The "O" in Socialism

Just recently, things were looking up for socialism. In April, a much-discussed Rasmussen poll reported that only 53 percent of Americans expressed a preference for capitalism. The poll didn't define either system, so one could surmise that the right's desperate strategy of branding a popular Democratic president as a "socialist" had backfired: If Obama's a socialist, then a good number of the 69 percent of Americans who viewed the President favorably were apparently ready to sign up. Perhaps this new openness to alternatives wasn't deep, but it seemed promising.

Now, the Obama=socialist meme, which was once just laughable, has gone viral.

It's still hard to take it very seriously, given how far Obama's policies are from even the mildest form of social democracy--recall how he explicitly rejected the idea that the United States should emulate Sweden's highly effective response to its early 90s financial meltdown, when it overcame the crisis by nationalizing the banks.

Still, the ludicrous notion has traction. The other day, Alaska governor Sarah Palin ripped Obama on Fox News for leading the nation toward socialism through "nationalizing many of our services, our projects, our businesses." The RNC went so far as to declare that "the Democratic Party is dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals."

The GM takeover was a tipping point. For the right, "Government Motors" is the smoking gun, definitive proof of Obama's heretofore secret radical leftist agenda. The "New GM" is the target of a boycott spearheaded by right-wing radio bloviator Hugh Hewitt, who declared, "I won't buy a socialist car." Rush Limbaugh, who flirted with the boycott before disavowing it, fumed, "This guy came into office with an agenda, a pure socialist agenda, and he's implementing it without regard for current economic circumstances."

But what's really going on with the GM nationalization -- just as in the bank bailout -- is more akin to corporate statism than socialism. In order to qualify for federal help, GM had to "slim down"-- 21,000 GM workers will receive pink slips in the wake of this so-called rescue, and the UAW was forced to swallow painful concessions. It's not as if this occasion is being used to facilitate a real transition to a worker-friendly green economy, converting auto factories to production facilities for wind turbines, solar panels, light rail, etc. Sure, there are murmurs about fuel efficiency, but as Obama himself said, the goal is "to get GM back on its feet, take a hands-off approach and get out quickly." He wouldn't even take a position on whether the corporate headquarters should remain in Detroit. This is no socialist plot: it is a company bailout.

When the dust settles, the Big Three might still be standing, but Michigan will probably still face the highest unemployment rate in the nation (currently 12.7 percent and rising).

So, one might ask, from the right's standpoint, what's not to like? After all, if conservatives didn't mind the crony capitalism of the Bush era, they shouldn't bridle at the GM bailout. The Republican hysteria that greeted the takeover was less about substance than partisan pushback: If Obama's for it, they're against it, because what else are they going to say?

More insidious, and significant, is how the business lobby has used the GM controversy to fuel its campaign against government regulation of any kind. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is poised to punish the Obama administration for so much as thinking aloud about reining in the private sector. The silly GM boycott is a sideshow: the real assault is emanating from the Chamber, which just announced that it will spend $100 million on a "Campaign for Free Enterprise" to stem the "rapidly growing influence of government over private sector activity."

The Chamber has in its sights the financial regulations set to be unveiled next week (being weakened by the minute), as well as the public healthcare option--a.k.a., Obama's "socialized healthcare" proposal. To Karl Rove, writing in the Wall Street Journal, the threat posed by the public option is dire: "If Democrats enact a public-option health-insurance program, America is on the way to becoming a European-style welfare state. " If that happens, he predicts, "our nation will be changed in damaging ways almost impossible to reverse."

Actually, there is lively debate among progressives about that very question. Some harbor hope that the public plan will lead to more comprehensive reform; others doubt that it can be used to pry open the door to single-payer. But few sane observers would dispute that the modest public plan is a far cry from universal, national healthcare -- the kind of system that would produce better health outcomes for less spending across the board by cutting out the profit motive altogether. The kind of, yes, socialized system that people might actually like.

If the right succeeds in rebranding corporate-friendly Democrats as the revolutionary vanguard -- and if the Obama administration continues to cave into corporate pressure to water down its weak-tea reforms -- we could see the opposite effect from the one that appeared so encouragingly in the Rasmussen poll result: Obama and the Dems could give socialism a bad name.

Comments (122)

1. Regardless of whether it's socialism, some of what Obama's doing is plainly unconstitutional. The Executive Branch (whether Obama himself, or Bush, or Paulsen, or Geithner) does not by any stretch of the imagination have the authority to bring executives into a White House office and say "you're not leaving until you sign these papers." Or to replace an executive they don't like with one they do.

   The idea that Obama isn't making moves to assert substantial control over the public sector is plainly ludicrous.

   There's a reason that the initial bailouts were through legislation passed by Congress. If it's done, that's how it's supposed to happen.

   Posted by Thrawn at 06/12/2009 @ 3:55pm

2. REED: "....The "New GM" is the target of a boycott spearheaded by Rush Limbaugh......Rush's silly GM boycott is a sideshow...."

   Ms. Reed, per your BIO, you're the Executive Editor, certainly sounds like a higher position than Ms. KvH - Editor.....Yet, why do you pen flat out LIES wrt Rush concerning GM?

   For the record: GM has been a sponsor of his show forever and he personally drives GM products!

   What Rushbo said on his show was that he CAN understand why some folks (like myself who owned a Chevy pickup) would boycott GM products.....NOT that he was encouraging such boycotts.

   Posted by Happy at 06/12/2009 @ 4:04pm

3. REED: "If Obama's a socialist, then a good number of the 69 percent of Americans who viewed the President favorably were apparently ready to sign up."

   You surely like David Letterman, that means you must be ready to "sign up" for blatant sexism and banging of teenage girls......of course, I meant jokes!

   I'd be HAPPY to bang your girls in Yankee/Met/Any Stadium.....younger the better....oh, don't know what you look like...maybe some hot Desperate Housewives? LOL (just joking....surely you libs and feminists can take jokes)!

   Posted by Happy at 06/12/2009 @ 4:10pm

4. What Rushbo said on his show was that he CAN understand why some folks (like myself who owned a Chevy pickup) would boycott GM products.....NOT that he was encouraging such boycotts.

   Posted by Happy at 06/12/2009 @ 4:04pm

   Happy, even you must understand that the REASON Rush didn't go along with the boycott is because he would piss off GM...a sponsor (so you yourself say), of his program. Probably to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

   The number one truth in broadcasting: Thou shalt not piss off the sponsors.

   Rush didn't say what he said out of anything other than pure selfishness...which is what ALWAYS motivates Rush.

   Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/12/2009 @ 4:45pm

5. Enough already with the handwringing over the use of the term socialism. Everyone knows that the right throws that term out as innuendo, but when you asks people to define what they mean by it they stumble and find that it is not as black-and-white as it seems. Stop playing the Right's game and start defining the term when you use it. Use the term often but define it when you use it. When someone throws it out there, make thing explain what the mean by it or whether there are acceptable exceptions. Stop giving the Right ammunition by addressing their use of the term in articles such as these. Redefine the terms of the debate to suit our purpose.

   Posted by atheh at 06/12/2009 @ 4:50pm

6. "The Executive Branch (whether Obama himself, or Bush, or Paulsen, or Geithner) does not by any stretch of the imagination have the authority to bring executives into a White House office and say "you're not leaving until you sign these papers." Or to replace an executive they don't like with one they do."

   if i give you a loan, and you sign the loan, and thereby agree to its terms and conditions, don't have i have the authority to take certain actions if you don't abide by those terms and conditions?

   are you saying there isn't enough transparency?

   and what exactly is unconstitutional about what obama is doing?

   and please, no sarasm from others, i'm asking a serious question. and i have been very critical of obama since he took office.

   i begrudgingly voted for him anyways...

   Posted by darladoon at 06/12/2009 @ 5:09pm

7. 'Regardless of whether it's socialism, some of what Obama's doing is plainly unconstitutional. The Executive Branch ... does not by any stretch of the imagination have the authority to bring executives into a White House office and say "you're not leaving until you sign these papers." Or to replace an executive they don't like with one they do.'

   Maybe the White House doesn't have these powers exactly, but there are bankruptcy laws, aren't there, "Thrawn"? And the President can threaten to apply these laws to corporations that obviously WOULD be bankrupt without HUGE amounts of government money. If he seriously made these threats, I'm sure the heads of certain failed corporations would willingly agree to make some more concessions to the public interest. If not, I believe their shareholders would happily fire them.

   President Obama is being FAR too lenient with some of the worst screw-ups in corporate history. He needs to make some sterner demands of them when he lends out taxpayers' money.

   The most bankrupt thing of all is the "trickle-down" theory, of which Obama himself is still an ideological prisoner. This is why he believes you solve economic problems by giving the richest people more money to play with, while requiring them to do nothing more than "inspire confidence." This is like the notion that you water a plant by drenching its rotting blooms, rather than its starving roots.

   This is why it is laughable to suggest that Obama is a socialist. True, some of his expenditures truly do benefit people who are needy, and true, he has levied some slightly higher taxes from the very rich. But these expenditures are dwarfed by the financial bailout. This is pure plutocracy, and does not differ in the slightest from what a Republican president would do.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 06/12/2009 @ 5:19pm

8. Socialism? Where all major sectors of private space are co-opted by government/public institutions...

   We have the flip side.

   All major sectors of public domain co-opted by the private sector.

   -C--O--R--P--O--R--A--T--O--C--R--A--C--Y-

   Poison in the air, water, airwaves. The powerful upper tier control the resources, enjoy the percs. Perpetuate the myth of rugged individualism on the corporate media, which oppressed 'working class whites' ingest with dittohead vigor.

   High fructose, huh Frosty?

   Posted by winyahn at 06/12/2009 @ 5:30pm

9. The number one truth in broadcasting: Thou shalt not piss off the sponsors.

   Rush didn't say what he said out of anything other than pure selfishness...which is what ALWAYS motivates Rush.

   Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/12/2009 @ 4:45pm

   The "truth" you cite, is well known and respected by capitalists.......call it "selfishness" if you prefer.....but your beloved ally, the MSM (which Rush now calls the State Media) has developed the rather suicidal habit of to "piss off the sponsors" and a huge portion of their customers.....delightful!

