1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Detroit News: "Socialism? In this country?"

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Angus, Feb 21, 2009.

  1. Angus

    Angus Active Member

    5,064 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Friday, February 20, 2009
    Frank Beckmann
    Has increase in government power crossed over to socialism?

    "Socialism? In this country?"

    That was the rather astonished response I got from U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., on my radio show this week when I asked him if he'd heard the concerns being expressed nationally about the direction of the country's policies under President Barack Obama.

    The senator's surprise aside, it's a legitimate question in a time when government is increasing welfare payments, spreading entitlements, taking steps toward nationalizing banks and the auto industry, installing the beginning of national health care and slowly transferring wealth from successful citizens to those at the bottom of the income spectrum.

    You'll never hear Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid utter the "S" word in relation to their policies, but it's difficult to categorize them any other way.

    When government begins exerting power over private decisions in search of social justice -- forcing loans by banks to unqualified borrowers or restricting the pay or decisions of business executives -- it has replaced the capitalist system with socialism.

    No stronger a conservative than U.S. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Livonia, argues that such analysis is flawed.

    "I think we're headed back to the '70s," McCotter opined. "I think one of the consequences of the stimulus bill will be stagflation."

    "I think the American people want a free market," he added. "They want their entrepreneurial abilities and creativity to shine through."

    The free market does appear to be under attack. Obama and his supporters have blamed what they view as greed in the capitalist system as the major reason for our recession.

    They ignore the role of government in creating the mortgage mess with the subprime loans banks were forced to grant to unqualified borrowers in the interest of affordable housing -- social justice if you prefer.

    Now, under Obama's new foreclosure relief initiative, these same banks are being told they have to find ways to help these homeowners out of the mess the government created for the lending institutions.

    His plan would offer banks $1,000 to modify loans and would give the borrowers $1,000 if they make the on-time mortgage payments they agreed to in the first place.

    Since government gets that money from the pockets of other taxpayers, the president is proposing a transfer of wealth.

    The vast majority of Americans pay their loans on time, send their kids to college and might have to sacrifice vacations or other niceties to make ends meet. They're the ones who are being asked to pay for the collective good.

    "I think Americans don't like socialism," McCotter said.

    That may be, but no matter what word you choose to define the policies the majority Democrats in Washington push, socialism sure seems to be the result.

    "I think they know it, and I think they're working very hard to implement it," U.S. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Midland, recently said.

    Our leaders may not be using the word, socialism, but no other description of their policies really fits.

    http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090220/OPINION03/902200302/1008/OPINION01
  2. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,394 Messages
    1,424 Likes Received
    of course they won't use it. that's how you impliment it. do it and attack anyone who calls it what it is.
  3. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,728 Messages
    39 Likes Received
    This artical is right on the mark. There is a growing anger in the country as it comes to understand what Obama's changes really are all about.

    I think so many under informed people voted for him and his change propaganda because it was a simplistic message without details. I think people thought he would operate an honest and transparent government that would eliminate corruption and pork, and that he would bring the troops home. So far he has failed horribly at both.
  4. TheCount

    TheCount Pixel Pusher

    21,304 Messages
    1,253 Likes Received
    It's a good thing a presidency doesn't last two months then. :rolleyes:
  5. Rogah

    Rogah Well-Known Member

    3,851 Messages
    122 Likes Received
    "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, 6 time nominee for President of American Socialist Party
  6. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,394 Messages
    1,424 Likes Received
    he's right. we're on our way and people we're just paranoid.
  7. hairic

    hairic Well-Known Member

    2,484 Messages
    261 Likes Received
    Wasn't he parroting from the communist manifesto? How the fall of capitalism will lead to the rise of poo? Liberalism = capitalism among other things this nation was founded upon. Had liberal become a bad word at the time he said that or did it still refer to free markets?
  8. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    The same was said by Kruschev. In fact, he predicted the grandchildren of the Depression-era generation (that would be gen X and younger - probably a lot of us here) would live under not socialism...but Communism.

    http://www.viddler.com/explore/AwakeAndAriseOr/videos/6/
  9. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    The word "liberal" has been co-opted and highjacked by the Progressives (aka Marxists/Socialists/Fascists/Communists). They're always working on imaging. The US was founded on "liberalism", so if we call our illiberal policies "liberal", they'll buy it hook, line, and sinker.
  10. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,873 Messages
    1,709 Likes Received
    Liberal rightly is a bad word any more. Now we have to make certain that Progressive joins it.
  11. silverbear

    silverbear Semi-Official Loose Cannon

    24,188 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    The truth is, the people gettin' pissed now didn't vote for him in the first place... and they've been pissed since November, LOL...

    Meanwhile, you try to make it sound like the whole country is gettin' pissed at him, again there's the truth (which I understand is a foreign concept to folks like you)-- his average job approval rating in the 8 polls taken since his inauguration, as seen on PollingReport.com, have him at an average 64.5 per cent approval, with a low of 60 (from Faux News, predictably enough), to a high of 69... the most recent poll up has him at 67 per cent approval...

    Wow, what ANGER... :rolleyes:

    And I think that sentence demonstrates quite clearly the depth of your cluelessness when it comes to politics... most folks voted for Obama not because of Obama, but because of Dubya...

    That's right, the last election was nothing more than a good ol' "throw the incompetent bastidges" out flushing of the political system, which happens periodically... if you can't even recognize that fundamental truth, then you really should stay out of political arguments...


    I see no corruption, I see no dishonesty, I see plenty of transparency (certainly, more than we EVER saw in the Dubya, administration; it was about this point in time in Dubya's first term that Darth Cheney convened the supersecret Energy Summit at the White House, with executives from the oil bidness, but not ONE Democratic legislator, in attendance)... in addition, he is busily setting about bringing the troops home from Iraq; I mean, he's been in office one freakin' month, and most of that was tied up with trying to ram the stimulus package through...

    The only accusation that rings true is the pork one... I'd suggest that it would be all but impossible to implement any stimulus plan that didn't include what you on the right are now eager to label "pork"... the principle behind the plan is to stimulate jobs by spending, and spending can easily be labelled pork...

    I note with interest that a number of Republican legislators have already begun talking up the stimulus to the folks back home, touting the benefits for their region... I find that funny, given that none of them VOTED for it...

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/62181.html

    Only a Republican would have the chutzpah to try to claim credit for a bill he voted against... talk about tryin' to have it both ways...
  12. silverbear

    silverbear Semi-Official Loose Cannon

    24,188 Messages
    0 Likes Received

    Seems you know nothing about politics either...

    Fascism is, by definition, a RIGHT WING political movement, thus considerably closer to conservatism than to liberalism, or even socialism...

    I swear to God, people should be required to be able to define fascism before they're allowed to use the word...
  13. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    I don't think your answer to this is valid.
    You're basically saying that Obama was voted in, not because of his merits, but because the last President (and his party) was viewed in such a poor light.

    With the root of this being, he was voted in because of his 'platform of change' (from the previous, unpopular President) and not his policies. Therefore the simplistic message worked and his policies were negligible. You're basically agreeing with JBond, and saying you're not.

    Obama ran on being the 'not-Bush' and he won. His policies are garbage and he's simply... not Bush.
    A wonderful qualification for being President. I'm not Bush, do you care to vote for me?
  14. CowboyMcCoy

    CowboyMcCoy Business is a Boomin

    12,749 Messages
    234 Likes Received

    That's what he's saying. He's asking if the guy who said this made the statement recently or from the past....
  15. silverbear

    silverbear Semi-Official Loose Cannon

    24,188 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Yup, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying...

    Not at all... what I'm saying is that the Dems could have run a trained chimp, and he would have won... Obama's policies had little to nothing to do with it...

    It pisses you off that it worked, doesn't it?? :D
  16. Jarv

    Jarv Loud pipes saves lives. Zone Supporter

    7,111 Messages
    133 Likes Received
    So you voted for a trained chimp ?

    I always that you were more of a parrot guy...

    You think you know someone, then...
  17. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,873 Messages
    1,709 Likes Received
    Silver would have voted for anyone as long as that person was a lib. Nothing else mattered.
  18. TheCount

    TheCount Pixel Pusher

    21,304 Messages
    1,253 Likes Received
    And you're any different?
  19. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,394 Messages
    1,424 Likes Received
    it pisses me off bear.

    not because i'm for one side and against the other, but because our own pettiness drives childlike behavior. obama didn't get voted in, bush / repubs got voted out.

    that's not a direction of hope, bear. that's chaos.
  20. sbark

    sbark Well-Known Member Zone Supporter

    3,786 Messages
    278 Likes Received
    More true now, than when Walter E. Williams wrote the article.....in 2000

    It's Time To Part Company
    One political question we have to answer is whether George W. Bush or Albert Gore shall be president and just which party will control the House of Representatives and the Senate. But I'd suggest that there's a far more important long run question we must answer: If one group of people prefers government control and management of people's lives and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?
    Like a marriage that has gone bad, I believe there are enough irreconcilable differences between those who want to control and those want to be left alone that divorce is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.
    Let's look at just some of the magnitude of the violations.
    Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution enumerates the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained it in The Federalist Papers: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. . . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
    Nowhere amongst the enumerated powers of congress is there authority to tax and spend for: Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for Congress's mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. A list of congressional violations of the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end.
    Americans who wish to live free have two options: We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights, or we can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating. That can be done by peopling several states, say Texas and Louisiana, control their legislatures and then issue a unilateral declaration of independence just as the Founders did in 1776. You say, "Williams, nobody has to go that far, just get involved in the political process and vote for the right person." That's nonsense. Liberty shouldn't require a vote. It's a God-given or natural right.
    Some independence or secessionists movements, such as our 1776 war with England and our 1861 War Between the States, have been violent, but they need not be. In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden, Panama seceded from Columbia (1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863). Nonetheless, violent secession can lead to great friendships. England is probably our greatest ally and we have fought three major wars together. There is no reason why Texiana (Texas and Louisiana) couldn't peaceably secede, be an ally, and have strong economic ties with United States.
    The bottom line question for all of us is should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another?
    Walter E. Williams
    c42-00
    September 8, 2000

Share This Page