pure ideology or the other. "Mixed economy" loses it's meaning if you recognize that every economy is a mixed economy. Of course there are degrees, but the degree in the US is getting frighteningly high for an economy that is supposed to be based primarily on capitalism and, worse, the degree has been climbing for at least the past ~75 years with no apparent end in sight and has recently increased dramatically.

I'm more interested in talking about the direction of our movement (which has been toward socialism generally over the past 75 years and is currently racing in that direction) than in which label best fits our current economy. I do think we are more socialist than ever before and I don't think that's a particularly good thing.

So what do you mean by the term then?

patteeu
06-06-2009, 10:33 AM
So you would disagree with Taco's definition then, that if you believe in Social Security, the Federal Reserve, and Income taxation, that you are a socialist?

I think those are socialist concepts. I don't think we necessarily need to get rid of every socialist concept in our government, but I think we should be moving in the opposite direction right now. I definitely disagree with anyone who thinks we need even more Social Security and Income Taxation than we already have or who thinks we need additional programs like those to augment the social safety net even further or to increase the government's skim off of our productivity.

banyon
06-06-2009, 10:35 AM
I think those are socialist concepts. I don't think we necessarily need to get rid of every socialist concept in our government, but I think we should be moving in the opposite direction right now. I definitely disagree with anyone who thinks we need even more Social Security and Income Taxation than we already have or who thinks we need additional programs like those to augment the social safety net even further or to increase the government skim off of our productivity.

According to Taco, then, you are a socialist too. Welcome to the club.

patteeu
06-06-2009, 10:40 AM
So what do you mean by the term then?

Central planning and leveling of resources by taking from those who have and giving to those who have not.

patteeu
06-06-2009, 10:42 AM
According to Taco, then, you are a socialist too. Welcome to the club.

Yeah, that's probably true.

banyon
06-06-2009, 10:42 AM
Central planning and leveling of resources by taking from those who have and giving to those who have not.

So, any amount?

patteeu
06-06-2009, 10:58 AM
So, any amount?

I think there are degrees, like you said. I don't know when it makes sense to start calling a country a socialist country, if that's what you're asking, but I think it's fair to call someone who generally wants to increase the degree of socialism a socialist. We were more of a socialist country under Reagan than under Eisenhower or Nixon even though Reagan was probably the most opposed to socialism of the three (I'm not sure how Eisenhower would have acted post-LBJ so I could be wrong wrt him). But we were more capitalistic then than we are now.

I guess the point that Taco made that I tend to see as important is that all of our Presidents, both liberal and conservative, are operating in a socialist paradigm where it seems natural to look for a government program to fix any given (perceived) problem and it seems radical to divert 4% of SS contributions to an IRA-like retirement fund.

Taco John
06-06-2009, 11:12 AM
A promise of equal rights without a mechanism to enforce the promise is hollow comfort.


Almost as hollow and empty as this statement.


It does sound like it might be catchy in a jingle or something though. Of course your adherence to the theory is described as 'rigid" because it is inflexible in its ability to make real world distinctions which are obvious through a cursory historical review.

I'm ok with being rigid when it comes to human rights. I don't need any weak rationalizations for taking people's rights away. I don't find stealing from people to be pragmatic at all.


The fact that the theory recommends everyone go buck wild in a pseudo-anarchistic melee shouldn't be conflated with an analysis of the theory itself. You're making a meta-analytical styled conflation here.

Ha! What a joke. We live in anarchy now - only it's the federal government enjoying the anarchy. The Federal Government does whatever it wants. All it has to do is pull the right levers - apply the right pressure, and it's free to do what it wants. The idea that binding the wrists of an anarchistic government some how amounts to going "buck wild" is precious in its hilarity.


I know you disdain logical inferences, but that's what it clearly was. You stated that believing in Social Security, Income tax, and the Federal Reserve was suffcient to make one a socialist. Reagan agreed with those things, therefore he is a socialist. Q.E.D. It's a pretty basic modus ponens which you would think wouldn't be tough to follow.

Reagan agreed with Social Security, Income tax, and the Federal Reserve? Do you have a quote that you could reference, or are you making another of your famous "logical inferences," otherwise known as "making things up."


