Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Reagan's Socialist Legacy

Posted By: Duchess Bridger on 2009-03-23
In Reply to: The good, the bad, the truth - Zville MT

An interesting article that expounds on several decades.......for a complete review, here's the link:  http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/scheer


 


Reagan's Socialist Legacy


by:  Robert Scheer


Although gan's we still have a way to go to catch up with the good parts of the European system, including universal healthcare, high-quality public education and decent working conditions, we do have a system that is now as socialist in budget size as Europe's. That part I get when I listen to the right-wingers on Fox News bemoaning the reversal of the Reagan Revolution. But what I don't understand is how in the world they can blame this startling turn of events on Barack Obama.



The vast majority of money allocated so far on President Obama's watch is an extension of Bush's banking bailout, which has committed trillions to failed Wall Street conglomerates. I certainly don't want to defend the bailout and personally think the banks and stockbrokers deserve to go belly up, but what does that mess have to do with Obama, who was in college when the Reagan Revolution launched the deregulation that allowed Wall Street to run wild?



Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

Legacy
Whether you believe that the Big 3 need to be bailed out or not, the shameful legacy on the bailout bill belongs to Senate Republicans who decided that trying to bust the UAW was more important than trying to stave off a severe global recession. Even the Bush White House can see that if one of the Big 3 goes under right now, it will rapidly and unpredictably accelerate the global economic crisis.

In my opinion, if the minority signals the intention of a filibuster to prevent cloture, then by God they should have to actually do a real filibuster--stand up there for days on end and read the phone book or the encyclopedia or their kids' math books and let everyone see it on C-SPAN.
Bush is busy writing his legacy.
x
Bush leaves legacy of 'Bushisms'

07:49 PM CST on Saturday, January 3, 2009



Associated Press



President George W. Bush will leave behind a legacy of Bushisms, the label stamped on the commander in chief's original speaking style. Some of the president's more notable malaprops and mangled statements:



-- "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." -- September 2000, explaining his energy policies at an event in Michigan.



-- "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?" -- January 2000, during a campaign event in South Carolina.



-- "They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the commander in chief, too." -- Sept. 26, 2001, in Langley, Va. Bush was referring to the terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks.



-- "There's no doubt in my mind, not one doubt in my mind, that we will fail." -- Oct. 4, 2001, in Washington. Bush was remarking on a back-to-work plan after the terrorist attacks.



-- "It would be a mistake for the United States Senate to allow any kind of human cloning to come out of that chamber." -- April 10, 2002, at the White House, as Bush urged Senate passage of a broad ban on cloning.



-- "I want to thank the dozens of welfare-to-work stories, the actual examples of people who made the firm and solemn commitment to work hard to embetter themselves." -- April 18, 2002, at the White House.



-- "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." -- Sept. 17, 2002, in Nashville, Tenn.



-- "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- Aug. 5, 2004, at the signing ceremony for a defense spending bill.



-- "Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." -- Sept. 6, 2004, at a rally in Poplar Bluff, Mo.



-- "Our most abundant energy source is coal. We have enough coal to last for 250 years, yet coal also prevents an environmental challenge." -- April 20, 2005, in Washington.



-- "We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job." -- Sept. 20, 2005, in Gulfport, Miss.



-- "I can't wait to join you in the joy of welcoming neighbors back into neighborhoods, and small businesses up and running, and cutting those ribbons that somebody is creating new jobs." -- Sept. 5, 2005, when Bush met with residents of Poplarville, Miss., in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.



-- "It was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship. After all, 60 years ago we were at war." -- June 29, 2006, at the White House, where Bush met with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.



-- "Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die." -- Dec. 7, 2006, in a joint appearance with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.



-- "These are big achievements for this country, and the people of Bulgaria ought to be proud of the achievements that they have achieved." -- June 11, 2007, in Sofia, Bulgaria.



-- "Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your introduction. Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit." -- September 2007, in Sydney, Australia, where Bush was attending an APEC summit.



-- "Thank you, Your Holiness. Awesome speech." April 16, 2008, at a ceremony welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to the White House.



-- "The fact that they purchased the machine meant somebody had to make the machine. And when somebody makes a machine, it means there's jobs at the machine-making place." -- May 27, 2008, in Mesa, Ariz.



-- "And they have no disregard for human life." -- July 15, 2008, at the White House. Bush was referring to enemy fighters in Afghanistan.



-- "I remember meeting a mother of a child who was abducted by the North Koreans right here in the Oval Office." -- June 26, 2008, during a Rose Garden news briefing.



-- "Throughout our history, the words of the Declaration have inspired immigrants from around the world to set sail to our shores. These immigrants have helped transform 13 small colonies into a great and growing nation of more than 300 people." -- July 4, 2008 in Virginia.



-- "The people in Louisiana must know that all across our country there's a lot of prayer -- prayer for those whose lives have been turned upside down. And I'm one of them. It's good to come down here." -- Sept. 3, 2008, at an emergency operations center in Baton Rouge, La., after Hurricane Gustav hit the Gulf Coast.



-- "This thaw -- took a while to thaw, it's going to take a while to unthaw." Oct. 20, 2008, in Alexandria, La., as he discussed the economy and frozen credit markets.

Ron Reagan
Is great and tells it like it is.  Keep spreading the TRUTH, Ron.
Non-Reagan is an idiot. sm
He's a disgrace to his father's memory and to his living mother.  He knows nothing!  Come on people.  You can do better than this!  I would accept Alan Colmes or Dan Rather, but NON REAGAN????  Unbelievable!
And Reagan?..he armed
was fighting Iran. We were in bed with Saddam, when Reagan was president...have you forgotten that? What does that make us?
When your hero, Reagan,
he apparently made you blind. Remember this when more of our infrastructure (already started with levees in Louisiana) falls apart and you wonder why there are more pot holes and you can't afford basic necessities. Look around, it's already happening.

Poverty Increases as Incomes Decline Under Bush

September 21, 2005
By Gene C. Gerard

The day after Hurricane Katrina hit, exposing much of the public to the tragic conditions of poverty in America, the Census Bureau quietly released its annual report entitled, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. In some respects, it provided a demonstrable backdrop to the pockets of poverty common to New Orleans and other cities. It also explained why, despite President Bush's assertion last month that, Americans have more money in their pockets, many people aren't faring as well as they once did.

The report indicates that in 2004 there was no increase in average annual household incomes for black, white, or Hispanic families. In fact, this marks the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years. Since President Bush took office, the average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent.

Black families had the lowest average income last year, at $30,134. By comparison, the average income for white families was $48,977. The average pretax family income for all racial groups combined was $44,389, which is the lowest it has been since 1997. The South had the lowest average family income in 2004.

Interestingly enough, as the Economic Policy Institute notes in their analysis of the Census Bureau's report, not all families did poorly last year. Although the portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year, the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent. And while the average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004, the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase.

Earnings also declined last year. This is despite the fact that Americans are working harder. Since 2000, worker output per hour has increased by 15 percent. Yet for men working full-time, their annual incomes declined 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798. This decrease was the largest one-year decline in 14 years for men. Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223, the largest one-year decline for women in nine years.

Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year. Clearly, the gender gap remains real and pervasive. In all major industry sectors, women earned less than men. In the management of companies, women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services.

Not surprisingly, the report revealed that poverty increased last year. There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty, an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003. This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. In fact, since President Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have found themselves living in poverty. There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003.

The average income last year for a poverty-stricken family of four was $19,307; for a family of three it was $15,067, and for a couple it was $12,334. The poverty rate increased for people 18 to 64 last year by 0.5 percent. The South experienced the highest poverty rate of all regions.

The Census Bureau report also demonstrated that health insurance coverage remains elusive for many Americans. Those covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004. Approximately 800,000 more workers found themselves without health insurance last year. The percentage of people covered by governmental health programs in 2004 rose to 27.2 percent, in part because as poverty increased, more Americans were forced to seek coverage through Medicaid. The percentage of the public with Medicaid coverage rose by 0.5 percent in 2004.

Last year was the fourth consecutive year in which employer-sponsored health insurance coverage declined. A total of 45.8 million Americans are now without health insurance. The uninsured rate in 2004 was 11.3 percent for whites, 19.7 percent for blacks, and 32.7 percent for Hispanics. Not surprisingly, the South had the highest portion of the uninsured population, at 18.3 percent.

Although we haven't heard President Bush say it much lately, he came into office as a self-professed compassionate conservative. But as the report by the Census Bureau suggests, which was sadly symbolized by the plight of many poor residents of New Orleans, the country hasn't seen much of that compassion in the last five years.

Many Americans are working harder, earning less, and without the benefit of health insurance. It's easy to understand why the report was released a day after the largest natural disaster in a century, when much of the country was distracted.
Bush and Reagan....
Each had one known accusation...the woman who accused Bush had definite mental problems (see below) and the accusation against Reagan was in the 50's...one accusation. Clinton has had several of all kinds of sexual allegations made against him. Like I said, I know Juanita Broaddrick. Bottom line, Reagan and Bush had one isolated allegation against them...see below for the one against Bush. Not hardly the same thing at all. I did not say Clinton was morally bankrupt because he was a Democrat...he is a Democrat who happens to be morally bankrupt. Was and still is.

George W. Bush Rape Allegation

In 2002, Margie Schoedinger of Missouri City, Texas, a writer of Christian books, filed a pro se lawsuit against George W. Bush alleging that Bush had raped her in October 2000.[9]. The complaint also claims that she had been harassed, that she had been drugged and sexually assaulted numerous times by Bush and two other men purporting to be FBI agents, that her bank account had been interfered with, and that she had been threatened and beaten. There was no substantiating evidence for any of her claims. The suit also claimed Bush raped her husband, Christopher. Christopher allegedly served a year in prison after pleading no contest to assault charges against his wife. He later filed for divorce.

Many believed Schoedinger suffered from mental disorders. Among American newspapers, Schoedinger's ordeal was covered only by the local Fort Bend Star, whose editor is said to have off-handedly opined, I had heard she was a nut case. [10]

This lady later committed suicide.
no--Reagan was generalizing
it just applied to Obama. We can learn from things that people have said in the past.
If you can't spell REAGAN, I don't want you to have a gun nm
nm
man, I left out Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow&feature=related
Former Reagan official: Is another 9/11 is in the works?

(There is NOTHING this administration could do that would surprise me. )












March 16, 2006


Is Another 9/11 in the Works?


by Paul Craig Roberts


If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran?


Yes, you would.


Bush’s determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense.


First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.


Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.


Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shi'ite majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.


Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indicate that a vast majority do not believe in their mission and wish to be withdrawn. Unlike the yellow ribbon folks at home, the troops are unlikely to be enthusiastic about being trapped in an Iranian quagmire in addition to the Iraqi quagmire.


Fifth, Bush’s polls are down to 34 percent, with a majority of Americans believing that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake.


If you were being whipped in one fight, would you start a second fight with a bigger and stronger person?


That’s what Bush is doing.


Opinion polls indicate that the Bush regime has succeeded in its plan to make Americans fear Iran as the greatest threat America faces.


The Bush regime has created a major dispute with Iran over that country’s nuclear energy program and then blocked every effort to bring the dispute to a peaceful end.


In order to gain a pretext for attacking Iran, the Bush regime is using bribery and coercion in its effort to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.


In recent statements President Bush and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld blamed Iran for the Iraqi resistance, claiming that the roadside bombs used by the resistance are being supplied by Iran.


It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about.


Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran. However, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran would leave the US, already regarded as a pariah nation, totally isolated.


Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel’s highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some black ops group will orchestrate the attack.


One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush’s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world’s doubts of the explanation.


Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn’t it?


Fantasy? Let’s hope so.


 


 

I agree too. Former Reagan Republican here.sm
I agree with what you are saying. I voted for Bush the first time, sorry I did. 16 years of corrupt politics, lies, and scandals is hard to deal with. Clinton turned the White House into a ho house and Bush is turning it into the Reichstag. Think the country would be better off if Larry the Cable Guy was President.
Actually most of those laws were NOT done by liberals but in the REAGAN ERA sm
in an effort to cut and gut "big government". Don't blame us liberals, baby - blame your "great communicator".
Never heard of rape charges against Reagan or GW. sm
Also, Kaye Summersby, Ike's *supposed* mistress said that they were very close but never consummated anything. 
and when Ronald Reagan was prez, NANCY was
Actual entry in Reagan's diary
Beneath is an actual quote that Reagan wrote about George "W" in his
diaries, recently edited by author Doug Brinkley and published by Harper
Collins
 
"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around
this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one 
who lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking
shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a
real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll
hire him as a contributing Editor or something. That looks like easy
work."
 
From the REAGAN DIARIES------entry dated May 17, 1986.

 

So, Ronald Reagan is a black liberationist
The windfall profits tax was not actually a tax on profit. Please read up on it's history. It was an excise tax which was enacted April 2, 1980, during the last year of the Carter administration. Interesting to note that it was not repealed until August 23, 1988. It stayed in effect for 7 years, 4 months and 21 days under Ronald Reagan; in other words, for 92% of his entire time in office. So does that make Ronald Reagan a Marxist/socialist black liberationist too?
Noonan (reagan speech writer) on

caught with microphone still on.  Speaking with Mike Murphy, a repub talking head about SP's qualifications.


 


http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/nation/ny-usnoon045828642sep04,0,1097812.story

A quote from Ronald Reagan that I thought was appropriate
There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it. When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people's weapons. It makes it so much easier for the secret police to operate, it makes it so much easier to force the will of the ruler upon the ruled.
Ronnie Reagan, the man who cut all the programs for mentally ill and sm
that is when you started seeing all the homeless people on the streets. During his reign of terror. A horrible president.
Obama apolgizes to Nancy Reagan

We all know Obama has a sense of humor.  He's likeable and funny and I enjoy hearing him speak.  But he really should think before he speaks, and not try to make jokes.  Americans are needing issues to be solved, not seeing how funny our President elect is.  This is a very serious and grave time for America and we need some reassurance that he will do what he promised on his campaign trail.  He spoke of Hope through his campaign.  Now we need to see the hope turn into reality.  I had read a lot of articles from both liberal and conservative sources that he doesn't do well with "off the cuff" comments and I think he should stick to the speeches that are written for him. 


Like I said - I like Obama.  He's a good speaker.  But his comment about Nancy Reagan whether you like her or not was indeed making fun of her and unecessary.  He should have just said, "I've talked to the past presidents" and left it at that.  By him having to state they were alive??? The public is not so stup!d that we wouldn't know he didn't mean the "dead" Presidents.  I hope that's not what he thought.  I'm just glad he called her to apologize.


On another note I watched the press conference he gave and I would have like to have heard a little more about what he's going to do once he gets in the white house, who he is picking for his cabinet, and what are the first things he is going to do to help Americans and what promises he gave to us that he will be able to keep and work on first.  Not what kind of dog he is going to get or where his kids go to school.  That does not affect American and I like many of my friends don't care.  We care about issues that affect us.

special assistant to reagan sees the picture clearly
Federal Failure in New Orleans
by Doug Bandow 
_Doug Bandow_ (http://www.cato.org/people/bandow.html) , a former special
assistant to  president Ronald Reagan
Is George W. Bush a serious person? It's not a  question to ask lightly of a
decent man who holds the US presidency, an office  worthy of respect. But it
must be asked. 
No one anticipated the breach of the levees due to Hurricane  Katrina, he
said, after being criticised for his administration's dilatory  response to the
suffering in the city of New Orleans. A day later he told his  director of
the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Michael Brown:  Brownie,
you're doing a heck of a job. 
Is Bush a serious person? 
The most important duty at the moment obviously is to respond to  the human
calamity, not engage in endless recriminations. But it is not clear  that this
President and this administration are capable of doing what is  necessary.
They must not be allowed to avoid responsibility for the catastrophe  that has
occurred on their watch. 
Take the President's remarkable assessment of his Government's  performance.
As Katrina advanced on the Gulf coast, private analysts and  government
officials warned about possible destruction of the levees and damage  to the pumps.
A year ago, with Hurricane Ivan on the move - before veering away  from the
Big Easy - city officials warned that thousands could die if the levees  gave
way. 
Afterwards the Natural Hazards Centre noted that a direct strike  would have
caused the levees between the lake and city to overtop and fill the  city
'bowl' with water. In 2001, Bush's FEMA cited a hurricane hit on New  Orleans as
one of the three top possible disasters facing the US. No wonder that  the
New Orleans Times-Picayune, its presses under water, editorialised: No one  can
say they didn't see it coming. 
Similarly, consider the President's belief that his appointee,  Brown, has
been doing a great job. Brown declared on Thursday - the fourth day  of flooding
in New Orleans - that the federal Government did not even know  about the
convention centre people until today. Apparently people around the  world knew
more than Brown. Does the head of FEMA not watch television, read a 
newspaper, talk to an aide, check a website, or have any contact with anyone in  the
real world? Which resident of New Orleans or Biloxi believes that Brown is 
doing a heck of a job? Which person, in the US or elsewhere, watching the 
horror on TV, is impressed with the administration's performance? 
Indeed, in the midst of the firestorm of criticism, including by  members of
his own party, the President allowed that the results are not  acceptable.
But no one has been held accountable for anything. The  administration set this
pattern long ago: it is constantly surprised and never  accountable. 
The point is not that Bush is to blame for everything. The Kyoto  accord has
nothing to do with Katrina: Kyoto would have a negligible impact on  global
temperatures even if the Europeans complied with it. 
Nor have hurricanes become stronger and more frequent in recent  decades.
Whether extra funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would have  preserved the
levees is hardly certain and impossible to prove. Nor can the city  and state
escape responsibility for inaction if they believed the system to be  unsafe. 
Excessive deployment of National Guard units in the  administration's
unnecessary Iraq war limited the flexibility of the hardest-hit  states and imposed
an extra burden on guard members who've recently returned  from serving
overseas. But sufficient numbers of troops remained available  elsewhere across the
US. 
The real question is: Why did Washington take so long to  mobilise them? The
administration underestimated the problem, failed to plan for  the predictable
aftermath and refused to accept responsibility for its actions.  Just as when
the President took the US and many of its allies into the Iraq war  based on
false and distorted intelligence. Then the administration failed to  prepare
for violent resistance in Iraq. The Pentagon did not provide American  soldiers
with adequate quantities of body armour, armoured vehicles and other 
equipment. 
Contrary to administration expectations, new terrorist  affiliates sprang up,
new terrorist recruits flooded Iraq and new terrorist  attacks were launched
across the world, including against several friends of the  US. In none of
these cases has anyone taken responsibility for anything. 
Now Hurricane Katrina surprised a woefully ill-prepared  administration.
President Bush and his officials failed in their most basic  responsibility: to
maintain the peaceful social framework within which Americans  normally live and
work together. 
Bush initially responded to 9/11 with personal empathy and  political
sensitivity. But his failures now overwhelm his successes. The  administration's
continuing lack of accountability leaves it ill-equipped to  meet equally serious
future challenges sure to face the US and the rest of the  world.
This article originally appeared in the Australian on Sept. 5,  2005
"There you go." A Reagan-esque pearl of wisdom.
jew - socialist?????
Your ignorance is showing.  Blacklisting was just that, blacklisting, a modern day witchhunt.  Chomsky is a great columnist and professor.  Im amazed at the gall of you bringing up jews and linking them with socialism and communism.  I have many jewish friends who have worked extremely hard for all that they have and I frankly dont know what socialism or communism and being a jew has anything to do with the other.  P.S.:  This is America, land of the free..remember?  And if anyone, christian, jew, atheist wants to be a socialist or communist, they can be..its not against the law of the land.. 
He is a socialist
Wake up! Read his plans, read what he wants to do to America. They are all socialist ideas.
he is a socialist
I will not calm down.  He is not my president.  My president and leader is and always will be Jehovah.
Socialist?

