Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph
The auto bailout's goal, however, was to help the private companies, known as the Big 3, to survive as private institutions that sell their cars according to what customers will pay for them. Thus, its goal was to preserve an aspect of capitalism (the American share of the automobile market), not establish socialism.
|
The government should not be in the business of helping out businesses.
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx
No, a purely capitalist system would allow a failing company or financial institution to fail. That's what bankruptcy is for. A socialist system would make them part of the government.
By accepting bailout money, the "Man" can assume de facto control by saying"We wanna make sure that this money is spent right, so we'll determine how things are spent and/or run."
Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph
The economic stimulus, officially called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, had a similar intent. The recovery's website lists several goals of the act. Some of them include reviving the renewable energy industry, investing in infrastructure, and granting tax credits to working families. These are not the goals of a socialist. Remember that a socialist seeks to eliminate private property and companies, not revive them. A socialist would also do the infrastructure investment differently. Under socialism, the government would enlist employees directly to rebuild infrastructure, not hire private contractors who will in turn hire employees as is the case in this act. Finally, the tax credits are meant to encourage spending by individuals to reinvigorate the economy. The basic premise is that the recipients of these tax credits will use the money to make purchases. This will help companies, who will use their extra earnings to hire more employees, who will be able to spend themselves, thus restarting the economy and saving capitalism. This is known as Keynesian economics, not socialism. The cash for clunkers program also works this way, encouraging spending by subsidizing the purchase with government spending. No socialist would ever try to save capitalism, which they see as the creator of the class system that they despise.
|
The quote,"death by a thousand cuts" is relevant here. Once again, a push by the gov't to gain control of private sector enterprises. Just because they don't try to take control by more forceful means does not mean that they are not trying to take over. Rather than trying to control everything in a Soviet-esque manner, they know that they can achieve the same goals in a more subtle manner. People don't respond kindly to outright attacks, so they've changed tactics and found that you can get people to vote for this shit in times of uncertainty under the guise of "financial stability/security","hope and change" or what ever catchphrase they are using.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph
President Obama is a capitalist. His policies are directed at rescuing companies, revitalizing the capitalist economy, helping small businesses, and creating competition, all things actual socialists would cringe at.
|
There is a world outside of Berkeley you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph
So please stop saying that Obama is a socialist, please stop posting it on your blogs, or yelling it at town meetings, or wearing T-shirts of it, or writing it on picket signs. Concentrate instead on legitimate criticisms of his policies and your opposition will be much more effective and better received.  |
I am, yet it seems that if I don't believe in a particular political solution or I'm not fellating Obama like everyone else, I am automatically labeled as a back-asswards, racist/misogynist/bigoted redneck who has a heart of stone and clings bitterly to guns and religion.