mccain's vp

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I hear you Miraja. I used Wikipedia because that is what Cajungator originally posted in describing Obama as a socialist. I agree with her-many of Obama's policies are socialist in nature.

So you don't like Wikipedia. Thats fine. How about these:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...20Encyclopedia

or

how about the DICTIONARY? I would say that is reliable. here is the link:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods



The dictionary kind of says that I am right. Unless I am missing something.

If you still disagree, can you post some support to what you are saying besides "trust me" and "i assure you". I dont mean to be snotty in this case (most of the time i do) but i am anxious to see how you can actually explain that the Fed's policies stated above ARENT socialist.

First of all let me say that this is probably the most boring discussion I have ever been involved in on this site.

But secondly, let me keep this boring conversation going a bit longer. It seems like your argument breaks down like this:
1) Socialists advocate increasing the size and power of the government.
2) The Bush administration has increased the size and power of the government.
Therefore.....George W. Bush is a socialist.
That is flawed logic, and I think an analogy from the world of horse racing might illustrate why:
1) Good racehorses win horseraces.
2) Pepper's Pride wins horseraces.
By your logic this would mean that Pepper's Pride is a good racehorse.....which of course, she is not.
Just because two things share common characteristics does not mean they are the same thing.

If you really are interested in learning about socialism, I would suggest reading either Lichtheim's The Origins of Socialism, or perhaps, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (the name of the author on this one escapes me at the moment). Both books are a bit dated at this point (I think they were both written in the 70s) but I had to read them a few years ago and they both do a pretty good job of explaining what distinguishes socialism from other political/economic philosophies.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by miraja2

First of all let me say that this is probably the most boring discussion I have ever been involved in on this site.

But secondly, let me keep this boring conversation going a bit longer. It seems like your argument breaks down like this:
1) Socialists advocate increasing the size and power of the government.
2) The Bush administration has increased the size and power of the government.
Therefore.....George W. Bush is a socialist.
That is flawed logic, and I think an analogy from the world of horse racing might illustrate why:
1) Good racehorses win horseraces.
2) Pepper's Pride wins horseraces.
By your logic this would mean that Pepper's Pride is a good racehorse.....which of course, she is not.
Just because two things share common characteristics does not mean they are the same thing.

If you really are interested in learning about socialism, I would suggest reading either Lichtheim's The Origins of Socialism, or perhaps, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (the name of the author on this one escapes me at the moment). Both books are a bit dated at this point (I think they were both written in the 70s) but I had to read them a few years ago and they both do a pretty good job of explaining what distinguishes socialism from other political/economic philosophies.

Actually, you are putting words into my mouth or rather you are trying to make it seem as if i said something that i didnt. Lets rehash because you have obviously dug yourself into a hole and you don't want to admit it. So...

Originally, I stated that George W. Bush is a socialist. You said that I am wrong. Fine. I then supported my contention with these rhetorical questions:


Is the idea of bailing out wall st with public funds socialist?

1. Is the idea of a "stimulus package" socialist?

2. Is the idea smart growth socialist?

3. Is the idea to build 1300 new power plants with government funds socialist?

4, Is the nationalization of 90% of the mortgage industry socialist?

To this you replied that the answer would be "no".

To that I provided a link to wikipedia. To this you question the validity of the info.

Then i Provided a link to britannica and The dictionary. To that you replied with nebulous banter that you somehow tried to relate to horseracing.




Do you want me to post the definition of socialism found in the dictionary and encyclopedia again and tell you how Bush has helped to govern in a socialist way? Or do you want to continue to talk in circles? Support your points or be done.

[GPK]

Anyone hear Obama last night on Letterman when talking about Bill Clinton?

"There's nobody smarter in politics"

[dalakhani]

WEBSTER'S online definition of Socialism:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


Is the nationalization of the mortgage industry socialist? Miraja says NO.

But read the bolded. The govt is controlling, regulating, profiting and losing money on the price and availabilty of mortgages. Is that not socialist in nature? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were privately owned agencies. In the blink of an eye, the govt took them over and is running them with PUBLIC FUNDS. HOW IS THIS NOT SOCIALISM?

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Do you want me to post the definition of socialism found in the dictionary and encyclopedia again and tell you how Bush has helped to govern in a socialist way? Or do you want to continue to talk in circles? Support your points or be done.

Again, and I am trying really hard not to be a typical academic here, but providing links to on-line encyclopedias and dictionaries is not really proving much of anything. I gave you a couple of actual books that I have read that I think would educate you more on the topic if you are interested. Some ideas are complex and can't be fully reduced to one-sentence definitions. I know some journalists call Bush a socialist, but I can assure you that most serious academics would never classify the Bush administration as socialist. They just wouldn't. Now I realize I probably can't prove this to you since for you, proof seems to only consist of posting a link, but I suppose if you are really that interested you could try contacting some leading academics and asking them so you could see for yourself.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth at all with my analogy. I really see no reason for a discussion such as this to get this heated. I made the analogy because it seemed to me (and it actually still does) that you are equating all governmental activism with socialism (and also because I just like taking shots at Pepper's Pride). That definition of socialism just seems out of whack to me. By your definition, it seems to me like you would you categorize Henry VIII as a socialist. Do you really think that makes sense?

Also, you might want to look into the whole mortgage thing a bit more. Fannie Mae was founded as part of the New Deal, and was an official government agency for over thirty years. When it was later partially privatized (sometime in the early 1970s I think?) it was never truly a completely independent private company, so I don't know if your "blink of an eye" statement really works.
And perhaps more importantly, is it really that shocking?
Afterall, the United States Post Office has a statutory monopoly on mail delivery to private mailboxes. It is literally against the law for someone to start a business that would deliver packages to private mailboxes. The governmet is controlling, regulating, etc. all aspects of that industry, and for a large portion of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, held a legal monopoly on any sort of delivery service at all.
Does that mean that the early nineteenth-century government that authorized this monopoly (and put some private competitors out of business in the process) was socialist?
I guess my argument is that your definition of socialism seems so broad, that almost every government in history fits the description. At that point, does the word even have any meaning at all?

Also, if you wanted to move this discussion to PM, it would be fine with me. I can't imagine anybody else finding this stuff the least bit interesting.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Again, and I am trying really hard not to be a typical academic here, but providing links to on-line encyclopedias and dictionaries is not really proving much of anything. I gave you a couple of actual books that I have read that I think would educate you more on the topic if you are interested. Some ideas are complex and can't be fully reduced to one-sentence definitions. I can assure you that no serious academic would ever classify the Bush administration as socialist. They just wouldn't. Now I realize I probably can't prove this to you since for you proof seems to only consist of posting a link, but I suppose if you are really that interested you could try contacting some leading academics and asking them so you could see for yourself.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth at all with my analogy. I really see no reason for a discussion such as this to get this heated. It seemed to me (and it actually still does) that you seem to be equating all governmental action with socialism. That definition of socialism just seems out of whack to me. By your definition, it seems to me like you would you categorize Henry VIII as a socialist. Do you really think that makes sense?

Also, you really need to get your facts straight on the whole mortgage thing. Fannie Mae was founded as part of the New Deal, and was an official government agency for over thirty years. When it was later partially privatized (sometime in the early 1970s I think?) it was never truly a private company, so I don't know if your "blink of an eye" statement really works.
And perhaps more importantly, is it really that shocking? Afterall, the United States Post Office has a statutory monopoly on mail delivery to private mailboxes. It is literally against the law for someone to start a business that would deliver packages to private mailboxes. The governmet is controlling, regulating, etc. all aspects of that industry, and for a large portion of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, held a legal monopoly on any sort of delivery service at all.
Does that mean that the early nineteenth-century government that authorized this monopoly was socialist?
I guess my argument is that your definition of socialism seems so broad, that almost every government in history fits the description. At that point, does the word even have any meaning at all?

Miraja-

Please dont mistake my rhetoric for anger and it wasnt my intention. Actually, I find discussions like these many times enriching as long as one can support one's position with "fact" or the closest thing available (now that is broad).

Let me clarify my position on Bush considering that was what led to this and perhaps you can come up with one yourself.

To say that Bush is in all ways "socialist" would be silly. Of course he isnt a complete socialist and i said as much earlier. However, I would dare say that he is the most socialist Republican president in the last 100 years and probably beyond.

You bring up an example of the US postal service. Fine. And you can probably think of a couple of other government ventures along the way that are socialistic in theory as well. But have you seen a Republican president that was THIS SOCIALIST? For Example:

-He committed 200 billion dollars of federal money to rebuild New Orleans after Katrina

-uncountable billions in smart growth

-negoitated a deal where an privately held bank Bank of America bought a privately held mortgage company-countrywide and gave Bank of America a sweetheart favor in exchange.

-negotiated a deal where a privately held bank JP MORGAN CHASE bought a privately held investment bank-Bear Stearns and guaranteed the deal with public funds.

-injected 150 billion dollars of public funds back into the economy with this bogus stimulus package.

-is currently shopping for a buyer for Lehman Brothers


-took over fannie and freddie to the tune of 100 billion each.

And this isnt a socialist administration in many ways?


Lastly, i thought it was especially ironic about you telling me to "get my facts straight" with the mortgage industry considering that i help run a bank and i actually have final say in the paper we portfolio or sell. LOL. For your info, FNMA and FHLMC were Quasi govt agencies. FAnnie was created in 1938 and was converted to a PRIVATE company in 1968 so that it wouldnt appear on the fed budget sheet. It was indeed a PRIVATE company that received ZERO federal dollars or guarantees until last weekend when the fed took over.

The statement that i bolded "it was never truly a private company" is patently false and just flat out wrong. It was a privately held corporation with a board and a ceo and it made PROFIT and gave out disgusting bonuses to its board members. The only real connection to the government was the "implied" guarantee on the conforming paper.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Miraja-

Please dont mistake my rhetoric for anger and it wasnt my intention. Actually, I find discussions like these many times enriching as long as one can support one's position with "fact" or the closest thing available (now that is broad).

Let me clarify my position on Bush considering that was what led to this and perhaps you can come up with one yourself.

To say that Bush is in all ways "socialist" would be silly. Of course he isnt a complete socialist and i said as much earlier. However, I would dare say that he is the most socialist Republican president in the last 100 years and probably beyond.

You bring up an example of the US postal service. Fine. And you can probably think of a couple of other government ventures along the way that are socialistic in theory as well. But have you seen a Republican president that was THIS SOCIALIST? For Example:

-He committed 200 billion dollars of federal money to rebuild New Orleans after Katrina

-uncountable billions in smart growth

-negoitated a deal where an privately held bank Bank of America bought a privately held mortgage company-countrywide and gave Bank of America a sweetheart favor in exchange.

-negotiated a deal where a privately held bank JP MORGAN CHASE bought a privately held investment bank-Bear Stearns and guaranteed the deal with public funds.

-injected 150 billion dollars of public funds back into the economy with this bogus stimulus package.

-is currently shopping for a buyer for Lehman Brothers


-took over fannie and freddie to the tune of 100 billion each.

And this isnt a socialist administration in many ways?


Lastly, i thought it was especially ironic about you telling me to "get my facts straight" with the mortgage industry considering that i help run a bank and i actually have final say in the paper we portfolio or sell. LOL. For your info, FNMA and FHLMC were Quasi govt agencies. FAnnie was created in 1938 and was converted to a PRIVATE company in 1968 so that it wouldnt appear on the fed budget sheet. It was indeed a PRIVATE company that received ZERO federal dollars or guarantees until last weekend when the fed took over.

The statement that i bolded "it was never truly a private company" is patently false and just flat out wrong. It was a privately held corporation with a board and a ceo and it made PROFIT and gave out disgusting bonuses to its board members. The only real connection to the government was the "implied" guarantee on the conforming paper.

Blah...blah...blah...get your ass back in the avatar thread you started

[miraja2]

dalakhani,
In my opinion, I think this basically comes down to a situation where I am using a narrow, academia-based definition of socialism, and you are using a broad, popular culture-based definition. That's fine. It doesn't really seem like we are making any headway in convincing each other, so it is reaching the point of being a completely useless conversation.
All I would add at this point is some questions similiar to what you asked earlier:

- Would a socialist advocate a tax cut that exceeded a trillion dollars where the wealthy were the overwhelming beneficiaries?

- Would a socialist advocate a state-based deregulation of the energy system which ended up meaning that utilities are no longer obligated by law to reinvest ratepayer money back into the transmission system, and instead replace that level of government planning with total reliance on "the market."

- Would a socialist advocate taking apart the state controlled social security system and replacing it with a privatized system?

I think you will agree that the answers to all of those questions is no.

Socialists are primarily interested in re-distributing wealth from capital to labor. Does Bush fit that description? Not even close. I think the massive tax cuts for the rich alone probably disqualify him from consideration.

You cite a bunch of examples where the administration has increased the role of the government. Nobody could disagree with that. They certainly are less concerned about limiting the size and scope of the federal government than any other Republican administrations since Teddy Roosevelt. On that front we certainly agree.
I just think that without a simultaneous committment to changing the fundamental economic power relationships in the country (where they seem to have the exact opposite goals in mind) the term "socialist" is inappropriate.
In the end though, it seems like it all comes down to semantics.

As for the Fannie May discussion, it seems to me like we are saying the same thing. It started out as a government organization. It was such for 30 years. Then it became a private company with, as you call it, an "implied guarantee" from the government. It was that "implied gurarantee" that I was referencing when I called it not a "truly private company." To me, that implied guarantee is fairly significant, and makes it (or I guess I should now say, 'made' it) fundamentally different that any private company without such a gurantee. I never meant to imply that it wasn't a company where those at the top made outrageous profits. They did. But it seems to me like the implied guarantee from the government was probably significant on that front. I just thought your earlier "in the blink of an eye" statement implied that the government became involved in this business for the first time ever this summer. That was the point I was trying to address.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by miraja2

dalakhani,
In my opinion, I think this basically comes down to a situation where I am using a narrow, academia-based definition of socialism, and you are using a broad, popular culture-based definition. That's fine. It doesn't really seem like we are making any headway in convincing each other, so it is reaching the point of being a completely useless conversation.
All I would add at this point is some questions similiar to what you asked earlier:

- Would a socialist advocate a tax cut that exceeded a trillion dollars where the wealthy were the overwhelming beneficiaries?

- Would a socialist advocate a state-based deregulation of the energy system which ended up meaning that utilities are no longer obligated by law to reinvest ratepayer money back into the transmission system, and instead replace that level of government planning with total reliance on "the market."

- Would a socialist advocate taking apart the state controlled social security system and replacing it with a privatized system?

I think you will agree that the answers to all of those questions is no.

Socialists are primarily interested in re-distributing wealth from capital to labor. Does Bush fit that description? Not even close. I think the massive tax cuts for the rich alone probably disqualify him from consideration.

You cite a bunch of examples where the administration has increased the role of the government. Nobody could disagree with that. They certainly are less concerned about limiting the size and scope of the federal government than any other Republican administrations since Teddy Roosevelt. On that front we certainly agree.
I just think that without a simultaneous committment to changing the fundamental economic power relationships in the country (where they seem to have the exact opposite goals in mind) the term "socialist" is inappropriate.
In the end though, it seems like it all comes down to semantics.

As for the Fannie May discussion, it seems to me like we are saying the same thing. It started out as a government organization. It was such for 30 years. Then it became a private company with, as you call it, an "implied guarantee" from the government. It was that "implied gurarantee" that I was referencing when I called it not a "truly private company." To me, that implied guarantee is fairly significant, and makes it (or I guess I should now say, 'made' it) fundamentally different that any private company without such a gurantee. I never meant to imply that it wasn't a company where those at the top made outrageous profits. They did. But it seems to me like the implied guarantee from the government was probably significant on that front. I just thought your earlier "in the blink of an eye" statement implied that the government became involved in this business for the first time ever this summer. That was the point I was trying to address.

Remember-Bush has a constituency. He has many masters to keep happy. I bolded your points and i will address each one.

1. Would a Socialist offer a tax cut that overwhelmingly benefitted the wealthy?

A. No. But...a conservative would follow those tax cuts with budget cuts. In the first five years of office, Bush increased the deficit by 1.5 trillion. NOT taking into account Defense and homeland security, the Bush administration saw over the largest spending increase in US history. Socialist?

2. Would a socialist advocate state based control of the energy system and replace it with a privatized system?

A. No. Again, though, the devil is in the details. He wanted to use federal dollars to create, modernize and expand the energy system. Socialist?

3. Would a socialist take apart the state controlled social security system and privatize it?

A. No. But...read the plan. It would basically turn social security into a Thrift Savings Plan with a Central administrator that would invest the money for the GROUP. Now is that socialist? Here is the link to the whitehouse proposal:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/so...alsecurity.pdf

Fannie and Freddie's guarantees were strictly implied. You said "the were never really private" which wasnt the case. A government SEIZING a private company and propping it up with tax payer money is Socialist in nature. That was my point.

There is no academic that would deny that many of Bush's policies were indeed socialist in nature. The only debate would be about the degree...no pun intended.