Ah, yes, you can tell the ideological mettle of a theory when its proponents begin by demanding you recognize that they have a monopoly on truth.

I've made no such claim. The truth is right there for anyone to see.

Again, in the real world, it's pretty easy and basic to be able to draw a governmental/economic spectrum between 1916 America and 1985 U.S.S.R....but your theory demands that we conflate them, even though they were completely different governments and places to live.

More proof of just how dopey you are on this subject. You hold the USSR as the only model of socialism that anybody can use as a practical application of socialism. Your "logic" (if we can call it that) seems to follow the line that if we're not in bread lines and trading rubles, then it's not real socialism. You don't have any practical idea of what socialism is. You just seem to know that if it happens in America, then it can't be socialism.

Despite your dopey idea that my theory demands that we conflate the USSR and the United States, it's not the truth. The truth is that I call socialism what it is, regardless of how it's been applied elsewhere in history.


Ironically, your revisionist labelling of America as "socialist" since the "bricks piled up" allowed us to become one of the strongest and most prosperous countries in the history of the world. How do you reconcile that? Where is the "strong hyper-libertarian" country that adhered strictly to the rigid ideological dogma that prospered and became so great?

Rome was one of the strongest and most prosperous countries in the history of the world. How'd that work out for them?

Give me an unlimited credit card, and a people dumb enough to pay my bill indefinitely, and I'll show you what prosperous looks like. But then, there's no such thing as people dumb enough tp pay a bill indefinitely. At some point in time, all the spending would catch up to me. And then what?

Libertarianism is the foundation that allowed us to become one of the strongest and most prosperous countries in the history of the world. Socialism has taken this and overextended the nation. Regardless of the dog an pony show that is being put on right now, our debt is unsustainable. It's a debt that doesn't belong to the philosophies of "Libertarianism," or even "Republicanism," despite the fact that people calling themselves these things have helped contribute to that debt. I think we both know that the debt that is crushing this country belongs to the cancer that has infected this nation: socialism.

Taco John
06-06-2009, 11:16 AM
According to Taco, then, you are a socialist too. Welcome to the club.

Ah... More "logical inference," otherwise known in Banyon's case as "making things up." You are poor at the practice of logical inference Banyon. You should abandon the practice until you learn how to do it.

I have always said that a socialist is someone who favors and advocates socialist solutions to problems. This is a fair definition.

Patteeu clearly does not fit this.

banyon
06-06-2009, 11:55 AM
Almost as hollow and empty as this statement.

Good one, yuk yuk. :rolleyes:


I'm ok with being rigid when it comes to human rights. I don't need any weak rationalizations for taking people's rights away. I don't find stealing from people to be pragmatic at all.

You offer complete excercise of those rights, but no guarantee to secure them, that's no protection at all. The "stealing" comment, is of course unsurprisingly question-begging.


Ha! What a joke. We live in anarchy now - only it's the federal government enjoying the anarchy. The Federal Government does whatever it wants. All it has to do is pull the right levers - apply the right pressure, and it's free to do what it wants. The idea that binding the wrists of an anarchistic government some how amounts to going "buck wild" is precious in its hilarity.

Were I full of empty rhetorical snipes, I guess this is where you normally say "why do you want to run from what you are?", right? It's not "binding the wrists" of the government that makes it anarchistic, it's "doing away with it entirely" that makes it anarchistic.


Reagan agreed with Social Security, Income tax, and the Federal Reserve? Do you have a quote that you could reference, or are you making another of your famous "logical inferences," otherwise known as "making things up."


Ruh-roh, Taco's bluff gets called:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/reaganstmts.html#letter

--First, this nation must preserve the integrity of the Social Security trust fund and the basic benefit structure that protects older Americans.
--Second, we must hold down the tax burden on the workers who support Social Security.

--Finally, we must eliminate all abuses in the system that can rob the elderly of their rightful legacy.

It is clear that the half-actions of the past are no longer sufficient for the future. It is equally clear that we must not let partisan differences or political posturing prevent us from working together.