   Posted by Happy at 06/12/2009 @ 6:06pm

10. posted by BETSY REED on 06/12/2009 @ 3:48pm

    I agree with so much of what you wrote ... but please keep in mind that the US Chamber of Commerce is currently operating under *Democrat* Gary Locke. Now, Locke was an abysmal governor of Washington State, previously - famed for attacking the state's unemployment insurance system *during the depths of the dot-com recession* at the demand of Boeing and other corporations in the state - and apparently due to his big business support, Obama made him Secretary of Commerce.

    And if the USCoC is participating in the insidious attempt to frame any reform as "socialism" creeping or otherwise, it is being driven in the public sector by big business crony and supposed "liberal" Democrat from the Left Coast, Gary Locke.

    This in and of itself - an Obama appointee chosen for his big business ties driving the "reform is socialism" media campaign from USCoC - ought to be enough to disabuse anyone of the notion that Obama is a "socialist". Beyond that, though, you really shouldn't blame all of the PR campaign framing any reform as "socialism" purely on Republicans or right-wing loons. There are plenty of Big Name Left Coast Democrats involved as well -

    Posted by syfriendly at 06/12/2009 @ 6:43pm

11. Posted by Happy at 06/12/2009 @ 6:06pm

    Happy,

    I actually LIKE capitalism. However, unregulated capitalism of the sort bandied about by Ronald "Trickle-Down" Reagan and unleashed by Phil "NO Regulations...EVER!" Gramm, is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. (And yes, the Dems bought into it too, much to their disgrace.) It certainly wasn't Obama or anything considered even vaguely "socialist." Unregulated capitalism assumes that everyone has an equal starting point (which we all know is untrue for a REAL society) and favors those already on the top of the pile. Well, if those on the top are selfish pigs, then unregulated capitalism will destroy a society as quickly and cleanly as a purely communist society, because human nature is what it is. For an historical example of this, I would recommend any book on the economic reasons for the Great Depression. Compare the 1920's to the 2000's and you'll see that unrestrained capitalism was almost entirely at fault. Both times.

    Balance is needed in all things for the good of the society, because ANY "ism" (communism, socialism, capitalism) that is unregulated or that doesn't contain counterbalances, will crumble.

    And as for the MSM, I would highly recommend the book of one of the other regular contributors to The Nation (Eric Alterman) who wrote "What Liberal Media?" In it, you'll find all sorts of fun and exciting FACTS about who really controls the "media." HINT: is sure ain't the libruls. ANOTHER HINT: Rush and all the righty talkers know it.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/12/2009 @ 6:52pm

12. Karl Rove, our infant king, ( his uncle Rush is the regent) would appear to be an unlikely spokesman to announce the disintegration of any system, be it of the right or left.

    For someone who looks like he's carefully tucked in every night with a glass of warm milk & a rubber duck, a hissing vaporizer at the foot of his bed, only the sycophantic, worshipful right could glean anything from this footed pajama wearing inspiration for a classic Rod Serling episode.

    Posted by Sorelish at 06/12/2009 @ 9:45pm

13. <i>Posted by darladoon at 06/12/2009 @ 5:09pm </i>

    What you're describing is perfectly reasonable, but they (both Bush administration and Obama administration) went farther than that. It's not that they said "OK, you've received this loan, now we expect you to abide by the terms and conditions." It's also not "you will probably go bankrupt unless you sign this paper." It's "you will sign the papers to take this loan, and you're not leaving this room until you do." That's mind-numbingly unconstitutional.

    Moreover, to the extent that there is vast loaning of money involved, the President doesn't get to do it. That's Congress' scope of authority. He certainly doesn't get to handpick the leadership of a corporation.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/12/2009 @ 10:02pm

14. .....unregulated capitalism of the sort.....Unregulated capitalism assumes that everyone has an equal starting point (which we all know is untrue for a REAL society) and favors those already on the top of the pile....unregulated capitalism will destroy.....unrestrained capitalism....

    .....ANY "ism" (...capitalism) that is unregulated....

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/12/2009 @ 6:52pm

    What country are you talking about? "Unregulated capitalism", I mean.

    In my country, the US of A that is, we have the Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Labor, Dept. of Treasury, Fed. Reserve, FDIC, FASB (accounting), NYSE, NASDAQ, Amer. Stock Exchange, the EPA and countless other `bean counter' type agencies big and small, at the Fed., State, County, City levels.......you may want to educate yourself as to what they are SUPPOSED to do.

    Oh, not to be left out, is the State Media....always so reliable in recent years slitting their own throats by finding "unregulated capitalism" behind every sob story......and you believe them.....LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 06/12/2009 @ 10:35pm

15. Socialism, capitalism- democracy, republic? Sure, words have meaning, but when they are muddled together to demonstrate a point (or spread a fear) to the masses, does the meaning really matter? The ignorance of citizens in this country and our ability to blindly follow "our party" are probably the two biggest reasons we're in this hole. We are all just sheep waiting for the slaughter.

    Posted by qaFrank at 06/12/2009 @ 10:50pm

16. Posted by Thrawn at 06/12/2009 @ 10:02pm

    When were the auto companies "forced" to sign?

    I seem to remember them begging for the money.

    Same with the banks.

    What a lot of people seem to forget is that these industries ASKED for govt bailouts and then accepted the loose restrictions imposed as conditions for the money. If this is socialism, it is an 'ism the corporations took on voluntarily.

    ---

    Posted by Happy at 06/12/2009 @ 10:35pm

    What were the regulations on credit default swaps and derivative markets?

    Slim to none.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/13/2009 @ 12:12am

17. Don't forget, Obama is going to take your guns and force you to pray to Muhammad.

    It's all there, if you know where to look.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/13/2009 @ 12:13am

18. The Heavy Hand of over burdensome regulation strikes again (like ENRON)

    "An investigation into the accident reveals layers of failures: the Tennessee state government didn't control how the TVA handled its ash waste, and the Environmental Protection Agency failed to heed its own scientific warning about coal ash hazards. It shows how the Obama administration has moved to fill in where past administrations have left a void, including, in one case, releasing a study linking coal ash to health problems that was supressed by the Bush administration. "-The Nation

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/13/2009 @ 12:17am

19. Don't forget, Obama is going to take your guns and force you to pray to Muhammad.

    It's all there, if you know where to look.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/13/2009 @ 12:13am |

    That would probably make him a Christian anti-Muslim terrorist Crabs, as you well know. Allah would not be pleased with such blasphemy at all. Is it possible it's all there, if you know where to look, said he is a Catholic Muslim. That sort would not be so fussy about who they pray to.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/13/2009 @ 04:15am

20. Posted by Thrawn at 06/12/2009 @ 3:55pm

    Of course he does. It's called the last argument of kings. If you are commander-in-chief, what you say goes. It applies to the Louisiana Purchase, to "trust-busting", to twisting the arm of industry, and other things.

    Posted by atheh at 06/12/2009 @ 4:50pm

    Look up the differences between "hacker" and "cracker". Now, tell me how many times you've seen cracker in media accounts of criminal computer activity. You have the same problem with socialism.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/12/2009 @ 5:09pm

    The new myth is that banks were told they had to take the loan, even though they didn't want it. Let's forget the fact that the whole move was a magicians trick to try to restore confidence in fundamentally unsound banks.

    Everyone knows what works in these situations. You nationalize the banks. You put the bad assets on the government balance sheet. You then re-privatize the now good banks. The problem in our country is that no one has the balls to do it, and the result will be continuing weakness in the financial sector.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/12/2009 @ 10:02pm

    Try the link below. It explains why your argument is bad.

    http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13829437

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/12/2009 @ 6:52pm

    Eric Alterman? Isn't he the guy that writes "Music Reviews for Old Dudes" on The Nation?

    If you want media analysis or discussion of media issues, recommend Robert W. McChesney or fair.org.

    Posted by Happy at 06/12/2009 @ 10:35pm

    Compared to many places in the world, our system is unregulated. But, thankful we do have some regulation, which makes it possible to people to go to restuarants and have reasonable assurance the cook isn't killing rats with a spatula in the back.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2009 @ 07:00am

21. It is impossible to discuss "socialism" assuming that it has ever been and still is a unitarian political, social, and economic movement. There are light years of difference between Marx, Lenin, and August Bebel to name just a few. The most successful "socialist brand" has been the modern social democracy which is best described as regulated capitalism. Even this variant has taken on different forms in different countries.

    If modern "socialism" is regulated capitalism then our country has become very mildly social democratic with the "New Deal" of FDR.

    The notion that the Obama administration is trending towards a "Corporate State" a la Salazar, Franco, Mussolini, or Hitler is nonsense. In Corporate States workers and entrepreneurs were forced to become members of their respective national organizations, "or else".

    Every system of production, distribution, and consumption beginning with hunting-gathering that man has devised has eventually perished, most likely when the population density of the "clan/nation" became too high. There is no historical evidence to support the notion that "capitalism" in any form will survive also. In fact, it is my opinion that we have entered a transition period already. I have no idea what will emerge.

    Posted by DieterHeymann at 06/13/2009 @ 07:39am

22. "Just recently, things were looking up for socialism"

    The opening line of this article betrays what is really going on. The typical sequence is for some right wing individual to use the s-word, then a leftist claims paranoia, no such thing is happening, you don't know the definition, it will never happen, and why fear it at all, look at Europe it is good for you!

    But, behind all the leftist dismissal, if you squeeze your eyes and look carefully, if you listen, if you watch the body language in a face to face conversation, the progressive REALLY wants socialism. They just don't want you to know they want it! If they keep you from being afraid, maybe you wojn't notice the slow creep and strangulation of all freedom that their fantasy entails.

    So every time a progressive says don't worry, you'd better do just that!

    Posted by sntauri at 06/13/2009 @ 09:52am

23. Good Morning or afternoon LR. I see that Iraqs form of democracy is going strong this week:

    "BAGHDAD (AP) -- The head of Iraq's main Sunni parliamentary bloc was killed in a bold daylight attack after delivering a sermon during Friday prayers at a mosque in western Baghdad...

    ...At least four other people, including a worshipper, were killed and several others were wounded"

    I suppose, by your standards, this is actually a success because the assassin was killed.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/13/2009 @ 10:02am

24. So every time a progressive says don't worry, you'd better do just that!

    Posted by sntauri at 06/13/2009 @ 09:52am

    Is that anything like cons telling us about wmd's, Obama taking our guns, Christianity being outlawed, Georgia ammunition suppliers being shut down by Obama (from actual email-" Obama going after the Firearms Industry and our ammunition!! If you're not outraged at what this administration is doing you should be! Be Afraid! Be Very Very Afraid! Get involved! It's Your Freedom and Our Country They're Stealing! If You Fail to Act Now, there may not be a Free United States tomorrow!"), ordering a "swordless graduation at Annapolis, or a $50/gun tax,

    Does The Nation speak for ALL progressives now?

    Remember SNTAURI, BE AFRAID!! Say it , live it.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/13/2009 @ 10:26am

25. Posted by Happy at 06/12/2009 @ 10:35pm

    Compared to many places in the world, our system is unregulated.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2009 @ 07:00am

    Compared to many places where capitalism is MORE regulated, we are ahead of them, in some cases WAY AHEAD, in providing the highest standard of living for the largest number of people......think less `restrained' entrepreneurship may be one huge benefit of less regulations?

    As it is, as someone who had owned a business with flesh-and-blood FT employees, I'll never do it again directly; especially since `regulations' have only grown even more onerous.

    Hey, min. wage goes up to $7.25 in July....perfect remedy for a sagging job market!

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 10:50am

26. Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 10:50am

    Well now... you can raise rents across the board. And the disgusting thought of replacing all those working families who were laid off because of the wage hike with section eighters will be your only option.

    They're forcing you to conspire in the socialist takeover! Will your pride allow you to go along with this? For g-ds sake man, fight back! Liquidate your holdings & flee to the Caymans!

    Posted by Sorelish at 06/13/2009 @ 11:34am

27. It's amazing to me that very few of you making comments actually understand what the words democratic, socialism, and freedom actually mean. There are only two basic types of government available to humans: 1. Individual rights are primary (freedom) the system that was left to us by our founders 2. the rights of the group, the collective, the government, are primary (dictatorship) Those representing the second include: Socialism, fascism, Monarchies, military, and civilian dictatorships. The question is this: DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A DICTATORSHIP - OF ANY KIND? Even a BENEVOLENT one? If you said yes, I feel sorry for you. Because you are a pathetic, spineless human being. Oh, I almost forgot: freedom and democracy are not synonymous.In fact they are not even compatible. Democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Marx called it the dictatorship of the proletariat. Our founders understood this. That's why they set up a representative republic. Again, it all boils down to individual freedom. If you'd like to get a more in depth analysis of this, read my book: RELENTLESS: The Socialist Attack On American Freedom. You can order it at Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com, and at the publisher's website. simply google: Krigbaum-Relentless and you'll find the link.

    Posted by Relentless at 06/13/2009 @ 12:12pm

28. Posted by Relentless at 06/13/2009 @ 12:12pm

    You need to go back and read more political science. Our founders were classical liberals putting into practice the ideas of people like Locke and formed a republic.

    A republic and a democracy are not the same, and the reason why they went with a republic is because split representative government based on different branches and levels - state and federal, provided more protections for the rights of minorities. It is not a democracy nor is it primarily concerned with the rights of individuals. There is a reason the Bill of Rights was tacked on at the end - and it is not because they were central to the government being formed when the Constitution was ratified.

    There is also a difference between monarchy and dictatorship, just as there are differences between monarchy and oligarchy and democracies and republics. The notion of individual rights versus collectivism is probably one of the worst ways to segment government systems. Empirically, no government puts a premium on individual rights. The state, by definition, is in conflict with the individual. This is the central insight of anarchist opposition to states. You should read up on it - particularly Proudhon's critique of entitlements to land and capital that is invariably supported by the state.

    Also, if you want to market your book, you should try doing it in forums where people agree with your bad analysis. Also, you might want to downplay your relationship with Alan Keyes - any association with him pretty much is a sign you are a kook.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2009 @ 12:31pm

29. Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 10:50am

    Prove it. Define standard of living and what metrics you are using by way of comparison. You say this because you believe it is true.

    I know someone that tries a variation of this tactic. He tries, "Show me a better country." The fact that "better" is subjective and it suggests the person who tries is unpatriotic.

    So, if I say that that Singapore has a infant mortality rate that is almost a 3rd of that of the United States or come up with some combination of metrics to get at quality of life or standard of living that indicates that the USA is not the best, it leads to either "Why don't you move there" or some kind of whining about the metric being used.

    I can agree that there is unnecessary regulation. I can agree that government is a problem. But, where I disagree is when people try to argue that the "market" regulates itself. It doesn't. It needs regulation. So, the standard argument of less regulation is "better" is wrong. Therefore, you need to talk about specific regulations that need to be changed - and in what way.

    But the bottom line is most free market fundamentalists don't have the nuanced of a view and just hold tight to the notion that less is more. Less causes financial meltdowns like we are currently experiencing and leads to snake oil "businessman".

    One example: the restaurant industry. Explain how more deregulation doesn't lead to more unsanitary conditions, more illness, more people eating poop.

    That's exactly what happens. So, you need to offer something a little better than we need to deregulate everything. That doesn't get it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2009 @ 12:49pm

30. Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2009 @ 12:49pm

    I note you skirted my point of "the highest standard of living for the largest number of people" and digress to statistics under the general banner of "quality of life" such as infant mortality.

    Here, let me further strengthen my point and add: The US has proven to have achieved the the highest standard of living for the largest number of people AND for the most diverse society.

    You can easily refute me by presenting just one other country (with a more regulated form of capitalism) that has the same magnitude of population, say in excess of 100 million and where the dominant race is less than 70%.

    The Left never did accept American Exceptionalism and eventually, you may succeed.....wouldn't it be ironic someday this century, the world will be staring up at Chinese Exceptionalism?

    Just remember, there are only a handful of populous countries capable of assuming the mantle we've held--and I hope will be held for the balance of my lifetime.

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 1:34pm

31. ....where I disagree is when people try to argue that the "market" regulates itself. It doesn't. It needs regulation.....Less causes financial meltdowns like we are currently experiencing...

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2009 @ 12:49pm

    The "market" is brutally good at regulating itself and when it fails, it does so precisely because of regulations which distort the normal risks/rewards of such markets. I'm not saying that there will ever be a stop to intentional frauds (the Madoffs type) but I believe other types of meltdowns, such as Enron, are as attributable to smart folks trying to outfox regulations as it is to outright fraud.

    You can't tell me that when Jeff Skilling and Andrew Fastow (both exceptionally intelligent by all acount) first began using off-book entities to hide debt, they did so out of outright fraud. They did it to offset accounting `regulations' then in place in order to gain a competitive edge....then things start to spin out-of-control.

    Same as with Michael Milken w/junk bonds.....a critically important piece of corporate financing invented to circumvent the `regulations' imposed on banks and other financial entities that were/are prohibited from buying below certain grade bonds.

    We can argue back and forth all day....regulations create the natural instinct for smart people to skirt them.....just as some folks want to hack computers....the more secure, the greater challenge.

    I believe that regulations, by nature reactionary, will never win over the long haul....unless you totally stifle the human spirit to scale that next mountain......and even then, that type of system will fail after some period (see collapse of the Soviet Union).

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 1:50pm

32. One example: the restaurant industry. Explain how more deregulation doesn't lead to more unsanitary conditions, more illness, more people eating poop.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2009 @ 12:49pm

    Given the restaurant industry is regulated pretty heavily, can you shed light to just one simple question: Why do we STILL have plenty of dirty restaurants?

    Suppose you & your Indian wife go to a restaurant and you see inspected stickers right on the front door......would you be more impressed with that or what you observed to be sloppy handling of food, employees NOT washing their hands leaving, dried food crud on your silverware? Do you think inspectors are not prone to corruption?

    Do you not think that more regulations automatically raise the prospect of more corruptions, some of it even legal in the form of lobbying?

    Conservatives understand that a modern, complex society must have some level of regulations meant to create a minimum standard all players must meet.......such as bank reserve level.....that's no different than a swim meet where all start at the same starting block and men compete against men.

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 2:05pm

33. If we lowered the min wage to $1.00, would they suddenly hire thousands of employees? Uh, no.

    Posted by snowball666 at 06/13/2009 @ 12:23pm

    Lowering the min wage to $1.00 is about the same as eliminating it altogether and some people will respond to offers to work at new jobs that didn't exist at $7.25.

    Look at it this way: you have a newborn......and let's assume babysitters fall under min. wage laws today (I'm not sure in reality)....AND you fall into that great middle in family income of $50~$100k, some short-term debt, car loan(s) and a mortgage....imagine how paying $7.25 an hour (mandated) or paying $5.00 an hour (the amount it takes to motive your forgiving niece to do it) would affect you, the employer, as far as staying out 2 hours or 5 hours. Further, what if in Berkeley, the min. `living' wage is $10.00 an hour?

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 2:20pm

34. We can argue back and forth all day....regulations create the natural instinct for smart people to skirt them.....just as some folks want to hack computers....the more secure, the greater challenge.

    I believe that regulations, by nature reactionary, will never win over the long haul....unless you totally stifle the human spirit to scale that next mountain......and even then, that type of system will fail after some period (see collapse of the Soviet Union).

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 1:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    If regulations are so necessary and MORE regulations are a panacea why is it that the most successful highest monetary return "cons" are the same old ones that have been around for hundreds of years? That is what they can never control.

    Ditto the genuis of raising minimum wages as job loss blosooms into depression era numbers...the usual idiots support it!

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/13/2009 @ 5:35pm

35. Obamanomics, its not just for California anymore! Next the Obamanation that makes desolation will be selling the national park system and BLM land to fund his socialist dreamland!

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/13/2009 @ 5:39pm

36. Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 1:34pm

    "The US has proven to have achieved the the highest standard of living for the largest number of people AND for the most diverse society... say in excess of 100 million and where the dominant race is less than 70%."

    This shows the problem of conflating your beliefs for facts. There are exactly 11 nations with populations greater than 100 million: China, India, United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Russia, Japan and Mexico. If you account for population over the next 10 years, maybe you include the the Philippines and Vietnam.

    So, we essentially have a rigged game. Fine.

    I haven't done a deep analysis, but I think it is just as plausible to argue that how well off any of these nations are has something to with their population densities, arable land and natural resources - than their economic model. It certainly has something to do with why Japan, which imports much of its raw materials isn't obviously more well off than the United States. Japan also never bought into US style capitalism, which can be seen by the importance of the keiretsu as a business organization.

    So even in the terms you have defined, you argument is dubious - when you look at the facts for a second rather than relying on your beliefs.

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 1:50pm

    Regulations mean that the dumb people get caught before they have a chance to cause major problems. It's not a perfect solution, but it is better than society as circus.

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 2:05pm

    Again, I'm not arguing government regulation is perfect. I'm arguing it is necessary. It plucks the low hanging fruit, if you will.

    I'm against government. Period. But, if you are going to have it, have it do something useful.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2009 @ 5:44pm

37. Yea, Obamanation and the Demoncrats are doing a "bang up job" with the nation and world economy!

    "This U.S. protectionist policy is hurting Canadian firms, costing Canadian jobs, and damaging Canadian efforts to grow our economy in the midst of a worldwide recession," Federation president and Sherbrooke, Quebec, Mayor Jean Perrault told Reuters.

    The scene is equally grim south of the border.

    Obama's $410 billion omnibus spending plan defunded a pilot program in which about 100 Mexican trucks were allowed to drive goods into the U.S. beyond a 25-mile frontier zone. American trucks were given equal access to Mexican destinations. Removing goods from one country's trucks and reloading them onto the other nation's vehicles for onward travel has boosted transit costs anew. These eventually increase price tags.

    Mexico correctly argues that the North American Free Trade Agreement, which President Clinton signed, opened U.S. roads to Mexican trucks in 1995. Exasperated by Washington's 14 years of foot dragging, including 2002's imposition of 22 safety regulations on Mexican (but not Canadian) trucks, Mexico slapped tariffs on 90 American exports worth $2.4 billion, including grapes and toilet paper. This reportedly killed 40,000 American jobs. Mexico's backlash against U.S. protectionism interrupted its unilateral reduction of average industrial tariffs from 10.4 percent in 2008 to 4.2 percent in 2013.

    Even worse, June 1 brought word that Canacar -- an association of 4,500 Mexican trucking companies -- filed a grievance seeking $6 billion in damages from Washington, due to the pilot program's termination and the resulting brick wall that arose between big rigs at the border.

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/13/2009 @ 5:50pm

38. "We want reciprocity," Canacar attorney Pedro Ojeda told the Wall Street Journal. "The U.S. has notoriously not kept its commitments."

    Democrats claim Mexican trucks are dangerous. However, the Arizona Republic found that between 2003 and 2007, 1.2 percent of Mexican truckers in America were non-compliant with safety rules, versus 7 percent of U.S. drivers. Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico's ambassador to Washington, counts 45,000 border crossings by U.S. and Mexican trucks "without any significant incident or accident."

    "Mexico has been the grown up in this dispute," says Dan Griswold of Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies. "Our truck-ban is just an exercise in raw power based on a stereotype of Mexicans."

    Beyond anti-Mexican bias, the bigger issue here is that Democrats are the Teamsters' hit men. Since 1990, according to OpenSecrets.org, the truckers' union has donated $26,877,454 to federal candidates, 93 percent to Democrats. It also endorsed Obama early. The Teamsters simply purchased protection from its Mexican competitors from the best parliament and president money can buy. If this hikes costs for U.S. consumers, shrinks markets for American exporters, and creates new pitfalls in U.S.-Mexican relations, who cares? No matter what, Washington's whores put out."

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/13/2009 @ 5:52pm

39. SRJ: So even in the terms you have defined, you argument is dubious - when you look at the facts for a second rather than relying on your beliefs.

    Yo: My fact of the US having done the best for the greatest number of people vs. your listing 10 countries of similar pop. magnitude but unable to name one country that best us....how does that make my argument (a fact not subject to argument anymore, with your help) "dubious"? Isn't my "belief" exactly factual as they are, and it's YOU that's contorting your belief against my fact?

    SRJ: Regulations mean that the dumb people get caught before they have a chance to cause major problems. It's not a perfect solution, but it is better than society as circus.

    Yo: Didn't work w/Fannie & Freddie.....lots of folks and enablers willing to play the Liar's Loan Game and/or the No-Money Down Call Option on Fabulous Appreciation Game....unless you don't think they left "major problems" behind.

    SRJ: Again, I'm not arguing government regulation is perfect. I'm arguing it is necessary.

    Yo: We do have some level of agreement, as I did say "Conservatives understand that a modern, complex society must have some level of regulations..."

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 6:49pm

40. Regulations are not the problem: lack of enforcement (Hi Dubya!) is the problem and it is often related to our tendency to have wolves guard our hens.

    Posted by snowball666 at 06/13/2009 @ 5:17pm

    Sounds logical & good on the surface....populist rhetoric!

    Dig a little bigger, try to imagine the amount of regulations we already have on the book, and much more to come courtesy of Magic.....just how BIG does the Gubber sector need to be to `properly' enforce them all? 50% bigger? doubling?

    Regulations are set down in written words......and written words are what lawyers specialize in.....and more begets more...you know I mean loopholes and circumventing.

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 6:56pm

41. Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 6:49pm

    Where are your facts again? I must have missed that post.

    It's dubious because your assertion relies on a narrow definition. Let's try an analogy. I could make an argument that the U.S. has the best cuisine of any of the predominately English speaking countries. This relies on my notions of what "best cuisine" is and at the same time is so narrow as to be worthless as a comparison. It's a nonsense category.

    To put it in statistical terms, you have at least two biases in play. One is a selection bias. The other is you are looking at correlation and asserting causation. For example, there might be a Malthusian factor that comes into play where the U.S. can support a greater population in greater prosperity simply because it happens to have had some of the best agricultural land in the world in its prairies.

    Even reasonable responses like snowball's pointing to the G20 don't work due to your definition - only 3 of the G20 are large enough to include a 100 million population, which points to another problem.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2009 @ 9:07pm

42. Posted by srjenkins at 06/13/2009 @ 9:07pm

    What is it about the "greatest number of people with the highest standard of living" that you don't understand? Where is your "fact" to say that indisputable fact is wrong?

    You don't have kids.....but you're acting like one, argueing for arguing's sake.

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 9:51pm

43. I don't believe the hype that putting more regs on capitalism will hinder it in any way.

    Posted by snowball666 at 06/13/2009 @ 9:08pm

    Of course you'd think that way....you just don't want to admit (or don't realize) that is a winding road towards statism, socialism and/or fascism.

    Why would anybody with capital, choose to place them at the mercy of heavy-handed regulations.......worse, regulations subject to change based on which party is in power......worse still, secured lenders can get screwed....frankly, with your party in control of all Gubber institutions, it ain't a stretch to see the day when profits will be capped with executive compensation caps as a "One small step for Fairness, One giant leap for Socialism"!

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 10:13pm

44. ...what else do you see coming down the pike to make life miserable for business owners?

    Posted by snowball666 at 06/13/2009 @ 9:08pm

    For most politically-incorrect biz owners, which is most of them, diminished or negative growth in demand due to anti-growth, (misguided) fairness-centric policies which boiled down, is more regulations!

    Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 10:21pm

45. srjenkins, I appreciate you taking the time to critique my work. You were doin' ok until you resorted to name calling. "kook". You can call me that, that's ok, (even though it shows your ignorance and poor manners, but I take exception to your reference to Alan Keyes. I have met and talked with him personally and know what kind of man he is. If you think he's a kook, then you must think our greatest statesmen, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison & all the others were kooks, too. Because of all the politicians I've watched he's one of just a handful that I consider a Statesman. By the way, I'm trying to educate American's before it's too late. At the rate this administration is going, we may have two years to turn things around. No matter what happens politically, we're in for some tough economic times, because so much has been done by both the Bush Admin & Obama's that it will take quite a while to fix it. If we're lucky, we may get back to normal, in 10 years - if ever. I'm hoping and praying the American People wake up to where they're being led. As I say in my book: we've been in a struggle with the communist/socialist movement since the 1920's, a stuggle of words and ideas. As of the July meltdown, we are now in a WAR with the communist/socialist movement - still a war of words and ideas. If we lose this war, we will then have two choices: a war of guns and bullets, or become slaves to the socialist dictators.

    Posted by Relentless at 06/14/2009 @ 12:52am

46. I suppose, by your standards, this is actually a success because the assassin was killed.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/13/2009 @ 10:02am

    The success is more to be seen in the ability of the present democratic regime in Iraq to handle such dreadful occurrences and still not resort to a police state mentality. That is the sort of indicator that will tell us how well democracy is taking.

    This sort of thing, Crabs, was happening all through the Saddam years but it was mostly met with brutal indiscriminate retaliation. States like ours handle these sorts of criminal acts just as Iraq now seems to be doing. Which I think you will agree, after you read this, is a step in a better direction for Iraq :

    The Anfal campaign began in 1986 and lasted until 1989, and was headed by Ali Hassan al-Majid (a cousin of then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from the Saddam's hometown of Tikrit). The Anfal campaign included the use of ground offensives, aerial bombing, systematic destruction of settlements, mass deportation, firing squads, and chemical warfare, which earned al-Majid the nickname of "Chemical Ali".

    Thousands of civilians were killed during the anti-insurgent campaigns stretching from the spring of 1987 through the fall of 1988.

    The attacks were part of a long-standing campaign that destroyed almost every Kurdish village in areas of northern Iraq where pro-Iranian insurgents were based and displaced at least a million of the country's estimated 3.5 million Kurdish population.

    Independent sources estimate 100,000 to more than 150,000 deaths and as many as 100,000 widows and an even greater number of orphans.[4] Amnesty International collected the names of more than 17,000 people who had "disappeared" during 1988.[5] The campaign has been characterized as genocidal in nature. "

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/14/2009 @ 01:30am

47. If you think it is onerous to pay $7.25 an hour, try living on it.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/14/2009 @ 09:48am

48. Comparing India etc to the US is not a very good comparison. How about comparing a similar population with another industrialized system? Try the EU.

    Actually, let's look at nations without burdensome regulation, places without vestiges of sOcialism...

    Sudan

    Iraq, well, not really, because HAPPYS tax dollars are still supplying collectivist solutions to the still collapsing Utopian dream.

    All I can think of before i get moving around. Let me put it back in HAPPYS lap. HAPPY, please list the countries in the world that have unregulated capitalism.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/14/2009 @ 09:57am

49. Posted by Happy at 06/13/2009 @ 9:51pm

    I'm not disputing your "fact". I'm disputing what you are trying to do with that "fact", which is to argue that our economic environment is the causal factor. It isn't.

