It means 52% of the people in this country voted for a man with a socialist agenda.

 

If you think it is a good thing for the POTUS to ask for the resignation of someone in the private sector, I don't know what to tell you. I don't care about the loans/bailout whatever you want to call it. This is a horrible president to start. This is government intervention in the worst way.

 

Barrack Obama = Ellsworth Toohey

 

Uh, actually it was 53% to 46%.

 

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

Boy, the Obama lemmings are sure gathering at the cliff. Before they jump, I have some swamp property in Florida that I want to sell them.

In another thread I gave a very brief definition of socialism.

I was told it was incorrect and in this thread I was told I still do not understand socialism.

I requested a definition of socialism, but was not given one. Here are 2 defintions for socialism. There are very similiar.

 

1. socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and adminstration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

 

2. any various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and adminstration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

 

While my definition was short it still was correct. You can have wages in a socialistic government, they just are controlled. You do not have wages in a pure communistic society.

According to these defintions state ownership is socialism. The contol of any business by the government were free enterprise is eliminated is socialism.

While it may be speculative that I see socialism in the liberals agenda, I bet there are a lot of Italians, Germans and Japanese of the 1920's and 30's who wished they had speculated a lot more.

Boy, the Obama lemmings are sure gathering at the cliff. Before they jump, I have some swamp property in Florida that I want to sell them.

I think that there are far less lemmings now than there were in November. Much of the population is very unhappy with the government's handling of the CRISIS (emphasis added by Obama administration.) And yes, Bush and Paulson are reponsible for getting this snowball rolling.

In another thread I gave a very brief definition of socialism.

I was told it was incorrect and in this thread I was told I still do not understand socialism.

I requested a definition of socialism, but was not given one. Here are 2 defintions for socialism. There are very similiar.

 

1. socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and adminstration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

 

2. any various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and adminstration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

 

While my definition was short it still was correct. You can have wages in a socialistic government, they just are controlled. You do not have wages in a pure communistic society.

According to these defintions state ownership is socialism. The contol of any business by the government were free enterprise is eliminated is socialism.

While it may be speculative that I see socialism in the liberals agenda, I bet there are a lot of Italians, Germans and Japanese of the 1920's and 30's who wished they had speculated a lot more.

 

You're reaching. Free enterprise has not been eliminated.

You're reaching. Free enterprise has not been eliminated.

 

He has only been in office for 9 weeks. Give him a little more time. You must admit that he is off to a monumental start.

You're reaching. Free enterprise has not been eliminated.

 

 

Do you feel that much of the government action over the past few months in regard to the bailouts/stimulus have been a step toward or away from free enterprise/capitalistic society?

Do you feel that much of the government action over the past few months in regard to the bailouts/stimulus have been a step toward or away from free enterprise/capitalistic society?

 

Free enterprise has its limits and cannot be entirely hands-free.

 

Do you think he should have let the big banks go under in the "free enterprise" mentality?

I at first bristled at this. But as Clyde pointed out, Wagoner has done nothing to improve the situation at GM. He's more or less continued on the same path. And again as Clyde and others stated, GM could have turned the money down.

 

Am I correct in that if Chrysler completes its merger with Fiat, the US Government with give them financial aid?

 

Yes, wouldn't you love to be Fiat? What do you thing that's going to do to the cost?

Free enterprise has its limits and cannot be entirely hands-free.

 

Do you think he should have let the big banks go under in the "free enterprise" mentality?

 

 

I am unclear with your response? Are you saying that it is a step toward or away from free enterprise?

 

As for your question, is the "he" you are refering to GWB or Obama?

I am unclear with your response? Are you saying that it is a step toward or away from free enterprise?

 

As for your question, is the "he" you are refering to GWB or Obama?

 

By definition, its moving away. However, as we've seen in this country forever, businesses do have regulations and limits.

 

As to my question, it doesn't matter who in my mind. The bigger issue is should we as a country have let the big banks sink or swim?

By definition, its moving away. However, as we've seen in this country forever, businesses do have regulations and limits.

 

As to my question, it doesn't matter who in my mind. The bigger issue is should we as a country have let the big banks sink or swim?

 

Thanks for clarifying.:thumb:

 

I am not a fan of the bailout. I am still up in the air in regard to it being a necessary evil or not. I hated them when they were first talked about under the Bush admin. I just worry that we may never be able to draw an appropriate line as to who gets bailed out and who does not. Heck I have had two businesses fail in my lifetime, but learned from them and am building my 3rd business right now. I never asked for assistance from the government, and (at least I feel that I) am a much better entrepreneur due to the lessons I learned when I failed previously.

 

What are your thoughts on the bailout?

What are your thoughts on the bailout?

:puke:

Thanks for clarifying.:thumb:

 

I am not a fan of the bailout. I am still up in the air in regard to it being a necessary evil or not. I hated them when they were first talked about under the Bush admin. I just worry that we may never be able to draw an appropriate line as to who gets bailed out and who does not. Heck I have had two businesses fail in my lifetime, but learned from them and am building my 3rd business right now. I never asked for assistance from the government, and (at least I feel that I) am a much better entrepreneur due to the lessons I learned when I failed previously.

 

What are your thoughts on the bailout?

 

No offense but I doubt your business, should it fail, would have a ripple effect on the nation's economy. Banks failing would. No credit. No business expansion.

 

While we can certainly question how it was handled I don't think the underlying argument that its necessary to keep people and businesses spending can be questioned.

Here is the WSJ article on the President's announcement today:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123841609048669495.html