Say Anything Blog

Obama is never going to be responsible for the consequences of his policies.

[W]hat you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Not with the current MSM.  However, as their readership/viewership continues its downward spiral, their influence goes with it.

The new media will have more power then the MSM for the next cycle.

atease

atease

He’ll be responsible when he takes the oath of office on January 20 2009.  Until the current president is George Bush.

What’s driving this downturn absolutely is the policies of the Bush administration.  He is the leader and he is responsible.  Unless he wants to resign now.

The market is forward looking, and doesn’t like what it sees!

Recession is gop’s gift to America.

Excuse me, you were saying?

Puzzlefeet, you must not understand that investors look forward; aka plan ahead.

He’ll be responsible when he takes the oath of office on January 20 2009.  Until the current president is George Bush.

God I hope you’re not in charge of your personal investment strategy, Puzzled.  Seriously.

See, most actors in the market are pro-active.  Not reactive.  They don’t wait around until a policy is implemented and then move.  They see what’s coming down the pipe, and the act before they are acted upon.

That’s why the market is tanking right now.  Obama got elected, and the market knows what is coming.

Blame Bush if you want, but nobody outside of blinkered partisans and the economically illiterate are buying it.

What’s driving this downturn absolutely is the policies of the Bush administration.  He is the leader and he is responsible.  Unless he wants to resign now.

The nation had a shrinking budget deficit until the Democrats took over in 2006.

And if you try to tell me that Democrats had no hand in the mess at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac I’m going to laugh at you.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

So the market is not reacting to the meltdown in the housing market?  So the market is not reacting to the meltdown on wall street?  LOLOLOL!

You guys need to get real.
If you’re going to tell me that 8 years of Bush and republicans had no had in this downfall, then I’m going to laugh at you.

I know that you all think it is Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae:
but then there’s this:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/once-again-it-w.html

"realitybased"bob - Recession is gop’s gift to America.

The recession that only came about after the Democrats retook the House in 2006 and really came into force after Obama was elected?

Wow! Those wascally Republicans. They’re responsible for the actions of another party now. To be fair though, if the Republicans acted like conservatives instead of the center left party they’re becoming, they would have most likely remained in power. So, in a way, you can blame them - if you’re reaching.

Puzzlefeet - So the market is not reacting to the meltdown in the housing market?  So the market is not reacting to the meltdown on wall street?  LOLOLOL!

Why are you laughing? These are serious matters.

Of course the market is reacting to the popped housing and credit bubbles brought on by big government.

You guys need to get real.
If you’re going to tell me that 8 years of Bush and republicans had no had in this downfall, then I’m going to laugh at you.

No one is saying that, Mrs. Maniacally-Laughing Straw-Man Creator.

Rob - See, most actors in the market are pro-active.  Not reactive.

One could also say that the market is reacting to the future.

Same difference, though.

I know that you all think it is Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae…

Most of us know that it’s about the Dem affirmative action home loan mandates, for the usual social engineering/vote buying purposes.  Freddie and Fannie just bought up and repackaged the bad paper, until it hit critical mass and exploded.  Dems refused to reform this mess many times, even though Bush and McCain tried to reform the system.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

He hasn’t started yet his job and is already responsible of the bad economy we suffer??? pathetic.

He hasn’t started yet his job and is already responsible of the bad economy we suffer??? pathetic.

Man, some of you are bricks.

The.
Market.
Is.
Looking.
Ahead.

He hasn’t started yet his job and is already responsible of the bad economy we suffer???

Actually, it’s a socialist triple whammy: First, the social engineering-caused home loan debacle, which has caused real estate values to be in doubt; Second, the so-called “bailout”, which puts the value of a great many investments in doubt, and Third, the election of an avowed socialist who essentially promises to destroy the integrity of our economic system.
Most investors are simply withdrawing from the stock market and the real estate market, since the future of those two markets is seriously in doubt.  In order to invest wisely, all factors must be taken into account in calculating a rate of return, and in today’s fiscal atmosphere, including the promised socialism changes proposed by Obama, that calculation doesn’t look favorable.  The problem is not money, it’s confidence.
While the temporary high fuel prices were originally blamed for a weakening economy, the big decline in those prices has not “cured” the problem, so we must look elsewhere.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

I know that you all think it is Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae:
but then there’s this:

Fannie and Freddie had 51% of the mortgage market.  If that big a chunk of the credit market goes under it leaves a huge gap.

