View Full Version : American Thoughts on the Financial Crisis
Gutshot John
10-05-08, 20:16
Good for a giggle.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3014/2907411559_117ac480b5.jpg?v=0
It was the biggest money grab in American history. It was caused on
purpose, just before the election.
The Stock Market was due for a correction and the government just
made it worse by springing this crap on the American people at this
time.
Your taxes WILL go up next year to pay for it.
You've been lied to by everyone from the President on down, Democrat
and Republican alike.
Corrupt politicians just bailed out their corrupt cronies on Wall Street and
as any money comes back to the government the corrupt politicians will
pocket it.
The corrupt business's should have failed and the corrupt CEOs should
be on their way to prison.
Then honest people would have stepped in and filled the void.
But, then the crooked politicians would no longer be in charge,
so we get the bailout.
It was all so the government could stay in charge.
The American taxpayer will never see one red cent.
thopkins22
10-05-08, 21:11
Your taxes WILL go up next year to pay for it.
Unfortunately a huge chunk of it won't be taxed or borrowed...it will simply be monetized and speed the decline of the dollar.
I agree 100% with everything else you said.
bigshooter
10-05-08, 21:42
It was the biggest money grab in American history. It was caused on
purpose, just before the election.
The Stock Market was due for a correction and the government just
made it worse by springing this crap on the American people at this
time.
Your taxes WILL go up next year to pay for it.
You've been lied to by everyone from the President on down, Democrat
and Republican alike.
Corrupt politicians just bailed out their corrupt cronies on Wall Street and
as any money comes back to the government the corrupt politicians will
pocket it.
The corrupt business's should have failed and the corrupt CEOs should
be on their way to prison.
Then honest people would have stepped in and filled the void.
But, then the crooked politicians would no longer be in charge,
so we get the bailout.
It was all so the government could stay in charge.
The American taxpayer will never see one red cent.
SPOT ON.
30 cal slut
10-06-08, 08:14
LOL.
here's one for ya:
...the Paulson bailout plan is a government bailout of the previously failed government bailout which was a bailout of the previously failed government bailout, etc ... Each bailout had its own unintended consequences which the next bailout tried to address.
Greenspan bailed out the economy after the stock market bubble popped with 1% interest rates which sowed the seeds for the credit bubble.
In order to bail us out, Bernanke slashed interest rates to 2% and a dramatic rise in commodity prices ensued. When that bailout didn't work, he instituted a bailout of the investment banks with the initiation of the TSLF and PDCF credit facilities for investment banks. That slowed down the deleveraging process as it gave the investment banks a false sense of security.
I highlight Dick Fuld's (CEO of Lehman) comments soon after it began where he sait it takes the liquidity issue off the table. The lack of dramatic deleveraging brought us to last week's panic in Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanely, a failed Lehman, and a shotgun wedding for Merrill Lynch which led us to the Paulson bailout.
The unintended consequence of this bailout will be a much lower U.S. dollar and selloff in the U.S. bond market which will leave us with higher interest rates and higher mortgage rates throws the intentions of the Paulson planout the window.
Who will bailout this bailout?
Peter Boockvar, Miller Tabak
How about this for a giggle. The newly appointed head of the "Office of Financial Stability" has the last name of Kashkari. Of course he's a former Goldman Sachs man too.
Considering the massive international sell-off despite the bailout, the situation has become more ****ed-up than I believe most of us can realize.
While no socialist by any means, I will say that there is absolutely no doubt unbridled capitalism has really screwed us.
I will say that there is absolutely no doubt unbridled capitalism has really screwed us.
We've had a bridle for it, but we've been struggling to force it onto the ass end of the horse for years...
The problem now is that we're at the moment when it's time to reap what's been sown, and dishonesty and poor decision making are catching up with those involved, and NOW we've decided to try and apply controls and oversight and step in and fix the problem.
Unbridled is good, as long as it's allowed to run its course. All that "financial engineering" has gotten us to where we are now....
30 cal slut
10-06-08, 16:53
While no socialist by any means, I will say that there is absolutely no doubt unbridled capitalism has really screwed us.
actually, it was statist monetary intervention (=socialism for the wealthy) that brought about this mess!
While no socialist by any means, I will say that there is absolutely no doubt unbridled capitalism has really screwed us.
We have not had unbridled 'capitalism' in a long time. Capitalism had nothing to do with the current situation.
We have not had unbridled 'capitalism' in a long time. Capitalism had nothing to do with the current situation.
Really? Please explain.
If you are going to talk about a lack of government lending regulation, that was brought up 4 years ago. It was denounced by most then, correct?
30 cal slut
10-06-08, 17:11
the money supply quadrupled because the fed.gov cranked up the printing presses. to bail out wall street.
it takes only $1 of central bank money to create $9 of loans, under our fractional reserve lending system.
guess what happens when you create dumpload of cheap money? you create bubbles and busts ... and we saw that with dot-com stocks in '99-'01, and housing.
also, when you print more paper dollars (whose supply is theoretically limitless), the price in dollars of commodities which we import (whose supply is finite) goes up too. which is partly what happened to oil.
all you have to take away from this chart is:
money supply quadrupled
but the economy (not pictured) only doubled over the same time period
inflation, and asset bubbles and hot money following bad ideas are the result.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/MZM_Max_630_378.png
I will say that there is absolutely no doubt unbridled capitalism has really screwed us.
I'm clueless, given all the information I've read and heard, how you came to that conclusion.
thopkins22
10-06-08, 17:29
While no socialist by any means, I will say that there is absolutely no doubt unbridled capitalism has really screwed us.
STEP 1. Turn off MSNBC(don't substitute CNN)...preferably the television altogether.
STEP 2. Listen to the posters above me. 30 cal slut laid it out very simply for you.
It's been a lack of free market principles that created this mess, and the refusal to allow this mess to sort itself out that will make it much worse for all of us in the long run. The only logical place to allocate blame(aside from fraud, which should be handled in the courts), is government intervention in the marketplace.
I'm clueless, given all the information I've read and heard, how you came to that conclusion.
Coming from an individual who endorses the 50 United States becoming separate, individual governments, I am not overwhelmingly surprised. Yes, let's Balkanize the United States for real unity. :rolleyes:
Seriously, what have you missed? Unregulated, overly generous lending practices based on Wall St standards got us here. Sure, the liberal guidelines assessed to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aided in the debacle, but was that all? What about the ARMs and interest only loans given on a conforming basis? When it was proposed that the feds step in to regulate the lending in '05, or establish more sensible limits, most said "Let others make stupid judgments, that should not impede my ability to borrow".
STEP 1. Turn off MSNBC(don't substitute CNN)...preferably the television altogether.
STEP 2. Listen to the posters above me. 30 cal slut laid it out very simply for you.
It's been a lack of free market principles that created this mess, and the refusal to allow this mess to sort itself out that will make it much worse for all of us in the long run. The only logical place to allocate blame(aside from fraud, which should be handled in the courts), is government intervention in the marketplace.
I never watch MSNBC, please let's not resort to insults. ;)
Read what I wrote to rmecapn to understand where I am coming from. Perhaps I am wrong, but that's how I see it regardless based upon events over the past few years.
Coming from an individual who endorses the 50 United States becoming separate, individual governments, I am not overwhelmingly surprised. Yes, let's Balkanize the United States for real unity. :rolleyes:
Seriously, what have you missed? Unregulated, overly generous lending practices based on Wall St standards got us here. Sure, the liberal guidelines assessed to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aided in the debacle, but was that all? What about the ARMs and interest only loans given on a conforming basis? When it was proposed that the feds step in to regulate the lending in '05, or establish more sensible limits, most said "Let others make stupid judgments, that should not impede my ability to borrow".
The posters who have referred to social engineering etc are dead on, you can thank politicians from both parties, Carter, the Clinton/Reno DoJ, ACORN (and on that note Barack Obama), Barney Frank, the list goes on and on. The point is that they were NOT "unregulated" per se, they were regulated in a sense in that they were required abandon sound lending practices to give mortgages to people who had no business with mortgages (or at least mortgages of the value/type that were given) under color of law and threat of legal consequences if they didn't. Aided in the debacle? I'd say they really started the ball rolling. Certainly lenders are at fault too, as once they started taking all the garbage and repackaging it, and the banks themselves didn't have to assume that risk, well, it all started going downhill. There is an element of greed there for sure, if not enabled by government policy. Of course the idiots who took mortgages that they had no business having or tried to flip a bunch of properties thinking the market would always be going up up and away should be responsible for their actions as well. All that combined with what 30 cal slut talked about, i.e. the Fed printing money like it's going out of style to keep the ever increasing housing market going and, well, what goes up must come down.
Certainly lenders are at fault too, as once they started taking all the garbage and repackaging it, and the banks themselves didn't have to assume that risk, well, it all started going downhill. There is an element of greed there for sure, if not enabled by government policy
Agreed with most of what you said, and 30 cal, but look at the contradiction above.
To say the geed was enabled to an extent by government policy is fine. That said, why was there then complete and total resistance to proposed tighter lending regulations in '05? Don't try to tell me it was just liberals resisting, because the resistance was well across the board. No one wanted government interference in lending during a strong economy, period.
And remember, I refer to "unbridled capitalism" being largely at fault, not capitalism in theory and principal.
TheGhostRider
10-06-08, 18:57
There's one word that explains it all..........
"Greed"
Really? Please explain.
If you are going to talk about a lack of government lending regulation, that was brought up 4 years ago. It was denounced by most then, correct?
We don't even have a free market monetary system. We have a fiat currency that is declared legal tender which drives out good money. We have a fractional reserve banking system and a federal reserve which manipulates the money supply and artificially sets interests rates which sends out wrong messages to the market. We have thousands of government regulations which affects every aspect of our economic life, again sending wrong signals to the market. The free market "capitalism" cannot function in such an environment.
With that said, I think I've hijacked this thread enough. I'd be more than happy to talk about it more in another thread or a PM.
Agreed with most of what you said, and 30 cal, but look at the contradiction above.
To say the geed was enabled to an extent by government policy is fine. That said, why was there then complete and total resistance to proposed tighter lending regulations in '05? Don't try to tell me it was just liberals resisting, because the resistance was well across the board. No one wanted government interference in lending during a strong economy, period.
Agreed.
There's one word that explains it all..........
"Greed"
Yep...and that extends by a significant margin to greed for political power as well as pure financial greed.
thopkins22
10-06-08, 21:18
I never watch MSNBC, please let's not resort to insults. ;)
It was a little over the line and I apologize.
My point remains though, "bad capitalism" is a function of government intervention through artificially low interest rates...they were injecting huge amounts of cash to promote growth. It works...in the very short term. Long term...well we're beginning to feel it.
The real bitch here though is that instead of recognizing the problem, our "fix" is simply to increase what we were doing on an outrageous scale.
It would never have gone wrong on this scale, if we had a truly free market where the fed either didn't exist or existed only to preserve the integrity of the dollar...instead of this market stability crap they spout today.
Do we really want to "bridle" the market by putting the guys who just a few years ago were all exclaiming what a great example Fannie and Freddie were in charge? All the while giving the guys who in many cases are probably guilty of fraud a complete pass and millions of dollars?
To me, selective socialism is even more appalling than socialism for all. We all rant and rave about programs for poor people(I still do as I think it's inefficient and morally wrong), but it's okay when it's dramatically more money going to dramatically fewer people?
thopkins22
10-06-08, 21:52
Jim Rogers explains it very well.
Part 1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRjvejS0-hg
Part 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94-U35ovUR0
We don't even have a free market monetary system. We have a fiat currency that is declared legal tender which drives out good money. We have a fractional reserve banking system and a federal reserve which manipulates the money supply and artificially sets interests rates which sends out wrong messages to the market. We have thousands of government regulations which affects every aspect of our economic life, again sending wrong signals to the market. The free market "capitalism" cannot function in such an environment.
As good and simple as I've seen it laid out before.
-B
We don't even have a free market monetary system. We have a fiat currency that is declared legal tender which drives out good money. We have a fractional reserve banking system and a federal reserve which manipulates the money supply and artificially sets interests rates which sends out wrong messages to the market. We have thousands of government regulations which affects every aspect of our economic life, again sending wrong signals to the market. The free market "capitalism" cannot function in such an environment.
With that said, I think I've hijacked this thread enough. I'd be more than happy to talk about it more in another thread or a PM.
Not a hijack at all, and as well you present an enlightening argument.
30 cal slut
10-07-08, 11:08
i work in a small investment bank about an hour outside of NYC.
so most of my co-workers are urban yuppie scum :D types.
this morning, a few of them surprised me ... having ascertained the severity of the current economic situation, many of them were remarking, only in half-jest:
It's time to buy guns and gold.
needless to say, i've been quite busy indoctrinating some co-workers on navigating the state CCW application process, what to buy etc etc etc.
how refreshing. lol.
Coming from an individual who endorses the 50 United States becoming separate, individual governments, I am not overwhelmingly surprised. Yes, let's Balkanize the United States for real unity.
Giving unbridled power to powermongers who have the backing of men in camo uniforms with large guns is not my idea of good time. I know very well what's coming and it will occur at the behest of a very, very powerful central government. I don't need unity, just a bit of trade among neighboring states. So pardon me if I don't worship on the alter of a union of states which has turned it's Constitution into very bad toilet paper.
Seriously, what have you missed?
The very profound involvement of the US government in all of this. You left that out. And it's not a positive involvement.
Submariner
10-07-08, 21:40
Coming from an individual who endorses the 50 United States becoming separate, individual governments, I am not overwhelmingly surprised. Yes, let's Balkanize the United States for real unity. :rolleyes:
Do you recognize these words?
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
The Declaration of Independence.
Later, these "Free and Independent States" voluntarily ceded some, not all, of their plenary power as enumerated powers to the federal government in the US Constitution.
The "unity" of which you speak came not by the Constitution but at the tip of a Yankee bayonet. No. it wasn't all about freeing slaves.
Previously posted in response to Grant's question on who has suffered and on point:
Yes, I have suffered under the Gang of Plunderers (GOP). Government of the bankers, by the bankers and for the bankers. Ever notice how many key players in .gov are from Goldman Sachs?
Work for which I billed $1575 in Jan. 2001 would have bought about 6 ounces of gold at that time. The same work, billed today for $2240.00, would get me less than three ounces of gold.
All before taxes, of course.
"Gold is money and nothing else." J.P. Morgan
The bankers had never complained about slavery in the South – they had indeed been its great supporters – but secession presented them with a dilemma. They backed Lincoln’s war "for a purely pecuniary consideration, to wit, a control of the markets in the South, in other words, the privilege of holding the slave-holders themselves in industrial and commercial subjection to the manufacturers and merchants of the North." The result was a monstrous neo-mercantilist system resting on national debt and tariffs three or four times higher than they had been before the war, justified by a partial freedom for the former slaves, a freedom which could have been gained by other means.
[Lysander] Spooner, the veteran abolitionist and radical common lawyer, would not join in the great Northern celebration of a bloody and costly victory. All the overblown oratory about having "saved the union" came down to this: "they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people…. as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary." The war had been fought to establish an absolute sovereignty of the central government (not that of the people) over what it claimed as its constituent elements – and every inch of territory and every person within those.
More here. (http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s050800.html)
This from Joseph Sobran:
The role of Lincoln
Consider Abraham Lincoln, claimed by both liberals and conservatives. Most Americans consider him our greatest president — a view I emphatically reject. But both sides have a point in claiming him. In some respects he was rather conservative — for example, in his willingness to compromise on slavery before the Civil War. He doubted that he had the constitutional authority to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which he finally justified only as a wartime measure, applying only to the seceding states.
But he finally became an all-out abolitionist, and he had a radical dream of colonizing all free blacks outside the United States; in his 1862 State of the Union message, he called for a constitutional amendment authorizing such colonization! In addition, Lincoln was a high-handed centralizer of power, who suspended habeas corpus and crushed freedom of speech and press throughout the North. Like most liberals, he talked of freedom — “a new birth of freedom,” in fact — but the reality was power. Under the Constitution, he insisted, no state could withdraw from the Union for any reason. This was a view Jefferson did not share. The United States had begun in secession. Lincoln himself had once called secession “a most sacred right, which we believe is to liberate mankind.”
A more recent conservative, Willmoore Kendall, who died in 1967, argued that American conservatism is rooted in its own constitutional tradition, best understood in the light of The Federalist Papers, where the limits of the Federal Government are clearly set forth. As far as I can tell, Lincoln was entirely ignorant of The Federalist Papers, as well as of the Articles of Confederation — a point I’ll return to.
An even more recent conservative, Michael Oakeshott, who died in 1990, was English rather than American, but he had much to teach us. Oakeshott, like Burke, decried “rationalism in politics” — by which he chiefly meant what we call liberalism. He observed that some people (liberals) see government as “a vast reservoir of power,” to be mobilized for whatever purposes they imagine would benefit mankind. By contrast, Oakeshott argued, the conservative sees governing as “a specific and limited activity,” chiefly concerned with civility and the rule of law, not with “dreams” and “projects.” I consider Oakeshott the most eloquent expositor of conservatism and the conservative temperament since Burke.
I have already said that Lincoln was poorly acquainted with the Founding Fathers. By contrast, Jefferson Davis was thoroughly familiar with them, and in his history of the Confederacy (too little read nowadays) he makes a powerful, I would say irrefutable, case that every state has a constitutional right to withdraw — to secede — from the Union.
In the North, secession is still seen as a regional “Southern” issue, inseparable from, and therefore discredited by, slavery. But this is not so at all. At various times, Northern states had threatened to secede for various reasons. On one occasion, Thomas Jefferson said they should be allowed to “go in peace.” After all, the whole point of the Declaration of Independence was that these “are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States.” Not, as Lincoln later said, a single “new nation,” but (to quote Willmoore Kendall) “a baker’s dozen of new sovereignties.”
And the Articles of Confederation reinforced the point right at the beginning: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” And at the end of the Revolutionary War, the British specifically recognized the sovereignty of all 13 states! This is flatly contrary to Lincoln’s claim that the states had never been sovereign.
But didn’t the Constitution transfer sovereignty from the states to the Federal Government, outlawing secession? Not at all. The Constitution says nothing of the kind. And as Davis wrote, sovereignty cannot be surrendered by mere implication. In fact, several states ratified the Constitution on the express condition that they reserved the right to “resume” the powers they were “delegating” — that is, secede. And if one state could secede, so could the others. A “state” was not a mere province or subdivision of a larger entity; it was sovereign by definition.
Claiming sovereignty for the Federal Government, Lincoln felt justified in violating the Constitution in order to “save the Union” — by which he meant “saving” Federal sovereignty. One of the best-kept secrets of American history is that many if not most Northerners thought the Southern states had the right to secede. This is why Lincoln shut down hundreds of newspapers and arrested thousands of critics of his war. He had to wage a propaganda war against the North itself.
Were you told this in your history classes? Neither was I. We are still being told that Lincoln’s cause was the cause of liberty; just as we are told that he was the friend of the black man, though he wanted the freed slaves to be sent abroad, leaving an all-white America. Lincoln had a dream too, but it wasn’t Martin Luther King’s.
Lincoln achieved what the Princeton historian James MacPherson calls “the Second American Revolution,” giving the Federal Government virtually full authority over the internal affairs of the states. Columbia’s George Fletcher credits him with creating “a new Constitution.” A third historian, Garry Wills of Northwestern University, says he “changed America,” transforming our understanding of the Constitution.
Mind you, these are not Lincoln’s critics — they are his champions! Do they listen to themselves? They are saying exactly what Jefferson Davis said: that Lincoln was abandoning the original Constitution! But they think this is a high compliment. Lincoln himself claimed he was “saving” the old Constitution. His admirers, without realizing it, are telling us a very different story.
Peaceful secession was a state’s ultimate constitutional defense against Federal tyranny. Without it, the Federal Government has been able to claim new powers for itself while stripping the states of their powers. Lincoln neither foresaw nor intended this when he crushed secession. But today the states are helpless when, for example, the Federal Courts suddenly declare that no state may constitutionally protect unborn children from violent death in the womb. If even one state had been able to secede, the U.S. Supreme Court would never have dared provoke it to do so by issuing such an outrageous ruling, with no support in the Constitution.
But Lincoln has been deified as surely as any Roman emperor. Today he is widely ranked as one of our “greatest presidents,” along with another bold usurper of power, Franklin Roosevelt. And as I say, even conservatives, so called, join in his praise. President Bush and his supporters invoke both Lincoln and Roosevelt to justify the war in Iraq and any powers he chooses to claim in its prosecution. In the old days, Americans told the government what our rights were; now it tells us. And we meekly obey.
If Bush and his right-wing supporters are conservatives, what on earth would a liberal be like? In these last six years, the Federal Government has vastly increased in power, with a corresponding diminution of our freedoms. Every American child is now born $150,000 in debt — his estimated share of the national debt, which he had no say in incurring. And of course the figure will be much higher when he is old enough to vote.
Meanwhile, he will go to a school, where he will be taught that he enjoys “self-government,” thanks to great men like Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Bush.
What passes for “conservatism” now is a very far cry indeed from even the limited-government conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan just a generation ago. It is merely a variant of the liberalism it pretends to oppose.
How do these pseudoconservatives differ from liberals? Chiefly, for some reason, in their reflexive enthusiasm for war. Ponder that. War is the most destructive and least conservative of all human activities. It is big government par excellence; it breeds tyranny and, often, revolution. Yet most Americans now identify it with conservatism!
I am very much afraid that the next generation will have forgotten what real conservatism means: moral stability, piety, private property, and of course the rule of law (as distinct from the mad multiplication of regulations).
But genuine conservatism will reassert itself, even if it has to find another name and new spokesmen. If the Bushes and Limbaughs have usurped and discredited the word conservatism for the time being, we must try to take it back. If we can’t, we’ll just have to find a label they can’t steal.
More here. (http://www.sobran.com/articles/leads/2006-11-lead.shtml)
How do these pseudoconservatives differ from liberals? Chiefly, for some reason, in their reflexive enthusiasm for war.
If WWII did nothing else, it also proved that modern war can produce wealth. He wasn't called Daddy Warbucks for nothing. And wealth breeds power. It's all about the power, my friend. Whether liberal (communist) or neo-con (fascist) it's all about the power.
I am very much afraid that the next generation will have forgotten what real conservatism means: moral stability, piety, private property, and of course the rule of law (as distinct from the mad multiplication of regulations).
I am striving to impart that understanding upon my progeny.
thopkins22
10-08-08, 10:55
Later, these "Free and Independent States" voluntarily ceded some, not all, of their plenary power as enumerated powers to the federal government in the US Constitution.
The "unity" of which you speak came not by the Constitution but at the tip of a Yankee bayonet. No. it wasn't all about freeing slaves.
Obviously Submariner gets it. I almost puked when Romney said that he would take us back to the party of Lincoln. Lincoln was a tyrant in the worse sense of the word.
If you disagree with the idea of 50 free and independent states with a loose affiliation through a very weak federal government...then you disagree with the premise our nation was built on.
Too many people seem to have no idea what neo-con means
Too many people seem to have no idea what neo-con means
Neo (new) and con (short for conservative) ... therefore "new conservative". I equate neo-con with the author's use of the term "pseudoconservative". If you prefer pseudoconservative, then so be it. They're all a bunch of powermongers looking to secure their power by a somewhat different method. The notion of maintaining their oath to uphold the Constitution died over a century ago.
If you disagree with the idea of 50 free and independent states with a loose affiliation through a very weak federal government...then you disagree with the premise our nation was built on.
Preach it brother!!
Neo (new) and con (short for conservative) ... therefore "new conservative".
Correct. What is not clear is the association with "fascism". The "neo-con" belief seems to be to use US power to promote principles of "freedom" around the world. Not to co-exist with "evil." This is not "fascism".
I equate neo-con with the author's use of the term "pseudoconservative". If you prefer pseudoconservative, then so be it. They're all a bunch of powermongers looking to secure their power by a somewhat different method. The notion of maintaining their oath to uphold the Constitution died over a century ago.
You mean to uphold your opinion on what the Constitution means. I likely hold a similar opinion on what the Constitution means (or should mean). However, that has little meaning in today's world.
Pissing in the wind just gets you wet. And smelly.
We need to recognize that fundamental changes have happened in this country and the attitudes and beliefs of the people. And we need to work within that to try and steer things in a better way.
Instead of bitching and moaning about things, and how they should be in a perfect libertarian or conservative or Constitutional world, work to get things changed to be more like you believe. Get good people elected at the local level. Become active at the local level. If you can change the hearts and minds of people at your local level, that will translate into success at higher levels.
