All Hail Comrade Lindsey Graham

posted by John Nichols on 02/17/2009 @ 12:44pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (71)

Subscribe Now

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham's usual allies are not impressed with the Republican senator's suggestion that the time might have come to start nationalizing banks.

"Did hell just officially freeze over?" grumbled Fox News host Stuart "I am refugee from (British socialism)" Varney, "A top Republican senator says he is open to nationalizing our banks..."

So opened a segment where Varney welcomed Brian Moore, the Socialist Party's 2008 presidential candidate, to the cable redoubt of yahoo economics.

Moore agreed with Comrade Graham's prognosis.

Varney did not.

And it made for a bizarre (yet oddly refreshing) five minutes of something akin to debate about the current economic crisis.

The smirking Varney spent most of the program spouting nonsense about "the Politburo" to Moore, a thoughtful democratic socialist whose views are more in line with those of Franklin Roosevelt than Joe Stalin.

Noting that Social Security, unemployment insurance and child labor laws were all socialist ideas that were embraced by Democrats -- and Republicans -- and are now cherished by the American people, Moore turned the tables on Varney, reminding the host that, "Capitalism has sapped our economy. We are on the verge of collapse..."

Moore even got to ask why, at this point in the crisis, trillions of federal tax dollars are still being streamed into the accounts of big banks that are bent on squandering it.

Of course, Fox is ridiculous, and Varney's inability to distinguish between democratic socialism and Stalinism is pathetic

But rare is the American television program that lets an actual socialist spar with a free-market jihadist.

That's the refreshing part.

One need not be a socialist to recognize the need of socialist ideas in a debate that is painfully unrealistic if the range of responses to the crisis runs from a Republican longing for the return of Reaganomics to a Democratic longing for Bill Clinton's kinder-gentler variations on Reaganomics.

So kudos to Fox, kudos to Moore and kudos to Comrade Lindsey Graham for inadvertently opening up a discussion of bank nationalization, socialism and -- dare we say it? -- rational alternatives to making more of the mistakes that got us into this mess.

Comments (71)

Just a bit hard to imagine a SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN...

as a "socialist"?!?!?!?!?!?

LOL

Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 1:03pm
In midmorning trading, the Dow dropped 243.88, or 3.11 percent, to 7,606.53. It fell as low as 7,553.48 in early trading -- just a point away from the blue-chip index's five-and-a-half month closing low of 7,552.29 reached Nov. 20.

Broader stock indicators also declined sharply. The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 30.31, or 3.67 percent, to 796.53. The Nasdaq composite index fell 55.02, or 3.59 percent, to 1,479.34.

Yea, the national economic indicators and small business owners sure do have confidence in Obamanation and the Undemocratic congresses ability to handle the U.S.A. economy with their Pork barrel SPENDING bill! So distract everyone by attacking Republicans and conservatives!

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 1:20pm
Or most repub governors...

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/17/2009 @ 1:24pm
Ain't they funny? Not cute, funny. They think they can still win the civil war. If it weren't for my two senators; Snow and Collins I would leave the party and become a communist just for spite. Not really, just giving the NSA something to data mine.

Posted by julien38 at 02/17/2009 @ 1:27pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 1:20pm

Glad to see you defending Senator Graham...

and his plan to nationalize banks, RIO!

heheh. Not like them socialist Demoncrats, huh!

Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 1:33pm
I was rather surprised how "Free Trading" Republicans supported the nationalization of banks. They would have screamed bloody murder, if a Democratic Administration had nationalized anything. We have the leader of Communist China reading Adam Smith like it was the received word, along with the Labor Party in Britain and Social Democrats in Europe selling out the working class in favor of cheap foreign labor.Lets not forget the Corporate Democrats who are also selling out the American worker. The world has turned up side down.

Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/17/2009 @ 1:41pm
So why are most repub governors so social vs new con repub blood sucking tick congress infested anti-sociali?

Is it like dropping bombs from far away vs having to be there with the carnage, and fixing it?

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/17/2009 @ 1:47pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 1:20pm

Lets see what correcting happens this afternoon...

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/17/2009 @ 1:52pm
The New World Re-Un-De-Order...

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/17/2009 @ 2:01pm
i think comanche forgot that obama inherited an enormous recession, and that bush and the GOP caused it.

