ZebuluniteV
Member
link
A ?harsh? but well deserved critique on some of the blatant hypocrisies of the Bush Administration, and more broadly the Republican party/ideology since the Reagan days (actually, probably going back even further to Goldwater) with the recent bailouts of Wall Street. It's just obscene to me that the very people who screamed ?socialism? with regard to anything approaching public healthcare, who called for social-security to be privatized, and who for decades have been pushing virtually total deregulation of the economy as some sort of magical cure-all, are now quite unapologetically (after spending billions and likely trillions on the Iraq war, which somehow doesn't count as ?Big Government? spending) calling for a bailout of unprecedented proportions. Not to mention the Wall Street firms that likewise opposed regulations but now are all too happy to run to the government for help.
As the author points out ?The Federal Reserve and the Bush administration believe the threat of defaults by A.I.G. on a lot of unregulated derivative contracts creates a national emergency. It?s too bad they didn?t think of that when they were opposing any efforts to regulate those markets. That would have been interfering with free enterprise. This move, somehow, is not.? Hell, the very fact that one of the primary justifications for bailing out AIG and others was that they were ?too big to fail? its explanatory itself ? obviously there's something deeply wrong in the first place if a private entity is allowed to expand to the point that its failure threatens the world economic order. If they are that important to the economy, then how can they say they shouldn't be regulated?
The author also makes the intriguing comparison of the Bush Administration with ?Nixon in China? in the last paragraph. The author is at least undoubtedly right that, had a Democrat moved to nationalize major financial companies conservatives would surely go on and on about the ?commie liberals.? Hell, I remember last year how conservatives screeched ?socialized healthcare? at a Democratic proposal for a $35 billion over 5 years increase for SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program). Of course, true to form, if I remember correctly a week or so after that Bush requested additional funding for Iraq about 1.5 times that amount.
In any case, I'm sure the author is only used the title ?Socialism, 21st century style? in an ironic sense, given that, as one poster there succinctly stated, ?this is social plutocracy (socialism for the rich and powerful, social Darwinism for everyone else), not to be confused with social democracy, where the expenditure of public funds goes primarily for public goods (e.g., health care, child care, public safety, roads, bridges, schools) rather than to prop up failed private interests.?
Instead, I'd argue what the Republicans have pursued and advocated comes much closer to that much different ideology with socialism in its name ? ?National Socialism? (e.g. fascism).
The silver lining, I guess, is that what should have been obvious after the Enron scandal is now sinking into the public several years later ? that not only was Communism an abject failure, but so has been ?unregulated? capitalism. Not only was it clear then with Enron (not that it wasn't clear before then, but before now Enron was the most obvious example), but hopefully the public won't be duped by more catchy slogans (?Lets get the government off our backs,? and so on) and instead will realize that capitalism only works well with appropriate regulations and protections in place.
I hope...(and I also hope this partial rant comes across as coherent as well)
Edit: I should clarify that I'm not necessarily saying the bailouts specifically weren't the right move at this point - I certainly don't consider myself an expert to the point of making any sweeping judgments like that. Instead, my argument is that the very fact we're in this situation in the first place is in large part because of the utterly corrupt policies put in place by those adhering to the conservative/Republican mantra of virtually complete deregulation of the economy, constant tax cuts primarily for the rich, and a dismantling of the social safety net that provided some degree protection to the masses who cannot count on golden parachutes.
In any case, I hope that at the very least that after all of this that, if my tax dollars are being used to save these companies, then the government better damn well gut their leadership and introduce new regulations to prevent this from happening again (or, to some degree, just restore the various New Deal-era regulations repelled by Republicans).
Also, I should also add that, while the vast majority of my criticism is aimed Republicans, I wouldn't deny that at times Democrats have been accomplices to the same shenanigans (to put it nicely). But I think its beyond clear that one party is far more responsible for the calls of deregulation, etc than the other.
And likewise, beyond partisan concerns I certainly don't pin all the blame on Republicans, since by and large those who committed these abuses and screw-ups are in the private sector. But obviously the fact that they were able to do so to this extent makes clear that the largely ideologically conservative government beginning with Reagan government has totally failed in its responsibility to maintain the health of the market economy. (somewhat like Katrina ? the problem was ?government? in the abstract but rather those in it that gutted FEMA).
Edit 2: Tried to clean up some of the more obvious spelling and grammatical mistakes in this way too long post.
