Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Oct
13
When, after seven years of George Bush, we have the U.S. government taking over nine banks?
Under the U.S. plan to buy shares in financial institutions, government will take preferred stakes that don’t harm existing investors. The government won’t have a controlling or even voting interests in the institutions, and once they return to stable profitability, the government is expected to sell the stakes to earn taxpayers a profit.
Even so, it’s likely that the federal government will be business partners with major banks for years, something that’s never happened before — although government has held a close regulatory relationship with commercial banks since the Great Depression.
And what really repels the heckles of conservatives and ardent free market capitalists calling these steps a move toward socialism?
Heartened by expectations that the Treasury and the Fed would soon embrace more aggressive moves, Wall Street traders sent stocks stampeding back to life on Monday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average scored its biggest one-day point gain ever and all three major U.S. stock indexes scored gains of more than 11 percent.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 936.42 points to 9387.61. That’s all the more remarkable after Friday’s 1,000-point swing that sent the blue-chip index briefly to below 8,000.
The broader S&P 500 rallied Monday to close up 104.13 points to 1003.35, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq enjoyed a leap of 194.74 points to 1844.25.
Boosting stocks too was the sheer size of the British and European financial rescue efforts. The leaders of Germany, France, Britain and other nations on Monday put price tags on the plans they’d loosely unveiled on Sunday. Together, the British and European plans involved pledges exceeding $2.5 trillion to restore confidence in fragile financial markets.
Those free marketers are loving the government, from what it reads like to me. So much for whatever the bad juju is supposed to be with socialism. At least when the wealthiest are hurting, and in control.
Update: This update is specifically directed at a comment left by Mark McNally below. From The Moderate Voice (where I’m a contributor):
Today George W. Bush and Henry Paulson announced the partial nationalization of the banking industry. Bush insists that this is not an assault on the free market system. And the New York Times notes that this is not unprecedented. The government has nationalized various sectors of the economy before, most notably the collapsing railroad industry in the 1970s. The last time the financial services industry faced nationalization was the 1930s with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
Still, it’s hard to avoid noticing the leftward turn in American economic life. Those more committed to socialist principles, including Britain’s Labour PM Gordon Brown, who called for a new Bretton Woods-style financial structure for a changing world, have celebrated this moment and even compared themselves to Churchill and FDR in World War II. Unlike ideological free marketeers, Brown sees this as an inevitable and even positive step for the economy. The times they are a-changing.
…
It’s curious to witness the muted reaction from the Republicans and the McCain camp over the Dow’s sudden rise yesterday. Surely they understand that the movement toward socialization of the financial services industry – even if the Dow responds favorably – is not something to excite them. Yes, even a recovery of the financial crisis – on left-liberal terms – benefits Obama in this election.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:39 pm October 13th, 2008 in Business, Economy, Government
Comments
19 Responses to “[updated] Can we just agree that calling Dems “socialist” is off the table”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
but Socialism is EEEEEEEVIL!
Or at least, that’s what decades of anti-commie propaganda taught us. People aren’t paying attention to the economics, they’re paying attention to the political rhetoric of 1950.
I’m half expecting somebody to invent a new term to replace socialism since it’s such a dirty word but (apparently) such a necessary step…
Erica, God or someone bless you for getting my point. The labeling is really driving me over the edge. This is about priorities – it’s always been about priorities and unless people really want to behave like the newspaper industry and the dinosaurs before them, we are going to go the way of the dinos too if we don’t remain flexible in terms of what we do rather than remain committed to ideologies that no longer fit rubrics that were dogmatic and not pragmatic in the first place.
Anyway – thanks for reading and commenting!
Nope. We just need to add Bush to the list of socialists.
Of course Medicare Part D should have been a clue anput the guy.
Bush’s policies have often been socialist. So are some of McCain’s. Therefore, I will continue to call every socialist policy exactly what it is.
Further, since the modern Democratic party continues to race toward full-blown socialism in almost every possible sense, I will call every Democratic politician, pundit, and blogger a socialist unless I have concrete evidence to prove otherwise.
Alo – why are you singling out “every” Democratic politician – I edited your comment by the way because you had typos in it – since many are fiscal conservatives and not going after members of the GOP who approved the bailout?
You got some real blinders on, there.
Oh and nice reinforcement of our system that says innocent until proven guilty.
And you wonder why the Republican base is shrinking and the party itself is in disarray? Not to mention the state of its nominee’s campaign.
Unbelievable.
Feministe had a related post about the socialism buzzword phenomenon today, quoting from The American Prospect. Educational.
“Can we just agree that calling Dems “socialist” is off the table”
nope, not until Dems quit calling every republican they encounter a “facist”
Um – who cares – you mean, like the way right of center people use the phrase Islamo-fascist?
I think you’ve got some phrases mixed up.
Here’s a series called the The Audacity of Socialism I think you’ll find interesting regarding Barack. I especially liked the piece on Saul Alinsky. I think this will answer your question as to why people think he’s a socialist.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series8.aspx
Lada – I don’t know what you are reading, but this post has nothing to do with Obama or Obama being a socialist.
The link I provided is a 20 part series on Obama and his socialistic policies. The first called, Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism. I checked the link myself, its clearly an entire series about the exact topic of your blog post. That was clever though, your readers may dismiss it after reading your post and not click on it. I give you props for the diversion but take points away for having to lie.
You are entitled to your opinion. Thank you for sharing it. I don’t agree.
I didn’t write the series Jill, so it’s not my opinion, but it does however address quite succinctly why people view his policies as socialistic and is the topic of your post.
Wealth redistribution is a huge socialistic policy. That isn’t my opinion; that’s true. I’m leaning toward the possibility that you don’t know what socialism is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rYgKFWHzE0
If you believe in taking money from people who have it and giving it to people who don’t, that’s a socialistic view point. It goes against personal liberty and freedom. Anytime you force someone to give something they earned for the support of people who didn’t earn it that’s socialism (wealth is owned by everyone, not the person who earned it) Socialism is the absence of competition.
The problem in our economy today is a result of wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich but for the same exact reason you should not support McCain you should not support Obama. They are both socialist representing the rich not the poor. They talk a good game but they don’t have the power to go against the rich.
Because remember, the rich supported Barack’s campaign as well as McCains. They are not going to do anything to change the current system, they can’t. Powerful rich people put them where they are, it will look like it on paper, but its a fairytale to believe it will change. The system needs to be fixed regardless of who’s president.
Our problem in this country is corrupt politicians who get paid to run by the very rich companies who are taking money from the poor. If you think they will ever stop taking from the poor you are incredibly naive.
They may not tax us directly but they’ll do it by creating money out of thin air and pumping it into the economy. This makes the money in our pocket worth nothing. It’s called inflation. You don’t think Barack’s tax increases are going to affect our pocket books?
Welfare is socialistic.
Universal health care is socialistic.
It’s estimated that Barack Obama is proposing to increase taxes $292.954 billion dollars. ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141
McCain isn’t much better with $92.437 billion.
Jill, who will be paying for these taxes? You honestly think its just the rich? Where logically do you think that money is coming from? Are you under the impression the rich are powerless?
Think woman…
Lada – don’t take this personally, ok? you want debate you got it –
What you write assumes that we don’t already have socialism of any kind operating in our country. You tell me to “look woman” – why don’t you look first for goodness sake.
You and others who have commented here write and express opinions about what you put in quotes – egads! “”"”SOCIALISM!!!!!!”"”" as though it’s a profane four letter word.
How absurd. How utterly absurd.
This is about priorities – this is about preferences – this is about what kind of world one wants to live in vis a vis every other human in our society.
I hate labels – I hate the idea that people think socialism is some reprehensible and evil plan to rob people of something and I hate that people refuse to recognize that it’s just as much about sacrifice and swapping out as capitalism is. The only difference is how much ends up with which members of the society.
Sigh. Honestly. Such lengths to which people will go to protect what they want and repel what they fear. It’s an ideology for goodness sakes – not some flesh-eating bacteria.
Read my post again. We have socialism now we don’t have capitalism. We haven’t had capitalism for almost 100 years.
Capitalism is made out to be the bad guy because we have a few tiny aspects of capitalism like freedom and liberty but even those are fast becoming a thing of the past. Capitalism was the founding principal of our great nation because it secured freedom and liberty.
Socialism has never been successful in history. It goes against the laws of nature; the survival of the fittest.
Our country has been grooming a welfare state to the point the final complete switch to socialism can be made and it will actually be voted on and approved by the poor, who have been created poor by socialistic policies and streaming propaganda.
Jill you are no different than so many millions of people you’ve been indoctrinated into thinking capitalism is the bad guy but you are actually upset at socialism not capitalism. Socialism is a corrupt system.
http://mises.org/etexts/anticap.pdf
read this so you can see a different side. If you still think you want socialism I will leave the topic alone, I just don’t like to see intelligent people so misinformed. I have to at least try. If you will read it with an open intelligent mind; I think you’ll be enlightened.
What is it with you and assumptions? I live here – I plan on living here a while – why do you think I love or like one system more or less than the other?
Oy. I think things are best expressed when they are expressed for yourself and not constantly speculating on what you think I think, yes?
I base my reply on your reply, so you tell me what you believe and support every single time you post. I’m reading your words, that’s how I know. I’m reading links you post and the millions of reason you think BO should be president. If you put what you believe out there and someone offers the counter they obviously know where you stand. I’m not assuming anything, I’m reading your views in black and white right here for the world to see. Are you just floating in the wind all of the sudden; am I mistaken in thinking you are the author of this blog?
I’m not speaking for what you think Jill, you are.
Own it already!
[...] a protective, public access-free cocoon for the next 2-1/2 weeks, lest another socialist utterance (yes, Jill – socialist) escape into public [...]