If your local neighbors want to raise taxes in order to build a "community center", those same sorts of people will want to raise taxes to support "national health care." If you can convince your neighbors why the local community center being supported through taxes is wrong -- why extorting money to build their hobby is wrong, basically -- those same arguments will work at the national level on national issues. The same belief system works at both levels
When Tip O'Neil said that all politics was local, he was not kidding.
If you disagree with the idea of 50 free and independent states with a loose affiliation through a very weak federal government...then you disagree with the premise our nation was built on.
This is demonstrably not true. Very early, inside the first 20 years of the country, they abolished this weak federal government and loose affiliation and went to the Constitution. While what we have today was probably not foreseen, the Constitution is a much more stronger alliance and also a stronger federal government than what you describe.
Correct. What is not clear is the association with "fascism". The "neo-con" belief seems to be to use US power to promote principles of "freedom" around the world. Not to co-exist with "evil." This is not "fascism".
A quote from FDR on facism:
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power
One could argue that both the primary political parties exhibit this behavior and that we are therefore at the point of being fascist. The bailout is a prime example of Wall Street controlling the government. They threatened the government with a recession/depression and the government ran scared.
Facism is also marked by nationalism. And that nationalistic ideal is exhibited in the notion that we are obligated to promote the "principles of freedom" around the world via force (if necessary).
Another characteristic of facism, as laid down by Mussolini, is the collusion of government and corporations, which we now see, again, with the bailout.
The facist association isn't precise, but it's as close as I could come in one word. And, with what I've read, I'm not convinced socialism accurately depicts where we are headed at this time. I do believe that those on the far left in this nation are much more Marxist than socialist.
thopkins22
10-08-08, 14:30
While what we have today was probably not foreseen, the Constitution is a much more stronger alliance and also a stronger federal government than what you describe.
I mostly agree. A federal government that strictly interpreted the constitution would be incredibly smaller, and the states would retain far more sovereignty.
Was the Constitution a landmark victory for the Federalists? Yes...but even the Federalists could qualify as Libertarians in today's world.
thopkins22
10-08-08, 14:34
Correct. What is not clear is the association with "fascism". The "neo-con" belief seems to be to use US power to promote principles of "freedom" around the world. Not to co-exist with "evil." This is not "fascism".
Just like Wilson.
Didn't grab the dictionary...but didn't Mussolini describe fascism as when the rights of the country are more important than the rights of individuals?
Just like Wilson.
I think that you will find that Wilson is pretty much the opposite. He was a "can't we all get along" type of person. His League of Nations was that sort of club. Co-exist for the sake of "peace"
Didn't grab the dictionary...but didn't Mussolini describe fascism as when the rights of the country are more important than the rights of individuals?
thopkins22
10-08-08, 14:53
I think that you will find that Wilson is pretty much the opposite. He was a "can't we all get along" type of person. His League of Nations was that sort of club. Co-exist for the sake of "peace"
It didn't work out very well and the loss of human life was staggering. We could have easily avoided WW1...which in turn may have allowed us to skip ww2.
Never mind he bears quite a bit of responsibility for the Great Depression and our current financial mess. The income tax was on it's way I suppose, he oversaw it's introduction, and he brought us the Federal Reserve. Two fun institutions.
thopkins22
10-08-08, 15:05
Thoughts of head honcho American George Bush in 2002 on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Pretty related to our problem now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6u_2MNwmos
Submariner
10-08-08, 15:38
Didn't grab the dictionary...but didn't Mussolini describe fascism as when the rights of the country are more important than the rights of individuals?
Did he? He did say what is included here:
Some are alleging that the US government’s accelerating bailout of banks, insurance companies et. al. is socialism. Although it is government intervention in extremis, such intervention in the markets does not constitute socialism.
The bailout of investment banks and corporations by the US government is fascism; the control and intervention of government by corporate interests designed to further corporate and state control. The multi-trillion dollar state support of JP Morgan, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and now perhaps soon GM, Ford, and Chrysler is fascism, not socialism.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini
http://financialsense.com/fsu/editor...2008/0923.html
Never mind he bears quite a bit of responsibility for the Great Depression and our current financial mess. The income tax was on it's way I suppose, he oversaw it's introduction, and he brought us the Federal Reserve. Two fun institutions.
Don't forget the Seventeenth Amendment which stripped the States of their representation through direct election of senators by the people.
This video clip does a pretty good job of outlining how this happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wed5co_c-pg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.