The reality is that when the extent of every argument in every thread is undergirded solely by using socialism as an invective, and that every time the operational use of socialism is challenged it is never defended, then no argument actually exists. In other words, if you are going to use a shortcut - labeling everything associated with Obama as socialist in lieu of a substantive argument against what he is doing - then you should be very certain the shortcut is actually proved.

 

Very good point. May not be the right thread to make it though.

Barney Frank has been quoted as saying he thinks the goverment should control pretty much all wages. You're getting big government at it's worst. And don't pretend that Obama is not part of it.

 

To be clear, you do mean that he means for companies who accept bailout money, correct?

Habib, you have before argued that the agenda was not "socialist" because the agenda did not fit the classical definition in that there was no government control of the "means of production." Thus far, I have stood silent because I agreed to a large extent.

 

However, with the current situation involving GM, you have as follows:

 

a. The President calling for the resignation of the corporate CEO;

b. A committee created by the President reviewing other top level corporate management for potential dismissals;

c. The administration insisting upon a management and marketing restructuring plan that the government must approve;

d. As part of the insisted-upon marketing plan, the corporation must begin to manufacture certain types of vehicles, i.e. "green" vehicles, and slow production of trucks and Suv's;

e. We have the President, in his own words, saying that the U.S. government is now in the business of backing consumer car warranties.

 

At what point in this progression of facts does your defense of administration agenda as non-socialistic begin to blur? Is this not controlling the means of production?

 

I have to admit, I appreciate an actual articulation of an argument. For me, in this case, GM has requested the money from the government and it would only be foolish for the government to not attach conditions to it, no matter how austere. Ford did not receive government loans and there is no question who their CEO will be or what types of automobiles they will produce or how much they will pay their employees. So long as GM is agreeing to the terms I don't believe it is socialistic. Others may see it as such and I could certainly see how they could in this situation. However, until this point no one has bothered making that argument.

 

For the record, I'm not defending the Obama administration. Every time there is a thread concerning the administration an endless stream of posts about him being a socialist emerge with no explanation as to what socialism is, how the subject of the thread constitutes socialism, or even why the subject of the thread is bad policy. In that light, I have no choice but to question the use of the term.

I have to admit, I appreciate an actual articulation of an argument. For me, in this case, GM has requested the money from the government and it would only be foolish for the government to not attach conditions to it, no matter how austere. Ford did not receive government loans and there is no question who their CEO will be or what types of automobiles they will produce or how much they will pay their employees. So long as GM is agreeing to the terms I don't believe it is socialistic. Others may see it as such and I could certainly see how they could in this situation. However, until this point no one has bothered making that argument.

 

For the record, I'm not defending the Obama administration. Every time there is a thread concerning the administration an endless stream of posts about him being a socialist emerge with no explanation as to what socialism is, how the subject of the thread constitutes socialism, or even why the subject of the thread is bad policy. In that light, I have no choice but to question the use of the term.

 

When a bank makes a loan to a corporation, there are some terms in the loan agreement regarding assignment, right to review monthly p/l's etc., but I have NEVER seen a corporate loan that included the bank's right to dictate terms of management, marketing, or production.

 

When this was advertised, it was advertised as government loans. What is being done crosses way over the line into management and control. That approaches socialism. I don't think the "they asked for the money" argument is a strong one.

When a bank makes a loan to a corporation, there are some terms in the loan agreement regarding assignment, right to review monthly p/l's etc., but I have NEVER seen a corporate loan that included the bank's right to dictate terms of management, marketing, or production.

 

When this was advertised, it was advertised as government loans. What is being done crosses way over the line into management and control. That approaches socialism. I don't think the "they asked for the money" argument is a strong one.

 

You make an absolutely compelling argument. Sometimes you just don't recognize it until you see it written down, as you have done. If this doesn't qualify as some form of socialism, you probably can't come up with a definition of such.

When a bank makes a loan to a corporation, there are some terms in the loan agreement regarding assignment, right to review monthly p/l's etc., but I have NEVER seen a corporate loan that included the bank's right to dictate terms of management, marketing, or production.

 

When this was advertised, it was advertised as government loans. What is being done crosses way over the line into management and control. That approaches socialism. I don't think the "they asked for the money" argument is a strong one.

 

So long as GM accepts the conditions in order to get the money then the actions remain within the domain of capitalism. Now, the bill in question here would apply retroactively, which is a different story since it removes agency from GM, but I can’t find any evidence that it will pass Congress and be supported by the administration.

So long as GM accepts the conditions in order to get the money then the actions remain within the domain of capitalism. Now, the bill in question here would apply retroactively, which is a different story since it removes agency from GM, but I can’t find any evidence that it will pass Congress and be supported by the administration.

 

 

I think we are going down a slippery slope here though.

 

 

Pelosi and Frank have made their intentions known, they want total control of everything, they want absolute POWER.

 

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So long as GM accepts the conditions in order to get the money then the actions remain within the domain of capitalism. Now, the bill in question here would apply retroactively, which is a different story since it removes agency from GM, but I can’t find any evidence that it will pass Congress and be supported by the administration.

 

I have no definitive proof to offer as of yet, but my understanding is that almost all of these conditions were applied retroactively under an omnibus clause for unilateral "future modification."

 

What it reminds me of is in Star Wars (Empire Strikes Back) when Lando Calrissian is getting upset with Darth Vader taking over Bespin and mutters "this deal is getting worse and worse all the time," and Vader ominously tells him "Perhaps you feel you are being treated unfairly? It would be unfortunate to have to leave a garrison."

 

Obama apparently may have told the banks today that they HAD to accept the government bailout money even if they didn't want to. Perhaps he is prepared to leave a garrison, because everyone in this deal is in Cloud City.

I have to admit, I appreciate an actual articulation of an argument. For me, in this case, GM has requested the money from the government and it would only be foolish for the government to not attach conditions to it, no matter how austere. Ford did not receive government loans and there is no question who their CEO will be or what types of automobiles they will produce or how much they will pay their employees. So long as GM is agreeing to the terms I don't believe it is socialistic. Others may see it as such and I could certainly see how they could in this situation. However, until this point no one has bothered making that argument.

 

For the record, I'm not defending the Obama administration. Every time there is a thread concerning the administration an endless stream of posts about him being a socialist emerge with no explanation as to what socialism is, how the subject of the thread constitutes socialism, or even why the subject of the thread is bad policy. In that light, I have no choice but to question the use of the term.

 

Would you please explain what a socialist society would look like? You say my view of what socialism is not correct, so instead of telling me I am wrong, inform me what socialist America would look like, if we headed down that road.

Would you please explain what a socialist society would look like? You say my view of what socialism is not correct, so instead of telling me I am wrong, inform me what socialist America would look like, if we headed down that road.

 

For the sake of brevity I will revive a post from a previous thread.

 

Here is my question then: If they United States is a capitalist state (the most capitalist in the world, I might add) despite having massive agricultural subsidies, a public infrastructure system, military, a progressive tax system, social security, some forms of nationalized healthcare in medicare and medicaide, etc., then what is it that still makes us capitalist and what is it that Obama is reversing that will make us socialist? Is George Bush a socialist because of the exorbitant public spending seen under his watch, the steel cartel created under his watch, or his hallmark increases into the size of national industries (secondary education and Medicare)? Where is the line?

 

The meaning of the word has been so far diluted that it's used to describe anyone that isn't Adam Smith (and some on here would still call him a socialist). Is that really being honest? We already have a word to describe those who advocate a larger government - liberal. Socialism rejects the markets as the mechanism that moves the economy in favor of central planning through the ownership of industries, private property, and the termination of free enterprise. That is a fundamental difference in ideology, not a blurred line between parties, especially American parties.

For the sake of brevity I will revive a post from a previous thread.

 

While we are not yet there I believe that is where Obama and his minions wish to take us. We are seeing the opening rounds. I agree that we have all those items you mentioned and I wish to see many of those go, as they have helped us to reach the point we find ourselves in. Many of the programs were well meaning, but have become burdens and Obama only wishes to add to the burdens along with state control.

 

With programs like medicaid and medicare having problems and costing ever increasing amounts of money, how does anyone believe that the government can run the entire health care system any better? Obama wants more 'green' cars on the road, cars that most people do not want, by being forced to build these unprofitable cars,it just drives up the cost of the cars that people actually want. By putting cap and trade in place all that will do is to drive up prices on everything. These are just a few backdoor methods in controlling my life. I believe that is socialism. It may not be the pure form as defined in the dictionary, but what we call communism, past or present, was not the textbook defintion either. Either way it is about not allowing me to make decisions for myself that I believe are decisions that the Enlightment philosphers believed to be my right to make, not the government.

 

If you want to drive a small car that is your right to make that decision. If you wish to use less eletricity yor decision. You can pick a health care provider on your own, you do not need the govermnment to do it for you.

We ought to give Barney Franks complete control of everyone's salary. I mean he did such a wonderful job in his role as leader of the House Financial Services Committee that our banks our just booming with good loans! He knew just how good Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were doing and that they didn't need any regulations, and that turned out exceptionally positive for the country! Give he and Pelosi control of everything and we will be in much better shape.

 

 

 

 

Please note the sarcasm this post is intended to be dripping with

With programs like medicaid and medicare having problems and costing ever increasing amounts of money, how does anyone believe that the government can run the entire health care system any better? .

 

The govt is going to run the entire healthcare system? When did I miss that one?

If they mandate who a company has to insure and at what cost, if they mandate that everyone has coverage (even those that don't want it), if they set up a government plan for those that "can't afford" coverage from a "private" insurer how is that not government control of health care. You do realize that regarding decisions based on reimbursment the private insureers already take they cue from Medicare so in effect the government controls what providers are reimbursed.

 

Lasty with all that was in that post I can't believe that this is the only point you chose to address.

If they mandate who a company has to insure and at what cost, if they mandate that everyone has coverage (even those that don't want it), if they set up a government plan for those that "can't afford" coverage from a "private" insurer how is that not government control of health care. You do realize that regarding decisions based on reimbursment the private insureers already take they cue from Medicare so in effect the government controls what providers are reimbursed.

 

Lasty with all that was in that post I can't believe that this is the only point you chose to address.

 

When people hear "govt controlled healthcare" they immediately think of Canada's system. This will be nothing like that.