    Posted by Relentless at 06/14/2009 @ 12:52am

    I judge people by their ideas. What kind of ideas characterize Alan Keyes?

    1. Pro-life/anti-abortion. A legitimate moral concern.

    2. Against homosexuality. Disowned his own daughter over the issue and believes the state should tell individuals what kind of relationships they are allowed to have.

    3. Apparently believes he understands God's mind. "Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama."

    4. Nor is shy about his desire to force this understanding on other people. Examples: supports state-sanctioned prayer in public schools, believed it was appropriate for the governor of Florida to make the call on Terry Schiavo rather than the person with health care power-of-attorney as defined by law.

    5. There is also a hypocrisy. Examples: he is "pro-life" but arguing that the Iraq War is just; served as diplomat to the U.N. but doesn't believe in the U.N.

    6. He's involved in the whole Obama citizenship conspiracy.

    I go through this list. I've watched Keyes present his ideas. I've watched electoral failure after electoral failure - where I and practically everyone else came to the conclusion that this guy is a kook.

    And you, by trying to associate him with the Founding Fathers and your partially formed, bad ideas about government that show you have as much understanding as an impressionable sophomore taking their first poli-sci class, I'm inclined to call you a kook too.

    "If we're lucky, we may get back to normal..."

    We aren't going back to normal. Our society isn't sustainable.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/14/2009 @ 09:58am

50. funny, the US achieved Happys standard of "most good for most people" with:

    regulation

    unions

    minimum wages

    public education

    Yet, he opposes those things. As SNOW pointed out, HAPPY is seeking a Utopia that doesn't exist anywhere or anytime, while degrading leftists as seeking Utopia, which none of say we are seeking.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/14/2009 @ 10:01am

51. "I really don't care how much execs or companies make if they do so legitimately and pay taxes on it."-SNOWball

    I do care. If an exec makes 750 times what the average employee makes, or even 750 times what the lowest paid employee makes, that is taking more than their share. That means that the employees have less to spread around, less to invest, less to pay for education and it may help keep the lowest paid at the bottom. It means that the top of the food chain continue to control the machine. Recent studies have shown that the American Dream is almost just that, a dream. Fewer and fewer people are rising from the bottom to the top. It should be the the goal to create a system that is actually fair and allows people to achieve their dreams. Utopia, if you will.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/14/2009 @ 10:08am

52. Alan Keyes compared to the Founders?

    Classic.

    Like comparing Obama to Pol Pot.

    If it feels good, do it. Actually, that is HAPPYS motto I believe.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/14/2009 @ 10:10am

53. As I understand it, Baucus has proposed that current healt care benefits be taxed, EXCEPT for union members. WE're all in is together, right?

    More progressive bullshit!

    Posted by sntauri at 06/14/2009 @ 11:18am

54. I believe the money used to bail out GM came from un-used TARP funds. President Obama didn't just wave a magic wand and create the funds himself.

    All economies are regulated in a self interested manner to distribute rewards. The problem is that that interest for the past 3 decades has been entirely represented by the wealthy and fueled by graft and bribes - opps, I mean perfectly legal campaign contributions which never impact votes. Apparently Happy and others are perfectly content with this situation - it isn't the amount of regulation that concerns them, its who the regulation benefits that raises their hackles.

    Within the above described system of legalized unregulated bribery, regulations are changed to support perverse market disincentives. For example, we create tougher sentances (a form of regulation if ever there was one) to benefit a private prison industry; we outlaw government negotiation of drug prices (another regulation) to benefit big pharma.

    This rugged individualist American pioneer crap is nonsense when coming from supply siders. Americans got our standard of living because, as a democratic community, we built the infrastructure of schools, roads, etc... that raised all boats. The West in particular would not have been developed without considerable government intervention, from Lewis and Clark to the Grand Coulee Dam.

    The right uses the term "de-regulation" as dishonestly as they do the term "socialism". Scare tactics and nothing more.

    Posted by Dwight Wall at 06/14/2009 @ 11:20am

55. Support of education is the key factor, for me, but that'll be a tough sell to the rest of the greying population over the next couple decades. Posted by snowball666 at 06/14/2009 @ 10:24am

    Snowball, I think you might be wrong about that last point. I think you're going to see a surge in continuing education for the elderly never before seen in this country. Whether this will translate into increased support for K-12 education is a legitimate question, but I think folks receiving education tend to be more supportive than not of education in general.

    Posted by Dwight Wall at 06/14/2009 @ 11:37am

56. Sorry, I meant "perverse market incentives", not "disincentives" in my earlier post. Fingers movin too fast!

    Posted by Dwight Wall at 06/14/2009 @ 11:44am

57. An Anti-Business President

    Profit is without honor in Obama's view.

    by Fred Barnes

    06/22/2009...

    Is President Obama anti-business? ...in deciding ...let's be fair and judge Obama by nonideological and nonpartisan standards...four criteria: his appointments, his policies, his decisions, and his own words.

    Democratic presidents are not famous for appointing businessmen, merchants, or entrepreneurs...people who have started or run private businesses, created jobs, met payrolls, and made profits. Thus they might be sensitive to how government can help or hurt business enterprises, especially during an economic downturn.

    The number of such people appointed by Obama: zero. Members of his cabinet and White House staff come predominantly from government, academia, think tanks, and the law. True, several were business consultants,....

    But there's no one who ran a company, hired or fired workers, or was an entrepreneur. Obama doesn't qualify either....

    Second, policies. When Obama announced last week the acceleration of his economic "stimulus,"....He offered nothing, not even a tiny tax incentive, to encourage investment in business and private job creation. This reflects Obama's policy initiatives across the board. They rely entirely on more government spending, regulation, and control.....His "five pillars that will strengthen our economy" consist of spending programs, regulation of Wall Street, and imaginary deficit reduction. There's no role for business.

    No doubt Obama would love to see the business community produce more jobs. But...have done nothing to promote this and quite a bit to restrain it, despite the job-killing recession....

    Posted by Happy at 06/14/2009 @ 11:59am

58. Fred Banes - contiued:

    Never accuse Obama of rejecting incentives. He favors them, just not for investors and business. In his town hall meeting in Green Bay, Wisconsin, last week, he said health insurance plans "should have incentives for people to use preventive services." And he praised "financial incentives" for healthful living. "If you lose weight, you will see an incentive, money in your pocket."

    The third criterion is decisions made in carrying out a policy. Take...General Motors and Chrysler. Rather than...allow the auto companies to sink or swim on their own, he's kept them alive with taxpayer subsidies and at the expense of their investors, a.k.a creditors. Fine, but he went on to punish GM and Chrysler investors and reward the United Auto Workers, a financial backer of Obama's presidential campaign last year.

    We also saw last week how Obama is handling the case of Delphi, the bankrupt auto parts manufacturer funded mainly by GM. His Auto Task Force brokered the sale of Delphi to a private equity firm, absent an auction or open bidding. This, in effect, put Obama in the leveraged buyout business. Lenders to Delphi complained, and a judge ordered an auction.

    Once it intervenes, the Obama administration invariably seeks to extend its control. After bailing out banks, Obama sought authority to seize any financial institution whose collapse might be "a systemic risk" to the economy. The Obama administration would decide if there's such a risk.

    And now that troubled banks are paying back some of the bailout money, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was asked recently by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina if those funds would be saved. Not quite, Geithner said. The administration retains the right to use an equal amount in future bailouts, he said.

    Posted by Happy at 06/14/2009 @ 12:09pm

59. Fred Barnes wrap:

    Finally, what has Obama said as president about business and free markets? Not much that's favorable. In Green Bay, he said doctors who order more tests for patients because they get paid more reflect "a business mentality"--a comment that suggests what Obama thinks of business in general. By contrast, he spoke of "a mentality of, how do we make patients better?" Weeks ago, he denounced Chrysler creditors as "speculators" who refuse to sacrifice as they should.

    As best I can tell, Obama loathes the profit motive... He's often referred to the years prior to his election as "an era of selfishness and greed." It's not surprising he's capping the pay of CEOs whose firms took bailout money....Obama thinks high CEO pay spurred the economic dip.

    The president's commencement address at Arizona State University in May...was suffused with animus toward the profit motive...:

    You're taught to chase after all the usual brass rings; you try to be on this "who's who" list or that top 100 list; you chase after the big money and you figure out how big your corner office is; you worry about whether you have a fancy enough title or a fancy enough car     through material possessions, through ruthless competition pursued only on your own behalf--that's how you will measure success.

    That's a brutal caricature of the way most people seek to get ahead in life, support a family, and gain financial security. Obama did tell business majors to "go start a company," then quickly added, "Or why not help our struggling nonprofits find better, more effective ways to serve folks in need." It's clear which path Obama prefers.

    Given the evidence, rendering a verdict on Obama and business is easy. Anti-business may be too crude a label..A follower of Adam Smith, he's not.

    Posted by Happy at 06/14/2009 @ 12:15pm

60. Happy, as my sucessful small business friends tell me, all the trickle down breaks in the world won't help if customers can not afford to buy their products. What are you going to invest in, and who are you going to hire, if noone is buying anything? Obama's policies are seeking to increase demand - an alien concept in the supply side universe. Odd that the tax break Obama gave to those making less than $250K/year doesn't seem to enter the equation. Are we a consumer economy or not? Not to mention the much higher multiplier effect of encouraging broad based demand vs. tax breaks to the wealthy.

    Supply side is a failed approach. Look around you. Its called reality. Fred Barnes is generally not considered a purveyor of such.

    Posted by Dwight Wall at 06/14/2009 @ 12:30pm

61. Joe Biden, bless his honesty....the last feet-on-the ground Democrat insider left....by admitting his boss' econ. stimulus has failed (based on projected timeline & expected results).

    However, he's wrong to claim "Everyone is wrong" on the effects of their own Pork bill!

    Rush, Hannity, and an assortment of centrist and right-leaning economists, along w/your humble HAPPY right here, have been proven exactly right (so far)!

    What is also evident, now that we are 5 months into all that Hopey and Changey, is the gap between what Magic & Co. projected, and facts on the ground, will widen....a totally unavoidable, but rock-solid projection....until such point, job gains exceed job losses.

    Long live Obamanomic........cheers to Hope and Change.....by patient conservatives!