Who Are You Calling a Socialist?


Wednesday 04 March 2009


by: Harold Meyerson  |  Visit article original @ The Washington Post


photo
Conservatives are currently attacking President Barack Obama by calling him a socialist. (Photo: Wired.com)



    "We are all socialists now," proclaims Newsweek. We are creating "socialist republics" in the United States, says Mike Huckabee, adding, on reflection, that "Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff." We are witnessing the Obama-era phenomenon of "European socialism transplanted to Washington," says Newt Gingrich.

    Well! Even as we all turn red, I've still encountered just two avowed democratic socialists in my daily rounds through the nation's capital: Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders . . . and the guy I see in the mirror when I shave. Bernie is quite capable of speaking for himself, so what follows is a report on the state of actual existing socialism from the other half of the D.C. Senators and Columnists Soviet.

    First, as we survey the political landscape, 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 or entertains such fantasies. (Not even Hugo Chávez - more an authoritarian populist than any kind of socialist - says such things.)

    Within the confines of socialist history, this means that the perspective of Eduard Bernstein - the fin DE siecle German socialist who argued that the immediate struggle to humanize capitalism through the instruments of democratic government was everything, and that the goal of supplanting capitalism altogether was meaningless - has definitively prevailed. Within the confines of American history, this means that when New York's garment unions left the Socialist Party to endorse Franklin Roosevelt in 1936, they were charting the paradigmatic course for American socialists: into the Democratic Party to support not the abolition of capitalism but its regulation and democratization, and the creation of some areas of public life where the market does not rule.

    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. Their signal success is to have kept the United States free from the taint of universal health care. The result: We have the world's highest health-care costs, borne by businesses and employees that cannot afford them; nearly 50 million Americans have no coverage; infant mortality rates are higher than those in 41 nations - but at least (phew!) we don't have socialized medicine.

    Give conservatives credit for their consistency: They attacked Roosevelt as a socialist as they are now attacking Obama, when in fact Obama, like Roosevelt before him, 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 - the other three possible engines of growth - are locked down. Investing more tax dollars in education and research and development is a way to use public funds to create a more competitive private sector. Keeping our banks from speculating madly with our money is a way to keep banking alive.

    If Obama realizes his agenda, what emerges will be a more social, sustainable, competitive capitalism. His more intellectually honest and sentient conservative critics don't accuse him of Leninism but of making our form of capitalism more like Europe's. In fact, over the past quarter-century, Europe's capitalism became less regulated and more like ours, one reason Europe is tanking along with everyone else.

    Take it from a democratic socialist: Laissez-faire American capitalism is about to be supplanted not by socialism but by a more regulated, viable capitalism. And the reason isn't that the woods are full of secret socialists who are only now outing themselves.

    Judging by the failures of the great Wall Street investment houses and the worldwide crisis of commercial banks; the collapse of East Asian, German and American exports; the death rattle of the U.S. auto industry; the plunge of stock markets everywhere; the sickening rise in global joblessness; and the growing shakiness of governments in fledgling democracies that opened themselves to the world market - judging by all these, a more social capitalism is on the horizon because the deregulated capitalism of the past 30 years has blown itself up, taking much of the known world with it.

