PhilO

Is America a Socialist Country?

59 posts in this topic

If the Right's radio personalities are to be believed, centrist Democrats -- I know, ewv :wacko: -- are trying to get Obama to veto the latest "stimulus supplement." Hannity also claimed that there's talk of a 2010 Republican Congress that promises to repeal these knee buckling expenditures. Let's hope both items are more than posturing.
Who knows if they will or won't... It seems like the only time Republicans behave decently is when the Democrats are in office. If they get another president in office, he'll do his best Obama impression for four years, I'm sure (see: George W. Bush). More than anything, I'm shocked at how many Republicans are opposing the stimulus bills by Obama and yet supported Bush's bailouts. It's shocking to see grown men who cannot think -- if they didn't all wear suits you might confuse congress with an assisted living facility. On a similar note, has anyone besides me wondered if you took 100 random Americans if they would make a much better senate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems like the only time Republicans behave decently is when the Democrats are in office. If they get another president in office, he'll do his best Obama impression for four years, I'm sure (see: George W. Bush). More than anything, I'm shocked at how many Republicans are opposing the stimulus bills by Obama and yet supported Bush's bailouts.

The Republicans oppose a Democrat President and support a Republican President. The key is who the Republican President is -- a Reagan or a Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's worth adding that the fact that America is a socialist (or fascist) country does not thereby make the achievement of a large range of values impossible. It is foolish to literally go on strike at the present time. I certainly am not. Nobody should stop trying to maximize their creation of values including starting a family.

But evading the nature of what is, and what is likely to be, will do you as much good as any other evasion. There is a great virtue to identifying the truth, whether it be something nice or great, or something bad. For years many evaded the obvious nature of Alan Greenspan (and some are incredibly *still* doing it, apparently trying to compete with James Taggart.) That had *disastrous* results for the country and bruised the reputation of Objectivism by association, simply because he was not vocally disavowed for years by those who should have known better and acted on it.

In other words, there is no impetus for positive change if you go around pretending that everything is Just Great when it's heading straight over the waterfall and want to focus on how pretty the rainbow is from the approaching mist.

From Henry Holzer's blog on the rise and fall of Alan Greenspan:

Sunday, March 1, 2009

The Alan Greenspan Story: From Objectivist to Statist

...So for year after year, the fallen pro-laissez-faire, anti-statist, Objectivist, Chairman of the Fed, went about pulling on the Fed’s strings, doing the government’s business of “promoting the public good” and “fostering social welfare.”

Repudiating everything he had written, and Rand had sanctioned, in “Gold and Economic Freedom,” Greenspan manipulated the “creation” of “money,” opened and closed the credit valve, and virtually if not actually controlled the economic/financial system of the United States and thus of the world.

And then, finally, at the end of 2008 when the system imploded, Rand’s brilliant acolyte finally confessed . . . and his confession continues: Yes, he was wrong about self-regulating capitalism. Yes, this time laissez-faire didn’t work. Yes, the bailouts were/are necessary. Yes—and that noise you hear is Ayn Rand spinning in her grave—the government must now nationalize banks (in the “public interest, and only “temporarily,” of course).

And with these unrepentant anti-capitalism confessions, Alan Greenspan is nakedly exposed for what he became when first he drank from the inebriating waters of the Washington trough, abandoning not only “Gold and Economic Freedom,” but the moral principles which it implies, and about which he wrote with Rand’s approval those many years ago.

Alan Greenspan is a person whom he, and Ayn Rand, deplored: just another statist.

Full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the Right's radio personalities are to be believed, centrist Democrats -- I know, ewv :wacko: -- are trying to get Obama to veto the latest "stimulus supplement." Hannity also claimed that there's talk of a 2010 Republican Congress that promises to repeal these knee buckling expenditures. Let's hope both items are more than posturing.

(Perhaps the thing to do right now is help Republicans that are talking the talk. Even if they don't win, moving the %s the "right" way may be helpful.)

Apparently some of the less ideological Democrats have been pressured enough by their constituents to back off from whole-hearted support from Obama's radical progressive agenda. There is no sign yet that Obama might veto the budget bill, but Democrats are concerned that they may lose their fillibuster-proof majority on it. That might result in some things being removed, but I don't thihk it's likely to make a substantial change overall, which result would then be passed with some degree of "bipartisanship" ("rule by consensus") after whatever "deals" they are making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently some of the less ideological Democrats have been pressured enough by their constituents to back off from whole-hearted support from Obama's radical progressive agenda. There is no sign yet that Obama might veto the budget bill, but Democrats are concerned that they may lose their fillibuster-proof majority on it. That might result in some things being removed, but I don't thihk it's likely to make a substantial change overall, which result would then be passed with some degree of "bipartisanship" ("rule by consensus") after whatever "deals" they are making.

The silver lining here is that the Dems are meeting resistance. When the consequences of all this spending start to show, a chance for something more than "bipartisanship" may arise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm shocked at how many Republicans are opposing the stimulus bills by Obama and yet supported Bush's bailouts.

The two are not alike.

Obama's plan undoes a good deal of the welfare reform achieved since Reagan, and destroys future productivity in any number of ways. Bush's $350B plan was meant to end a crucial problem caused by Gov. (That banking may collapse was so clear that several politicians tried to sound the alarm.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm shocked at how many Republicans are opposing the stimulus bills by Obama and yet supported Bush's bailouts.

The two are not alike.

Obama's plan undoes a good deal of the welfare reform achieved since Reagan, and destroys future productivity in any number of ways. Bush's $350B plan was meant to end a crucial problem caused by Gov. (That banking may collapse was so clear that several politicians tried to sound the alarm.)

Both involved massive spending with no way to pay it back, but you are right that Obama goes much farther. Bush panicked; Obama has a statist agenda that includes all kinds of changes to law in a collectivist war against capitalism that is being implemented in the name of 'stimulus'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm shocked at how many Republicans are opposing the stimulus bills by Obama and yet supported Bush's bailouts.

The two are not alike.

Obama's plan undoes a good deal of the welfare reform achieved since Reagan, and destroys future productivity in any number of ways. Bush's $350B plan was meant to end a crucial problem caused by Gov. (That banking may collapse was so clear that several politicians tried to sound the alarm.)

Both involved massive spending with no way to pay it back, but you are right that Obama goes much farther. Bush panicked; Obama has a statist agenda that includes all kinds of changes to law in a collectivist war against capitalism that is being implemented in the name of 'stimulus'.

The latest example: it has been reported today that Obama is now claiming that his "health care reform", i.e., government takeover of health care, is "key" to solving the financial crisis. He is insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both involved massive spending with no way to pay it back,

So you don't believe we'll be able to pull about three trillion dollars out of circulation in way that will minimize the inflation inherent in such a dramatic expansion of the money supply? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites