Welcome to Socialist America

[Nitrogen]

...Brought to you by the current Republican administration.

We're planning on buying into the banks.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081010.wpaulson1011/BNStory/Front

Are you as disgusted as I am?

[Jamisjockey]

...Brought to you by the current Republican administration.

We're planning on buying into the banks.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081010.wpaulson1011/BNStory/Front

Are you as disgusted as I am?

Completely.  FDR would be proud.

[grampster]

...originally brought to you by the current Republican administration
Democrat party and aided and abetted by some Republicans.

We're planning on buying into the banks.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081010.wpaulson1011/BNStory/Front

Are you as disgusted as I am?

There.  I fixed it for you.

[2swap]

Gilith! This is at least better than the option just to throw money to these failing corporations. Or are the shares, the government want to buy preferred shares?

[K Frame]

I'm confused...

How is the government propping up capitalism... socialism?

[MicroBalrog]

I'm confused...

How is the government propping up capitalism... socialism?

Mmm.

Because this is not the government propping up capitalism, this is the government propping up selected capitalists.

[K Frame]

And that's really any different from the government letting contracts in the private sector, SELECTIVELY picking firms to the exclusion of others?

Oh, wait. Silly me.

ANY activity by the government is socialism in action, being driven by creeping hoards of communists whose only goal is to nationalize everything, from private business to private property, and so forth and so on.

Whatever.

Let the pants wetting and diaper loading continue...

[MicroBalrog]

And that's really any different from the government letting contracts in the private sector, SELECTIVELY picking firms to the exclusion of others?

So, do you think it's okay for the government to subsidize farmers, to give one example?

There's a difference between contracting for services the government needs based on the cost and quality of the products - cruise missiles, B-52's, black sunglasses for the Secret Service guys - and corporate welfare.

Note also that you can call a certain action of the government socialist without immediately believing that the Alien Reptiles from Mars are secretly controlling the government.

[Nitrogen]

I guess here's why I have a problem with it.

"Interfering in the markets" in order to get a desired result, such as cleaner air, cars with more MPG, less global warming, more spotted owls or whatever is evil and socialist.  Or am I wrong about this?

"interfering with the markets" in order to prop up a failed financial system is somehow different?

My end game here being that yes, I really do believe that there are little differences between the two political parties these days, and this proves it. 

The only real difference is who they will screw and who their screwing will benefit. 
Democrats are accused of screwing the wealthy in order to give more to others.  This is usually somewhat true
Republicans are accuesd of screwing the poor/middle class in order to give more to the wealthy.  This is also somewhat true. 

[AZRedhawk44]

I was floored by this when I heard this morning.

I still adhere to market-Darwinism.  Bad businesses need to fail.

"Taxpayers" have no business tampering with a publicly traded company, or a privately held company.  The only people that have any business meddling with it are the Board of Directors, Owners and Shareholders.  Period.

I don't accept the premise that the "welfare" clause of the Constitution allows for this behavior.  Also, there are reports that banks that are hesitant or reluctant to accept this money that are being compelled by the government.  They are being forced to accept it under threat of law by Congress.  I take have significant issues with that, if true.

[ArfinGreebly]

Hey.

Look on the bright side.

At least it will have electrolytes.

[Manedwolf]

Hey.

Look on the bright side.

At least it will have electrolytes.

It's what plants crave!

[neviander]

It's a slippery slope folks, I don't see any return...perhaps a slow down, but not a return.

[Nitrogen]

I was floored by this when I heard this morning.

I still adhere to market-Darwinism.  Bad businesses need to fail.

"Taxpayers" have no business tampering with a publicly traded company, or a privately held company.  The only people that have any business meddling with it are the Board of Directors, Owners and Shareholders.  Period.

I don't accept the premise that the "welfare" clause of the Constitution allows for this behavior.  Also, there are reports that banks that are hesitant or reluctant to accept this money that are being compelled by the government.  They are being forced to accept it under threat of law by Congress.  I take have significant issues with that, if true.

The only exception I'd have for this would be utilities, like electricity, water, etc.  Preferably, those things should be run my community co-ops or non-for-profit entities, but you can't always have your own way.
But yeah, I pretty much agree.

[Manedwolf]

The only exception I'd have for this would be utilities, like electricity, water, etc.  Preferably, those things should be run my community co-ops or non-for-profit entities, but you can't always have your own way.
But yeah, I pretty much agree.

So they'd lack funds and skills for water quality testing, the power would fail and you wouldn't get a crew on weekends, etc...?

[longeyes]

They're saving capitalism...by destroying it.

The concepts of risk and accountability are being obliterated, on on those rest the essence of what has been our system, not just in economics but in everything...

The financial mafia has taken over, Constitution be damned.  Bush is their willing errand boy.  Mussolini would be very happy to see his fascistic dream of corporate socialism coming true.

[Nitrogen]

[...] the power would fail and you wouldn't get a crew on weekends, etc...?

Sounds just like my experiences with PG&E when I lived in California, before deregulation.  :rolleyes:

The only real difference that matters between political parties nowadays is who they give away your tax dollars to.

[Waitone]

So feather merchants Paulson and Bernake sold the bailout as a way to offload bad debt.  Those of suspicious mind suspected something else was afoot.

Seems a green treasury official spoke out of turn and said the goal of the bailout was not helping bad loans but to get access to healthy banks.  http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=039554&From=News

You are free to draw your own conclusions.

[Tallpine]

So they'd lack funds and skills for water quality testing, the power would fail and you wouldn't get a crew on weekends, etc...?

Our telephone and electric service are both provided by user owned co-ops which provide reliable and friendly service. :)  (much better than Billings NWE, most of which lost power during the weekend storm)

Water comes from a well, so that is indirectly provided by the electric co-op.

[ArfinGreebly]

Y'know, it strikes me that lying to Congress is a crime of some sort.

It also strikes me that Congress, and others in gov't, can lie without fear of consequences.

And it strikes me that this state of affairs has gotten us to where we are today.

Just speculating . . .

What would happen if lying -- as a member of Congress or other gov't function -- became a felony, punishable by summary removal from said position?

What if, when it became apparent and provable that Joe Senator or Secretary Bob had lied to accomplish some political objective, that a) the law or act or directive immediately became null and void, and b) Senator Joe/Secretary Bob suddently became unemployed and the object of prosecution?

'Cuz the current setup pretty much shields the country's most heinous bad actors from any consequences.

And I'd like to see that changed.

[AZRedhawk44]

'Cuz the current setup pretty much shields the country's most heinous bad actors from any consequences.

And I'd like to see that changed.

I'm sure your Senator, elected Representative and President (along with his Cabinet) would be very excited to put that legislation into action and enforce it with due consideration, responsibility and professional courtesy.

Soap/Ballot boxes seem to be broken lately.

[seeker_two]

Soap/Ballot boxes seem to be broken lately.

Not to mention respect for the law by our gov't officials.....how long until us commoners take the same attitude to their laws?....

[ArfinGreebly]

I would be interested in seeing what kind of answer would be had from such a question.

"Senator, you lads in Washington don't seem to be interested in compliance with the Constitution and its directly derived laws.  At what point to you believe the public, realizing your disdain for the most senior law of the land, will elect to ignore the laws your outlaw Congress enacts today?  Or do you simply plan to use martial law to enforce compliance with your arbitrary laws?"

[Otherguy Overby]

I still adhere to market-Darwinism.  Bad businesses need to fail.

Wouldn't it work better to say bad government needs to fail?

[AZRedhawk44]

Wouldn't it work better to say bad government needs to fail?

Bad government ALWAYS fails.  Problem is, bad government always ends bloody when it fails spectacularly.  Bad business usually doesn't.

Keeping this bad business makes it less likely for things to resemble... pureed raspberries.