Posted by darladoon at 02/17/2009 @ 2:12pm
Says the darlaloon who NEVER provides proof of her statements, like laws passed by republicans or bills signed by Bush! Kinda hard to when all the banking and financial services bill of the last 50yrs have been 90% Undemocrat congressional ones!

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 2:40pm
Wonder why the nation does not laud the support of Donald Trump for Obamanation and the Undemocrats Pork spending bill today? Oh, I forgot he is too busy filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy today!

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 2:50pm
i think comanche forgot that obama inherited an enormous recession, and that bush and the GOP caused it.

Posted by darladoon at 02/17/2009 @ 2:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Not so much that they forgot, they just refuse to accept it.

Posted by Truthman at 02/17/2009 @ 3:03pm
Now, that's more like it, RIO...

please divert away from REPUBLICAN Lindsey Graham and talk about "Undemocrats"!

Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 3:35pm
Hows about all those repub governators lock step with Obama's nation building!

Woowie dogie, Obama's got the better repubs all beholden and stuff.

They be like bowing and curtsying to the Obamas next pres innogoration 2012!

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/17/2009 @ 4:22pm
Senator Leslie Graham is a sensible guy.

On Feb 13 the Washington Post ran an op-ed by Nouriel Roubini and a colleague at NYU. The argument was that the only thing that can pull the banking system out of its death spiral is nationalization.

It was a convincing argument. Roubini is a serious economist who has acquired the title, Dr. Doom for predicting this situation across several years. He pointed out that a while back Sweden found it had to nationalize its banks as the only solution to a messed up financial system, and then it privatized them again, and the situation was fixed. Ours is a much larger system and nationalization would be a much more difficult and far messier. But it may be the only way.

Nichols is astonished by such speculations because he is an ideologue and pragmatism befuddles him.

It may well be that nationalization will be the solution to our problem.

Incidentally, France, some years ago, nationalized its banks. In the end Mitterand restored them to private hands.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/17/2009 @ 5:11pm
The Standard & Poor's 500 (SPX) index lost almost 38 points, or about 4.6% and also touched its lowest point since Nov. 21st. The Nasdaq composite (COMP) lost 63 points, or about 4.1%. The Nasdaq has performed better than the rest of the market and has held above its bear-market lows.

Wall Street retreated last week and resumed the selloff Tuesday. All financial markets were closed Monday for Presidents Day.

"There a continuing concern about the economy, what steps are being taken to right it and how effective those steps are going to be," said Timothy Ghriskey, chief investment officer at Solaris Asset Management.

Like I said at non; Yea, the national economic indicators and small business owners sure do have confidence in Obamanation and the Undemocratic congresses ability to handle the U.S.A. economy with their Pork barrel SPENDING bill! So distract everyone by attacking Republicans and conservatives

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 6:25pm
Who's attacking the repub governators that are all for Obama's stimulations?

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/17/2009 @ 6:34pm
Who's attacking the repub governators that are all for Obama's stimulations?

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/17/2009 @ 6:34pm

I know that here in California we are having round the clock letters and phone calls. the problem with Arnold is that he is a lame duck who could care less about us.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/17/2009 @ 6:45pm
Comanche,

I get why you're getting so upset:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN): "We're Running Out Of Rich People In This Country"

She's also saying:

* ACORN is "under federal indictment for voter fraud," but the stimulus bill nevertheless gives ACORN "$5 billion." (In reality, ACORN is not under federal indictment and isn't mentioned in the stimulus bill at all.)

* many members of Congress have "a real aversion to capitalism."

* the stimulus bill includes a measure to create a "rationing board" for health care, and after the bill becomes law, "your doctor will no longer be able to make your healthcare decisions with you."

* the recovery package is part of a Democratic conspiracy to "direct" funding away from Republican districts, so Democratic districts can "suck up" all federal funds. Bachmann doesn't think this will work because, as she put it, "We're running out of rich people in this country."

* the "Community-Organizer-in-Chief" is also orchestrating a conspiracy involving the Census Bureau, which the president will use to redraw congressional lines to keep Democrats in power for up to "40 years." When the host said he was confused, noting that congressional district lines are drawn at the state level, Bachmann said Obama's non-existent plan is an "anti-constitutional move."

http://tinyurl.com/btd698

Man o man would I ever be so upset too if I believed any of the BS the new con repub blood sucking ticks excreted without question or a brain.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/17/2009 @ 6:50pm
Wasteful and Non-Stimulative Spending in the House-Senate Conference Report (Note: Many of these items are typically debated and funded through the regular budget process. Including these items in an emergency "stimulus" spending bill plays an Enron-style shell game with taxpayer dollars. We're borrowing from the next generation to avoid tough budget choices today.) • $8 billion for high-speed railway (including an earmark for an Los Angeles to Las Vegas MagLev) • $1 billion for the "FutureGen" not-ready-for-primetime near zero emission plant in Illinois • $53.6 billion for the "state stabilization" slush fund • $1.3 billion for Amtrak • $24 million for USDA buildings and rent • $176 million for renovating Agricultural Research Service buildings • $290 million for flood prevention activities • $50 million for watershed rehabilitation • $1.4 billion for wastewater disposal programs • $295 million for administrative expenses associated with food stamp program • $1 billion for the 2010 Census • $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries • $650 million for the DTV converter box coupon program • $360 million for construction of NIST buildings • $830 million for NOAA research and facilities • $2 billion for Byrne JAG program • $10 million to combat Mexican gunrunners • $125 million for rural communities to combat drug crimes • $1 billion for the COPS program • $1 billion for NASA • $300 million to purchase scientific instruments for colleges and museums • $400 million for equipment and facilities at the NSF • $3.7 billion to conduct "green" renovations on military bases • $375 million for Mississippi River projects • $10 million for urban canals • $5 billion for weatherizing buildings

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 10:54pm
Again, wondering how our right-wing friends explain a

SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN....supporting bank nationalization?!??!!??!?

What's next? An ALASKAN REPUBLICAN who's pro-choice??!?!!?

Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 10:54pm
• $2 billion to develop advanced batteries for hybrid cars • $3.4 billion for fossil energy research (possibly including an earmark for FutureGen) • $5.1 billion for environmental cleanup around military bases • $5.5 billion for "green" federal buildings • $300 million for "green" cars for federal employees • $20 million for IT upgrades at the Small Business Administration • $200 million to design and furnish DHS headquarters • $210 million for State and local fire stations • $125 million to restore trails and abandoned mines • $146 million for trail maintenance at National Park Service sites • $140 million for volcano monitoring systems • $600 million for the EPA Superfund environmental cleanup program • $200 million to clean up leaking underground storage tanks • $500 million for forest health and wildfire prevention • $25 million for the Smithsonian Institution • $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts • $1.2 billion for "youth activities" (for "youth" up to 24 years old) • $500 million earmark for NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD • $1 billion for Head Start • $32 million for home-delivered nutrition services • $160 million for volunteer programs at the Corporation for National and Community Service • $500 million earmark for the SSA National Computer Center in MD • $220 million for the International Boundary and Water Commission, U.S. and Mexico

So hsubfools, just how is this kickstarting the ecnomy, where are those 3.5 million jobs lost and 2.5 million new jobs Obamanation promised in all this?

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 10:57pm
All of the major news outlets are reporting that the stimulus bill voted out of conference committee last night has a meager $789 billion price tag. This number is pure fantasy. No one believes that the increased funding for programs the left loves like Head Start, Medicaid, COBRA, and the Earned Income Tax Credit is in anyway temporary. No Congress under control of the left will ever cut funding for these programs. So what is the true cost of the stimulus if these spending increases are made permanent?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the impact of permanently extending the 20 most popular provisions of the stimulus bill. What did the CBO find? As you can see from the table below, the true 10 year cost of the stimulus bill $2.527 trillion in in spending with another $744 billion cost in debt servicing. Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3.27 trillion.

Yep, just a bunch of wacko Republicans raging against the LBJ Great Society stage II dreams of Obamanation!

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 10:58pm
comancheamerican, exactly how does the Gov. fund COBRA? Because when I needed it, they were nowhere in sight.

Posted by zhongman at 02/18/2009 @ 02:21am
Sweden found it had to nationalize its banks as the only solution to a messed up financial system, and then it privatized them again, and the situation was fixed.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/17/2009 @ 5:11pm

Like I said a couple of days ago, he said, "nationalization" but he means "receivership".

Big difference.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/18/2009 @ 08:21am
* the "Community-Organizer-in-Chief" is also orchestrating a conspiracy involving the Census Bureau, which the president will use to redraw congressional lines to keep Democrats in power for up to "40 years."

