By HAROLD MEYERSON First published in print: Thursday, March 5, 2009
"We are all socialists now," says Newsweek.
"Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff," says Mike Huckabee. We are witnessing the Obama-era phenomenon of "European socialism transplanted to Washington," says Newt Gingrich.
What's striking is the absence of advocates of socialism, at least as the term was understood by those who carried that banner during the capitalist crisis of the 1930s. Then, socialists and communists both spoke of nationalizing all major industries and abolishing private markets and the wage system. Today, it's impossible to find a left-leaning party anywhere that has such demands.
Within the confines of socialist history, this means that the perspective of Eduard Bernstein — the fin de siecle German socialist who argued that the struggle to humanize capitalism through the instruments of democratic government was everything, and that supplanting capitalism altogether was meaningless — has prevailed.
But in the United States, conservatives have never bashed socialism because its specter was actually stalking America. Rather, they've wielded the cudgel against such progressive reforms as free universal education, the minimum wage or tighter financial regulations. The result: We have the world's highest health care costs, nearly 50 million Americans have no coverage — but at least we don't have socialized medicine.
Give conservatives credit for their consistency: They attacked Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a socialist as they are now attacking Barack Obama, when in fact Obama, like Roosevelt, is engaged not in creating socialism but in rebooting a crashed capitalist system. The spending in Obama's stimulus plan isn't a socialist takeover. It's the only way to inject money into a system in which private-sector investment, consumption and exports are locked down.
http://www.dailygazette.net/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=CLONE&BaseHref=SCH%2F2009%2F03%2F09&ViewMode=GIF&EntityId=Ar00501............................. Yes, there’s a recession on, and it’s deep. Capitalism is not perfect (though one harbors the suspicion that if government had not, in effect, subsidized risky mortgage lending, we would not be in this position). But with all its defects, capitalism remains the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever witnessed. Just in the last 25 years, hundreds of millions of people, principally residing in China and India, who had been close to destitution and starvation are driving cars, sipping lattes, and chatting on cell phones thanks to free market reforms. Countries with few natural resources other than the brains of their people — like Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan — have become economic powerhouses by permitting the free market to work its magic. Here at home, the United States has been able to dramatically improve standards of living not just for the wealthy (they do fi ne in every country) but for ordinary people. Hard work has been rewarded not punished. And the free market has given us everything from computers and iPods to Prilosec and the Mayo Clinic. It didn’t seem possible six months ago that capitalism in the United States could be in danger. If Obama/Pelosi/Reid have their way, the United States, too, will bear the prefix “once-great.”
The Times Union's March 1 editorial announcing the end of the Reaganomics experiment should also hail the beginning of Obamanomics, or Big Government Is Back.
The wealth that the Times Union wants to redistribute will amount to about $13 in working class paychecks. This will be a minuscule benefit when compared to the higher costs for gasoline, fuel oil and food. The rich will pay their 39.6 percent on income, but that assumes that there will be money to be made in the stock market. The market's response to President Barack Obama's stimulus and tax plans has been to spiral even further downward.
The rich will be paying the same as the poor and middle class for their fuel and food. The rich will be limited on the amount they can deduct on charitable giving and that will have a negative effect on the charities and not-for-profit groups that care for much of the nation;s poor. The government will be tasked to fill this void, and that is apparently the plan.
Thomas Jefferson was wise when he wrote, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."
E.J. Dionne Searching between socialism and capitalism E.J. Dionne is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Just a few weeks ago, the vogue was to declare that “we are all socialists now,” and to speak of how capitalist theory and practice were being toppled by an economic catastrophe that proved how profoundly flawed the old system was. There is something to this, especially if what is seen to be falling is not the market system itself but an approach to capitalism that saw government playing an ever smaller role in economic and social life, and finance reigning over production and invention. The bywords now are stimulus (by government), re-regulation of finance (by government), and stronger safety nets (also provided by government). If there is one part of the system that is under sustained attack, it is the mechanisms of finance. Still, that doesn’t make us socialist. There is, as yet, no broad demand for a government takeover of big companies or a widespread desire to replace capitalism with a cooperative system. We may well become more social democratic, socialism’s philosophical brother that made peace with the market after World War II. But above all, the demand in the democracies is for experimentation and (I know this word is unsatisfying) pragmatism. We have put down the ideological enthusiasms of the Reagan-Thatcher Era and come up with ... well, with a lot of questions. In describing the confusion of the current political moment, David Winston, a Republican pollster, offered an arresting metaphor. “It’s like a game of 52-card pickup,” he said, “and all of the cards are still in the air.” He was discussing the state of the fight between Republicans and Democrats in Washington, but this will also be the theme when the world’s leading economic powers meet in London this week. Of course there is agreement that the economic system is a mess, and also that the rules of regulating finance should be tightened. Where there is disagreement is over how far individual governments should go in using public money to spend our way back to prosperity. There is also discord over exactly how damaged the international capitalist system really is. These areas of difference may well be played up in the news accounts. What the reports won’t say is that this is hardly surprising, since the world’s leaders are still trying to figure out the precise nature of the storm that has hit us. Voters in democracies have reasonably good intuitions as to what a political moment requires, and if there is a trend in democratic nations now, it is toward younger politicians who express disenchantment with the status quo, more by questioning past approaches than by offering fully worked-out alternative systems. This was brought home last week when President Obama met with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia. Both are young. Both were elected with overwhelming support among voters under 30. Both are mildly leftish and critical of the conservatism of the recent past, yet there was a calculated vagueness in the promises each of them made: In 2008, Obama pledged himself to change, while Rudd in 2007 promised “new leadership” and “fresh ideas.” Neither Obama nor Rudd was pressed too hard to define the refreshing change each had in mind. On the right end of politics, the British Conservative Party leader David Cameron has made a name for himself mainly by backing away from the old Thatcher brand in favor of pragmatism — and by being young. When Obama made his European campaign swing last year, Cameron embraced him, suggesting that the British Tory wants to move beyond a discredited conservative past. In Italy, the left-of-center Democratic Party recently chose 50-year-old Dario Franceschini as its new leader. His political past is rooted in the old centrist Christian Democratic Party, not in the reformed Communist Party that provides the Italian Democrats with their organizational base. That sounds pretty pragmatic, too. To all rules there are exceptions, of course. The hot new political property in France is Olivier Besancenot, whose party carries an unambiguous name: The New Anti-Capitalist Party. In Germany, the trends are utterly confusing. Some voters are protesting the status quo by moving left while others do so by .........http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....amp;EntityId=Ar00900
Obama’s no socialist, but it wouldn’t be such a sin if he were
Re Froma Harrop’s April column, “Socialism: When the L-word just won’t do”: In retrospect, she criticized those (Republicans) who loosely use the term socialist to depict President Obama’s views and ideas. I found the article very commendable and uplifting in supporting the new president, but I still dispute the notion that socialism is a bad thing. First off, the definition of socialism that Mrs. Harrop bases her article on is very vague. She defines socialism as, “public ownership and control of business.” This is merely a small arguing point for socialism. Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly. It’s a fact that our capitalistic society has become increasingly top-heavy. The Reaganomics strategy of the Bush era did nothing but increase wealth for the wealthy. Our health care system is on life support, with millions of Americans not being able to afford basic coverage. The economy is on the fritz, with most of the newly unemployed coming from the middle to lower class. The president, like so many other Democrats and non-Democrats alike, feels that things need to change. His health-care reform is labeled a socialist idea because he feels that the government should help oversee health care for the millions of people without it. But he has even stated several times that those who already have health insurance can keep their providers, their HMOs and their coverage. Those who don’t need assistance from the government won’t get it. What is so bad about everyone having health insurance? The biggest argument the Right seems to have for calling the president a socialist is his proposal to raise taxes on the upper class, which they believe would create class warfare. The fact of the matter is the president has proposed a tax increase on couples making more than $208,000 annually. His tax plan would make $318 billion over 10 years. That doesn’t sound like much over a 10-year span. Furthermore it doesn’t sound socialist. It is a gradual tax increase that does not affect the middle or lower class, but is fairly marginal when it comes to raising taxes. The president is not a socialist; but rather he uses ideologies from both socialism and capitalism. It’s time for people to stop complaining about how the president is going to take away their hard-earned wealth, and start being more pragmatic. How can we ever overcome this large obstacle in the middle of the road that is the recession, if we don’t back our president?
First of all Bob, Bush didn't follow the way Regan created jobs, lowered taxes, and held the budget down. Bush did just what Obama is doing by growing government and spending too much money but it pales in comparison to the amount of money the Obama Administration is spending. Obama is raising taxes on the upper income brackets but his programs are also raising taxes on all of us if his Cap and Trade, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and elimination of coal policies are ever adopted. The thing that bothers me the most about Obama is the lies he told when he was running for office in order to get elected. If he told the real truth about what he was going to do if elected he would have never been elected IMHO.
Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism Thursday, April 09, 2009
Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.
Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.
Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.
There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.
Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism
I like the spin.....ONLY 53% blah blah blah.....however to keep the masses 'quiet' the ONLY wouldn't apply to popularity votes of elected officials (depending on the party reporting of course)....it would sound more like:
......A resounding 53% of American adults believe the president/governor/senator etc is doing a good job, up 2.8% since last month.........
what a headline.......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
There are a lot of people in the good old USA that are going to find that out the hard way and we're all going to suffer for the mistakes that our government makes.
Logged
Anyone that thinks Obama is a capitalist should retake an economics course or run a business in NYS.
