Great article, CI. I wouldn't have believed this, if your link had not come from such a reputable source:
Wouldn't that be libel? Or do they mean a vote in Congress?
What a bunch of nuts!
...Could this really be true? I have a hard time believing that report is accurate.
Again I cite the latest already posted in another thread.
People who identify themselves as
Independent - 38%
Democrat - 35%
Republican - 21%
The Republicans are now the swing vote - the third party. If conservatives want to regain power sometime before 2040 [see James Carvel's latest book], they should dump the Republican Party and take over "the big tent" of Independents.
Honestly, I don't want to see the Democrats in power for the next 30 or 40 years, but I will never again support the Republican Party unless they dump the extremists and zealots, and I don't see that happening. The credible and sane conservatives need to make a clean break; NOW!
Reputable source? Really? Time is a pretty heavily liberal-biased magazine. This type of hit-and-run, sourceless, explanationless cheap shot is not really surprising to me coming from them. It is more a liberal blog post than an a news article - and their webite does not differentiate between what is intended to be news and what is intended to be editorial. A newspaper (a good one anyway) would never fail to properly categorize their articles.
A google finds what the article is referring to:
The way it was worded in the article didn't make a whole lot of sense to me - what is actually intended is to essentially make it a marketing point to pressure democrats to be honest about where their party is going. I'd never heard of a party passing "resolutions" before, but basically, it appears to be a way of adopting platforms and campaign strategy. For that purpose, there doesn't seem to me to be anything wrong with the idea. These resolutions are written by political organizations connected to the party.
There apparently was a similar resolution accusing Bush of socialism for his role in the bailouts: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/
It is interesting googling for "rnc resolution" or "dnc resolution" and seeing what type of things come up...
Interesting; what you call a marketing point, I call a lie. The problem is that a marketing point is supposed to be based in truth. This is nothing but used-car salesmenship - Weiner logic; an intentional deception or a delusional claim. It is the RNC that needs to evaluate just where it has been taking this country, and the statistics prove it.
The most obvious case in point. If Obama really wanted socialism, the FIRST thing he would want to do is to nationalize the banks. That is the heart of power. But he specifically has avoided that option which, at one point, was actually thought by many economists to be required in order to save the economy. He already had the prime opportunity but insisted on doing otherwise.
Didn't you just contradict your first sentence? Used-car salesmanship is marketing, whether it is deceptive or not (*gasp* - a political campaign could be deceptive? *gasp*). In either case, I don't see this as being deceptive because:
So when the government took over failing banks, you wouldn't call that "nationalizing" them? Here's what happens when a bank fails:
This is, of course, only one example of a socialistic policy democrats advocate. There are many, many others. What we are getting with the newfound power of the democrats is a major shift toward the socialist end of the economic spectrum - the biggest this country has seen since the New Deal.
It is not a stretch to call someone who advocates socialistic policies a socialist.
Speaking as a bemused outside onlooker... it seems that one of the problems with political discourse in the USA is that terms like "socialist" are often applied so widely that pretty much anyone would be a socialist, unless way over in what the rest of us think as rather extreme right wing. The way some republicans in the USA use the term, it has lost all useful meaning.
I'm not meaning to comment on you personally here. I don't know your intended meaning. I'm just saying. The USA can be a little ... odd ... in this respect.
But hey. I can talk. I'm an Aussie and we have a "liberal" party which is not what a USAmerican might think at first hearing either.
Cheers -- sylas
At the very least it seems that as the Republican iceberg melts that the largest activist block - Christian Fundamentalist - is attempting to throw the rest of the party into the water.
The intolerance they would show in their policies as regards gays or against women's rights to choose or against regulation or government in general, or school prayer, or evolution, they are apparently only too willing to apply to their own ranks, willing to cut their noses off to spite their face even. Purging Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Specter and Colin Powell, and now even apparently Tom Ridge, may feel good to the radicalizers and rabble rousers like Limbaugh and Beck, that at times seem more interested in controversy than actual solutions - controversy apparently pays better - but at the end of the day all they are left with is their "Party of No" slogans, with the rest of the country feeling that they may no longer be a relevant alternative.
Maybe the Republicans could excerpt the clip from the Wizard of Oz with the Witch crying "I'm melting, I'm melting. Oh, what a world."?
Is Bush a socialist? Did he allow the managers of banks and investment firms to reap fortunes in salaries and bonuses while lavishing taxpayer money on them to protect them from failure based on their greed? Is that not socialism? In my mind, it is the very worst perversion of socialism, in which profits are privatized and risks are socialized - an oligarchy, just like post USSR Russia. In real terms, the US government under Bush veered even more strongly into oligarchy than it had been, and the GOP has been abetting this trend all along, trying to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few instead of trying to make decisions that benefit average citizens.
Right-wingers throw the term "socialist" around derisively to describe anybody that is willing to fund any cause they dislike. Fund family planning, nutritional programs for poor children, try to extend health insurance coverage to all citizens? ALL socialist programs according to the GOP and their handlers, though the citizens in most industrialized countries all over the world have access to such programs. The US could comfortably fund universal health care coverage - ask the citizens of any European nation. How can they afford it, and the US cannot? It's not a matter of whether or not the US can afford UHC - it's a matter of how many politicians the health insurance companies can buy off, and how many mindless idiots will buy into the mantra that UHC is "socialism" and will ruin the US.
Just yesterday, the day after the governor signed Maine's same-sex marriage law, two separate right-wing religious groups filed petition requests in an attempt to overturn the law by popular ballot. Michael Heath, former president of the Christian Civic League had made it clear that he intended to bring the issue to voters next spring in June, but some of his compatriots didn't get the memo, or the affront to their religious sensibilities was too much to bear for an additional 7 months, so they are shooting for a November vote instead of waiting. They will have until sometime in August to gather 55,087 valid signatures for a citizen's initiative.
I'd suspect they will manage to get the signatures in that time. They have the summer. What else do they have to do besides sitting around and wringing their hands and worrying about what gays are up to? It will give them purpose.
Selling by a lie is not the same as selling by the truth. Do you mean to say that you really don't know the difference?
Again you are misdirecting the discussion. Obama had the chance to nationalize the banks but he didn't.
How many Republicans want to eliminate the FDIC? If the democrats are socialists, then so are the Republicans. The fact is that we implement both capitalist and socialist strategies to manage society. But, the key is whether we want private ownership of banks and businesses, or government ownership. Obama has specifically avoided the latter in favor of private ownership. This is a clear and definitive signal that he is not a socialist.
Because of the failed republican ideology that no regulation is good regulation - that markets are best left to regulate themselves - we now have no choice but for the government to intervene for the sake of the public good and even national security. There is a difference between doing what has to be done because the sky is falling, and chosing to do something based on some ideology. And recognizing that the free market failed doesn't make us socialists either. It means that as we always do, we will find a balance between pure socialism, and pure capitalism, neither or which actually exist.
Your position is no different than the Republican claim that allowing any tax increases are socialism. The fact is that we accepted the need for taxes - a redistribution of wealth, which is what all taxes are - long ago. It is one thing to support more taxes or less taxes, but we all recognize the need for taxes. If that makes us socialists, then we are all socialists and have been since 1861. In that event, the Republicans should just admit that they too are socialists and quit trying to deceive the public with McCarthy-style tactics.
If we use the word "ownership" to mean decision making power instead of whose name is on a piece of paper, then it is definitely not true that Obama favors "private" ownership of banks. Clearly he believes government should have significant decision making power (ownership) of banks to say the least.
That's funny, since libertarians like myself have always opposed wealth redistribution (theft), yet have never opposed taxes in general.
As far as the word socialist, is there a different word or phrase that could be used that would clearly and concisely describe the types of policies that Democrats generally favor, that are opposed by economic libertarians?
Really, why is that? If you mean that we are stipulating the terms of a loan provided by the US treasury, then that is called Capitalism - the man with the gold makes the rules. You can't get much more capitalist than that!
Or is it your position that if one entity, like a bank, loans money to another entity, like you, that they shouldn't be able to state the terms of the loan? Now YOU are promoting socialism [or something like it]. You are arguing that someone should tell the banks and other entities that loan money how they can do business.
That may be true, but you lost the argument over a century ago.
When the banks and other finanacial institutions became so large and so entangled in a web of worthless derivatives that, if they began to fail, national security was in jeopardy, the free market ceased to exist. The first job of the Federal Government is to provide for the security of the nation. Therefore, the Feds had a Constitutional responsibility to act to prevent a disaster.
The Constitution defines us. What the Republicans are arguing is that it would be better betray the Constitution than to violate their ideology. Therefore, they [the ones promoting this socialist nonsense] are definitively un-American. They would prefer to lie and allow the economy to collapse rather than admit they are wrong.
You are ignoring the fact that "the man with the gold" is the government, and an economy in which the government taxes it citizens and redistributes their wealth is, for better or worse, not a free market.
Furthermore, when the government takes in active role in redistributing wealth (capital), then the economy cannot be called capitalist, since by definition capitalism requires completely private ownership of capital.
The government has been actively involved in re-distributing wealth for many years, and not just through taxation and subidies. I watch my savings earning practically nothing because the present and previous Fed chairmen have aggressively pushed low interest rates for banks, and the banks' rates for savings accounts will never exceed that. Want to discourage savings? Give banks money at VERY low interest rates so they never have to give private depositors a fair shake.
I would have invested in real estate, but I have been aware of the over-valuation of most real estate (even undeveloped land) for years. I'm now riding out the market hoping that my mutual funds eventually regain at least some of the value that they once had. My wife and I are very conservative financially, and we're going to find ways to ride this out, but it sucks seeing discipline and fiscal conservatism being punished while the oligarchs get all the perks.
Huckabee seems confused. On the one hand he wants to be inclusive, but on the other, he doesn't seem to recognize that the problem is not throwing the Socially Conservative out of the party, but driving away any moderates that are Economic Conservatives, with the zeal of the Socially Conservative to see all moderates replaced and the Nation adopting their hard right social values. I think it is this ideological schism that has basically brought the Republicans to their current situation. And unfortunately their dilemma seems to be a monkey trap they can't let go of.
Obviously, this is not what I was referring to. But you knew that.
What argument? That people should be free? Libertarians didn't lose the argument, just the battle. I know all too well we have consistently lost battles to those that disagree. But the battles were lost to force, not reason. And Ben Franklin was right that "force ----s upon reason's back."
Saying we lost the argument is like saying a murder victim "lost the argument" that he shouldn't be murdered.
But my question was, what word or phrase could be used instead of "socialist"?
Separate names with a comma.