    So, for conservatives searching for the culprits behind this transformation of capitalism: Despite our best efforts, it wasn't Bernie and it wasn't me. It was your own dam system.

socialist blair
He is a socialist, doesnt just tend to sway that way..He is a socialist, LOL.  Gee, I thought socialism, you know, help each other, my bread is your bread, sure I will donate or pay taxes to set up programs, run by the government, to help those less fortunate..Socialism..the same thing you fight against in America, Social Security, without private accounts, Medicare, and many more, all programs set up by democrats.
You never meant a socialist Jew! sm
What do you think they come up to you and say hi, I am a socialist Jew.  Do you know Noam Chomsky?  How about David Horowitz's parents?  How about the Rosenbergs?  Shall I go on.  Do you wonder why almost all the actors blacklisted in Hollywood way back when were almost all JEWS?!? 
This is utter BS, but I'd take a socialist nm
xxxxxxxx
Couldn't have said it better...socialist to
xx
They are socialist/Marxist. That has been the...
mantle of the DNC for years, growing steadily worse. They employ the Alinsky method...read up on it. Obama not only embraces it, he taught it.

It is built on class warfare. You find out what bothers people most, then you rabble rouse. Whatever that sore is, you make it more sore. And you blame whatever institution you are trying to take down. With Hitler it was Jews. With socialists it is "the rich." You make people think the cause of ALL their problems is either (Jews or big nasty corporations). Here it is big nasty corporations. They have fed people this for so many years they have bought into it. People actually think big evil corporations are the cause of everything bad that happens to them.

Saul Alinsky himself summed it up (paraphrasing): "It doesn't matter if it is true or not. It just matters if you can make them believe it."

Basically, in order to keep people voting for them, they have to keep people thinking that the big bad corporations are the cause of all the problems, and they say we are going to take from them and give to you and you have to do nothing to receive that other than keep voting for them. In recent years it has been changed to evil corporations and evil Republicans, and it is working, you see it demonstrated on this board every day. Most of these people really don't even know how corporations figure into our economy. They just know they're "evil." They hate a whole portion of society (Christians, conservatives, etc.) because they are "evil" and the cause of all their problems. Socialism 101. They have practiced it well...they have a lot of believers.
Marxist/socialist? Please. You are just being...sm
inflammatory. He is a liberal democrat, period. If I had called McCain a fascist would you not be insulted. Can we have some brains here? Next thing you will be calling him a communist. Good grief!
They you lean socialist, I don't, and we will...
agree to disagree. I do not begrudge anyone who has been successful in their lives and I sure don't think they owe ME any part of it. I don't understand that logic. And if a good many of those "rich" did not contribute extensively to charitable programs, there would be a lot more "with outs" than there are. But nobody ever mentions that. Just like nobody ever mentions those rich people and their businesses employ about 80% of us. But what does that matter, right? Why should we have to work? Just give us YOUR money. Sigh.

That is also where we differ...McCain is not Bush. And don't give me the voted with him 95% of the time. So did the democrats, or bills would not have passed. That doesn't hold water. McCain has gotten in Bush's face more than the democrats have over a lot of things.

If the Democrats had not blocked McCain's reform bill in 2005, perhaps we would not have had the Fannie/Freddie crisis.

But, oh well, I guess none of that matters....lol

Have a good day! :)
Was Jesus a socialist?...sm
On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, "Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"
Obama IS a socialist. And I think you know it.
nm
Not Obama. He is a socialist first.
Have you not read his books?
No, he is a socialist first.........and no doubt his
It is known for a FACT that the Obama campaign has contributed over 800K dollars to ACORN, a corrupt organization committed to voter fraud with many members of ACORN indicted for those crimes and more...... you figure it out.

And pleeeze do not tell me Obama doesn't know anything about this...
SOCIALIST STATE
I agree with you 100%.
VT, Socialist Senator
Bernie Sanders.  Isn't that special?
Obama is a socialist
Redistribution of wealth is a key characteristic of socialism. We already redistribute enough wealth, so why punish those who work hard to make a better life for their families by making more money? Take more taxes from them to give to the crackheads on the street who won't work? Also, remember, it is generally the wealthy people who create the most jobs.
None were As socialist as Obama...
he is eliminating the federal taxes of 10 million and making up the lost revenue by taxing the "rich" at a higher rate, while at the same time letting the bush tax cuts for those same people expire, which is not reflected in any of your charts.

answer: None of them were more socialist than Obama.

At least HE is honest about it.
OBAMA THE SOCIALIST

HE'S A SOCIALIST, MUSLIM; WE WILL HAVE SOCIAL MEDICINE, ALL THE CHURCHES WILL BE CLOSED AND ALL CHRISTIANS WILL BE PERSECUTED.  NO HOMESCHOOLING FOR SURE.  OUR BORDERS WILL BE OPEN.  YOU MUST HIRE HOMOSEXUALS IN YOUR CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS AND BUSINESSES.  REMEMBER WHAT HITLER DO, IT WILL BE MUCH, MUCH WORSE.  ******


**** Edited by Moderator:  No name-calling, please.***** 

Not according to the socialist party.
Brian Moore, the presidential candidate for the socialist party, says that it is an insult to say that Barack Obama is a socialist. He was interviewed on TV last week and said that Obama is a capitalist and could not be described as a socialist in any way, shape, or form. I think he knows a little bit more about socialism than any of you do.
socialist ideology
Other folks have got the Obama transition covered here, so I won't talk about that. What I will say is how stupid it is for people to get in a lather about ''socialism.''

You quote that line, ''It wasn’t socialism and hand outs from the federal government that made this the country that people literally die trying to get into,'' and that's actually exactly the opposite of the truth. Our recovery from the Depression and our postwar boom succeeded pretty much exactly in proportion to how much money the government handed out.

Obama is not a socialist, but his policies will only succeed insofar as they take money out of the hands of the rich and powerful, and put it back into the hands of the folks that work for a living. There is simply no other way to sustain an economy without going through these ridiculous periods of speculation and depression. The mess we're in now is what happens when capitalism tries to ''prop things up.'' It always fails, and we always bail it out, and then we always wonder how this could possibly have happened again.

So the only way, is the democrat (socialist) way from now on?
The uninformed public such as you scare me more than them.
OH NO!!!! He's much worse than a socialist....
xx
A socialist's heart revealed. sm
No socialist society has ever flourished. You must know that.  Kruschev.  My God. I can't believe you said that.  Well, I am but a passing visitor and I just saw into the heart of darkness.  Woweee.
Probably the same thing socialist Germans said...
right before they became Nazi Germany and blamed the Jews for all their woes, and we know how THAT turned out. Frankly, I could not care less what you think of "right wingers" in general or me in particular, and also, frankly, I thank GOD you and I have nothing in common. Until the moderator tells me I cannot post here, I will continue to do so, and I will continue to read your posts as a reminder to never get as bitter and hate-filled as you seem to be. Bless your heart.
And you must want to live in a socialist country
What part of my message didn't you understand? It was pretty simple. It was Biden's words himself. So let me spell it out for the intellectually challenged (maybe if you read this slowly you might understand it).

1. We don't need the liberals stealing from the american people who have worked hard (the ones who have small business, etc (words of Newt Gingrich).
2. Taking more money from the people who work hard to earn it while not stopping the spending will not help the economy grow.

Most importantly - now read this extra slow so you can understand it.

Stealing money from the american people under the guise of "taxes" while trying to make them believe its their patriotic duty to pay more, when we can hardly afford to live anymore and while government does not stop spending on uneccessary programs is not patriotism - it's socialism.

You do the research. And you say I'm not too bright???
© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved