Socialist CEOs or Capitalist CEOs: Which is worse?

[Andy]

Many are quick to complain about private sector CEOs who in the course of doing their job, earn lost of cash, and big salaries plus large bonuses.

But let's quickly look at a an example of a Socialist CEO. What is a socialist CEO? Well companies have to have people in charge of them, regardless of who owns, or controls by proxy the company.

Over at Fannie Mae, a company created and sponsored by our federal government, there has been Frank Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and Jim Johnson.

Jim A Johnson worked for the US Senate, then worked for Walter Mandel during the Carter adminstration, worked for Mandel again during his presidential run, worked for John Kerry during his presidential run, and finely worked for Obama during his VP-selection process. However, during the Clinton years, he served as CEO for Fannie Mae from 91-98.

Jamie Gorelick served the U.S. Secretary of Energy under Carter, was later general of the Department of Defense under Clinton, and appointed Deputy Attorney General of the United States. Finely from 1997 to 2003, Clinton appointed her vice-chairmen of Fannie Mae even though she had no training, nor experience in finances.

Frank Raines worked for Carter as associate director for economics and government in the Office of Management and Budget and assistant director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff. Then in 1991 he became vice-chairmen of Fannie Mae, which he left to join the Clinton administration as the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget until 1999 where he returned back to Fannie Mae as CEO.

Point: all three are politicians. All are socialists in charge of a government sponsored company. So I ask you, those who are liberals, is a socialist CEO better than a capitalist CEO? After hearing the shrieking over Enron, and the complaining about oil CEOs taking home large checks, let's see how the Socialist CEOs did, after all, someone's going to run the company in either situation.

Gorelick chirped to Business Week in 2002 that Fannie Mae "is among the handful of top-quality institutions." In 2003 news came out that Fannie Mae failed to report over $9 Billion in losses. Further, Gorelick recieved $779 Thousand for cooked accounting books that allowed for a executive bonus. Gorelick left in 2003, with all her money.

James A Johnson was found to have also improperly deferred over $200 Million in company expenses. Johnson, who is implicated in cooking the Fannie Mae books in order to secure the executive bonus, also apparently understated his own salary reported to be $6 to $7 Million for his 7 years of service. Later it was discovered his pay-out was actually about $21 Million, which divided by 7 years is $3 Million a year in salary, not including the $1.9 Million bonus from cooking the books.

Finely Frank Raines, who currently advises Obama on economic policy, was given $20 Million dollars in compensation for 2003 alone. Moreover, Raines $1.1 Million from the 1998 bonus scandal. Raines, with 3 other top Fannie Mae executives were ordered to pay back money, yet instead they used Fannie Mae's insurance policy to pay back the court ordered repayment.

And I love the quote below, where Raines claimed in 2004 that the reason Fannie Mae didn't have the required money set aside to pay for the loans it had out, was because these assets [loans] it has are risk less.

Conclusion:
So there it is. They made millions on millions, violated accounting standards, misstated income and expenses, manipulated the numbers to get lavish bonuses, even understated their own income, and then after being caught, they used the companies insurance policy to pay off their fines... all on our tax paying expensive, while running the company into the ground causing a tax payer bailout.

No jail time. Bankrupt company. And now their back in politics as if nothing they did caused a problem.

Which is worse, CEO of a private corporation? Or a Socialist that is given our taxes on a silver platter?

[GenSeneca]

Great post Andy! :)

I just want to add a few things... Like the cover these people got through their political connections in Washington, the political contributions they made to their friends in Washington and the fact that Democrats are corrupt as hell and get away with it.... Because Democrat voters never seem to hold them accountable.

Democrat Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee:
"These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank said. He added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." --2003

Lets not forget Fannie and Freddies number one recipient of political donations, Chris Dodd - Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
Bush got involved in the effort personally, speaking out for the cause of reform: "Congress needs to pass legislation strengthening the independent regulator of government-sponsored enterprises like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, so we can keep them focused on the mission to expand home ownership," he said in December. He even mentioned GSE reform in this year's State of the Union address.

How did Fannie and Freddie counter such efforts? They flooded Washington with lobbying dollars, doled out tens of thousands in political contributions and put offices in key congressional districts. Not surprisingly, these efforts worked. Leaders in Congress did not just balk at proposals to rein in Fannie and Freddie. They mocked the proposals as unserious and unnecessary.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said the following on Sept. 11, 2003: "We see entities that are fundamentally sound financially. . . . And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn't bail them out."

Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.), later that year: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

As recently as last summer, when housing prices had clearly peaked and the mortgage market had started to seize up, Dodd called on Bush to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" reform proposals. --WashingtonPost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841_2.html)

Here's a string of corruption:

FRIENDLY CONFINES: (http://www.nola.com/elections/t-p/index.ssf?/base//news-1/12224064924730.xml&coll=1) Jefferson, who is awaiting trial on federal corruption charges, also has gotten a little help from his friends in Congress in filling his political war chest. At least 10 of his Democratic colleagues have ponied up more than $20,000 to help him get re-elected.

Topping the list are Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York, chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, who gave the New Orleans Democrat $5,000.

Rangel found himself in hot water this week as the House Ethics Committee began an inquiry into his fundraising practices and personal finances. The same committee opened an investigation in June 2007 into allegations related to those in Jefferson's federal indictment.

Meanwhile, Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick of Michigan, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, donated $4,300 to Jefferson. Kilpatrick is the mother of former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, who resigned in September after pleading guilty to two federal felony counts of obstruction of justice.
Democrat Culture of Corruption pretending to represent "Honest Leadership"
http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/01/18/imageDCSA10701182130.jpg
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say the Socialist CEO's are worse... They, and their corrupt allies in Washington, manage to avoid all responsibility for their actions.

[Dawkinsrocks]

You don't have socialist CEOs or parties or presidents in the US.

You either have right wing or extreme right wing versions of the above.

Your entire banking system is ****ed and it is the irresponsibility of the banks and the refusal of the Bush administration to step in and regulate that is causing this crisis.

And that is why Bush's ratings are continuing to nose dive and why McCain is viewed with suspicion as he changes his stance on the crisis with each wind direction change.

You can bellyache as much as you like but what is happening here is the unacceptable face of capitalism.

[Mr. Carpenter]

You don't have socialist CEOs or parties or presidents in the US.

You either have right wing or extreme right wing versions of the above.

Your entire banking system is ****ed and it is the irresponsibility of the banks and the refusal of the Bush administration to step in and regulate that is causing this crisis.

And that is why Bush's ratings are continuing to nose dive and why McCain is viewed with suspicion as he changes his stance on the crisis with each wind direction change.

You can bellyache as much as you like but what is happening here is the unacceptable face of capitalism.

And once again when faced with the facts and evidence, the Socialists blather on incoherently and try to play the misdirection game.

Give it up Dawkins, you Socialists are Dorian Gray, the whole world has seen your picture and it's not a pretty sight.

[Dawkinsrocks]

If you think you have socialist governments or CEOs in the USA you are proving yourself to be somehwat ignorant of socialism and US politics.

But then the US population has been brainwashed about socialism to justify attacking Governments that tend to the left of centre and look after their poor.

Not that any good christian American would want to do that.

The way you talk about this subject makes you sound like a redneck.

Ignorant, bigoted, nasty and stupid.

[Mr. Carpenter]

If you think you have socialist governments or CEOs in the USA you are proving yourself to be somehwat ignorant of socialism and US politics.

But then the US population has been brainwashed about socialism to justify attacking Governments that tend to the left of centre and look after their poor.

Not that any good christian American would want to do that.

The way you talk about this subject makes you sound like a redneck.

Ignorant, bigoted, nasty and stupid.

I see, so looking at the subject from the standpoint of facts, evidence, and history, as opposed to through the very red lens of Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist mantra makes me "ignorant, bigoted, nasty and stupid"? I see, so when faced with the truth your response is ad hom attacks? Well, I'll take that as admission that you have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion.

[Dawkinsrocks]

There is a prize for anyone who can decode that

[Andy]

There is a prize for anyone who can decode that

It was written in plain understandable English. Here's I'll say it another way...

We're looking at facts, evidence, history, and current day issues, and drawing conclusions. When presented this, you resort to lame, illogical, unsupportable hyperbole. (not to mention some laughable childish insults)

As always, you fail to make a point or a supportable statement. Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Nope, doesn't make sense

Again

[Dawkinsrocks]

You don't have socilaist CEOs or parties or presidents in the US.

You just call anyone who disagrees with you a socialist.

It is childish

[Dawkinsrocks]

In fact, the only kind of socialists you have in US Government and Commerce are national socialists

[Mr. Carpenter]

Nope, doesn't make sense

Again


Would it help if I drew a picture for you?;) I can even use your big pre-school crayons (if you promise to stop chewing on them:eek:), and I if you ask real nice, I might be persuaded to include a couple of pop-ups too.:D

[Mr. Carpenter]

In fact, the only kind of socialists you have in US Government and Commerce are national socialists

I think the word you're looking for is COMMUNIST. Yes, that has already been established, and we've also established that they're the ones that are responsible for this mess.

[Dawkinsrocks]

No, I know exactly what words I wanted.

You just don't seem to understand them.

No real suprise

[Dawkinsrocks]

By the way, are you by any chance very skilled on the banjo?

[Mr. Carpenter]

ADMIN, MODS, WHOMEVER.

Is it considered acceptable to engage in continual personal attacks in this Forum rather than sticking to the issues at hand? I carefully reviewed the Forum rules before signing up, as well as the threads on the subject in the Announcements area, and it is my understanding that the apparant favorite behavior of Dawkins is expressly forbidden here, which is why I elected to join this Forum.

Dawkins consistantly, and in every thread he participats in, fails to constructively participate in the discussion, preferring instead to engage in continual personal attacks, insults, and insinuations which are reminiscent of hyper-hormonal middle school girls!

Was I mistaken in my understanding of the rules? If not, then would one of you be so kind as to deal with him in an appropriate manner, including, but not limited to, a public rebuke, as well as a demand for a public apology from him to the forum membership.

[Dawkinsrocks]

You seem to be from the 'give it but can't take it' school.

That really is a feeble post

[NO Obamanation]

ADMIN, MODS, WHOMEVER.

Is it considered acceptable to engage in continual personal attacks in this Forum rather than sticking to the issues at hand? I carefully reviewed the Forum rules before signing up, as well as the threads on the subject in the Announcements area, and it is my understanding that the apparant favorite behavior of Dawkins is expressly forbidden here, which is why I elected to join this Forum.

Dawkins consistantly, and in every thread he participats in, fails to constructively participate in the discussion, preferring instead to engage in continual personal attacks, insults, and insinuations which are reminiscent of hyper-hormonal middle school girls!

Was I mistaken in my understanding of the rules? If not, then would one of you be so kind as to deal with him in an appropriate manner, including, but not limited to, a public rebuke, as well as a demand for a public apology from him to the forum membership.


The only way anything will happen is you report the thread. But the better thing to do in my book is to put dorkinfart on ignore. I used to argue with him and it was a real big waste of time. All he wants to do is bash America, he ignores facts when presented with them and refuses to tell us what country he is from while he bashes ours. So I finally just put him on ignore and its much better :)


but if you want an admin to do anything about it you have to report it. I refuse to report anyone. I feel its to much like Hitlers youth or 1984. So for me ingore works. try it :) its nice

[Andy]

ADMIN, MODS, WHOMEVER.

Is it considered acceptable to engage in continual personal attacks in this Forum rather than sticking to the issues at hand?

Dawkins consistantly, and in every thread he participats in, fails to constructively participate in the discussion, preferring instead to engage in continual personal attacks, insults, and insinuations which are reminiscent of hyper-hormonal middle school girls!

Was I mistaken in my understanding of the rules? If not, then would one of you be so kind as to deal with him in an appropriate manner, including, but not limited to, a public rebuke, as well as a demand for a public apology from him to the forum membership.

I want to give due credit to our admins. Generally.... (key word) generally speaking they are very good at dealing equally with people. There is only one admin that seems to deal somewhat one sided with violations.

The real issue is, admins are real people who have a life outside of this forum, and this isn't a paid position. Thus, personal attack tend to get noticed and dealt with on a simi-inconsistent basis. They do the best they can, but real life is more important than scanning the thousands of posts.

Our admins are very good honorable people. If you choose to report posts, that's a fine and acceptable thing. I have only reported one post one time, because it went so far beyond mere insults. It was the absolute obliteration of another member... not simply name calling, but he attacked her on her gender, her age, her views, and marginalized everything about her. Not just her opinion being wrong, but that because she was girl, her opinion was completely unimportant. The women has never posted here again, and I don't blame her. I sent her a personal apology, even though I know she'll never log in to see it.