It all started with Fannie and Freddie and was a domino effect from there.  Anyone claiming otherwise is either engaging in partisan-driven history revision or is stupid.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob: Actually, Fannie and Freddie were fed by the bad mortgages generated by the social engineering mandates.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

You guys need to get real.
If you’re going to tell me that 8 years of Bush and republicans had no had in this downfall, then I’m going to laugh at you.

And what policies were those that caused it Puzzled?
And do they get credit for the five years of economic growth? Probably not.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

Kenny: Good call.  While one can list the recessionary aspects of Dem economic policies, including the restrictive energy policies of Carter, Clinton and Pelosi, there is no demonstrable cause and effect relationship between Bush economic policy and the current economic situation.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

No. It’s Bush’s fault. And so is global warming. Or cooling...whichever is happening. Also Bush’s fault: the heartbreak of psoriasis. Shark attacks.

Bush’s fault. Bush’s. Fault. Dot. Bush’s fault!!!11!!eleventy!!11!one

Genital warts? Bush’s fault.
Baywatch canceled? Bush’s fault.
Obama’s pronouncements about market-unfriendly policy initiatives? Bush’s fault.
Several decades of bad lending under Fannie and Freddie? Bush, Bush, Bush.

The inexplicable popularity of Alanis Morrisette? Bush did it.
Chinese gymnists? Bush.
Who put the bop in the bop-do-wop-do-wop? Bush didn’t, but he wishes he had.

Warm beer: BOOOOOSH!
Dog flatulence. Chimpy McShruby.
That girl that kicked you in the nuts in 5th grade: Bush again!

Yep. It’s all Bush’s fault...to bad we’re not going to have that cat to kick around anymore. It’s convenient to have such a fabulous scapegoat.

Waxman: … Freddie and Fannie “certainly played a role” in the current situation …“Do any of you believe that they were the cause of this financial crisis?”

Alan Greenspan – “…not the primary cause”

SEC Chairman Christopher Cox – “I would agree with that”

Former Treasury Secretary John Snow – “I agree with that, there is no single cause…”

Excuse me, you were saying?

Boob, there is never a single cause in the economy.  But just because Fannie/Freddie weren’t the only cause doesn’t mean they weren’t the catalyst.

Trying knowing stuff next time.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Boob, there is never a single cause in the economy.

Rube on November 20, 2008 at 06:13 pm

It all started with Fannie and Freddie and was a domino effect from there.  Anyone claiming otherwise is either engaging in partisan-driven history revision or is stupid.

Rube on November 20, 2008 at 04:29 pm

Excuse me, you were saying?

There’s no conflict Bob. There were multiple causes, but Freddie and Fannie’s collapse did start the domino effect of businesses going down.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

I have researched and studied this financial crisis that we are in, more than most people and I am absolutely certain it started with Clinton’s socialist plan to lower regulations and along with fannie mae’s backing put millions of poor people into housing using subprime rates.  This raised the demand and thus, the over-valuation. It, simply, backfired. It’s difficult to go against the forces of the economy.  Banks rushed in to pick up more interest because of the subprime rate.  Bush tried to slow it down, but gave up on it as it was the best show in town after 9/11 caused a temporary financial meltdown.  So Bush is also the blame, along with banks, along with realtors,along with certain congressman, fannie mae, the home buyers, etc.  BUT Clinton got the snowball rolling.

Obama is never going to be responsible for the consequences of his policies.

WHICH POLICIES HE ISN’T IN OFFICE YET!

This is ridiculous obama hasn’t even been sworn in and already he’s ruined out country…

"When you lefties spew your Marxist bullshit, I will smack you with the truth; get used to it.”

WHICH POLICIES HE ISN’T IN OFFICE YET!
This is ridiculous obama hasn’t even been sworn in and already he’s ruined out country…

He’s certainly had a hand in it. His policies and votes have been helping to ruin our country.

And the policies that he has offered suck. The market is reacting. That is absolutely his fault.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

think that Obama could actually stop it if he held a press conference and promised not to pursue any of his economic agenda in his first two years in office.  At least in the short term, things would pick up.  Which is a commentary on the wisdom of those policies in the first place.

You must be on crack or some hallucinogen if you believe that.

This is ridiculous obama hasn’t even been sworn in and already he’s ruined out country…

By destroying confidence with his Obamunism.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Obama can’t change what is sound economic policy.  Right now, the market is tanking because investors know his policies are unsound.  If he at least gave lip service to good economic policies, there would be some relief, but of course, he’s not believable.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

It’s only a crisis of confidence Robert?

In order to invest wisely, all factors must be taken into account in calculating a rate of return, and in today’s fiscal atmosphere, including the promised socialism changes proposed by Obama, that calculation doesn’t look favorable.  The problem is not money, it’s confidence.

Invest in taxes, they are the only thing sure to go up under Obama.

Also, Seth, you are right, but it won’t end when Bush is gone.  They will be blaming him until there is another prominent Republican that they can blame.

The only benefit for the 60 in the Senate is that there will be no-one else to blame for at least 2 years.

GOD SAVE US ALL!!!

Gman ( o)==:::

No Shoulder Shrugs.  A lie left unchallenged soon becomes the truth.

The problem is not money, it’s confidence.

Only a fool or an economist would say that.

I think that Obama could actually stop it if he held a press conference and promised not to pursue any of his economic agenda in his first two years in office.

Guess he should have run as a Republican.

Woof: FYI, there is only one way to have economic growth.  It just so happens at this point in history that the only politicians who have any idea how to do that are Republicans.  The Dems could support sound economic policy, but it goes against their Marxist ideology.  What you said is true, but you have no idea why it is true.

Only a fool would be ignorant of what it takes to make real economic growth.  It’s wise capital investment, in a free market.  The less capital available, due to excessive taxation caused by unwise govt spending, the less growth can take place.  What you lefties don’t know is that the govt can’t create economic growth; it is entirely dependent for its funding on the achievements of successful individuals.  Obstruct the individual through taxation and regulation, and you get reduced growth.  Reduce growth enough, and you get recession(negative growth) and eventually depression if the unwise economic policies are continued.  Usually, leftie administrations plunder the prosperity built up before they take power, and then the following Republican administration builds it back up again, so that the next “promise them the moon and stars” leftie administration goes aplundering again.  In this case, the plundering started early, and now your Messiah is on a very short leash.  He has to turn the economy around right away, and the only way he can do that is to institute policies that allow the private sector to create economic growth.  If he tries to plunder the economy right away, his failed economics will be revealed in stark detail.  Good luck with that.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Nutters crack me up.

Excuse me, you were saying?

When the fool hears the truth, he laughs;
If he did not laugh, it wouldn’t be the truth.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

It did start with Clinton administration but more to the moment we are responsible for the global recession to point fingers the congress. Both parties played a big part there greed feeding there desire for more money and power. If we are not going to take action we should not get upset if the rest of the world takes there frustration out on us. This will surely end badly for us all socialism will gut this country the rich in the end will still be rich as well as our politicians. The socialist dynamic lends itself to coruption even more so the the current one. When do you think the German people realized what was really happening to there country or where it would lead how many voices where ignored leading up to the formation of the Nazi party?

Deutschland vor allem

When Obama states his intentions to bankrupt while Congress blathers on about bail-outs, the market reacts to the upcoming environment not the outgoing environment.

Markets look at the future not what was.

High violitility means critical mass; on thing is certin wuntil COngress is out of session(historically since the mid 1800’s the pattern is that every time Congress is in session not matter party majority the markets lose and when their out of session the markets gain).

This is about confidence, there is lots of cash it’s just not invested because there is no faith in the incoming policies of the incoming President.

Whenever Collectivism is enacted people will naturally hoard their personal assets.

I love how the market was reactive,and failing, under Bushes time in office, but suddenly with Obama going into office everyone is looking forward and pulling out. Why weren’t they looking at this current recession way back when?

How about a better question, how come the Economy wasn’t Bushes fault when he was in office, I remember hearing a lot about how the president doesn’t have much control over the economy, but now that Obama is going to be, not even is yet, is going to be president the economy is crashing due to his policies…

It seems that Republicans never wanna take credit.

I also remembering hearing how this current economic state is due to Clinton because it takes 8 years for the economy to be affected by a president, which would make this whole market crash due to Obama a lot of BS, it would also mean one of the more hated Dems here, Carter, has Nixon to blame for his economic failures. and Reagans economic boom, often called Reaganomics is due to CARTER.

So which is it? Does the economy take 8 years to feel the effect of a president, therefore this fall is more a bush-clinton issue, heavy on the Bush, or is it looking forward and Clintons economy was good because of his Policies and this fall is because of ONLY obama,(God knows the economy doesn’t look at factors other then tax increases...)

"When you lefties spew your Marxist bullshit, I will smack you with the truth; get used to it.”

Expecting a Democrat Socialist to understand economics is like asking a pig to fly. They only understand one thing: TAXATION. We are looking at four years of failed economic Jimmy Carter style policies mixed in with vendetta politics from the left. High unemployment and increased entitlement policies are all we will get from Obama. This entire mess was orchestrated by the Freddi Mac / Fannie Mae debacle that the Democrats manipulated to influence the election.

FDR’s chickens have come home to roost.

Why weren’t they looking at this current recession
way back when?

Because there was no recession, and there still is no recession, despite the best efforts of the Pelosi Congress to destroy our economy through wasteful social engineering spending and stopping our energy development.  Even with all the Dem economic shenanigans for political purposes, the last quarters only had 0.3% negative growth.  Despite all the frantic efforts of the Dems to destroy the economy, we have had growth all during the Bush years.  Now you’re just lying.  The statistics are available, so you could speak the truth, if you wanted to.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Let’s not forget that Bush, also, had his socialist moments.  Remember the medicare prescription drug nightmare and big farm subsidies in his first four years.  All of these programs to get elected to the next 4 years. Now he veto’d the most recent farm program. Fiscal conservatism and Bush should not be used in the same sentence.

The fact that President Bush is not a conservative is well known, but that doesn’t make him a socialist.  His pandering to the Dems by instituting socialistic govt programs has undermined conservatism, as a matter of fact.
Socialism is the ownership by the govt of the means of production; President Bush did none of that.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

robert108:  But Bush had his socialist moments.  The prescription drug program was not needed.  Subsidies to wealthy farmers.  Redistribution of Wealth?? We (I) criticize the bailout of the big 3, but we don’t mention the unnessary billions going to farmers, amtrak, airlines, etc.

Again, there is a difference between “socialist” and “socialistic”.  All govt of any kind is socialistic in nature, because it is motivated by society in general.  When it reaches into the private sector and attempts to control the lives of individuals, it becomes socialist.
I’m not in any way approving of any govt spending that exceeds Constitutional reach, like spending to achieve social engineering goals.  Much as you might not like it, helping seniors with prescription drugs is not social engineering.  You may argue that such spending is unnecessary, or not cost-effective, but it isn’t socialism.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

I love how the market was reactive,and failing, under Bushes time in office, but suddenly with Obama going into office everyone is looking forward and pulling out. Why weren’t they looking at this current recession way back when?

Except that, until this year, the market was going consistantly up from 2002. How would the market respond to Obama as President...before Obama won the election? You’re making no sense.

How about a better question, how come the Economy wasn’t Bushes fault when he was in office, I remember hearing a lot about how the president doesn’t have much control over the economy, but now that Obama is going to be, not even is yet, is going to be president the economy is crashing due to his policies…

From 2002-2006, the economy was great. And it was due to the Bush tax cuts and smaller regulation by the Republican congress. Then the Dems took back over, and we started having bad times.

Carter, has Nixon to blame for his economic failures. and Reagans economic boom, often called Reaganomics is due to CARTER.

Riiiiiiiight. Keep deluding yourself chuckles.

So which is it? Does the economy take 8 years to feel the effect of a president, therefore this fall is more a bush-clinton issue, heavy on the Bush, or is it looking forward and Clintons economy was good because of his Policies and this fall is because of ONLY obama,(God knows the economy doesn’t look at factors other then tax increases...)

It’s a bit of both. Tax cuts affect the economy immediately. The more dramatic the cut/raise, the more the economy is affected. Other policies, like CAFE standards, TARP, etc are delayed policies that are felt down the road. The CRA under Carter, expanded to more and more regulation of the banks, leading to this market problems we have today. It’s not just Carter’s fault, but many Presidents after. But that was far reaching change.

You don’t even have a basic understanding of economics, yet you’re in here lecturing us? Please.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

Much as you might not like it, helping seniors with prescription drugs is not social engineering.  You may argue that such spending is unnecessary, or not cost-effective, but it isn’t socialism.

If it’s the government, and not private industry, doing it, it is very much socialism.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

If it’s the government, and not private industry, doing it, it is very much socialism.

Socialism is more than just govt spending; it’s the ownership/control of the means of production.  Look it up in an econ dictionary.
As with many, you have socialistic confused with socialism.  Everything govt does is socialistic.  If the govt goes so far as to own/control the means of production, it’s socialism.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Look it up in an econ dictionary.