    Posted by Happy at 06/14/2009 @ 1:05pm

62. LOL!

    Isn't it absolutely hilarious how all the right-winger screwballs like happy and bigpasture sound EXACTLY like all the left-winger screwballs sounded circa 2004.

    "OH MY GOD! PRESIDENT ________ IS RUNNING THE COUNTRY INTO THE GROUND! THERE IS NO ESCAPING OUR IMMINENT DOOM!"

    Seriously, if I could find one tiny single shred of objectivity in your "arguments", maybe the right-winger screwballs wouldn't be considered complete and total jokes by what amounts to the majority of the country.

    Have fun being irrelevant and pigeon-holed. You're giving me a hell of a chuckle.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 06/14/2009 @ 1:11pm

63. Good old Happy. So charmingly silly, sort of like a grandfather suffering from the early stages of dementia.

    One love buddy. One would think that such a titan of business and industry as yourself would have better things to do then hammer away at an internet blog incessantly, but apparently that's not the case!

    Posted by TexasFlood at 06/14/2009 @ 1:13pm

64. Yes, 5 months on and Obama has failed to undo 30 years of outsourcing, downsizing, stagnant wages, deteriorating infrastructure, increasing poverty, increasing un-insured, increasing hunger, obscene levels of income inequality, rising un-employment and underemployment, a manufacturing industry brought to its knees, and a political climate corrupted by money and right wing hatred.

    If only we could go back to the wonderful policies that got us into this mess, we would all be so much better off. Obama is obviously a failure since he can't seem to grasp that. I think he should resign now and turn things over to Newt Gingrich, who thinks "We need a constitution that operates at the speed of 21st century business". I so look forward to a life of unmitigated greed, rampant materialism, perpetual war, grinding poverty, endless hours to make ends meet, ivy league education for the wealthy and crumbs for everyone else, and constant survellience.

    Obama, resign now! We need to go back to the good old days - you know, over 5 months ago.

    Posted by Dwight Wall at 06/14/2009 @ 1:23pm

65. Apparently Obama is bad for business from HAPPIES viewpoint.

    Yet, he comes around here weekly to inform us of his financial progress.

    He complains about the dubiousness of regulation, yet within those constraints he has managed to carve out a lifestyle that does not involve actually working. He totally relies on others to produce his income, be it in dividends, rent or increase in stock price.

    the chickens are coming home to roost. Middle class buying power was propped up by borrowing, as incomes have not kept pace with desire. Except for the top, who have seen incomes soar. As SNOW pointed out, when the workers can't afford the goods they make, or they don't make goods anymore, where are we?

    And, I'm sorry, HAP, when was it that you were proven right about anything?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/14/2009 @ 1:46pm

66. "Middle class buying power was propped up by borrowing, as incomes have not kept pace with desire. Except for the top, who have seen incomes soar."

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/14/2009 @ 1:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You seem to be borrowing from and repeating the same emptysuited rhetoric that comes out of the Obamanation that makes desolations mouth. Everytime he says "middleclass" he is speaking ONLY of UAW union members or to them!

    They are the ONLY ones who have profited immensely from campaign paybacks called auto industry bailouts for GM and Chrysler. There is NO evidence that this is not true for anyone else, unless you want to count Wallstreet Bankers who funded the Demoncrats and Obamanation all while both they and leftist demonize them!

    He has done nothing, nada, zip for small to medium size business owners and their workers EXCEPT to promise to TAX and spend their healthbenifits and TAX the business owners making more than supposedly a minimum of $250,000. which isn't credible when you look at the new tax codes!

    The Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats are clearly "Selective Socialist" rewarding only supporters and the upper class at the expense of all others! What do they offer us all, only the new "government blackhole" of socialized medicine and exponential government expansion at the expense of freedom, liberty, and individual choice!

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/14/2009 @ 4:59pm

67. Posted by snowball666 at 06/14/2009 @ 6:08pm

    One question:

    Why even bother with such a tool?

    He's obviously more than happy to act like a moron. Best case scenario is he knows he's wrong and still continues to act a fool. Worst case? He actually believes the shit he's shoveling!

    Not worth it my friend.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 06/14/2009 @ 6:19pm

68. And I understand that these fools are more likely than not totally reasonable people in the real world. The internet has a way of making tough guys out of pussies, and I'm pretty sure that's the case in this situation. Lol, especially with such wanna-be macho talking heads, I can only imagine what they actually act like!

    They have every right to come here and play the role of chicken little, and lie and obfuscate as much as they like, but why oh why give them the attention they so obviously crave (the same attention they most assuredly don't receive from the "real world")?

    Let it go man! There's no changing the minds of the mentally retarded.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 06/14/2009 @ 6:24pm

69. Real quick....

    Who was the POTUS when this bailout bullshit began? Just wondering if the macho men can straighten me out on this one, I was pretty sure it was George W. Bush....maybe I'm wrong.

    LOL, I wait for your "It was all Bill Clinton's fault!" speeches!

    Sorry for multiple postings!

    Posted by TexasFlood at 06/14/2009 @ 6:27pm

70. Let it go man! There's no changing the minds of the mentally retarded.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 06/14/2009 @ 6:24pm

    Sort of from one pussy to another.

    Seems, pussy, like your having trouble framing counter arguments. That's not a symptom of mental illness but just of one dumb pussy. Meow.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/14/2009 @ 7:53pm

71. The "market" is brutally good at regulating itself and when it fails, it does so precisely because of regulations which distort the normal risks/rewards of such markets.

    Happy, if that's true, then please explain the continuing bubble/burst economy we've been riding these last 25 years or so. And, please don't blame it on socialism or Obama. Even Greenspan has come out and said that in this case, the market did NOT regulate itself.

    I have no problem with business...even big business. However, when business begins to take advantage of the workforce, allows failing business plans to prove incredibly lucrative for those CEOs who dream them up, and begins to destroy the middle class, I have a problem with that. And as a small businessman, I would think you would have had a problem with that, too. The strength of the country is the middle class, NOT big business. The middle class has been under the gun since "trickle-down" began under Reagan, and all of it was put into place to dear down the New Deal, which was itself a reaction to the last time the markets got out of control.

    It's history...and because of the Republicans (and the Dems buying into it), we're repeating it.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/14/2009 @ 8:11pm

72. I'm so tired of hearing "Obama's a socialist".The way he listens to the wallstreeters, he's more like herbert hoover, than FDR(which we desperately need!!!).If anything, he's trending more towards a corporate/fascist, & I'm f****ing tired of it!He seems to bow before all the private monied interests, & lets the people continue to wither away on the vine.

    WE need a dues-paying citizens' political union that takes gov't of/by/for the people SERIOUSLY;that takes the PREAMBLE to the Constitution SERIOUSLY(ie. PROMOTE the General Welfare/establish justice/provide for the COMMON defense); that sees the rest of the Constitution as just the details of carrying out the PREAMBLE;that sees the promotion of the GENERAL WELFARE as the BOTTOM LINE of ALL economic activity, & NOT the maximization of profits for shareholders(which is the same old imperial game AGAINST which we revolted in 1776);that sees LIBERTY as the ORGANIZED liberty of the little "commoners" AGAINST the eternal depredations of the perenial owning/ruling class(hence; a CITIZENS' UNION!!!);that sees finance & credit as a PUBLIC UTILITY, strictly regulated by the representatives of the people, & NOT the PROVINCE of private monied interests;that sees the POINT of ALL finance/credit is to FUND activities/services/productions that,somehow,PROMOTE the GENERAL WELFARE(ie. this should be our DAILY MANTRA as Americans!!!).

    If we had 50 million citizens in a political union,who agreed with this point of view,& were willing to pay 10 dollars a month, we could change America & the world for-the-better.I move we elect Dennis Kucinnich as the president of such a union.He can be our "George Meaney".Older people will know what I mean.

    Again,I am so g*dd**n,F***ing tired of all of this current,facsist b**lsh*t!!!

    Posted by LNBOW at 06/14/2009 @ 8:50pm

73. Posted by snowball666 at 06/14/2009 @ 6:08pm

    Businesses would be fools to increase debt now with SBA loans! They are NOT DOING SO and loans remain at an alltime lows!

    Friday, June 12, 2009 11:59 AM By: Marc Davis "Beware the dire economic consequences, soon to come, of the projected budget deficit of 13 percent of GDP, says former Reagan administration economist Art Laffer.

    That's more than double the next-largest deficit since World War II.

    "We can expect rapidly rising prices and much, much higher interest rates over the next four or five years," Laffer wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal.

    "The unfunded liabilities of federal programs -- such as Social Security, civil-service and military pensions, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, Medicare and Medicaid -- are over the $100 trillion mark," Laffer says.

    In September, 2008, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke "radically" increased the monetary base ... (shifting) its focus from an anti-inflation position to an anti-deflation position, according to Laffer.

    "The percentage increase in the monetary base is the largest increase in the past 50 years by a factor of 10."

    We've never seen anything like this in the United States, Laffer says.

    "To date what's happened is potentially far more inflationary than were the monetary policies of the 1970s, when the prime interest rate peaked at 21.5 percent and inflation peaked in the low double digits."

    To resolve this potential for runaway inflation, Laffer says the Fed must "contract the monetary base back to where it otherwise would've been or increase reserve requirements of member banks to absorb the excess reserves."

    Obamanation, the Demoncrats and Soros all despise America and just want to print more money devaling dollar even more!

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/14/2009 @ 10:38pm

74. "Obamanation, the Demoncrats and Soros all despise America and just want to print more money devaling dollar even more!"

    yeah, and i suppose creating this catastrophic fiscal situation in the first place would be evidence of the same?

    bush must really hate america then!

    Posted by darladoon at 06/14/2009 @ 10:56pm

75. Darlaloon economic sense; she voted yes I'm sure for more California taxes that would affect everyone else but you!

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/14/2009 @ 11:20pm

76. srjenkins, would Jesus vote for someone who advocates killing the unborn? Or, someone who wouldn't stand up for a baby who survived a botched abortion, but would let the doctor go ahead and kill it after it was born? He doesn't advocate MAKING you or anyone pray in school. Is someone else praying at a sports function while you're there so offensive? Remember, the 1st amendment does not say "separation of church & state." It says that the gov't cannot make any law with respect to establishing a religion. How is praying doing that? He worked in the UN as an ambassador, and found it a mess, particularly it's rules have the deck stacked against us - the U.S. Finally, if asked, could you produce an original or copy of your original Birth Certificate? Well, so can he, but he won't. What does that tell you? He doesn't want us to see it. That's what this is all about. Nothing more. One more thing, I don't recall making any snide remarks about you, or calling you any names. Your doing it over and over, shows what kind of person you are. I guess by making those kinds of remarks makes you think you've one the argument. It only shows me how hateful you are.

    Posted by Relentless at 06/15/2009 @ 01:05am

77. Posted by Relentless at 06/15/2009 @ 01:05am

    Obama is clearly a plant by some communist/arab/islamo-fascists state. The "question"of his birth status is to prop up gun sales prior to his repealing the second amendment.

    It's all very complicated, but good to know you are on top of it with the ever popular Alan Keyes.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 06:02am

78. Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 06:02am

    Given what we were told after 9/11...

    I'm sure Relentless isn't going to mind if we....profile him at museums and clinics, wiretap his phone, and possibly ship him off to Gitmo for some "intensinve interrogation".

    As a precaution of course.

    Posted by Mask at 06/15/2009 @ 06:10am

79. Here ya go kook, it was hard slog through the internet(s)

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

    I would have thought we had learned our lesson about urban rumors with the War Based on drunks, forgeries, and convicted felons. I guess not.

    Like Paula Jones claims, this canard was thrown out of court, being "frivolous and not worthy of discussion.", or actually, in Paulas case the words were "totally without merit."

    If Snopes scares you, here is a link to a copy of the "non-existent" birth certificate...

    http://tinyurl.com/5nnaqo

    BTW, has McCain produced his cert that was "forged" in Panama? I bet the same guy did his as did the Niger "proof" of the sale of U238 to Saddam.

    "I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five [people] that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.""-Big Bad Joe, a "real" American.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 06:23am

80. Posted by Mask at 06/15/2009 @ 06:10am

    If the cons had their crap together, "people" like RIOkoresh would have realized that their predictions have actually come true. they live in pants shitting fear of another terrorist attack, we have had TWO since Obama took office, one in Kansas, one right in DC.

    Where is the call for action? Where are the black planes landing in Colorado Springs?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 06:27am

81. i am waiting for Mr. Obama to come clean, step out onto the veranda with his partner in crime, Justice Roberts, and set the record straight, a " Navin Johnson moment" if you will.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the former president of the United States...

    Obama- "I was born a poor white child, in Cuba. I am still white trash from the neck down."

    Mr. Obama will serve 18 months on a cat-juggling charge.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 06:31am

82. I was going to go out to my shop and work today, but HAPPY has shown me that it is a waste of time. The regulations are just too burdensome. The perils of socialism are too perilous.

    When regs reared their ugly head, happy bravely turned and fled....brave, brave sir happy.

    With his 410k plucked out, and his dividends cut off..

    "OK boys, that's enough singing for now, danger is a foot, we have a non-American Commie in office"

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 06:38am

83. Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 06:27am

    Oddly, Roeder and von Brunn aren't considered "terrorists". Well, correction, Roeder isn't considered a terrorist just a "lone nut not influenced at all by the legitimate pro-life movement."

    On von Brunn, they're trying to convince us (and themselves) that he's a "leftist" due to his anti-religious screeds.....totally ignoring his Ron Pauline anti-Federal Reserve stuff, his Pat Buchanan anti-immigration stuff, and his World Net Daily/Alan Keyes "Obama isn't a real American" stuff.

    BTW, if RIO believe 1/2 of the stuff he posted...he'd be packed and on his way to Aruba or the Caymans or a "bunker" up in the Rockies by now.

    Posted by Mask at 06/15/2009 @ 07:48am

84. Maybe he can catch a ride on one of the black planes. A hood, syringe and a diaper may do him some good.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 08:43am

85. Posted by Relentless at 06/15/2009 @ 01:05am

    "...would Jesus vote for someone who advocates killing the unborn?"

    Would Jesus view a fetus as human? I don't know. You apparently think you do and would like everyone else to conform to your views.

    "He doesn't advocate MAKING you or anyone pray in school. Is someone else praying at a sports function while you're there so offensive?"

    There is no problem with personal prayer. The problem comes when you start providing for people to use public announcement systems - in schools, sporting events, etc. - to ask others to join them in prayer. At that point, what's to stop them for starting a prayer for the "unborn" or some other ideas they have about God that even follow Christians don't share? Nothing.

    To see the hypocrisy of this position, would you have problems with a state mandated prayer time for Allah, Vishnu or the Great Spirit? Or is it only ok for the Judeo-Christian God?

    "He worked in the UN as an ambassador, and found it a mess, particularly it's rules have the deck stacked against us - the U.S."

    Perhaps he should make an effort to understand how the Security Council works. The rules are only stacked against those countries without a permanent seat on that body.

    "Finally, if asked, could you produce an original or copy of your original Birth Certificate?"

    He was born in the U.S. - end of story.

    "It only shows me how hateful you are."

    And, finally, we get to the most bogus of arguments - the "you don't like what I'm saying because you are a hateful person and cannot see 'the truth' argument". You poor thing, so misunderstood.

    I admit that I hate stupidity, and unfortunately, your arguments are chock full of it. Stop saying stupid things, and I'll stop calling you a kook for saying them.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/15/2009 @ 09:41am

86. I would have to say its not socialism Obama is moving towards but Fascism.

    Posted by abell12ct at 06/15/2009 @ 10:31am

87. Finally, if asked, could you produce an original or copy of your original Birth Certificate?" He was born in the U.S. - end of story. Posted by srjenkins

    As I understand it the officials in Hawaii have the certificate but won't let it be examined. If that doesn't feed the controversy, I don't know what will.

    Posted by abell12ct at 06/15/2009 @ 10:56am

88. 'REED: "....The "New GM" is the target of a boycott spearheaded by Rush Limbaugh..."'

    Posted by Happy at 06/12/2009 @ 4:04pm

    Here is the actual text from Ms. Reed's blog:

    "The "New GM" is the target of a boycott spearheaded by right-wing radio bloviator Hugh Hewitt..."

    Now that's creative cutting and pasting...

    Posted by drhammer at 06/15/2009 @ 11:54am

89. BigPasture:

    "Love for America = cutting as many taxes as possible"

    Posted by darladoon at 06/15/2009 @ 12:08pm

90. Posted by abell12ct at 06/15/2009 @ 10:56am

    damn those privacy laws, I thought Bush got rid of that nonsense.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 12:45pm

91. If we had 50 million citizens in a political union,who agreed with this point of view,& were willing to pay 10 dollars a month, we could change America & the world for-the-better.I move we elect Dennis Kucinnich as the president of such a union.He can be our "George Meaney".Older people will know what I mean.

    Again,I am so g*dd**n,F***ing tired of all of this current,facsist b**lsh*t!!!

    Posted by LNBOW at 06/14/2009 @ 8:50pm

    Comrade, why do you stay here? Comrade Chavez holds out open arms to you yet you are still here in the fascist/imperialist US?

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 12:53pm

92. Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 12:53pm

    Are you not the one that threatens to leave for a leftist central American country?

    Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 1:10pm

93. When/how did Obamas family file a false birth certificate in the clerks office in Honolulu? Was it done at his birth, knowing that the Anti-Christ/false prophet/The One would need an American Birth cert?

    Boy, that is planning ahead.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 1:12pm

94. Odd, just a week after James von Brunn, so many still want to assoicate themselves with "Birthers"?!?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 06/15/2009 @ 1:15pm

95. Posted by abell12ct

    Posted by Relentless

    Two schleps passing in the night.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 1:19pm

96. Posted by drhammer at 06/15/2009 @ 11:54am

    Thanks for spotting Ms. Reed's revisions from her own original post (that I quoted) which outright slandered Rush!

    Posted by Happy at 06/15/2009 @ 2:15pm

97. Posted by Happy at 06/15/2009 @ 2:15pm

    How do you slander a slanderer?

    Posted by Mask at 06/15/2009 @ 3:05pm

98. Are you not the one that threatens to leave for a leftist central American country?

    Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 1:10pm

    It's not a leftist country. Funes has shown himself so far to be exactly what he promised, a pragmatist who never was a leftist to begin with. His cabinet is a mix of Arena and FMLN and he is courting continued US relationships like the announcement that Southwest Airlines will move some of their maintenance work to El Salvador.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 3:18pm

99. I see, Funes is a pragmatist, but Obama is a Marxist.

    How convenient for you.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 3:49pm

100. I see, Funes is a pragmatist, but Obama is a Marxist.

     How convenient for you.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 3:49pm

     Whatever Mask has, it must be catching. You seem to be adopting some of his insanity.

     Funes never was a marxist. He was a CNN reporter and anchor. His wife is a marxist (that's not an attack-she is open about it).

     Funes says he wants to be a cross between Obama and Lula of Brazil. Which means a left of center moderate.

     I have not said Obama is a marxist. I've said that he hung around with plenty of marxists and communists and certainly has had some level of influence upon him from that experience. How much that translates into his presidency remains to be seen.

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 3:59pm

101. I remember the FMLN as being a SOCIALIST guerrilla group.

     I guess that is different than the communist pink shirted grannies, who are far more dangerous on the slippery slope that leads to re-education camps and the banning of religion in America.

     From WIKI, so you may take the grain of salt if you wish...

     "The Communist Party of El Salvador was formed in the 1930s. One of the principal leaders was Farabundo Martí.

     In 1970, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of El Salvador, Cayetano Carpio, left the Communist Party to form a new organization to wage armed struggle to overthrow the military dictatorship. This new organization became the Popular Liberation Forces "Farabundo Marti" (in Spanish: Fuerzas Populares de Liberación "Farabundo Martí", also known by the Spanish acroym, FPL). Throughout the 1970s the FPL grew and became the largest and most influential organization on the Salvadoran left. In the 1970s many other revolutionary organizations were formed as well. Three others ultimately became part of the FMLN in 1980 along with the FPL and the Communist Party."

     Funny how anti still claims unions are communist, evil leftists, but somehow his man in the region, though born of armed leftist struggles, is no longer one of Them.

     yep, you be a hypocrite of the first order.

     Things is what anti calls them, and no other definition need apply. If you disagree with him, you are ignorant and a fool. He knows what Christs messengers mean, you don't. He knows a commie when he sees one, his people from leftist groups are not really leftists. But, Obama is, regardless of who supports him and gives him the money to campaign. all of those big banks.... Marxist. All of those DLC campaigners that abandoned Hillary and went to work for the Big O... Marxists.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 4:09pm

102. "It is alleged that some credit for the unity of the five organizations that formed the FMLN may belong to Cuba's Fidel Castro,"

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 4:11pm

103. Funny how anti still claims unions are communist, evil leftists, but somehow his man in the region, though born of armed leftist struggles, is no longer one of Them.

     yep, you be a hypocrite of the first order.

     Things is what anti calls them, and no other definition need apply. If you disagree with him, you are ignorant and a fool. He knows what Christs messengers mean, you don't. He knows a commie when he sees one, his people from leftist groups are not really leftists. But, Obama is, regardless of who supports him and gives him the money to campaign. all of those big banks.... Marxist. All of those DLC campaigners that abandoned Hillary and went to work for the Big O... Marxists.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 4:09pm

     I know the background of the FMLN, my wife escaped from them to the US.

     However, before running for president, Funes was NEVER a member of the FMLN. He made a number of financial demands to run for the office

     He is not an ideologue, he is a TV anchor turned politician.

     that is why he would not make promises to the FMLN and has installed a cabinet that is mixed with both ARENA and FMLN members.

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 4:29pm

104. Posted by abell12ct at 06/15/2009 @ 10:56am

     As I understand it, if you are born in the United States, you have birthright citizenship. Obama was born in the United States. There is no "controversy".

     Posted by srjenkins at 06/15/2009 @ 5:23pm

105. Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 4:29pm |

     Many, many people you have called communist on this sight have never been communists. You link anybody that has associations with any group that has ever had communist ties, going back to the 30's, with communism.

     It's pretty simple Larry. You have different standards for yourself and your causes than you do for others. That would be fine if you were not so pompous.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 8:43pm

106. You also equate the leader to the country. Funes may not be a communist, or even a "lefty", if you don't choose to see him that way. However, the FLMN took 43% of the vote in Jan, making them the leading party. Are you going to tell me that the party that has roots deep in communism has shed every drop of that in a few decades? While meanwhile the UAW and other groups you despise for having roots in communism and/or socialism are still rife with it and should be eradicated from the face of the Earth?

     Then, you come to a leftist web page and make a mocking joke about Chavez accepting a disillusioned American when you have (without conviction) threatened to flee the "socialist US" for FLMN country?

     U a hypocrite.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/15/2009 @ 8:55pm

107. srjenkins You answered every point - with absolutely nothing. Let's take the birth certificate issue. "He was born in the US." Now there's an answer I can sink my teeth into. Listen closely: He's never produced a birth certificate. He produced a certification of Birth, which in Hawaii at that time was used to give people NOT born in the US a piece of paper to wave. All he has to do is produce the ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE. He was the one who had those records sealed. You see, the original BC would state the Hospital, name of the Attending Physician, etc. It's simple: produce the Goddamn Certificate and we will all shut up. He's spent $900,000 to avoid producing it. What does that tell you? If it doesn't tell you anything or at least make you curious, then you're lost. The brainwashing is complete. You can't and won't open your mind to anything that doesn't give you the answer you already have in your head. Actually, you're right - I should take your word for it. By the way, according to his Paternal grandmother, he was born in Kenya. She says she was at the hospital at the time. I can't prove that he wasn't born in the US. I haven't seen the Birth Certificate. I presume you have.

     Posted by Relentless at 06/16/2009 @ 12:20am

108. Posted by Relentless at 06/16/2009 @ 12:20am

     In other words, you're a kook.

     FactCheck.org, snopes.com, Hawaiian health department officials, federal courts and others have all dismissed the birth certificate conspiracy theory as groundless. There are scans of the birth certificate, newspaper announcements of his birth in Honolulu, reports of people that have handled the birth certificate of record and so forth. Yet, you prattle on.

     And all I can say is, "God speed." Publish your books, get on the Internets and "educate" as many people as you can. You'll make a better case against "conservativism" than any I could make.

     Posted by srjenkins at 06/16/2009 @ 01:19am

109. srjenkins You answered every point - with absolutely nothing. Let's take the birth certificate issue. "He was born in the US." Now there's an answer I can sink my teeth into. Listen closely: He's never produced a birth certificate. He produced a certification of Birth, which in Hawaii at that time was used to give people NOT born in the US a piece of paper to wave. All he has to do is produce the ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE. He was the one who had those records sealed. You see, the original BC would state the Hospital, name of the Attending Physician, etc. It's simple: produce the Goddamn Certificate and we will all shut up. He's spent $900,000 to avoid producing it. What does that tell you? If it doesn't tell you anything or at least make you curious, then you're lost. The brainwashing is complete. You can't and won't open your mind to anything that doesn't give you the answer you already have in your head. Actually, you're right - I should take your word for it. By the way, according to his Paternal grandmother, he was born in Kenya. She says she was at the hospital at the time. I can't prove that he wasn't born in the US. I haven't seen the Birth Certificate. I presume you have.

     Posted by Relentless at 06/16/2009 @ 02:28am

110. sr, One last time: have you seen the Goddamn Birth Certificate? Has he officially produced it? No. What has been on the internet is the Certification of Birth - not the Birth Certificate. Think, man. Don't you have a brain? EK

     Posted by Relentless at 06/16/2009 @ 02:32am

111. Hey, Relentless heard somewhere something is odd, so he is going with it!

     Relentless, did you ever actually see George Bush's TANG records?

     Did you ever actually see any wmd's?

     Did you know that Obama is actually an Arab spy and Anti-Christ? It is well documented.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/16/2009 @ 07:23am

112. So Roberts did not just screw up the Oath of Office, he swore in an illegal alien as president of the United States?

     Buawahahahaaaa....cluck...cluck

     Clearly his qualifications should be in question, don't you think?

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/16/2009 @ 07:25am

113. Have you seen McCains papers?

     Born outside the USA I believe.

     Can you produce a witness to his birth? Mel Brooks, maybe?

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/16/2009 @ 07:34am

114. Posted by Relentless at 06/16/2009 @ 02:28am

     There's only one thing that I hate more than stupidity. It's repetitious stupidity.

     I'll make this as simple as I can. If your argument is true, you would need to account for a few things:

     1. How do you account for a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961 that says Mr. & Mrs. Barack H. Obama had a son on Aug. 4?

     2. You imply that the Certification of Birth is a forgery that will be revealed by the true birth certificate, which - strangely, you at the same time don't believe exists because you think he was born in a foreign country. Please explain how this logic works.

     3. How do you account for his presence in Hawaii from birth to age 6? If you believe he lived elsewhere, what evidence do you have for that belief?

     4. You make statements like: "He's spent $900,000 to avoid producing it." Where is your evidence?

     A reasonable person who looks at this is going to see, on one hand, a whole host of people that basically dismiss the birth conspiracy due to overwhelming evidence. On the other hand, they are going to see people speculating without evidence because they want desperately to live in an alternative reality where John McCain won the election.

     I can even understand it. I would like to live in the alternative reality where George W. Bush wasn't President. But, there is a difference between wanting the world to be some way and believing the world is that way because you want it. Doing the latter makes you a kook.

     Posted by srjenkins at 06/16/2009 @ 09:51am

115. Why is there all of this concern over Obama? His status as an actual American, his desire to take guns away, his marxist reforms? All hogwash, all meant to create fear.

     Black president.

     Too many people just can't deal with it. It drives them batty. I would think they would be proud of him, raised in a single parent home, turned adversity into a positive, lived the American Dream. But that turns too many of their presumptions on there heads. So, they go a-swift boating.

     It's really sad.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/16/2009 @ 10:40am

116. Much ado about nothing! How come I have a copy of his birth certificate and you do not? Hell you could go to Hawaii and find the nurse who delivered him, she still alive I am sure.

     No it is more fun the stretch the issue and turn in to something the world can laugh at. This ignorant Americans can even find their birth certificate! They are all paranoid, dreaming of conspiracy and such things. Get a life, you have too much time on your hands. That is the real problem in America.

     Posted by lea226 at 06/16/2009 @ 4:53pm

117. to antisocialist(is this the the same as sociopath?)

     I will live & die here,in my country.I will see finished,here,what we Americans started here,in 1776.I will see the oligarchs,both here, & thruout the world,humbled & broken,& bowing before the people of the whole world, in repentance.I will see the GENERAL WELFARE(which is just the modern,secular expression of Jesus'2nd commandment to LOVE ONE ANOTHER,ie to take care of/watch out for; one another), & its promotion,become the organizing principle of all the sovereign nation-states of the world.

     Do you think this is a bizarre statement?You would be wrong in your estimation.

     Posted by LNBOW at 06/16/2009 @ 6:49pm

118. sr, One last time: have you seen the Goddamn Birth Certificate? Has he officially produced it? No. What has been on the internet is the Certification of Birth - not the Birth Certificate. Think, man. Don't you have a brain? EK

     Posted by Relentless at 06/16/2009 @ 02:32am

     OK, now, wipe the spittle from the screen.

     It was all John Roberts' fault--he swore the guy in, didn't he? Well, on the second try, anyway.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/16/2009 @ 8:31pm

119. Posted by crabwalk at 06/16/2009 @ 07:25am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Oops, didn't see your Roberts reference up there already, Crabbie. Really.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/16/2009 @ 8:33pm

120. Would've been funny, though, seeing him ask Obama for his driver's license or something.

     Kinda like a fancy, supercharged notary public.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/16/2009 @ 8:35pm

121. Black president. Posted by crabwalk at 06/16/2009 @ 10:40am

     He's (whispered) Black?

     I must run and tell the local KKK about this. I think they'll be upset!

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/17/2009 @ 1:39pm

122. SR What's the matter Mr. Liberal? You know, Mr. open minded. Can't take a little vitriol directed back at you? Oh, another problem is that if you checked that Certification of Live Birth you just might find out you're wrong! Can't have that can we? If you don't check it, then you can't be wrong. Yeah, that's it. You know SR, you are the guy who NEEDS to read my book. It's the antidote for ignorance. (Ignorance comes from Ignore, so I didn't say you were stupid, just Ignorant.)

     Posted by Relentless at 06/18/2009 @ 6:57pm