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/17/2009 @ 6:50pm

This is why Sen Gregg quit. The most important function of Commerce Secratary in the ought years is the census. Obama moved this to a White house position reporting to him. So Gregg withdrew.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/18/2009 @ 08:23am
Again, wondering how our right-wing friends explain a SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN....supporting bank nationalization?!??!!??!?

What's next? An ALASKAN REPUBLICAN who's pro-choice??!?!!?

Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 10:54pm

nope.

greenspan.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2009 @ 08:24am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/18/2009 @ 08:21am

Where did you buy your Universal Translator, Darin?

Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 08:57am
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2009 @ 08:24am

Same diff.

BTW, recommendation from my son for a song for your band to learn-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IWKhYQarJU

Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 08:59am
Where did you buy your Universal Translator, Darin?

Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 08:57am

At the NRO bookstore. I originally needed it to communicate with the locals here.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/18/2009 @ 09:10am
We're borrowing from the next generation to avoid tough budget choices today.) • $8 billion for high-speed railway (including an earmark for an Los ...

Posted by comancheamerican at 02/17/2009 @ 10:54pm

You and the rest of the new con repub blood sucking ticks will never understand investing in the future for 'We the people' because to you only corporations are people and 'We the people' are like food, cattle, not even tools, grease for your tools; thusly you and the rest of the new con repub blood sucking ticks have a 'blind spot'--- one that most people already 'easily' see! You and the rest of the new con repub blood sucking ticks are seen by most of the US citizenry and the rest of the world simply as new con repub blood sucking tick fools. That is why you and the rest of the new con repub blood sucking ticks will continue to lose.

One would think, that if only for their own survival, new con repub blood sucking ticks would lie and just pretend to understand investing in 'We the people' benefits 'We the people'. But since new con repub blood sucking ticks are incompetent; don't understand the concept of 'We the people', see it as the enemy, don't quite comprehend what their host can do to them.

They say HELLO; We say good bye...

This is the priority:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union: 1. establish justice, 2. insure domestic tranquility, 3. provide for the common defense...

Get the order right or you're just wrong.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/18/2009 @ 09:14am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/18/2009 @ 09:10am

Oh....thought it was one of those "in my mind's eye" kind of things.

heheh

Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 09:46am
I started a post about how your current end-zone dance is terribly premature. But it wasn't coming out right so I abandoned it. Then I read this. Skip the WFB part if you want, but don't skip the last line in the Woodrow Wilson part: (This link won't last more than a day)

http://online.wsj.com/article/ best_of_the_web_today.html

The Roots of Liberal Condescension

The denunciation of Palin took place 45 years after William F. Buckley Jr. wrote: "I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University."

We can make sense of this incongruity by moving beyond his famous line about the telephone directory to the rarely quoted explanation for why he would oppose being governed by eminent scholars:

"Not, heaven knows, because I hold lightly the brainpower or knowledge or generosity or even the affability of the Harvard faculty: but because I greatly fear intellectual arrogance, and that is a distinguishing characteristic of the university which refuses to accept any common premise. In the deliberations of two thousand citizens of Boston I think one would discern a respect for the laws of God and for the wisdom of our ancestors which does not characterize the thought of Harvard professors--who, to the extent that they believe in God at all, tend to believe He made some terrible mistakes which they would undertake to rectify; and, when they are paying homage to the wisdom of our ancestors, tend to do so with a kind of condescension toward those whose accomplishments we long since surpassed."

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/18/2009 @ 10:05am
What sets the people in the phonebook apart from the professors, according to this argument, is that they believe in and defer to profound truths existing outside of history. They are willing, furthermore, to accept that the "democracy of the dead," incorporating the cumulative judgment of people long gone and forgotten, might well have grasped those truths better than people, even very smart people, who happen to be alive at this moment.

The professors, by contrast, expect to be deferred to, not to be the ones deferring. Their "intellectual arrogance" is a consequence of the assumptions of progressivism, an ism that treats progress as the fundamental reality...

The most important progressive, Woodrow Wilson, president of Princeton University and of the American Political Science Association before he became president of the United States, said that if a statesman is to be a leader, he must assess "the preparation of the nation for the next move in the progress of politics." It's counterproductive for the statesman to lecture or hector, but the superiority of his insight into the direction of historical development is not in doubt: "The forces of the public thought may be blind: he must lend them sight; they may blunder: he must set them right."

Progressives and their liberal progeny have found it increasingly difficult to maintain a respectful attitude toward the citizens who need to be led to a better future, despite Wilson's own insistence on such respect for fellow citizens. "No reform may succeed for which the major thought of the nation is not prepared," he wrote.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/18/2009 @ 10:05am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/18/2009 @ 10:05am

Interesting given the LAST election and claims from the RIGHT that the people were hoodwinked by a "Messiah" or "glitz and no substance".

Also interesting that the Right continually battles for things like banning abortion, overturning Roe, etc....when the polls consistantly show that the majority of the public supports SOME basic abortion rights.

I guess we're supposed to defer to "the televangelists" for our morality....as well as the "CEOs" who "know best how to give us prosperity" (i.e. letting them use our tax money for bonuses and giving them more tax cuts)?

Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 10:51am
"They (experts) are willing, furthermore, to accept that the "democracy of the dead," incorporating the cumulative judgment of people long gone and forgotten, might well have grasped those truths better than people, even very smart people, who happen to be alive at this moment."

...

"Progressives and their liberal progeny have found it increasingly difficult to maintain a respectful attitude toward the citizens who need to be led to a better future, despite Wilson's own insistence on such respect for fellow citizens. "No reform may succeed for which the major thought of the nation is not prepared," he wrote."

...

Might I contend that it is the new con repub blood sucking ticks that 'find it increasingly difficult to maintain a respectful attitude toward the citizens' as 'people, even very smart people, who happen to be alive at this moment' are deluged with revisionist Pox News, Rump Limppaw, Con Hammity, And Colder, right wing blood sucking tick ideology 24/7.

Might it be a fearful new con tick that belies the present truth with its own archetypal denial-- that it has truly only always been a blood sucking tick and its right to life in no way can be tied to benefiting society except as a 'big lie'. Take away the big lie and what can new con repub blood sucking ticks rely on for survival?

Perhaps a contrite new con repub blood sucking tick self-admonishment to not 'suck' as much? Perhaps a promise by new con repub blood sucking ticks to help its host, 'We the people', to get stronger; in that way the affects of the remaining new con repub blood sucking ticks will be least damaging to a free society?

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/18/2009 @ 12:03pm
Palin floated as next Obama Commerce sec by repubs:

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/693695.html

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/18/2009 @ 12:20pm
By comanche "Says the darlaloon who NEVER provides proof of her statements, like laws passed by republicans or bills signed by Bush! "

How about the devaluation of the dollar by Bush's War for Oil borrowing of $1,000,000 million and the "Borrow and Spend" Repuglicans in congress spending like drunken sailors while Bush was looking for his veto pen.

Does doubling the National Debt from 5 Trillion to 10 Trillion dollars sound familiar?

"We (the R's and C's) are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right." - George Orwell

Posted by COProgressive at 02/18/2009 @ 12:49pm
Also interesting that the Right continually battles for things like banning abortion, overturning Roe, etc....when the polls consistantly show that the majority of the public supports SOME basic abortion rights.

I guess we're supposed to defer to "the televangelists" for our morality....as well as the "CEOs" who "know best how to give us prosperity" (i.e. letting them use our tax money for bonuses and giving them more tax cuts)?

Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 10:51am

Well the majority of the nation did nothing to rise up against slavery either, and that was certainly an evil.

As I've said, I pray one day that our nation comes to understand the evil of murdering innocents every day in this country, and which now totals as one of the greatest genocides in mankinds history, and how it bears on our collective guilt.

Posted by antisocialist at 02/18/2009 @ 1:16pm
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Feb. 7-8, 2009.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democratic leaders in Congress are handling their job?"

__Approve__Disapprove__Unsure

____60_______39_______2

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republican leaders in Congress are handling their job?"

____44_______55_______1

&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Pew Research Center Poll. Feb. 4-8, 2009. N=1,303 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the job the Democratic leaders in Congress are doing?"

__Approve__Disapprove__Unsure

____48_______38_______14

"Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the job the Republican leaders in Congress are doing?"

____34_______51_______15

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/18/2009 @ 1:31pm
Also interesting that the Right continually battles for things like banning abortion, overturning Roe, etc....when the polls consistantly show that the majority of the public supports SOME basic abortion rights.

Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 10:51am

Abortion is the perfect example. America has the most liberal abortion laws in the world. There isn't a contry in Europe with abortion laws as permissive as our.

And look at the trends in public opinion; they are all trending toward greater restrictions. (Can the "abolish" talk. Some support that but it is not what I'm talking about.)

Abortion was thrust on the American public through judicial fiat. It was not democratically enacted so the issue will never be settled and it continues to hurt other causes on the Left.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/18/2009 @ 1:35pm
Nationalizing the US Banks will not help at all. We are doomed to become a third world economy when the US government destroys the purchasing power of the dollar by just printing money that is backed by nothing of value, except for title to breweries, casinos, forrests, refineries, factories, hotels, and other assets that are located in the USA.

The US government can continue to buy a lots of paper and print up a bunch of new paper money, T-Bills, Bonds, and other similar paper securities then deposit these financial instruments into banks (actually the Federal Reserve) to cover checks issued to pay for government payrolls, wars, pork barrel projects, negative balance of trade, failed business bailouts, entitlements, government grants, social schemes, new infrastructure, wealth re-distribution, mental health, imported consumer goods, police, education, make-work schemes, and etc. This will cause massive inflation to the point that it takes a whole day's wages to buy one loaf of bread.

Paying people to pave roads, build infrastructure, plant trees, dig holes then refill the same holes, rake leaves, write poems, paint pictures, environmental cleanup, etc. will not be useful or contribute anything to correcting the US economic problem. Only a positive balance of trade will restore the value of the dollar, and we must accomplish this by any means possible, or accept third world poverty on a large scale basis. Riots and insurrection are predictable, ala the French Revolution, when the people find their situations economically hopeless.

Posted by gerald4 at 02/18/2009 @ 1:44pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/18/2009 @ 1:35pm

Yes, it is the perfect example of how CONSERVATIVES believe that an "elite few"....in your case those who wish to ban abortion....should tell the rest of us to live.

And if you're worried about it's "anti-democratic" enactment, Darin....put it to a vote.

I'm sure a ban on abortion will go over like gangbusters. S'why the Republicans NEVER put out the "Human Life Amendment" out of Committee, when they held Congress.

LOL....another example where Darin's premise is exactly mirrored on HIS side of the aisle. Next up? "Democrats are worse than Republicans when it comes to ______" (fill in the blank with something BOTH sides do...or maybe even just the Right)

Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 1:52pm
What we need is govt is create jobs, as FDR did. NRA, WPA, etc. This will accompliosh two things: 1) provide jobs (just as during New Deal). 2) The jobs can be things that our society desperately needs: building new bridges, roads, etc (just as in New Deal).

No one is talking along these lines much, but it's something to think about (it worked back when).

Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 4:34pm
One point, JOHN.

The phrase "Democratic Socialism" is a contradiction in terms. There can be no such thing, since the abrogation of economic rights can only be maintained by the eventual stifiling of political rights. The best you can hope to achieve is an indecent interval between the political rhetoric when it starts and the ultimate reality at the end. And it doesn't work. Please note the untimely death of the Soviet Union.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/18/2009 @ 4:35pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/18/2009 @ 4:35pm

So, Sweden and France are not socialist then?

Or are they not democracies?

Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 4:43pm
Sweden and France are "social democracies," NOT socialist, in that they are not purely such. (They still HAVE classes, private property, etc.)

Democratic socialists DO exist - that is, there are those who identify themselves as such.

Whether such systems exist (or have ever existed, or CAN ever exist) in real life is another question.

Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 4:49pm
The phrase "Democratic Socialism" is a contradiction in terms. There can be no such thing, since the abrogation of economic rights can only be maintained by the eventual stifiling of political rights. The best you can hope to achieve is an indecent interval between the political rhetoric when it starts and the ultimate reality at the end. And it doesn't work. Please note the untimely death of the Soviet Union.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/18/2009 @ 4:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

well, thats some nice ideology you got.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2009 @ 4:55pm
Democratic socialists totally disagree with the Soviet system. Many totally opposed it. They have little (if anything) in common with such totalitarians.

They argue that socialism would not abrogate, but rather increase economic freedom, in that, under socialism, you are guaranteed a job, a minimal level of economic security, health care, etc, whereas, under capitalism, many do not have these things at all.

I am not a socialist, but I felt compelled to point these things out.

Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:04pm
What if everyone in the society AGREED to share the wealth, and work for the common good as opposed to selfish individual needs? That is, such a society would be "democratic," in that everyone willingly agreed (democratic consensus) to socialism?

It is theoretically possible.

Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:08pm
I am not a socialist, but I felt compelled to point these things out.

Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

"socialism" is the satano-aynrando's shibboleth for anything other than their satano-aynrando ideology of private EVERYTHING.

personally i think a little socialism is sustainable capitalism's best friend.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2009 @ 5:14pm
Ibble,

I agree - there may be no word in the English language that is more abused than "socialism." Don't like something? Call it socialist. Barack Obama - socialist. Bill Clinton? Socialist.

Evidently, anything that deviates to even the slightest degree from pure, unregulated, hyper-individualist/libertarian, laissez-faire cut-throat every man to himself capitalism, is socialism!

A mixture of socialism and capitalism works best for all.

Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:20pm
Abortion came up: Holland has perhaps the most "liberal" abortion laws on the planet - anyone can get one, even teenagers with no parental consent. And you know what? They also have one of the lower abortion rates. You know why? Because they all use contraception, because they teach it from day one, drilling it into their heads, the importance of using it. Thus they have few unwanted pregnancies, and thusm, relatively few abortions.

Makes sense, I know. Of course, here in America, where we do most things ass-backwards, abortion is difficult, but because not enough use contraception (due to lack of emphasis on the importance of such), we have MANY unwanted pregnancies, and hence more demand for abortions, but less ability to have them.

Ass-backwards, as usual.

Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:42pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

personally i often consider myself more of a "progressive conservative" than a "liberal". perhaps i'm allowing myself to become a victim of the rightwing privately owned propaganda factory's duckspeaking villification of anything other than themselves, ideologically, but on the other hand...

first i look at old otto von bismark...not a big fan, but bismark, an old european style conservative, "saved" germany from democratic socialism by...

adopting and implementing many of their ideas, thereby ensuring the loyalty of germany's working classes until 1945...

ugh...

but the point is that germany's ruling classes ensured the survival and even prosperity of their own world by implementing socialistic programs that made "marxist revolution" unatractive and unnecesary for the average schmuk german.

often "noblesse oblige" looks a LOT like "socialism", which i think explains the large number of english aristocrats who became enamored with socialism in decades past.

second, my self labeling of "conservative" has little to do with modern american "conservatism", which in classical european political context would be "classical liberalism"...

i largely agree with pat buchanon's ideas on international trade and non-intervention, believe our country has had a complete moral breakdown over the last three to four decades, strongly support moderate government regulation and pragmaticly utilitarian involvement in the econonomy, universal healthcare overseen by a public entity...

although by no means against banning of abortion, have no problem with states limiting the same and oppose public money being spent on performing non-emergency abortions.

so what exactly AM i?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2009 @ 5:44pm
i also have no problem with using the PATRIOT ACT to declare the violent criminal organizations that plague our country's neighborhoods domestic criminal terrorist organizations and treating them as such...

because as far as i'm concerned thats what they are.

also in terms of education i am an arch conservative who is HIGHLY suspicious of the crap that liberal pedagogia has vomitted forth for the last half century and firmly believe that WORST thing we can do is pretend we can "leave no child behind" or that education alone can "solve all the problems"...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2009 @ 5:53pm
Ibble, you got me, lol.

You sound like a free thinker, perhaps. Someone not totally bound by an ideological straight-jacket?

It's funny, though I myself am a liberal, I do generally agree with Pat Buchanon when he speaks on one particular issue (well, broad issue): the Middle East. I feel a little weird about it, but there it is. Even though he is an isolationist, and I am a liberal (who therefore espouses intervention in some cases), we both are even-handed on Israel and the Palestinians, we both were against the war in Iraq, etc.

Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:54pm
Ibble,

Liberals such as myself want to improve education by leveling the playing field in terms of funding, with more aide from the federal govt to poorer schools, etc. We (speaking on behalf of liberals) don't believe this is some sort of "magic bullet" to solve everything that ails our society, though.

Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:57pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

lol - i TRY to avoid intellectual straightjacketing.

unfortunately i find our modern america a hotbed for the cult of stupidity and trivial obsession, and have NEVER shared some folks' optimism in regard to human nature...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2009 @ 6:00pm
Ibble,

I'm against both socialism (doesn't work) and laissez-fair capitalism (benefits only the wealthy).

Generally speaking, I am against extremes in everything.

I am a "balancist." The ruth usally lies somewhere OTHER than at either extrem end of any debate - not always in the middle, but NEVER at either end.

Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:00pm
That's WHY I am a liberal - it is a nice balance point between extremes of both left and right political thinking. It is balanced.

Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 6:02pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

the problem i have noticed is ironic...