A ?harsh? but well deserved critique on some of the blatant hypocrisies of the Bush Administration, and more broadly the Republican party/ideology since the Reagan days (actually, probably going back even further to Goldwater) with the recent bailouts of Wall Street. It's just obscene to me that the very people who screamed ?socialism? with regard to anything approaching public healthcare, who called for social-security to be privatized, and who for decades have been pushing virtually total deregulation of the economy as some sort of magical cure-all, are now quite unapologetically (after spending billions and likely trillions on the Iraq war, which somehow doesn't count as ?Big Government? spending) calling for a bailout of unprecedented proportions. Not to mention the Wall Street firms that likewise opposed regulations but now are all too happy to run to the government for help.
As the author points out ?The Federal Reserve and the Bush administration believe the threat of defaults by A.I.G. on a lot of unregulated derivative contracts creates a national emergency. It?s too bad they didn?t think of that when they were opposing any efforts to regulate those markets. That would have been interfering with free enterprise. This move, somehow, is not.? Hell, the very fact that one of the primary justifications for bailing out AIG and others was that they were ?too big to fail? its explanatory itself ? obviously there's something deeply wrong in the first place if a private entity is allowed to expand to the point that its failure threatens the world economic order. If they are that important to the economy, then how can they say they shouldn't be regulated?
The author also makes the intriguing comparison of the Bush Administration with ?Nixon in China? in the last paragraph. The author is at least undoubtedly right that, had a Democrat moved to nationalize major financial companies conservatives would surely go on and on about the ?commie liberals.? Hell, I remember last year how conservatives screeched ?socialized healthcare? at a Democratic proposal for a $35 billion over 5 years increase for SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program). Of course, true to form, if I remember correctly a week or so after that Bush requested additional funding for Iraq about 1.5 times that amount.
In any case, I'm sure the author is only used the title ?Socialism, 21st century style? in an ironic sense, given that, as one poster there succinctly stated, ?this is social plutocracy (socialism for the rich and powerful, social Darwinism for everyone else), not to be confused with social democracy, where the expenditure of public funds goes primarily for public goods (e.g., health care, child care, public safety, roads, bridges, schools) rather than to prop up failed private interests.?
Instead, I'd argue what the Republicans have pursued and advocated comes much closer to that much different ideology with socialism in its name ? ?National Socialism? (e.g. fascism).
The silver lining, I guess, is that what should have been obvious after the Enron scandal is now sinking into the public several years later ? that not only was Communism an abject failure, but so has been ?unregulated? capitalism. Not only was it clear then with Enron (not that it wasn't clear before then, but before now Enron was the most obvious example), but hopefully the public won't be duped by more catchy slogans (?Lets get the government off our backs,? and so on) and instead will realize that capitalism only works well with appropriate regulations and protections in place.
I hope...(and I also hope this partial rant comes across as coherent as well)
Edit: I should clarify that I'm not necessarily saying the bailouts specifically weren't the right move at this point - I certainly don't consider myself an expert to the point of making any sweeping judgments like that. Instead, my argument is that the very fact we're in this situation in the first place is in large part because of the utterly corrupt policies put in place by those adhering to the conservative/Republican mantra of virtually complete deregulation of the economy, constant tax cuts primarily for the rich, and a dismantling of the social safety net that provided some degree protection to the masses who cannot count on golden parachutes.
In any case, I hope that at the very least that after all of this that, if my tax dollars are being used to save these companies, then the government better damn well gut their leadership and introduce new regulations to prevent this from happening again (or, to some degree, just restore the various New Deal-era regulations repelled by Republicans).
Also, I should also add that, while the vast majority of my criticism is aimed Republicans, I wouldn't deny that at times Democrats have been accomplices to the same shenanigans (to put it nicely). But I think its beyond clear that one party is far more responsible for the calls of deregulation, etc than the other.
And likewise, beyond partisan concerns I certainly don't pin all the blame on Republicans, since by and large those who committed these abuses and screw-ups are in the private sector. But obviously the fact that they were able to do so to this extent makes clear that the largely ideologically conservative government beginning with Reagan government has totally failed in its responsibility to maintain the health of the market economy. (somewhat like Katrina ? the problem was ?government? in the abstract but rather those in it that gutted FEMA).
Edit 2: Tried to clean up some of the more obvious spelling and grammatical mistakes in this way too long post.