As for these snide little remarks, to be honest, I doubt you will find any forum that has zero tolerance for personal attacks. Namely because enacting that rule would sink membership to a few dozen at best, and also because the rule would likely eliminate one political view.

Remember most democrats, this is all they have. Attack attack attack! The democrat loyalists are actually simply following their leadership. Even your video on proof that liberals lied about Fannie Mae, look at the democrats. Do you seem them questioning the evidence? Nope. They simply attacked the regulators. Maxine Waters, Bill Clinton, and those other two goofball Senators all said we need to deal with the regulators! Never once did they deal with evidence. In that sense, Dawk is actually posting exactly as the leadership would, in effect exemplifying the type of non-arguments that all liberals proclaim. We can't really expect Dawk to formulate a better point than the leadership of his own party does.

[Andy]

You don't have socilaist CEOs or parties or presidents in the US.

You just call anyone who disagrees with you a socialist.

It is childish

Well clearly how you define it is different than how I do. Which is possible...

How do you define a "socialist"?

[Mr. Carpenter]

The only way anything will happen is you report the thread. But the better thing to do in my book is to put dorkinfart on ignore. I used to argue with him and it was a real big waste of time. All he wants to do is bash America, he ignores facts when presented with them and refuses to tell us what country he is from while he bashes ours. So I finally just put him on ignore and its much better :)

but if you want an admin to do anything about it you have to report it. I refuse to report anyone. I feel its to much like Hitlers youth or 1984. So for me ingore works. try it :) its nice

I've tried putting people on ignore in other forums, but all it does is leave their slander and defamation unanswered, so I prefer to let the Admin and Mods do their jobs and get them under control or ban them.

You can report them or not, that's entirely up to you, but don't forget, that's how things get to the point where trolls take over a forum because all the good members leave rather than put up with them, or the Mods inability to deal with them. I won't violate the rules of the forum by lowering myself to his level, and I refuse to allow his violations to go unreported.

Either way, it's abundently clear that he's a part of what I consider to be the lowest of the low.

[Mr. Carpenter]

You seem to be from the 'give it but can't take it' school.

That really is a feeble post

If I had given you any reason to personally attack me, I wouldn't have any problem "taking it", but as your attacks are wholely unwarranted, the only logical conclusion is that you can't intelligently address the facts, and therefore must resort to ad homs.

As I said before, hang it up, it's over, you lost.

[TruthAboveAll]

The only way anything will happen is you report the thread. But the better thing to do in my book is to put dorkinfart on ignore. I used to argue with him and it was a real big waste of time. All he wants to do is bash America, he ignores facts when presented with them and refuses to tell us what country he is from while he bashes ours. So I finally just put him on ignore and its much better :)


but if you want an admin to do anything about it you have to report it. I refuse to report anyone. I feel its to much like Hitlers youth or 1984. So for me ingore works. try it :) its nice

Agreed! There are certain people in this forum that I typically will not bother to respond to. I don't care to be repetitive, and refuse to get suckered into their circular, illogical patterns.

For Andy, well stated original post. About the Idiocrazies who frequent here, ignoring is truly the best path. While personal attacks are not supposed to occur, there are those that show it's their only ability to participate.

Perhaps I shouldn't speak for the, but I think the moderators feel we can "police" some behaviors through our own responses, or lack thereof. They would prefer to only get involved when the offense is egregious.

[NO Obamanation]

I've tried putting people on ignore in other forums, but all it does is leave their slander and defamation unanswered, so I prefer to let the Admin and Mods do their jobs and get them under control or ban them.

You can report them or not, that's entirely up to you, but don't forget, that's how things get to the point where trolls take over a forum because all the good members leave rather than put up with them, or the Mods inability to deal with them. I won't violate the rules of the forum by lowering myself to his level, and I refuse to allow his violations to go unreported.

Either way, it's abundently clear that he's a part of what I consider to be the lowest of the low.

But if you dont then you end up getting into trouble. A guy came and he would twist your words, lie you name it. and when you would get fustrated and say something back even the slightest thing, he would report you and it was you who got the warning. Eventually he got banned but instantly another came and did the same thing and another. Its either an endless battle of trying to hold your temper while someone is twisting your words and insulting you or just ignoring them and talking to the people you really do enjoy talking to.

I think if the people who are dorks get ignored they eventually just move on. What is fun to them is twisting your words and upsetting you. That is why they do it. IF no one takes the bait, they will either keep posting more horrible stuff that no one but the admins see and get banned them self or they will just move on to some other place where people are willing to take the bait.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Truthaboveall you should change your name

[Andy]

Truthaboveall you should change your name

Yours on the other hand, is pretty fitting. Once again Dawky, you fail to answer the simplest of questions. Like I said... the name fits.

[TruthAboveAll]

Truthaboveall you should change your name

Please feel free to point specifically to and refute anything I've said that is less than truth. Give me evidence without emotional hyperbole, and I'll certainly be glad to stand factually corrected.

[Aus22]

None of the people you quoted are Socialist. They are just supporters of the Democratic Party which is to the right of Socialist or Labor Parties.

Socialism promotes equality. We do not allow bankers to make millions. We allow Government banks to compete and any private banks are well regulated. Australia under Labor has one of the strongest economies in the Word. It is Socialist China that is lending and investing in the USA.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Abso****inglutely

Americans labelling as socilaists anyone who disagrees with extreme right wing politics demonstrate three things

1) They have been brainwashed
2) They know nothing about socialism
3) They know nothing about the US political landscape.

US political parties are either right wing (Dems) or VERY right wing (republicans).

The only socialists in the US are national socialists, like the ones currently in the whitehouse.

[Andy]

Ok, I'm missing something here. Socialism in it's very definition is what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are. They are owned by government. I would also include ownership by proxy, such as the supposed privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, yet we all know who held the most control and sway over both. It's clearly obvious when the company is a revolving door for democrats.

Further, a socialist is anyone who believes is the basic fundamentals of socialism, namely governmental control. Can you claim any of the people from Clinton to Barney Frank, to Franklin Raines didn't hold these views?

[Mr. Carpenter]

Ok, I'm missing something here. Socialism in it's very definition is what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are. They are owned by government. I would also include ownership by proxy, such as the supposed privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, yet we all know who held the most control and sway over both. It's clearly obvious when the company is a revolving door for democrats.

Further, a socialist is anyone who believes is the basic fundamentals of socialism, namely governmental control. Can you claim any of the people from Clinton to Barney Frank, to Franklin Raines didn't hold these views?

Don't bother Andy, they're a couple of Communists who feel the need to conceal that fact by calling themselves Socialists, and as such, cannot admit that our Socialists are in fact Socialists lest it be proven by their own words that they are in fact Communists.

[Andy]

None of the people you quoted are Socialist. They are just supporters of the Democratic Party which is to the right of Socialist or Labor Parties.

I suppose that it is possible for democrats to be to the right of socialism, while still being far left of what America was built on, and is supposed to stand for. But I highly doubt you can actually support that view.

There are many socialists in our government, and many socialist policies in our country. The fact you do not know this, puts your knowledge of the subject in question, not mine.

Socialism promotes equality. We do not allow bankers to make millions. We allow Government banks to compete and any private banks are well regulated. Australia under Labor has one of the strongest economies in the Word. It is Socialist China that is lending and investing in the USA.

China is a capitalist economy. I've covered this before, but the Chinese have, since the reforms of 1978, far removed themselves from a socialist economy. The attempts at such failed consistently in the prior 50 some odd years of Socialistic dominance that left almost half the population below the poverty line. Socially speaking, they still try and dictate all aspects of life. But economically, China is moving every day toward a more capitalistic system.

As for Australia, the Labor party when it came to power, deregulated the financial markets. Further Australia is widely considered one of the most laissez-faire capitalist economies in the world. In fact, on the economic freedom list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom), Aussie land is actually higher on that list than the US. So it's not surprising that it's doing well.

Just for giggles, note who is number one on the list? Hong Kong, dominated by capitalism left by the UK, and now a model for China, to which it now belongs.

For those who may not know (likely the person I'm responding to) a "Laissez-faire Capitalist Economy", is one with the least government control, regulation, dictation, and the most freedom... virtually the maximum anti-socialistic system.

Americans labelling as socilaists anyone who disagrees with extreme right wing politics demonstrate three things

I label people who support socialist ideals, to be socialists. The people I have listed, have supported policies that are socialist by nature. You also seem to imply that anyone who supports the views that led America to go from the newest, least experienced nation in the world, to be the leaders of the entire world. In which case, we need more extremists.

1) They have been brainwashed
2) They know nothing about socialism
3) They know nothing about the US political landscape.

US political parties are either right wing (Dems) or VERY right wing (republicans).

When politicians support policies that are Stalinist in nature, how do you claim this is right wing? Basically what you are really pointing out is that you are so far beyond the left, that nearly everyone on the planet is to the right of you. That's an insane point of view, but you are more than welcome to it. Rather fitting I'd say.

The only socialists in the US are national socialists, like the ones currently in the whitehouse.

All socialists are national socialists. The fact you don't know that suggest you know little of what you speak. The very father of nationalism, was the mastermind of modern socialism, that being Stalin himself. If you don't believe me, go look up the phrase "Mother Russia". Go to the Gulags for the good of Mother Russia.

Just curious, on what topic are you educated enough to respond from an informed view point? I have yet to find one, so I am wondering if it exists.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Andy, you have proved yourself to be a complete ignoramus in your posts about socialism.

[Andy]

Andy, you have proved yourself to be a complete ignoramus in your posts about socialism.

Feel free to educate me Dawky boy. Thus far you have only shown your own ignorance.

[Aus22]

Socialism is more than governtment control It has several forms but aims for more equality. Fanie May were not socialist organizations, the government did not own them . They made no attempt at equality.

An extreme socialist advocates the ownership of all the means of production . There are few of these today. Even China and Russia has private ownership of many businesses. However they are mixed economies with some government ownership.

Most socialist countries have some essential services like postal services, hospitals and schools in government hands. Some have transport like railways, electricity ,gas, telephones, Water supplies in government hands.
The USA does not fit any of these models.

[Dawkinsrocks]

The US economy is a model for us all (ha ha)

[Andy]

Socialism is more than governtment control It has several forms but aims for more equality. Fanie May were not socialist organizations, the government did not own them . They made no attempt at equality.

From every definition of Socialism that I can find, none state 'equality' being a defining factor. All state the idea of government control or ownership.

I would suggest to you that Fannie Mae was and is a socialist organization. It was created by government to begin with, and it is currently owned by government now. During the time it was 'privatized', it was filled with members of government, its board of directors was filled with government appointees, and was dictated to by government policies. It's what I call "socialism by proxy". Meaning, it may technically be private, but in practice, it is run by the government.

For example, Fannie Mae did not have to follow the rules that govern any other mortgage lender in the private sector. Fannie Mae had a monopoly on FHA and VA loans, unlike the private market. Fannie Mae did not keep (I believe) 5% capital on outstanding loans, like a private lender would be required to.

As far as equality is concerned, I might remind you that the reason all this happened was because of a 90s era policy of increasing home loans to those with bad or low credit, aka subprime loans. The stated purpose of this policy was to increase minority home ownership... aka improving 'equality'.

An extreme socialist advocates the ownership of all the means of production . There are few of these today. Even China and Russia has private ownership of many businesses. However they are mixed economies with some government ownership.

Yes I'm well aware of the amazing success of Capitalism in China. Further, there are those in government who believe in such a view.

Most socialist countries have some essential services like postal services, hospitals and schools in government hands. Some have transport like railways, electricity ,gas, telephones, Water supplies in government hands.
The USA does not fit any of these models.

I never said it did. That doesn't deny the truth of my statement. I never said, or indicated that the USA was a model socialist country, just that there are socialists in government, and there are socialist companies, and there are socialist policies.

One of the quotes made by government officials during their hearings on oil policy was, to do a complete government takeover of the oil industry. When the mortgage lending bubble burst, the first call was for a take over off failing companies by the government. That... is socialism. I say the people supporting those views... are socialists. Do you not agree?

[Dawkinsrocks]

Andy, stop advertising your stupidity.

[Andy]

Andy, stop advertising your stupidity.

This coming from someone that half the people on this forum have ignored, or don't bother responding to, due explicitly to your lack of intelligent posts. I consider this a compliment.

[Aus22]

No CEO in the USA is a Socialist. If the banks had been nationalises not just releace of their debts that what be socialism

[Andy]

No CEO in the USA is a Socialist. If the banks had been nationalises not just releace of their debts that what be socialism

Why do I have to repeat myself. Fannie Mae is owned.... by the government. That.... is nationalized. The CEO of Fannie Mae.... is a politician. That's a socialist.

Now... Not to be condescending... But pretend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not exist... the US Postal Service is a corporation... and it's nationalized. And for the record, similar insane abuses have been found there.

No matter how you cut it Aus22, there are CEOs in the US, that are socialist, and there are socialized corporations. This can not be denied. You will have to prove that USPS, or Fannie and Freddie are not socialized in order to even have an argument.

You can start by explaining: why would the government oversight department of FHEO, a regulator group whose purpose is to watch government entities, be watching over Fannie Mae, if indeed Fannie Mae was not a government (socialized) enterprise?

Of course... the answer is, it is socialized. And we know that because of the revolving door of democrats running the company. Private companies do not have government politicians appointed to them. You would never see a private company like Wal-Mart, have some idiot lawyer like Bill Clinton, appoint a complete moron like Franklin Raines to be CEO, and run the company into the ground. That only happens in a Government controlled (socialized) company.

Once again, I'm using facts and logic, while being rebutted with unsupportable statements.

[Libsmasher]

Why do I have to repeat myself. Fannie Mae is owned.... by the government. That.... is nationalized. The CEO of Fannie Mae.... is a politician. That's a socialist.

Now... Not to be condescending... But pretend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not exist... the US Postal Service is a corporation... and it's nationalized. And for the record, similar insane abuses have been found there.

No matter how you cut it Aus22, there are CEOs in the US, that are socialist, and there are socialized corporations. This can not be denied. You will have to prove that USPS, or Fannie and Freddie are not socialized in order to even have an argument.

You can start by explaining: why would the government oversight department of FHEO, a regulator group whose purpose is to watch government entities, be watching over Fannie Mae, if indeed Fannie Mae was not a government (socialized) enterprise?

Of course... the answer is, it is socialized. And we know that because of the revolving door of democrats running the company. Private companies do not have government politicians appointed to them. You would never see a private company like Wal-Mart, have some idiot lawyer like Bill Clinton, appoint a complete moron like Franklin Raines to be CEO, and run the company into the ground. That only happens in a Government controlled (socialized) company.

Once again, I'm using facts and logic, while being rebutted with unsupportable statements.

As I've said before, this place needs some intelligent libs - one can never find any of them worthy of debate, instead you have to tutor. :rolleyes: Right about now I'd probably settle for one with an IQ over 80.

[Dawkinsrocks]

You guys think there are socialist CEOs and politicians in the US.

You think the wars are going well.

You think that more republican government is a good thing.

Can anyone be that stupid?

[Andy]

You guys think there are socialist CEOs and politicians in the US.

You think the wars are going well.

You think that more republican government is a good thing.

Can anyone be that stupid?

There are socialist CEOs and Politicians. Only idiots don't know this.

The war is going well. Only fools think it isn't.

More republicans in government may or may not be a good thing. Fewer socialists in government would be the best thing.

Can anyone be this stupid? Obviously from your lack of an intelligent post...

[Sihouette]

In college I brushed up against some econ and business stuff. Not much, but enough to let me get a basic grasp on how a good business is made.

Good business is made by producing a reliable product that people like. Seems simple enough. But to keep that product reliable and likeable, you need good employees who are satisfied and giving you their 100%. With me so far? So following the logic-breadcrumbs, in order to be a successful business, you need good, satisfied employees who give you 100%.

People are funny. They innately know and balk at being treated like slaves, and many have resorted to passive-aggression to take out their anger on their employer. Ie: sabotage. (Enjoy the cult movie "Office Space" in your spare time to see an illustration of this basic human edict..)

So, a company that is treating its employees as expendible and replacible slaves is in danger of being sabotaged. Sabotage leads to poor product performance and whammo, overnight a business can be put under (follow the breadcrumbs backwards now...you can do it! ;) ) by its own mistreatment of its employees.

Now, a socialist CEO would be the most successful over time. And of course the best and most profitable businesses are those that hang in to reap profits over long periods of time. We have some notable exceptions but this seems to be the rule.

Capitalistic CEOs who operate soley on greed and short-sided profiteering at the expense of their foundation, their employees, may get lucky now and then, but by and large they would be like betting on a dark horse with a fractured leg in a race. That weak bone may not break, or it may. The gamble lies with the stockholders.

[Dawkinsrocks]

The wars are going very badly and they will make Vietnam look like a party

[bododie]

The wars are going very badly and they will make Vietnam look like a party

Are the suicide bombers the fireworks for the party? Cool.

[Andy]

Logic... thought... rational concepts... Thank God for Sih. The first intelligent post by a liberal leaning person.

Good business is made by producing a reliable product that people like. But to keep that product reliable and likeable, you need good employees who are satisfied and giving you their 100%. In order to be a successful business, you need good, satisfied employees who give you 100%.

They innately know and balk at being treated like slaves, and many have resorted to passive-aggression to take out their anger on their employer. Ie: sabotage. (Enjoy the cult movie "Office Space" in your spare time to see an illustration of this basic human edict..)

So, a company that is treating its employees as expendable and replaceable slaves is in danger of being sabotaged. Sabotage leads to poor product performance and whammo, overnight a business can be put under (follow the breadcrumbs backwards now...you can do it! ;) ) by its own mistreatment of its employees.

Now, a socialist CEO would be the most successful over time. And of course the best and most profitable businesses are those that hang in to reap profits over long periods of time. We have some notable exceptions but this seems to be the rule.

Capitalistic CEOs who operate soley on greed and short-sided profiteering at the expense of their foundation, their employees, may get lucky now and then, but by and large they would be like betting on a dark horse with a fractured leg in a race. That weak bone may not break, or it may. The gamble lies with the stockholders.

Nice in theory, but not always true in practice. There are two massive errors in your logic.

First, it is true that you need a good product people want, and good people to make that product. You missed an important thing... the product must be competitive and profitable.

Fannie Mae supplied a good 'product' people wanted. Fannie Mae paid their employees well. But Fannie Mae still wasn't profitable and ultimately ended up bankrupt.

The second error, is the idea of being treated like slaves. The issue is, this is a matter of perspective. On a technical level, no one can be treated like a slave since no one is forced to do any specific job. If you don't like how you are treated... stop being a whiny dork, and leave your stupid job. This isn't communism, and you are not in a Gulag. There is no excuse for committing crimes, and in Office Space, the main char was just a felon.

But, back to perspective. In China, now that they have adopted Capitalism, people are earning $2/hour. An American may claim that's being treated like a slave. But to them, $2/hour is far better than under Communism where they earned less than $1 for the whole day working in a rice patty with no other option. The same would go for any number of countries where people have no options, no freedom, no ability to choose because government controls the economy.

I was in one company where the employees were treated very poorly. I'm in a company now where the employees are treated very well. But I felt like a slave in neither, or any job I've had because I know that if I don't want to work Monday, I don't have to go. We each can choose.

But as far as greed is concerned... why do you give a pass to Franklin Raines and the prior CEOs of Fannie Mae who cooked the books, made false statements about the finances of the company? Franklin Raines did as much or more than what was done at Enron, yet I don't hear the outcry from the left. Why is this? They purposefully shifted and slanted numbers to make it look as though they had made a profit, in order to get an executive bonus. Isn't that greed?

[Andy]

The wars are going very badly and they will make Vietnam look like a party

Yes, yes of course. Clearly everything is messed up in your world.
http://rofl.wheresthebeef.co.uk/DaffyScrewball.gif

[Dawkinsrocks]

A British military commander fighting in Afghanistan today says the war is unwinnable.

But you probably know better from watching Fux news.

You gullible fool

[Andy]

A British military commander fighting in Afghanistan today says the war is unwinnable.

But you probably know better from watching Fux news.

You gullible fool

I don't watch Fox news. Another sign of the stupidity of your argument.

I know because I've talked to people who are there, and were there. Something you would never know sitting at home looking at your computer screen, writing foolish nonsense online.

[Dawkinsrocks]

I notice that yet again you don't address the point.

A British Military commander who is fighting there says the war is unwinnable.

There are numerous books out by journalists who have lived and breathed the war who describe it as chaos.

You Americans are just suckers for propaganda.

The US will limp home from both wars in disgrace when they run out of the money to keep fighting them.

They will never win.

It is Nam all over again.

But you think you get the truth from the evil bastards in the whitehouse.

You are too stupid to realise that your government uses propaganda as much as any if not more.

[Andy]

I notice that yet again you don't address the point.

A British Military commander who is fighting there says the war is unwinnable.

There are numerous books out by journalists who have lived and breathed the war who describe it as chaos.

You Americans are just suckers for propaganda.

The US will limp home from both wars in disgrace when they run out of the money to keep fighting them.

They will never win.

It is Nam all over again.

But you think you get the truth from the evil bastards in the whitehouse.

You are too stupid to realise that your government uses propaganda as much as any if not more.

There have been the same people said the exact same statements about Korea, WW2, the Soviet Union, and about a million other things. And even in the 1991 gulf war. And like all those before them, they too will be sent to history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.

As for general who says it can't be won... This isn't 'evidence'. It's his opinion. The opinion was that when we fought Saddam, it would be like Vietnam. Instead we trashed him and defeated the entire Iraqi army. They said the same with the Surge. Instead we wiped out the vast majority of the resistance, and turned more provinces over to local Iraqi control.

So... unless you have some actual evidence... like real numbers, or can show we have lost province after province to insurgents, or have something else quantifiable, then your whine session, really is meaningless to me.

If you want to fight with opinions, I can spam a bunch on here that are just as irrelevant as one general complaining they can't win.
(moving to a new thread. All whine sessions off the topic of socialism will be ignored)

[Dawkinsrocks]

There is the utter chaos and continued fighting in country.

And it is not getting better.

It is gettinng worse.

That is why all these people who are not prepared to just go along with the US propaganda state that the wars are going very badly.

I suppose you think the troups are all at home and the Iraqis are singinging the star spangled banner.

The Russians couldn't conquer Afghanistan and they live next door.

[bododie]

Dawkinsrock,

Is there anything that you do like? lol. I hope you don't make those around you as miserable as you are. You actually actively hate Americans. I think that's hilarious beyond words. I'm starting to thrive on your anger. Cool.

[Andy]

He's just a really whiny person. We'll see if he responds to the evidence in the other thread. Of course I already know the answer, but... I like to give people a chance to prove they are not closed minded idiots. That way I can 'show' their stupidity and foolishness, by their own responses.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Look guys, if the wars were going well you wouldn't have your current leader and the two challengers all with different ( and useless) ideas on what to do next.

It is chaos and the US will limp out of Iraq and Afghanistan in a humiliating withdrawal.

The fact that Andy doesn't understand how much propganda is used in the US illustrates the gullibility of your average American.

That is why they bought that **** about the cowboys being the goodies and the Injuns the baddies.

You will see.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Bobodie

I am not alone in my disdain of the US right now.

Why?

It is a nation in the grip of relgious fundamentalism

It practises gross abuses of human rights.

It has attacked 50 countries since WW2 mostly to destabalise left of centre Governments even though they were democratically elected. The rest were to steal resources.

It consumes most of the planets resources and pollutes massively.

It is institutionally racist

It is an international bully.

It has a president that came to power through a clearly rigged election.

And yet it preaches democracy, equality and peace.

It is disgustingly hypocritical and it has no regard for the lives of anyone who stands in its way.

That is why I and millions of others want to see the end of this millitarist Junta.

And make no mistake, it is nearly upon us.

[bododie]

It is a nation in the grip of relgious fundamentalism You read too many comic books. Just isn't true.

It practises gross abuses of human rights . Like China?

It consumes most of the planets resources and pollutes massively

Actually, 25%. Pollution? Again. China, and let's not forget Ganesha land.

It is an international bully

Can you name one world power in history that gained that status by not being a bully? It's man's nature, it's not unique to modern America. This is just another chapter in the history of man.

Believe me Americans want to see the end of our involvement with other countries too. We're tired of feeding them. Those millions around the world who hate us sure as hell take my tax money, and then complain that we try to run the show. Beggars can't be choosers.

Do you think America owes your country something?

[Dawkinsrocks]

So you agree but you seem to think that two wrongs make a right by naming China as a bad nation too.

The difference is that China isn't invading every country it doesn't like destabilsing the economy and impoverishing the people.

Nor does it stand up on the world stage preaching freedom and democracy.

Nor is China exporting a hideous bubble-gum celebrity obsessed 'culture' around the globe.

China has a long way to go but it is nowhere near as dangerous or hypocritical country as the US.

And the Chinese are just not as nauseating as Americans who are on the one hand religious fundamentalists but who hate the poor and love killing people in kick ass wars.

[bododie]

It is chaos and the US will limp out of Iraq and Afghanistan in a humiliating withdrawal.

LONDON, England (CNN)The Afghan government believes the Taliban cannot be defeated militarily, and the Taliban believe that they can't win a war against the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, the Saudi source said.

Hmmm.

Nor is China exporting a hideous bubble-gum celebrity obsessed 'culture' around the globe

Hey, don't buy it! Are your people so weak minded?

Nor does it stand up on the world stage preaching freedom and democracy That would be because it is openly tyranical? Oh, that's better. At least as its kicking 100,000's of thousands of people out of their homes, suspending noisy jobs to present a "good" picture for the Olympics wasn't hypocritical. Those people who didn't get to eat because they were laid off for games didn't have a single bad thought about their government because if the gov. thought that they did, they would be dead! Yea! non-hypocritical China. What a bastion of human decency.

Hate the poor? Tell it to the "great protectors" of Muslim and African lands who won't let our aid get through to those who need it.

For once answer a question: Do you think America owes your country anything? If not, then please initiate a movement to stop our foreign aid to you. The rest of the world takes from us, gives nothing in return except for sending us it's losers, and then b****** about having to be appreciative for it. Hmmm.

[Dawkinsrocks]

So is the US

That is the point.

The US is breathtakingly hypocritical as evidenced by GWB condemning Russia for invading Georgia.

What is that about?

[bododie]

So is the US

That is the point. So is the U.S. what, and what is the point?

GWB isn't America. He's Bush. Do you NOT understand that we are also waiting for this clown to go away? American's do not support Bush, how he handled just about anything, and what he has done to America's reputation. If Americans are at fault for Bush, then all Muslims everywhere are responsible for the attack on 9-11. Same mentality. Islam in its entirety declared war on American soil, and American innocents.

Should all Muslims in the world pay the price for that?

[Dawkinsrocks]

He is your leader

Your people allegedly voted him in

So yes, you are responsible.

What you should do now is try to ensure that never again is an extreme right wing relgious fundamentalist abuser of human rights allowed to govern the US

[Dawkinsrocks]

And suicide bombing is committed by illegal gangs

Not what is upposed to be the world's shining light of democracy.

If you don't think the US should be judged by higher standards than warring gangs then non-existent deity help us all

[Andy]

How ironic. Did it ever occur to you that possibly the reason God does not 'do something' is because of the massive non-belief in our country? By non-belief I mean people have turned away from the laws of God, including professing Christians, not just the wide spread atheism.

That said, I did look up your quote from the general. Did you actually bother to read the story? The General was explaining we can't win conventionally like go to the capital city, have the leaders surrender and the war is over.

This is because since all the various bands of terrorist and Tailban forces are dispersed and isolated in caves, and not all are linked with communication, even if the unofficial leader of the group were to declare defeat, hundreds would never know it and keep fighting.

Instead, the goal, as the General explained, was to reduce the militia forces down to a manageable level, and then pass off control to local Afghan military. To this end, we are making progress and the goal can be achieved.

See, you don't know anything about which you speak, and never have. All this... we're going to withdraw in shame and defeat ignorant crap, and the general said nothing of the sort. We are advancing, and we will reach our goal.

[Aus22]

I rarely visit this site so I am afraid this topic is getting away from the original topic. Socialism means complete control. Whatever Fanny Mae was it was not completely control by the government. The government may have guarntee its depositors and imposed some regulations.But so do most governments . Recently Ireland ,Greece and Germany have guarntee the private deposits of all their banks. This does not mean the banks are government control, they are still own by private interests.

The difference between a Socialist solution to the present crisis and others is that socialist would take over the whole failed company,nationalise it so it is fully government owned and not sell it back to the private sector until it yield enough profits to pay for the government purchase.

The American solution is for the government to buy out the debts of failed enterprises but give control still to the private business owners who will take any subsequent profit. This is not socialism

[Dawkinsrocks]

It is a kind of socialism.

National socialislm

[GenSeneca]

Socialism means complete control.
Give it time, we're getting there.... While the strict definition of Socialism is Ownership of the means of production, the American government doesn't need to own an industry in order to have control over it - Fannie & Freddie for example.

This is not socialism
We are closer to Socialism than we are Capitalism.

Capitalism is no government control over the economy.

A mixed economy blends Socialism with Capitalism. Rather than owning the means of production outright, "Democratic Socialism" allows the means to remain in private ownership but control all the necessary aspects of the industry. Regulation tells business who, how, where and when - effectively controlling means of production or a soft Nationalization of Industry.

Additionally, Taxation can be used so that the Government can control the profits made in the private sector... limiting the accumulation of wealth. Most extreme example is the windfall profits tax. Absent of the Windfall Profits Tax, there is the Income Tax, the Capital Gains tax to "redistribute wealth" (Take from the rich and give to the poor).

Bottom line is... while Government doesn't YET own the complete means of production... we're getting closer to that than we are to no government control. Key Industries are effectively being Nationalized and the trend looks like it will continue.

The more Government we have, the greater the number of individuals that must have their individual rights sacrificed in the name of the collective. Sadly... many Americans don't mind voting away the rights of a stranger they think can "afford" it, so long as its for a good cause - Like the Common Good - or they have sufficient animosity toward a particular minority, like disdain for the "Rich", brought about by class warfare.

What we need is less Socialism, not more. Less Government, not more. Less taxation, not more. But that's not whats happening, we're getting more.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Genseneca you are sooo uninformed.

Socialism is all about a fairer redistribution of wealth.

The US is nowhere near that.

It is taking money off the poor to give to the rich.

That is the oppositie of the socialist intent.

The only socialism in operation in the US is national socialism

[Andy]

I rarely visit this site so I am afraid this topic is getting away from the original topic.

That's understandable. Realize that all topics on an open forum like this, tend to sway and wander around. That's simply the nature of open discussion.

Socialism means complete control.

Well at least I can now understand the logic of your perspective. So, by your view, you would claim that, unless the government has a 100% lock on a company, then it's .... capitalism?

This is an interesting view because by that standard, China is 100% capitalist. The Chinese government hold about 85% control over it's major utility and industrial companies. They would say this is socialized, but you would claim it isn't.

Whatever Fanny Mae was it was not completely control by the government. The government may have guarntee its depositors and imposed some regulations.But so do most governments . Recently Ireland ,Greece and Germany have guarntee the private deposits of all their banks. This does not mean the banks are government control, they are still own by private interests.