1. any society with half a grain of common sense wants as many educated citizenry as possible. unfortunately, without genetic engineering and superhumanism...until old evolution steps in (as it does very imperceptibly slowly), there IS a limit! to aspire for perfection is all fine and dandy, but to expect to achieve that chimera is stupid, childish, and ultimateily destructively cruel to all involved...

2. when education is presented as a right and not more of as a privilege...it is INHERENTLY DEVALUED AND DILUTED. when it is dangled just barely in reach (not financially but qualitatively), it becomes desirable...ah perverse shaved ape psychology!!!

i don't support doling out loads of $$$ for everybody who wants to get a masters degree in russian women's literature, believe grade inflation and dumbing down has shattered the humanities and social sciences, and have no problem whatsoever with expelling millions of secondary and primary students who are under our current social degradation and financial crisis probably uneducable.

whew! got that rantage out of my system!

lol

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2009 @ 6:10pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 5:08pm

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2009 @ 5:14pm

If "socialist" doesn't do the trick, I'd invite you to join me in attempting to popularize the word "collectivist".

While "socialism" connotes an absolute (absolue evil or absolute solution depending on your pursuasion) "collectivst" is inherently relative.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/18/2009 @ 6:54pm
So much to say, so little time, so much energy to expend, on arguments that are never resolved....

Sometimes I use the word "communitarian" as opposed to collectivist. Whatever WORD we use, everyone talks in such broad strokes. As if, one is either totally socialist/collectivist/communitarian, or totally individualist/capitalist. As if there aren't a hundred gradations at points in between the two extreme ends. When I was in school, they did that to me as a liberal - the college I went to, the Professors (and students) were all to the left of me, various assorted Marxists, neo-Marxists, liberal-left hybrids, etc. All to the left of me! When I deviated from their far-left line, they called me a Republican. No one wants to deal in subtleties. This is why McCain and Palin could (sort of) get away with calling Obama a socialist. This is why leftists sometimes called Reagan (and Bush) "fascists." It's so either or with so many people. I do feel that my modified/regulated/reform capitalism is sometimes purposely conflated with socialism. In order to discredit liberalism with the masses.

Here's something to consider: to me, being a collectivist/communitarian (to the extent that I am), entails both concern for the society in total, AND at the same time, concern for the individual. Because, what is a collective, a community, but a collection of individuals? That is, to say you have concern for the common good, is to say that you want what is best for the individuals that MAKE UP that collective! So to me, being the moderate collectivist that I am (a liberal, as I prefer) means to (yet again, as is my want) balance conflicting concerns.

Liberalism is a nice moderate balance point between extremes of left and right; between extremes of hyper-individual-

Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 7:19pm
ism and hyper-communitarianism (socialism, if you will).

Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 7:20pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/18/2009 @ 6:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

i don't know. "collectivism" sounds pretty marxy leniny to me.

no ideas here, actually...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2009 @ 7:38pm
Remember what Abbie Hoffman used to call himself? A "Groucho-Marxist."

Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 7:44pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 7:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

lol - no, but thats hilarious.

i'm more of a harpo-marxist...

but not a richard marxist...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/18/2009 @ 8:55pm
Posted by FDR43 at 02/18/2009 @ 4:49pm

My point was that your usual "level-1" thinking right-winger calls EVERYTHING "east of" laissez-faire capitalism "socialist"...but espeically Sweden and France.

In contradiction to their claim that a "socialist state can't be a democracy"!

No offense to CHIP...unless he didn't understand that.

Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 9:31pm
So now the new con repub blood sucking ticks are going to blame all this mess they created on 'Socialism' 24/7. Wow, increditable....

Found this thought: "AMERICANS SHOULD NEVER FORGET THAT REPUBLICANS WANTED TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY FOUR YEARS AGO; BUT WERE BLOCKED BY DEMOCRATS CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT YOUR RETIREMENT PROSPECTS WOULD BE LIKE IF BUSH AND HIS ROBOTIC REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS HAD SUCCEEDED IN BANKRUPTING SOCIAL SECURITY LIKE THEY HAVE BANKRUPTED THE REST OF AMERICA???"

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/19/2009 @ 5:48pm
Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 02/18/2009 @ 08:21am said:

>> he said, "nationalization" but he means "receivership". <<

You have a point. It is a kind of receivership if it is agreed from the first that the restructured business will revert to its private owners.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/19/2009 @ 7:51pm