ATG
Banned
+5,233|6835|Global Command
The politics of fear would like us to believe that Obama will be a uber Socialist. He will nationalize healthcare and redistribute the wealth.


Yet, a case can be made that no emocrat president in recent times as done more to advance the cause of socialism than George W. Bush.

Sure, he has cut taxes, a not-too-difficult feat when your own party controls both houses of Congress. But spending? You really have to rub your eyes, smack yourself on the forehead and pour yourself a large gin and tonic.

Remember when conservatism meant fiscal responsibility? In a few years, few people will be able to. I used to write sentences that began with the phrase: “Not since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society spending binge. . .” I can’t write that any more. Johnson — the guns and butter president of liberalism’s high-water mark — was actually more fiscally conservative than the current inhabitant of the White House. LBJ boosted domestic discretionary spending in inflationadjusted dollars by a mere 33.4%.

In five years, Bush has increased it 35.1%. And that’s before the costs for Katrina and Rita and the Medicare benefit kick in. Worse, this comes at a time when everyone concedes that we were facing a fiscal crunch before Bush started handing out dollar bills like a drunk at a strip club. With the looming retirement of America’s baby-boomers, the US needed to start saving, not spending; cutting, not expanding its spending habits.

The first excuse was the war. After 9/11 and a wobbly world economy, that was a decent excuse. Nobody doubted that the United States needed to spend money to beef up homeland security, avert deflation, overhaul national preparedness for a disaster, and fight a war on terror. But when Katrina revealed that, after pouring money into both homeland security and Louisiana’s infrastructure, there was still no co-ordinated plan to deal with catastrophe, a few foreheads furrowed.

Then there was the big increase in agricultural subsidies. Then the explosion in pork barrel spending. Then the biggest new entitlement since Lyndon Johnson, the Medicare drug benefit. Then a trip to Mars. When you add it all up, you get the simple, devastating fact that Bush, in a mere five years, has added $1.5 trillion to the national debt. The interest on that debt will soon add up to the cost of two Katrinas a year.

About the current financial bailout. If they say 800 billion it will really mean 1.6 trillion, at least. These debts are being passed on to soceity.





Now my children are being saddled with massive amounts of debt. If they want to nationalize businesses, why not start with the Federal reserve?


Why the fuck are we accepting 2% interest per year on George Bushes 15 trillion dollar and counting debt being paid to a private company?



McCain. Nope.  Better the devil we don't know that the devil we know.

More of the same = national suicide.
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6843|Long Island, New York
Do you switch from candidate to candidate every 2 weeks?
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6835|Global Command

Poseidon wrote:

Do you switch from candidate to candidate every 2 weeks?
Atr this juncture I will vote for whoever Ron Paul endorses.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6887|SE London

He's not a socialist. He just wastes a lot of money. That's only part of what socialism is.

Sydney
2λчиэλ
+783|7149|Reykjavík, Iceland.
There is no such thing as socialism in America, it's just extreme capitalism and a-little-less-extreme capitalism.
Bell
Frosties > Cornflakes
+362|6855|UK

Some people believe he is a conservative xD
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6458|what

Nah. Socialists don't increase National debt.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6996|Tampa Bay Florida
He's a socialist neo-fascist.  Wait a minute, where have I heard of that before?????
topal63
. . .
+533|7024
"Remember when conservatism meant fiscal responsibility?"

Uh, no.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6887|SE London

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Nah. Socialists don't increase National debt.
Brown does....
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

you guys love labels WAY too much.

New Forum Title:

Debate and Label Making

https://img.epinions.com/images/opti/e4/41/pr-Dymo_LetraTAG_QX50_Label_Maker_Printer-resized200.jpg
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|6955
Yes, Bush is definitely leading towards socialism but I guess so will whoever takes over the presidency now. With the amount of government regulation that will be needed it's unavoidable.

I honestly think America need to start concentrating on their own problems now and if that means pulling out of Iraq ASAP then so be it. Sure America have a duty towards restoring democracy over there but with the way things are turning out they need to cut their spending dramatically. They're literally fucking up the whole concept of the J-curve with the way their heading. Imo it's worth the sacrifice considering the disastrous effect this financial crisis will have on the rest of the world. I'm not going to elucidate on this anymore because I'm sure someone is still going to piss on my opinion about Iraq. lol

....and ffs quit giving these CEOs amazing severance packages. Does it not take an idiot to realize that paying these men off in the midst of a financial crisis is completely dumb.

Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2008-09-24 14:44:34)

jsnipy
...
+3,277|6828|...

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Nah. Socialists don't increase National debt.
Agree, unless its to benefit society
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6848|Texas - Bigger than France
Where's congress in all this?
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6968|USA
He is. But 9-11 changed him is his story and he is sticking to it.
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6968|USA

usmarine wrote:

you guys love labels WAY too much.

New Forum Title:

Debate and Label Making

http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/e4/ … zed200.jpg
How is that glass house treating you?
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

How is that glass house treating you?
great.  how is your studio treating you?








when in rome...
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6968|USA

Pug wrote:

Where's congress in all this?
Being fear mongered into sending billions to Iraq over and over again. They deserve to be free.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Pug wrote:

Where's congress in all this?
Being fear mongered into sending billions to Iraq over and over again. They deserve to be free.
so dems are pussies?
topal63
. . .
+533|7024

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Yes, Bush is definitely leading towards socialism but I guess so will whoever takes over the presidency now. With the amount of government regulation that will be needed it's unavoidable.

I honestly think America need to start concentrating on their own problems now and if that means pulling out of Iraq ASAP then so be it. Sure America have a duty towards restoring democracy over there but with the way things are turning out they need to cut their spending dramatically. They're literally fucking up the whole concept of the J-curve with the way their heading. Imo it's worth the sacrifice considering the disastrous effect this financial crisis will have on the rest of the world. I'm not going to elucidate on this anymore because I'm sure someone is still going to piss on my opinion about Iraq. lol

....and ffs quit giving these CEOs amazing severance packages. Does it not take an idiot to realize that paying these men off in the midst of a financial crisis is completely dumb.
Cronyism and corporatism isn't really socialism. It's more of a complex corprate capitalistic darwinian semi-serfdom. The curious thing about rising from the peasant class in this society is anyone can actully join the ruling class (the elite) at the top (and in a gated community, of course!). If they're smart enough (in a sneering prickish way) and tow the captitalist; elitist; bottom line (like the Medici family motto): power for money - money for power.

But, nonetheless we cannot afford to pay for future commitments to many, seemingly grandfathered-in, entitlements. The US fiscal commitments projected out into the future are mounting and they are staggering mind numbing numbers. Blowing (money!) other mind numbing numbers on war and mismanagement labled a "crisis" certainly isn't helping.

Last edited by topal63 (2008-09-24 15:04:18)

IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7048|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
Well he is a socialist in that he is "re-distributing wealth" - the problem is it's from  the masses back to "the haves & the have mores" as I believe he liked to refer to them as.

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2008-09-24 15:10:36)

mr.hrundi
Wurstwassereis
+68|6743|Germany
If he was socialist, the money might have been put to good use.
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|6955
Excessive government regulation and intervention is slightly socialist.
topal63
. . .
+533|7024

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Excessive government regulation and intervention is slightly socialist.
Only if it seeks to make entry into the system more fair or seeks to provide commonly shared entitlements (as an example). Deregulating needed controls that curb naked; appeals-to-the-lowest-common-denomintor; capitalism from devoring itself can hardly be called a socialist agenda. Nor can any kind of intervention/regulation that serves corporate (special) interest as opposed to mass intertest - be called socialist either.

Marxism, and the psychological birth of that criticism of capitalism, offered a more-flawed system as replacement for a flawed system. Socialism most certainly does not seek to make the bourgeoisie - more bourgeoisie; that's absurd in terms of socialist Utopian dogma.
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|6955

topal63 wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Excessive government regulation and intervention is slightly socialist.
Only if it seeks to make entry into the system more fair or seeks to provide commonly shared entitlements (as an example). Deregulating needed controls that curb naked; appeals-to-the-lowest-common-denomintor; capitalism from devoring itself can hardly be called a socialist agenda. Nor can any kind of intervention/regulation that serves corporate (special) interest as opposed to mass intertest - be called socialist either.

Marxism, and the psychological birth of that criticism of capitalism, offered a more-flawed system as replacement for a flawed system. Socialism most certainly does not seek to make the bourgeoisie - more bourgeoisie; that's absurd in terms of socialist Utopian dogma.
Christ that was a mouthful

Well it isn't only serving corporate interest considering average Joe will be affected by the economic crisis. I'm not saying very socialist...just slightly

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard