Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Surprise: Barack Obama Was Active Member Of Socialist Political Party In 1990’s

More skeletons from Obama’s closet:

Did you know that Barack Obama was affiliated with a leading national socialist party? Barack Obama didn’t include in his 2008 resume that he entered politics in the mid-1990s endorsed by Chicago’s leading socialists. This just keeps getting better and better. Barack Obama was an active participant in the 1990s, and a direct political beneficiary, of the Chicago New Party and, importantly, the Chicago DSA, a group of socialists affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America.

Barack Obama attended and participated in meetings of the Chicago New Party and the Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Barack Obama sought the endorsement of the Chicago DSA which required rigorous scrutiny by the party’s Political Committee as well as Mr. Obama’s signature on a contract promising “a visible and active relationship with the NP.”

Barack Obama actively used the endorsement from the Chicago DSA.

Barack Obama won his DSA-endorsed and -backed campaign to secure his seat in the Illinois State Senate.

Barack Obama continued his involvement with the Chicago DSA — including directly asking the group to join “his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration” — and received their endorsements in subsequent campaigns.

There’s more at the link, and it’s pretty damning stuff.

It’s pretty shocking that we could get to this point in the election and not have some of this stuff come out.

Comments

How did Hillary never get her hands on this?


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on October 8, 2008 at 01:26 pm

Remember when the media jumped all over the phony story of Sarah Palin being a member of the Alaska Independence Party?

I wonder if Obama’s being a member of a socialist party is going to get as much coverage.


Grrrrrrrrrr

Hungry Bear on October 8, 2008 at 01:31 pm

They sure won’t want to cover it.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on October 8, 2008 at 01:34 pm

How did Hillary never get her hands on this?

She did ... she just didn’t think it was a bad thing.
wink


We spent 45 years defeating the Marxists in the old Soviet Union.  Now, 18 years later we are electing a Marxist to lead our country .... nice!!!

gilbyguy on October 8, 2008 at 02:05 pm

How did Hillary never get her hands on this?

She did ... she just didn’t think it was a bad thing.

Either that, or she needed the votes of those far left radicals as much as Obama did!


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on October 8, 2008 at 02:12 pm

Is the “Chicago New Party” socialist? Obviously the Democratic Socialists of America are but the DSA site isn’t very clear other than describing party members as “progressive” and indicating that there’s a working relationship between the NP and the DSA. I also note that Rick Moran blogged about this last May so it’s not a completely new find.

Interesting.


"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeAdamson on October 8, 2008 at 02:31 pm

The left no longer deserve to be called democrats they are marxist or socialists and NOBAMA is a blatant Marxist. That is not a good thing.


Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

goon on October 8, 2008 at 02:48 pm

Is the “Chicago New Party” socialist? Obviously the Democratic Socialists of America are

A little further reading would have revealed that the DSA insists upon an individuals endorsement in return for their endorsing the individual, basically a circle jerk with the candidate for office being the pivot man.

It would be interesting during the next debate to see Mac off handedly ask Obama what the DSA stands for in the organization he endorses.


"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

Spartacus on October 8, 2008 at 03:06 pm
Avatar for Howard

CONNECT THE DOTS ...
OBAMA WILL BRING AMERICAN TO IT’S KNEES !!!

Obama wants to
create a National Security Force
with the size and budget of our entire military to
control American citizens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igDoHZ0hVUY

Obama wants to eliminate our nuclear arsonal,
and render us defenseless against foreign tyrants.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/16/obama-hey-lets-eliminate-nuclear-weapons/

Obama wants to eliminate private gun ownership,
and do away with the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5770

Are foreign donations powering the Obama campaign?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/are_foreign_donations_powering.html

Obama’s appeal in the Muslim world
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0613/p09s02-coop.html

Pro-Obama, Muslim-led voter registration in mosques
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=2738844

Palestinians phone bank for Obama
http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/05/13/palestinians_phonebank_for_obama

We are loosing our right to Free Speech, the 1st Amendment
to the Constitution, when the media is in the tank for Obama
http://www.mediaresearch.org/

Obama wants to change our National Anthem
http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8430006241001/m/6860048971001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvxiG56M-eU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwog6E08CFU

Obama chose to align himself with anti-American racist, Jeremiah Wright
for TWENTY YEARS ... along with anti-American Ferrahkan, and Ayers.

ACORN VOTER FRAUD, Obama cheats to get elected
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/01/more-milwaukee-voter-fraud-name-party

Obama Youth organize ...
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=obama+youth+junior+fraternity+regiment&search_type=&aq=f

THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN
KEEP AMERICA FREE AND STRONG,
ELECT MCCAIN/PALIN IN NOVEMBER

Howard on October 8, 2008 at 03:13 pm

A little further reading would have revealed that the DSA insists upon an individuals endorsement in return for their endorsing the individual, basically a circle jerk with the candidate for office being the pivot man.

I read all the way to the bottom and I couldn’t find that info. I did read that DSA members made up 15% of the NP membership and that an NP political committee must approve candidacy under the NP banner but nothing about DSA approval.

Suffice to say that the NP was/is a left wing/progressive organisation which should be enough to ensure condemnation at SA.


"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeAdamson on October 8, 2008 at 03:38 pm

Suffice to say that the NP was/is a left wing/progressive organisation which should be enough to ensure condemnation at SA.

Every upside down organization that ironically refers to itself as “progressive” is ensured condemnation at SA.

likwidshoe on October 8, 2008 at 03:44 pm

SA...where men are men and liberals are nervous. wink


"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeAdamson on October 8, 2008 at 03:56 pm

Suffice to say that the NP was/is a left wing/progressive organisation which should be enough to ensure condemnation at SA.

It was/is an organization endorsed by DSA, if by condemnation you mean there is a blazing hot branding iron in the shape of a hammer and sickle, you’re not off by much, if the shoe fits you know.


"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

Spartacus on October 8, 2008 at 04:12 pm

SA...where men are men and liberals are nervous.

I was under the impression that in Canukastan liberals and socialists where two different entities. You’re accusing U.S. Liberals of being Socialists, eh?


"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

Spartacus on October 8, 2008 at 04:25 pm

Isn’t the Chicago New Party just a branch of the Democrat Socialist Party?

Mickey on October 8, 2008 at 07:54 pm

Isn’t the Chicago New Party just a branch of the Democrat Socialist Party?

It should also be known as the dead voters society.


Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

goon on October 8, 2008 at 08:40 pm

Obama has setup a site for fighting smears against him.

That site has a search engine.

http://www.fightthesmears.com/search

Interestingly enough, if you search it for Socialist or Chicago New Party, there are no results.  If you search it with the names of the foreigners that financed his Columbia and Harvard education, there are no results.

So, if you have a site that SPECIFICALLY fights smears.  But then that site does not respond to particular stories that have been in circulation for awhile, does that not lend a certain amount of credibility to those stories?

subbob on October 8, 2008 at 08:57 pm

Isnt your headline disingenuous?


Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie Arbuckle on October 8, 2008 at 09:07 pm
Proof
Proof
12802 comments
Send a private message

Isnt your headline disingenuous?

Good one, Sparkie, coming from you!



Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!


Proof on October 8, 2008 at 09:13 pm

I think Disingenuous is the name for Rob’s inner self.


Combating Republican dirty tricks since 2002!

Example: Republican Dirty Trick

Hannitized on October 8, 2008 at 09:17 pm

If he was a member of the Socialist Party, prove it. If he wasn’t, well, your headline is disingenuous.


Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie Arbuckle on October 8, 2008 at 09:17 pm
Proof
Proof
12802 comments
Send a private message

I think Disingenuous is the name for Rob’s inner self.

The first two words were a dead giveaway, but nice try! Very funny!



Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!


Proof on October 8, 2008 at 09:28 pm

Poof
You ignored me. Prove it.


Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie Arbuckle on October 8, 2008 at 09:35 pm
Proof
Proof
12802 comments
Send a private message

You ignored me. Prove it.

I’m sorry! Did you mumble something?



Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!


Proof on October 8, 2008 at 09:38 pm
Avatar for Harry

Democratic Party, Socialist Party, Communist Party. What’s the difference? These three are co-mingled with goals to destroy individual freedom (choice),responsibility and want the mindless masses dependent on government. The democratic road to hell is closer than we think.

Harry on October 9, 2008 at 06:11 am

Christianity is closer to communism that the Democrat party. Your equivalences might be cognitively efficient for you, absolving you of paying attention to anything in the real world, but it dont mean it bears on reality.

Thanks for consolidating Rob’s UNpoint for him.


Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie Arbuckle on October 9, 2008 at 06:22 am

Is the “Chicago New Party” socialist?

Yes!


Grrrrrrrrrr

Hungry Bear on October 9, 2008 at 06:46 am

What should be absolutely clear by now is this: Not only is Obama far to the left of Hillary Clinton, he’s also to the left of George McGovern, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Bernie Sanders. He may even be to the left of John Edwards.


Grrrrrrrrrr

Hungry Bear on October 9, 2008 at 06:51 am

Christianity is closer to communism that [sic] the Democrat party. Your equivalences might be cognitively efficient for you, absolving you of paying attention to anything in the real world, but it dont mean it bears on reality.

This might have been an extraordinarily insightful comment, but you’ve got it only half right, on each of two very different levels.

First, while true Christianity is quite close to communism, at least in its idealized “end product”, you’ve overlooked the fundamental difference that Christianity is entirely voluntary, relying on the decency and self-sacrifice of its adherents.  Communism, of course, relies on the singular power of an all powerful state to enforce its edicts and tenets.

Second, I would suggest that it is the paradox of those voluntary characteristics of our American Judeo-Christian heritage and that heritage’s attendant generosity and self-sacrifice, in concert with, and in conflict with, the acquisitive, self-centered aspects of capitalism that have made the United States of America the most extraordinary success story in the history of mankind.  Those two ideologies, one religious, meek, and altruistic, the other secular, aggressive, and unabashedly selfish, diametrically opposed yet working together, have each served to voluntarily modifying the other while strengthening the nation and its people.

Note too, that all of this is essentially voluntary, an unspoken, largely unacknowledged part of the heritage that is our American way of life, handed down from one generation to the next.

Essentially, it is the tension between those two basic ideologies, the conflict and the accommodation, that has made us who and what we are.

Which is why any tinkering with or diminuation of either our religious/ethical or our secular/economic heritage, whether official as through government action or unofficial, puts the future of all of us at risk.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on October 9, 2008 at 07:02 am

while true Christianity is quite close to communism, at least in its idealized “end product”,

Communism: a classless society in which capitalism is overthrown by a working-class revolution that gives ownership and control of wealth and property to the state. The political theory or system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of that society.

Sorry, I see not the slightest connection whatsoever between Communism and Christianity. It is absolutely impossible, in my opinion, to compare Christianity in any shape, manner or form to any human designed political-economic system.


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.

Neiman on October 9, 2008 at 07:18 am

Neiman,

I have no particular interest in quibbling with you, my friend.  That’s what Hannitized is here for.

But you are overlooking my use of the word “idealized” as well as the entire rest of my comment.  Neither you nor I has any interest in suggesting a pure, Essene style society, any more than we would endorse a socialist, or worse, a communist one.

Nor would we wish for a totally self-absorbed, capitalist society devoid of any of the limitations imposed by our Judeo-Christian heritage.

My point is that without an understanding of the role played by each ideology, we countenance attacks by the Left on both of them at our direst peril.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on October 9, 2008 at 07:33 am

Although we’re straying a tad off topic, I would add that Christianity is not monolithic in its beliefs or practice. The Christian Socialists were quite influential in Canada and the UK and the Catholic Church is not at ease with capitalist organisation. OTOH, the development of Protestant teachings and doctrine are considered by many to have proved indispensable to the development of the free markets economy.

A minor point but one to keep in mind...I also haven’t seen any evidence that the New Party was actually socialist although it certainly contained socialists and worked with socialist organisations.


"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeAdamson on October 9, 2008 at 07:38 am

I have no particular interest in quibbling with you, my friend.  That’s what Hannitized is here for.

I was not speaking against you or quibbling Bat, I only, albeit perhaps poorly, expressed the fact I could not see the connection between the Church and Communism. Otherwise, as usual I have no problem with what you have said, I only wanted to point out that I saw no connection between the human and divine.

I would add that Christianity is not monolithic in its beliefs or practice.

True Christianity is monolithic! While human beings have argued and split over human interpretations of Scripture, to the harm of many believers; Christianity is a pure and undefiled faith in Christ and the promotion of the Gospel of Salvation. That is Christianity! The rest is human perversions of the purity that is in Christ!


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.

Neiman on October 9, 2008 at 08:07 am

By the way:

Socialism is the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need.

Liberals/Progressives are actually socialists trying to move a society from capitalism to communism and I believe Obama is an instrument of the Left to advance that goal.


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.

Neiman on October 9, 2008 at 08:12 am

I also haven’t seen any evidence that the New Party was actually socialist

On the left wing website Politics of the Future, the New Party (USA) is listed under “Socialists and Radical Democrats”

http://changesurfer.com/Acad/FutPol.html


Grrrrrrrrrr

Hungry Bear on October 9, 2008 at 08:18 am

Neiman,

I certainly didn’t intend to suggest a “connection between the Church and communism.”

And while I still prefer not to quibble, you might want to re-think the wording of this,

I only wanted to point out that I saw no connection between the human and divine.

This, on the other hand,

Liberals/Progressives are actually socialists trying to move a society from capitalism to communism and I believe Obama is an instrument of the Left to advance that goal.

could not be more succinctly stated, and should be plastered on every available billboard.  A President Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress would be calamitous for our country.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on October 9, 2008 at 08:37 am

Whenever lefties try to sell the idea that somehow Christianity is akin to either communism or socialism, and that Jesus Christ was some sort of “community organizer”, it is good to remember that Christians are that way by choice, not coercion or compulsion.  Each individual Christian has made a choice to follow Him and His Teachings, which is the exact opposite of socialism/communism, both of which remove choice.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 9, 2008 at 09:15 am

R108,

EXACTLY RIGHT!!!


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on October 9, 2008 at 09:17 am

Thanks.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 9, 2008 at 09:23 am

Shouldn’t be a big surprise! He is a Socialist. I just don’t understand why he doesn’t admit it? He is what he is. He will still have his followers regardless of this News flash. After all most of them are Socialist’s themselves. Why ignore it? Obama is more liberal than Bernie Sanders a self admitted Socialist. Obama is a Racist and a Socialist. The Dems don’t care. They accept racist’s and Socialist’s all the time! It is what they do. Now they need to find a way to get people to accept Voter Fraud!

Zsa Zsa on October 9, 2008 at 09:40 am

Shouldn’t be a big surprise! He is a Socialist. I just don’t understand why he doesn’t admit it?

Because Obama is trying to portray himself as a “post partisan” moderate while making speeches in front of the rubes.


Grrrrrrrrrr

Hungry Bear on October 9, 2008 at 10:16 am

HB

On the left wing website Politics of the Future, the New Party (USA) is listed under “Socialists and Radical Democrats”

Thanks Bear. I don’t doubt that the New Party was left of the mainstream but whether it’s socialist or not...I’m being picky on the term “socialist” so I’ll drop this.


"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeAdamson on October 9, 2008 at 10:18 am

Liberals/Progressives are actually socialists trying to move a society from capitalism to communism and I believe Obama is an instrument of the Left to advance that goal.

Some are, some aren’t. A school of thought promoted a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism but it’s always been dismissed as utopian and rightly so IMO. Another school of thought promoted State intervention to smooth the rough edges of capitalist society...that’s where you find most liberals and progressives. They don’t want to eliminate private property but they want to ensure that an underclass of poor and alienated citizens doesn’t develop into a threat to the established order...thus you see the expansion of the Welfare State.

I realise that these different outlooks are often lumped together into a big group called “socialists” by those who favour a less interventionist state but not everybody sees it that way...maybe that’s why more voters don’t get as agitated about some of Obama’s connections.


"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeAdamson on October 9, 2008 at 10:30 am

They don’t want to eliminate private property
but they want to ensure that an underclass of poor and alienated citizens doesn’t develop into a threat to the established order...thus you see the expansion of the Welfare State.

That’s the propaganda, but the truth is just the opposite: the expansion of the Welfare rolls is just a strategy to institute a ruling elite by buying votes.  Increasing numbers of people are being sold the idea that they are “victims” of some sort.
Just to remind you, Mike: it’s not really private property if the govt controls its use.

If socialism were really a superior system, it wouldn’t need any of the propaganda, election fraud or general lying that our lefties use to inject it by force into our free society.
Only socialism requires a permanent underclass(the dictatorship of the proletariat); in a society of free people making free choices, individual citizens get to choose their economic status.
Please explain how upward mobility works under socialism.

What are those “rough edges” to which you refer?

I consider mass starvation, mass imprisonment and mass purges to be some pretty rough edges, and those are all characteristics of socialist systems.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 9, 2008 at 10:40 am

I don’t doubt that the New Party was left of the mainstream but whether it’s socialist or not...I’m being picky on the term “socialist” so I’ll drop this.

The trouble here is that when Obama launched his career, he presented himself as a new more moderate kind of Democrat. I’ve heard him say something like, “the Republicans will try to say I’m some kind of liberal.” So clearly his whole rhetorical appeal is that he’s not some left wing crazy.

But Obama has a whole lot of associations that point in the direction of him being a very left of mainstream politician, while pretending to be a moderate.

If Obama were honest about what be believes in than things like Ayers, Acorn, Rev. Wright, Rev. Pfleger, Democratic Socialists of America, and New Party wouldn’t be as big an issue. It’s only because Obama is pretending to be a moderate that these things become issues.

Someone who works with William Ayers, Acorn, the NEw Party and such and then tries to advance themselves as a moderate is a fraud.


Grrrrrrrrrr

Hungry Bear on October 9, 2008 at 12:10 pm

r108

That’s the propaganda, but the truth is just the opposite: the expansion of the Welfare rolls is just a strategy to institute a ruling elite by buying votes.

I respectfully disagree of course. I recall way back in my university days that Marxist theorists viewed the expansion of the Welfare State as a way to co-opt the working class and head off any possible insurrections. I think there’s some truth to that although I believe that concern for the well being of the worker was a genuinely ethical consideration as well.

If socialism were really a superior system, it wouldn’t need any of the propaganda, election fraud or general lying that our lefties use to inject it by force into our free society.

As opposed to the propaganda, election fraud and general lying perpetrated by the other side. I understand where you’re coming from in the sense that anything short of the ideal is not good enough in your eyes. I find as I grow older that life is full of compromise and lowered expectations but that does not mean that society doesn’t benefit from the efforts of those who push for their preference, whether they be left or right.

I think we need both types.

Please explain how upward mobility works under socialism.

That question is better answered by someone who advocates for socialism. If you consider the present system “socialist” then I’d say that upward mobility works like it appears to work.


"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeAdamson on October 9, 2008 at 02:18 pm

I recall way back in my university days that Marxist theorists viewed the expansion of the Welfare State as a way to
co-opt the working class and head off any possible insurrections.

They agree with me, and disagree with you, obviously.  It’s the simple truth, Mike.

I understand where you’re coming from in the sense that anything short of the ideal is not good enough in your eyes.

Once again, when you attempt to speak for me, you get it completely wrong.  It is the Marxists who need purity of ideology; conservatives are practical, in that human behavior can never be perfect, which is why socialism has to be imposed, while people naturally want to follow their self-interest without coercion.

That question is better answered by someone who advocates for socialism. Nice dodge. If you consider the present system “socialist”… I don’t.

Like the bailout boondoggle, the greedy govt types are trying to socialize outcomes while keeping incentives individualized.  Won’t work, just like the bailout boondoggle won’t work.

The affirmative action social engineering mandates need to be removed, along with the GSEs.  Nothing else will work.
This current crap is just kicking the can down the road.
The rules of good business practice don’t change.
Good investments succeed and bad investments fail; to try to change that deranges the system, and leads to eventual failure.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 9, 2008 at 03:04 pm

The O-bah-mah-siah a commie???? NAAAHHH!!!!

SAY IT AIN’T SO JOE!!!!!!
.
.
.
.
scumbag, twinkle-toed, commie, a$$......

Terrorist sympathist......


/*Dave
[Political Correctness is the Shield of a Coward]

Rabid American on October 9, 2008 at 03:32 pm

They agree with me, and disagree with you, obviously.  It’s the simple truth, Mike.

I don’t think they agree with you. They saw the growth of the Welfare State as bad for socialism...the Welfare State helps satisfy workers’ basic needs so there’s no need to overthrow the existing order. You see the Welfare State as a step toward the Socialist State if not socialism itself whereas the Marxists viewed it as a roadblock. It’s hard to start a revolution when the workers aren’t starving.

Once again, when you attempt to speak for me, you get it completely wrong.  It is the Marxists who need purity of ideology;

I’m saying that you advocate an ideal type as well. You advocate a free market model which has never existed in the real world, a model which when implemented in its historically purest form led to social unrest and upheaval...IMO of course.

Like the bailout boondoggle, the greedy govt types are trying to socialize outcomes while keeping incentives individualized.  Won’t work, just like the bailout boondoggle won’t work.

The bailout won’t work because the banks need to realise their losses and recapitalise. Until that happens then we’re looking at a repeat of Japan in the nineties IMO.

The affirmative action social engineering mandates need to be removed, along with the GSEs.  Nothing else will work.

You’re entitled to your opinion but that doesn’t solve the present problem nor does it address the issue of investment bankers pursuing their self-interest to the detriment of the rest of the economic system. 

The rules of good business practice don’t change.

Indeed...which is why the business practises as exemplified in the mortgage and securitisation fields need to change.


"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeAdamson on October 9, 2008 at 03:52 pm

It’s hard to start a revolution when the workers aren’t starving.

Thanks for summarizing the current strategy of the Dem Party.
They agree with me, in that socialism requires a permanent underclass; they just want a bloody revolution, while our affluent society doesn’t even like the socialism of the Welfare State.  In any case, it’s more socialism than we need.

I’m saying that you advocate an ideal type as well. Wrong again; I advocate free people making free choices, which I have told you over and over and over again.  What have you got against freedom, Mike? You advocate a free market model which has never existed in the real world… Actually, you are wrong there, as well.  Go to any Farmers’ Market, and you will see a free market in action.  Perhaps you don’t know that “free market” means “freedom of entry and exit”.  Any interference with that distorts the relationship between supply and demand, and cuts down on the optimum production of wealth and satisfaction.  It’s microeconomic in nature, Mike.  Remember that.

You’re entitled to your opinion but that doesn’t solve the present problem Actually, it does, since the root of the problem is the affirmative action mandates. Kill the root, and the rest of the tree, no matter how large, will die. nor does it address the issue of investment bankers pursuing their self-interest to the detriment of the rest of the economic system. Not all investment bankers gave in to the temptation of dealing in bad paper generated by the affirmative action home loan mandates, which is why there are firms waiting to buy up the assets of those who did.  Your generalization is just that, and is mostly inaccurate.

I have explained this to you multiple times, Mike, and you still don’t understand the obvious truth.  I am very patient with my slow students, though, and will continue to connect the dots for you.  There us a wealth of information on the reality of this situation out there, and I suggest you study up on it.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 9, 2008 at 04:29 pm

I don’t understand how someone can seriously argue that Senator Obama is not a socialist. While there may not be a single piece of conclusive proof, like a DSA membership card he happened to leave behind in a cab, all the evidence points in the direction of Obama being AT LEAST a socialist.

Look at the evidence.

Obama’s spiritual mentors have been practitioners of Liberation Theology. For those not familiar, Liberation Theology is a version of Christianity that has been altered to deliver what is usually a Marxist message.

One of Obama’s early mentors in Chicago was a communist organizer.

Right out of college, Senator Obama went to work as a community organizer for an organization that is unquestionably socialistic, but may in fact be communistic.

Obama worked for State Senator Alice Palmer, a socialist Democrat.

Senator Obama worked alongside William Ayers on education and other issues and launched his poltical career in William Ayers home. Ayers quite openly describes himself as a communist, and also openly states that he wants to replace the capitalist with communism. Ayers has never made any secrets of his communist beliefs and goals.

Obama was a member of the New Party, a socialist organization that was meant to counter Bill Clinton’s efforts to pull the Democrat Party to the center. In other words, during the Clinton Administration, Bacack Obama and the New Party thought Bill Clinton was to conservative and that the Democrats needed to be pushed to the left.

With all this evidence, it strains credibility to argue that Senator Obama is not indeed a socialist.

MMA Grappler on October 9, 2008 at 06:33 pm

I don’t understand how someone can seriously argue that Senator Obama is not a socialist. While there may not be a single piece of conclusive proof, like a DSA membership card he happened to leave behind in a cab, all the evidence points in the direction of Obama being AT LEAST a socialist.
Look at the evidence.
Obama’s spiritual mentors have been practitioners of Liberation Theology. For those not familiar, Liberation Theology is a version of Christianity that has been altered to deliver what is usually a Marxist message.
One of Obama’s early mentors in Chicago was a communist organizer.
Right out of college, Senator Obama went to work as a community organizer for an organization that is unquestionably socialistic, but may in fact be communistic.
Obama worked for State Senator Alice Palmer, a socialist Democrat.
Senator Obama worked alongside William Ayers on education and other issues and launched his poltical career in William Ayers home. Ayers quite openly describes himself as a communist, and also openly states that he wants to replace the capitalist with communism. Ayers has never made any secrets of his communist beliefs and goals.
Obama was a member of the New Party, a socialist organization that was meant to counter Bill Clinton’s efforts to pull the Democrat Party to the center. In other words, during the Clinton Administration, Bacack Obama and the New Party thought Bill Clinton was to conservative and that the Democrats needed to be pushed to the left.
With all this evidence, it strains credibility to argue that Senator Obama is not indeed a socialist.
MMA Grappler on October 9, 2008 at 08:33 pm

Yet the Main Stream media falls all over them selves signing BHO’s praise. By the way, I don’t know too many people that want to live in a marxist society.


Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

goon on October 9, 2008 at 06:57 pm

r108

Wrong again; I advocate free people making free choices, which I have told you over and over and over again.  What have you got against freedom, Mike?

Nothing...I haven’t got anything against ponies either.

Actually, you are wrong there, as well.  Go to any Farmers’ Market, and you will see a free market in action.  Perhaps you don’t know that “free market” means “freedom of entry and exit”.  Any interference with that distorts the relationship between supply and demand, and cuts down on the optimum production of wealth and satisfaction.  It’s microeconomic in nature, Mike.  Remember that.

Well if it works at the Farmers’ Market then it has to work in a global economy. It actually has always sounded great in theory but then so too does communism. The problem with ideal types is that human nature always seems to run contrary to what the theories’ proponents anticipate it will. It’s also interesting how models explaining simple transactions and interactions seem to have difficulty when faced with ever increasing numbers and complexities...I guess that’s where macroeconomics comes in.

Actually, it does, since the root of the problem is the affirmative action mandates. Kill the root, and the rest of the tree, no matter how large, will die.

Speaking practically for a minute, I can’t think of many observers who believe that terminating all “affirmative action social engineering mandates” tomorrow would solve the current credit crisis.

Not all investment bankers gave in to the temptation of dealing in bad paper generated by the affirmative action home loan mandates, which is why there are firms waiting to buy up the assets of those who did.  Your generalization is just that, and is mostly inaccurate.

So many firms are waiting to buy the debt? That’s a hot one. Not all affirmative action home loans went bad or are bad but your generalisation is just that. The current crisis is due to excessive risk taking and insufficient assets to cover liabilities...it is complex but it’s not rocket science.

I have explained this to you multiple times, Mike, and you still don’t understand the obvious truth.

I understand what you’re selling...I’m just not buying. You are selling an impractical ideal just as the Socialist Workers are...different content, same thought process. You have the right to your beliefs and I can still work through your inability to separate the world as it is and the world as you’d like it to be.

The world needs its dreamers after all. smile


"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeAdamson on October 9, 2008 at 07:42 pm

Well if it works at the Farmers’ Market then it has to work in a global economy.

Remember the “free people making free choices” part, Mike?  You should know that most of the world’s people aren’t even close to that standard.

You are selling an impractical ideal just as the Socialist Workers are...different content, same thought process.

Wrong again, Mike!  Socialism is about central control of the economy; affirmative action home loan mandates are also about central control of the economy.  What I advocate is exactly the opposite of socialism.  Sorry you aren’t able to realize that, Mike.
The financial crisis in this country was caused by too much govt, not too little.  You are fundamentally wrong.
BTW, Marxism is fundamentally wrong in all its premises.  There is no valid comparison.  The free market is what people do when they are free to do it; Marxism has to be impiosed through an all powerful central govt-the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Big difference.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 9, 2008 at 07:57 pm

So many firms are waiting to buy the debt?

Yes.  I refer you to the Wells Fargo deal, which is now blocked by the govt in favor of a less profitable sweetheart deal with Citi.  More govt interference blocking the natural healing process.
The bailout boondoggle is certainly not working; individual investors are bailing out of this govt takeover, and moving their assets elsewhere.  If investors hadn’t had to deal with the spectre of the bailout boondoggle, much more progress would have been made by now.  It would also help to remove the affirmative action loan mandates and to privatize the GSEs.  You failed to mention that last part, Mike.  Selective memory, or just cherry-picking?


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 9, 2008 at 08:01 pm

Wrong again, Mike! Socialism is about central control of the economy; affirmative action home loan mandates are also about central control of the economy. What I advocate is exactly the opposite of socialism. Sorry you aren’t able to realize that, Mike.

You are selling an impractical ideal just as the Socialist Workers are...different content, same thought process.

I won’t belabour this point because there’s nothing to be gained. You have faith that your model will work and I don’t share your faith. We can argue over what level of governmental involvement is necessary or desirable but you’re kidding yourself if you believe that your model will ever be implemented let alone work.

What I advocate is exactly the opposite of socialism.  Sorry you aren’t able to realize that, Mike.

I do realise that. What I’m saying is that both “socialism” and “free markets” are ideal types that will never be seen in the real world. We have something in between because neither model is practical given human nature IMO.

I refer you to the Wells Fargo deal, which is now blocked by the govt in favor of a less profitable sweetheart deal with Citi.

Wachovia shouldn’t have agreed to an exclusivity clause with Citi if they wanted to deal with WF. I don’t see how the government’s preference is relevant.

The bailout boondoggle is certainly not working;

Agreed. Investors aren’t dopes and recognise that losses have to be taken before we can move forward.

It would also help to remove the affirmative action loan mandates and to privatize the GSEs.

I don’t mind your privatisation suggestion but dumping the lending programs solves nothing IMO.


"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeAdamson on October 10, 2008 at 06:12 am

I do realise that. What I’m saying is that both “socialism” and “free markets” are ideal types that will never be seen in the real world. We have something in between because neither model is practical given human nature IMO.

You may be unfortunately right. I say unfortunately because the natural tendency of politicians is to offer people protections against their own poor choices and lazy behavior.

I believe a system that forced people to be financially and personally responsible for their actions, would require that individuals become responsible. Individuals would have to act and think like adults, rather than like children looking to mommy/daddy government to bail them out. Such a system would be by far more humanitarian than the mixed capitalism/socialism we have now.

P.S. Obma is a socialist


Grrrrrrrrrr

Hungry Bear on October 10, 2008 at 06:58 am

You have faith that your model will work…

One, it’s not “my” model; greater men than I formulated it out of an accurate evaluation of basic human behavior, and Two, it’s not a “model”; it’s a working reality. Wrong again.

...dumping the lending programs solves nothing…

It kills the root of the problem.

Wachovia shouldn’t have agreed to an exclusivity clause with Citi if they wanted to deal with WF. I don’t see how the government’s preference is relevant.

Wrong again; the Citi deal was brokered by the govt, and therefore was not a free market deal.  I remind you that “free market” refers to freedom of entry and exit, which includes freedom to offer and to accept the best deal, which is the Wells Fargo deal.  The govt is hanging up the best deal for Wachovia investors.  Mandating bad business practices is always harmful.

What I’m saying is that both “socialism” and “free markets” are ideal types that will never be seen in the real world.

Your most egregious and consistent error, Mike.  While all forms of socialism require perfection to work(thus the need for coercion and central control of the economy), the free market only requires freedom.  The greater degree of freedom in the market and in society at large, the more successful that economy will be.  It’s a matter of degree, not some unattainable ideal, which is your mistaken fantasy.
China is a great example of this: to the extent that they have allowed some degree of economic freedom, their economy has taken off.  They have yet to free their people, and have only limited econmic freedom for some small portion of their population, but even so, their productivity and prosperity have increased tremendously.  You seem to miss this truth consistently, Mike.
Unlike socialism, the free enterprise system does not require perfection to produce results.  It’s neither a “model” or an “ideal”; it’s a practical reality.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 10, 2008 at 07:04 am

The govt is hanging up the best deal for Wachovia investors.

Would you care to provide a reference for your claim?

It’s a matter of degree, not some unattainable ideal, which is your mistaken fantasy.

I don’t know about the fantasy but I’m pleased to see that you recognise the existence of a continuum and that it’s not an either/or proposition. There’s hope for you yet.

It’s neither a “model” or an “ideal”; it’s a practical reality.

Maybe I spoke too soon. wink


"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeAdamson on October 10, 2008 at 07:52 am

I don’t know about the fantasy but I’m pleased to see that you recognise the existence of a continuum and that it’s not an either/or proposition. There’s hope for you yet.

Maybe there’s hope for you, since you are the one incorrectly trying to paint me as an extremist for my economic principles, which I have had for over forty years.
Without your actually admitting it, maybe some truth has soaked into your consciousness.  I hope so.
I’m getting a bit bored with the need for constantly having to repeat the same basic principles over and over.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 10, 2008 at 07:59 am

Maybe there’s hope for you, since you are the one incorrectly trying to paint me as an extremist for my economic principles, which I have had for over forty years.

I paint you as an extremist because your views are extreme. That alone doesn’t make your views wrong although I believe they are of course.

Here’s a reference on the Citi/Wach/WB negotiations.  Citi plans to sue the other two banks but will apparently not block the deal.


"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

MikeAdamson on October 10, 2008 at 08:07 am

I paint you as an extremist because your views are extreme.

I understand your point of view; from your big central govt position, “free people making free choices” must seem extreme.
I don’t consider freedom to be extreme, however, so I will never agree with your opinion on this matter.
When Adam Smith published his manifesto on what you call “capitalism”, The Wealth of Nations, the rest of the world was essentially monarchist.  Since then, especially with the model of the United States, that has changed radically for much of the world’s population.  I guess you can paint that as extreme, if you wish, but would you deny the benefits to all of this increased economic freedom?
The US still has more economic freedom than the rest of the world, even with the inroads of communist subversion, beginning with the FDR administration.
I support freedom, and I don’t support totalitarian central control, whether you call it socialism, communism, dictatorship or fascism.
If you regard that as extreme, so be it.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 10, 2008 at 08:14 am

When Adam Smith published his manifesto on what you call “capitalism”, The Wealth of Nations, the rest of the world was essentially monarchist.

Think feudal.  Very little choice or room for innovation at all. 

Monopolies granted by the crown…


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on October 10, 2008 at 08:17 am

Monopolies granted by the crown…

More importantly, no upward mobility.  Notice how Mike dodged my question about upward mobility under socialism?

The free enterprise system created the middle class, which was between the nobility and the peasants.  It is a creation of both the industrial revolution and economic freedom.  Now, the socialist Obama is trying to claim that socialism will save the middle class from the free enterprise system.  Talk about deep lying!


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 10, 2008 at 08:23 am