I would generally agree with this. I understand the concept of having some regulations, or in this case, some government issued insurance, is pretty much what that is.

Where I have a problem is when government determines who runs the company, or when it chooses business decisions for the company, or controls the prices for the companies products, or so on.

With Fannie Mae, the government controlled who ran the company. That's antithetical to private ownership. If it's 'privately owned', the government can't show up and say "here's your new CEO", which is pretty well what happened.

Also, government dictated company policy. The reasons Fannie Mae started securing subprime loans, is not because it was sound business practice, not because it was a profitable move... it was because government dictated it. Now does that sound more like a free capitalist system, or a socialized system?

The difference between a Socialist solution to the present crisis and others is that socialist would take over the whole failed company,nationalise it so it is fully government owned and not sell it back to the private sector until it yield enough profits to pay for the government purchase.

The American solution is for the government to buy out the debts of failed enterprises but give control still to the private business owners who will take any subsequent profit. This is not socialism

Er... you seem to be missing something here. Fannie Mae is right now... as we speak 100% fully owned by the government. There is no known plan to sell it back to the private sector.

Further, the whole reason why Fannie Mae was originally privatized was because it was doing fairly poorly. It is unlikely that it will "yield enough profits to pay for the government purchase" ever.

Supporting evidence is the US Post Office, which has always been mismanaged and never once shown a positive income. Every year the government has to give money to the USPO, to balance it's books.

See, I disagree with you that Socialism is an all or nothing deal. I don't agree that unless government has complete 100% control of everything, then it isn't socialism.

If you did the same for Capitalism, then there isn't real Capitalism anywhere on the planet. Obviously that isn't true. If government buys control over a company, that's socialism. If the government controls how much a company charges, or how much it buys, or what products it sells, those are all elements of socialism. If the government tells a hospital how much it can charge, and how much it will be paid, and what services it must offer, and which it can't... all that is socialism.

[Libsmasher]

Just a clarifying note: capitalism is an ideal which has actually never existed anywhere on earth. The closest to it was probably Hong Kong before the PRC takeover. Economies like the US, called "capitalist" only by ideologues and the uninformed, are called "mixed economies" by economists.

[Dawkinsrocks]

What the American government is practising now is called theft.

It is taking around $5000 from everyone who is working and one third of these earn less than $16,000 per year.

That is roughly one third of their income.

The same tax is being taken off the bankers responseible many of who will be earning millions of dollars p.a.

Those bankers will go on to make millions more and the poor bastards who have lost a third of their income will never get it back.

This is not socialism.

It is national socialism

[Andy]

What the American government is practising now is called theft.

It is taking around $5000 from everyone who is working and one third of these earn less than $16,000 per year.

That is roughly one third of their income.

The same tax is being taken off the bankers responseible many of who will be earning millions of dollars p.a.

Those bankers will go on to make millions more and the poor bastards who have lost a third of their income will never get it back.

This is not socialism.

It is national socialism

National socialism, or socialism. Both suck. Both are horrible. If calling it national socialism, floats your boat, great. I think we should torpedo both.

It's interesting how the left here use selective numbers. When Bush cut taxes, it cut income tax at every level. The left complained that those earning less than $16K would not benefit because due to deductions, they already pay zero income tax.

Now with a bail out that changes no taxes, they complain those earning less than $16K are going to foot the bill. Which is it? Can the left be consistent on anything?

Further, you claim bankers are going to run off with billions. Er... were you paying attention? Remember the first bail out that got shot down? Do you know why?

The original bail out, written by democrats, had no controls, no restrictions. The Republicans had a cow over it, and shot the bill down. The current bail out that was passed, has controls and regulations attached. If a company takes bail out money, the CEO has to agree to a pay cut or restriction, and limits on how much in company benefits they can take.

Meanwhile, they don't get in cuts in their personal taxes.

Of course, you did get the theft comment down right. All income taxes are theft. It's taking by force, the money you rightfully earned.

Look, you act as if I am going to defend this bail out. To me... socialism, national socialism, Maoist socialism, purple socialism, retarded socialism, any socialism... is all, every bit of it, bad. I hate the bail out.

See, we're not like you. If it was a democrat in office, no matter what he'd do, you'd be for it. Not us. Bush has done many great things. This isn't one of them, and I don't support it. Socialist bailouts are crap. Fannie Mae should have filed bankruptcy, and been sold off.

[Dawkinsrocks]

I think that you don't understand the term 'national socialism'.

National socialists are more familiarly known as Nazis

[Andy]

I think that you don't understand the term 'national socialism'.

National socialists are more familiarly known as Nazis

This neither addresses the points made, nor is important in any way.

If you said we had a Maoist form of socialism, it still murdered thousands of people and left nearly 2/3rds of the nation earning around a $1 a day.

If you said we had a Stalinist form of socialism, it still enslaved millions in gulags and had hundreds subjected to torture and 'show trials' that resulted in false executions and life imprisonment.

If you said we had a Castro form of socialism, it still resulted in people enslaved by the government, living in enforced poverty, and willing to die to swim to America.

So, it doesn't matter a hill of beans to me which type you wish to liken our brand of socialism to. Each and every one fails. Each and every one is against freedom. Each and every one will cause harm and damage.

So, have fun with your ideological label maker. It changes not my point or perspective that it sucks, and need to be eliminated and fought against at every turn.

[Mr. Carpenter]

What the American government is practising now is called theft.

It is taking around $5000 from everyone who is working and one third of these earn less than $16,000 per year.

That is roughly one third of their income.

That's another damned lie, but what can you expect from a Socialist/Communist Brit.

The same tax is being taken off the bankers responseible many of who will be earning millions of dollars p.a.

Those bankers will go on to make millions more and the poor bastards who have lost a third of their income will never get it back.

This is not socialism.

It is national socialism

And not only is he/she/it a Socialist/Communist Brit, but he/she/it is a stupid Socialist/Communist Brit who doesn't even know what he's talking about when it comes to Socialism, much less National Socialism, because N.S. renounces capitalism, which contradicts his very assertion.

[Andy]

And not only is he/she/it a Socialist/Communist Brit, but he/she/it is a stupid Socialist/Communist Brit who doesn't even know what he's talking about when it comes to Socialism, much less National Socialism, because N.S. renounces capitalism, which contradicts his very assertion.

I was thinking that... I couldn't find anything in "national socialism" that was remotely capitalistic, thus defeating his point from a 'logical' perspective. But then I didn't think he'd get the idea.