Could you recommend one? TIA.

"New Year’s Resolution: To tolerate fools more gladly, provided this does not encourage them to take up more of my time.” - James Agate

http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Socialism is more than just govt spending; it’s the ownership/control of the means of production.

And the Medicaid/Medicare programs are more than “helping people with prescription drugs.” It is the government confiscating property from everybody to pay for the drugs and medical spending of certain classes of people. It’s the government negotiating (coercing) with drug companies to determine what the price of drugs should be. It is the government taking over a part of the insurance market. By any credible definition it is socialism.

http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/

Just for fun I typed in “socialistic” since you decided I needed to “educate myself”. No results....hmmm.....

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

It’s not an economic term, unlike socialism.  Your argument has more heat than light; it’s still not ownership or control of the means of production.  It is market-rigging, though.  Not socialism.
When Obama announces that he intends to “spread the wealth”, not because he needs the money, but because it will be “better for everybody”, he is expressing pure Marxist socialism.
Your expression “taking over part of the insurance market” is simply not true.  Like all govt intrusion into markets, it distorts the supply/demand/price relationships, but it isn’t socialism, which would require the govt to actually take over the market or control all of it through regulation.

Again, socialism is not intrusion or influence; it is ownership or total control.  When there is no longer any private sector ownership or control in a market, then it is a part of socialism.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

...since you decided I needed to “educate myself”.

I did not such thing; I’m not responsible for either your level of education or your actions.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

You are a queer little man, 108.

Excuse me, you were saying?

I’m neither queer nor little, so you lie again.  You’re probably just projecting, as is typical of narcissism.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Robert108: rbb is projecting his own homosexual desires on you and yes, narcissism. He is incapable of a rational, civil discussion of any kind, if he cannot copy-and-paste, he just engages in this juvenile crap. Ignore the TROLL!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Funny you should link to The Economist as an arbiter of truth, 108.

The Economist:

America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world

Excuse me, you were saying?

It was the economic dictionary, moron!  Not everyone is as exclusively partisan as you are.  Your laughter is telling, though:

When the fool hears the truth, he laughs;
If he didn’t laugh, it wouldn’t be the truth.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Again, socialism is not intrusion or influence; it is ownership or total control.  When there is no longer any private sector ownership or control in a market, then it is a part of socialism.

And this is an interim state between those two positions. Every step further is a step towards socialism. If you’d like we can call it “quasi-socialism” or “semi-socialism” or “socialism lite”. But it is a program of socialism either way. It constantly expands, taking more and more of the market.

I did not such thing; I’m not responsible for either your level of education or your actions.

This childishness again? The parsing of words? The pretending that two similar statements are the same?

Whatever man. Your schtict gets tired quick.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

And this is an interim state between those two positions.

It’s like saying that being in the water is a state between being alive and drowning.  That is why I called it “socialistic”, btw. I did explain the difference a few times.

I didn’t parse anything; you furnished your own interpretation of what I said, and you were wrong.  Get over it.
If you don’t want to be educated, just ignore my recommendation.  Your choice.  I have no power to compel you, so the victim stuff is inappropriate to our conversation.
The difference between “socialistic” and “socialism” is the state of govt.  A truly representative govt cannot be described as socialism, while one that gives lip service to representative governance while in fact ignoring the will of the people can be, and generally is, socialist in nature.
I’m not saying that the US cannot become a socialist country, but that would take a seizure of power and a change of how the govt works.  Obama represents the greatest danger of that happening here since FDR.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Obama represents the greatest danger of that happening here since FDR.

ODS

Excuse me, you were saying?

OK, I give… ODS??

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

ODS- False equivalence* from the left with “BDS”.

*It’s what they do best!

Excuse me, you were saying?

r108...thanks for the link. I think the definition of socialism is quite reasonable.

Socialism

The exact meaning of socialism is much debated, but in theory it includes some collective ownership of the means of production and a strong emphasis on equality, of some sort.

"New Year’s Resolution: To tolerate fools more gladly, provided this does not encourage them to take up more of my time.” - James Agate

Yeah, Mike; equality of outcome, the antidote to prosperity and excellence, not to mention freedom.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Marxism being the most extreme form of socialism, since it includes ownership of everything, including the people, by the State, as well as forced equality of outcome.  For myself, I prefer to refer to individualism vs. collectivism, because it works for social, political and economic realms.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

I prefer organic vs. atomistic conceptions of society but I know that’s not flying. Collectivist isn’t a bad term despite its ideological baggage but I think the practical problem is what to call blends of “individualism” and “collectivism” since that’s what we really have now.

"New Year’s Resolution: To tolerate fools more gladly, provided this does not encourage them to take up more of my time.” - James Agate

It’s like saying that being in the water is a state between being alive and drowning.  That is why I called it “socialistic”, btw. I did explain the difference a few times.

Or not. It’s more like saying that slushy water is the difference between ice and water, seeing as how some of it has froze and some hasn’t.

Your definition of “socialistic” as being motivated by society is utterly useless.
It’s an attempt to take socialist programs and label them as something else. In this case the idea is to deny that Bush implimented socialist policies.

I didn’t parse anything; you furnished your own interpretation of what I said, and you were wrong.  Get over it.
If you don’t want to be educated, just ignore my recommendation.  Your choice.  I have no power to compel you, so the victim stuff is inappropriate to our conversation.

It’s word parsing as you admit here. You get hostile, and claim you never said things that you later admit you said (such as this educated thing), you argue over the meaning of a word.

There’s no “victim stuff”. You do it to everyone. It’s your schtict, and it gets old and tired quick. And if you wanna keep it up, just argue with yourself, which is all you really do anyways.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

Are the rocky economic times entirely Obama’s fault?

It’s desperation based on the probable implemetaion of Obama’s socialist policies.

What explains the despair? Well, a look at Obama’s policy proposals suggests that he plans four big changes that, if actualized, could have terrible economic consequences.

First is a bill called the “Fair Currency Act.”

That could ignite a trade war similar to the Smoot-Hawley catastrophe that contributed to the Great Depression.

Second is “The Employee Free Choice Act.”

Costs to businesses would skyrocket, profits would tank, and bankruptcies and job destruction would follow.

Third is the little-known footnote to his tax policy plan --- a call to end the deferral of tax on the profits of U.S. multinational corporations.

This is the most alarming of his many proposals.

If Obama successfully ends deferral, our multinationals will suddenly find that costs have dramatically shifted in their disfavor. They will lose business to competitors that operate in low-tax jurisdictions, and cut back employment both here and abroad.

The fourth is massive regulation.

Given this list of bad policies, it’s little wonder that investors have headed to the exits.

The collapse of housing prices and the financial calamity that ensued certainly started the process, but it’s hard to imagine that the market would have plunged this far without the magnifying effect of Obama’s policies — and the most chilling thought is that the market probably has not fully factored these four policy proposals into current stock prices.

The battle for freedom must be won over and over again.

Collectivist isn’t a bad term despite its ideological baggage…

Terminology is neutral, but collectivism in action always requires coercion.  It’s OK as a philosophical concept, but as a way to live, it requires totalitarianism to “work”.
What do you do with those who don’t agree with the collective?

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

You do it to everyone.

Poor baby!  You’re so oppressed because I call you on your bullshit.  It’s not going to stop until you stop trying to include me in your bullshit.  Speak for yourself, don’t try to speak for me.  You always get it wrong, and then get your panties in a wad when I correct you.
If you don’t know the difference between socialist and socialistic, it’s not my fault.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

What do you do with those who don’t agree with the collective?

I don’t want to live as part of a collective nor do I want to live in a Randian type world so the question isn’t really applicable. The question really is how much individual freedom is one prepared to surrender in exchange for living securely and comfortably. I’ll give up more than you will but I won’t give up as much as the communists want...I’m in the mushy middle as usual.

"New Year’s Resolution: To tolerate fools more gladly, provided this does not encourage them to take up more of my time.” - James Agate

I don’t want to live as part of a collective nor do I want to live in a Randian type world Please explain what you mean by that. so the question isn’t really applicable. Whether or not you regard my question as “applicable”, what is your answer?  Since you have already stated that you don’t want to live as part of a collective, I think you have an answer, but just don’t want to deal with that reality. The question really is how much individual freedom is one prepared to surrender in exchange for living securely and comfortably. Not my question, but it’s not really about security and comfort, but the promise of security and comfort.  The Soviet Union, Mao’s China and the inner cities of the US illustrate that such a promise is generally not kept.  After you have handed your freedom over to the politicians, and they have failed to deliver on their promises, what is your recourse? I’ll give up more than you will but I won’t give up as much as the communists want...I’m in the mushy middle as usual.  Just so you don’t give away my freedom in the process of giving up yours.  That’s always the problem with collectivism.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.