My bull****? Heh, until further notice I am not the one going ape**** about some dark-skinned guy being president of my Nation. Not do you see me having issues understanding the meaning of words and policies. You know like calling the present POTUS socialist and what not.
As I said, you lot do such a great job thinking this over, yet none of you runs for Congress or some Community Organisation. Why is that, being the political studs you are? Lemme guess...
----------Interesting, because last time I checked, social democracy was a type of socialism, and Obama's policies are largely European-style social democracy ideas. But perhaps you really know this little about political science.Not do you see me having issues understanding the meaning of words and policies. You know like calling the present POTUS socialist and what not.
----------You know nothing whatsover about me, but typically you do not hesitate jump right in and make baseless, self-serving assumptions from pure ignorance. I am in fact quite active in the Libertarian Party of Washington State. I help where I can. I have not run for office because I am completely unsuited for politics, and have a full-time job already.As I said, you lot do such a great job thinking this over, yet none of you runs for Congress or some Community Organisation. Why is that, being the political studs you are? Lemme guess...
Of course, your crap on this topic is once again just a diversion from the actual subject here. You cannot refute what I said, so you turn the ad hominem and try to impugn my character. What a cheap, sleazy little rhetorical dance. If you decide to return to actually addressing the issue, I will be here. But if you have nothing more to offer than this sort of sh1t, then you are wasting our time and have de facto ceded the debate.
So.... by that standard George W. Bush was a socialist?
The MMA and all....
Then, seen to his foreign policies, he has been more hawkish then even the previous administration, and haven't really been that socialist peace-loving fair and share humanitarian some people made him out to be (especially in the Nobel committee, which gives me great joy ).
I'd consider my country as much socialist as I consider the US a plutocracy. Which isn't a lot.
Who adjed thr question - "How many people are better off today than 4 years ago?". Still needs to be answered.
reality: Powerful business interests in America continually rely
on a powerful state to intervene on its behalf. The very last
thing they want is un-sheltered exposure to "free" market forces.
No, they want a powerful state to force open foreign markets,
create favorable conditions for trade, subsidize R&D costs, hand
out nice contracts (no-bid preferred), and bail them out with
public money when they lose big—amongst other vital services. Of
course, they pretend to have a hostile relationship with the the
government because they sure don't want the general public cutting
in on their action. So, they promote the myth of mutual hostility,
but it's simple, self-serving propaganda. They have way too nice
an arrngement going on for themselves in regard to the
government. That's especially true now that they practically own
exactly what one would expect. After all, the government is
thoroughly infiltrated by investment bank alumni. It's like
there's a revolving door between the government and the banks
straight across party lines and successive administrations. Also,
bribery in its myriad forms is rampant. Wake the f*ck up, because
it's in the news every day.
As for F & F, they were semi-privatized a long time ago, so you
can stop pretending they're government-only entities—not that it
really makes a difference any more. By the way, in 2006, the banks
started frantically unloading crap mortgages and mortgage-backed
securities onto F & F because they sure as hell didn't want to be
one last ones standing when the music stopped.
functions of commercial banking, investment banking and insurance.
This was done to eliminate the obvious conflicts of interests that
would arise were those functions allowed to merge within single
commercial entities. The banks lobbied relentlessly to get Glass-
Steagall repealed. They succeeded in 1999, and then it was off to
That's exactly why you now have criminal banks like Goldman Sachs
and Morgan Stanley pitching garbage investments to their own
clients, and then turning around and short-betting to profit from
the failure of those same investments once they've off-loaded them
onto the suckers. And those banks straight up paid the privately-
owned ratings agencies to confer triple-A status on the shakiest
of investments. The same rating given to US treasury bonds!
It's also why local mortgage loan originators—who would formerly
have had to hold onto those loans themselves—could now turn around
and sell them to investment banks to be pooled and securitized.
I remember those days well. The banks were emphatically NOT forced
against their will by the government to make bad mortgage loans.
They frantically and relentlessly marketed such loans. They
marketed the sh*t out of them! And that's because they actually
made more money off of people with bad credit. Those people had to
pay higher interest, and that resulted in securities with higher
pay offs and more profit. They no longer had to hold the loans
themselves, so what did they care if they eventually imploded?
What you said is funny though. You hold up private enterprise as
the very model of natural virtue that needs to be freed from the
fetters of the government to be fully vital. Then, you turn around
and say that the private banks can't be blamed for perpetrating
scam and fraud if the government simply lets them. LOL!
The whole thing about banks being "forced" by the government is
cabinet wasn't monolithic in its outlook. Morgenthau was the
resident deficit hawk. It's not exactly surprising he'd say
something like that. Of course, you see him as a "liberal," but to
you Mussolini was probably a liberal, so that doesn't mean a whole
Regardless, it's emphatically NOT true that unemployment was
higher during FDR's administration. Go check the figures while
getting yourself a cracker, professor parrot. In fact, at the
administration's actual 8-year mark (1941), unemployment had
in dumb things then you are dumb; there's a slight difference.
But, c'mon, your incessant need to rely on labels like "liberal",
and your overuse of emoticons speaks for itself.
Get a tissue if you need one.
was sparsely populated and agrarian. But the idea that would be
viable now is a complete joke. We've seen an industrial
revolution, a digital revolution, globalization, and the rise of
multinational corporations since then. It's a different country
and a different world. Maybe you need a kiss from a handsome
prince, sleeping beauty?
Only American-Taliban types hankering after a long-gone,
imaginatively-idealized past could think that such an arrangement
would work now. The corporations certainly don't want that, and
they're the ones calling the shots these days.
where there is truly no government involvement in commercial
activity whatsoever—places like Waziristan and Somalia. If you
think places like that are so great, then why aren't you living
Otherwise, all modern, industrialized societies have heavy
governmental involvement in most aspects of commercial activity.
The only thing that's ever really contested is the question of how
democratically responsive those same governments are their general
Last edited by That One Guy; 06-13-2012 at 04:41 PM.