Therefore, I have today asked Secretary Schweiker to meet with you and other leaders of the Congress as soon as possible to launch a bipartisan effort to save Social Security. I have also asked him to make the full resources of his department available for this undertaking. And of course, you can count on my active support of this effort.

None of us can afford to underestimate the seriousness of the problems facing Social Security. For generations of Americans, the future literally rests upon our actions. This should be a time for statesmanship of the highest order, and I know that no one shares that desire more strongly than you.

With every good wish,

Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan's_Fourth_State_of_the_Union_Speech

Sound monetary policy is key to long-running economic strength and stability. We will continue to cooperate with the Federal Reserve Board, seeking a steady policy that ensures price stability without keeping interest rates artificially high or needlessly holding down growth.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform [i.e., not elimination] that will begin by simplifying [and not eliminating] the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2008/11/05/ronald-reagan-1975-cpac-speech/


I've made no such claim. The truth is right there for anyone to see.

It certainly is:

Regardless of whether you believe the truth to be fring or not (if you don't agree, you are against "the truth"!)


More proof of just how dopey you are on this subject. You hold the USSR as the only model of socialism that anybody can use as a practical application of socialism. Your "logic" (if we can call it that) seems to follow the line that if we're not in bread lines and trading rubles, then it's not real socialism. You don't have any practical idea of what socialism is. You just seem to know that if it happens in America, then it can't be socialism.

Despite your dopey idea that my theory demands that we conflate the USSR and the United States, it's not the truth. The truth is that I call socialism what it is, regardless of how it's been applied elsewhere in history.


Whoosh! right over the head I guess. I didn't hold the USSR up as "the only model of socialism", you just made that up. I used it as an endpoint on a spectrum, trying to see if you would agree or not that everything in the range I described would be socialist by your open-ended and vague terms. It is beyond dispute that the Scandanavian countries employ socialism, as well as some poorly run third world countries. Nothing I have said would exclude those countries as possibilities.

Yes, my idea is that your theory demands that we conflate those, because the terms you've chosen are broad enough to encompass both. That's not my fault that your theory and terms apply in a way that you don't like, it's up to you to show that they don't, or revise the faulty terms.


Rome was one of the strongest and most prosperous countries in the history of the world. How'd that work out for them?

Pretty f'in well for longer than any other government in the history of the world. You didn't know that? They had taxes too, so they were also socialists though. Shhh, you'd better not say anything positive about them!

Give me an unlimited credit card, and a people dumb enough to pay my bill indefinitely, and I'll show you what prosperous looks like. But then, there's no such thing as people dumb enough tp pay a bill indefinitely. At some point in time, all the spending would catch up to me. And then what?

Nothing about "socialism", nor a mixed economy, requires that incompetent debts be run up. I agree that our fiscal and monetary policy is out of whack, but it doesn't follow that therefore all fiscal or monetary policies would be untenable.


Libertarianism is the foundation that allowed us to become one of the strongest and most prosperous countries in the history of the world. Socialism has taken this and overextended the nation. Regardless of the dog an pony show that is being put on right now, our debt is unsustainable. It's a debt that doesn't belong to the philosophies of "Libertarianism," or even "Republicanism," despite the fact that people calling themselves these things have helped contribute to that debt. I think we both know that the debt that is crushing this country belongs to the cancer that has infected this nation: socialism.

Exactly which great "libertarians" were the ones that established this fondation? What did they do that contributed to our prosperity?

banyon
06-06-2009, 11:58 AM
Ah... More "logical inference," otherwise known in Banyon's case as "making things up." You are poor at the practice of logical inference Banyon. You should abandon the practice until you learn how to do it.

I have always said that a socialist is someone who favors and advocates socialist solutions to problems. This is a fair definition.

Patteeu clearly does not fit this.

It's really endearing how when someone calls you out on a logical fallacy, you call them illogical without addressing the substance of the point that they made. I guess that's the "insult your way to argument victory" school of logic. I applied your terms and your argument and you do nothing to dispel that in this post and then declare victory. You must have a team of chimpanzees in your head spiking footballs on the 10 yard line.

Also, the bolded definition, as I have pointed out to you in the past, is useless as it is circular. It is a weak intellectual practice to use the same word in a term you are trying to define.