Welcome to the Socialist States of America

My granddaddy hated government assistance programs.

"When government make it impossible to fail, government takes away the desire to succeed," he said.

Granddad is no doubt twisting and turning in his grave today. The new reality in the world of President Barack Obama and Democratic control of our government seeks cradle-to-the-grave government support and federal intervention into anything that does not meet the agenda of those in power.

Companies "too big to allow to fail" are propped up by Uncle Sam. The President of the United States decides who runs General Motors. Americans will be required to purchase health insurance whether they want it or not. Large banks are now mostly owned by the Federal Government.

Don’t look to closely because the United States of America is turning into a Socialist state.

Ohmigod! Did he say the "S" word?

Damn right I did. In five months, Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have turned America from what little was left of a free-enterprise system into a Socialist nation where the feds control everything and require Americans to toe the line or else.

And it’s just beginning.

The new national health care system that Obama and the Democrats hope to ram through Congress before the August recess will, in all likelihood, be more expensive and more cumbersome than the chaos we have now.

The government forced Chrysler into a deal with Fiat. General Motors is in government-mandated bankruptcy, run by a CEO cleared by the White House.

In the Rose Garden today, Obama signs a new anti-smoking bill that gives the Federal Drug Administration unprecedented power over the tobacco industry. Obama also wants to build the Consumer Protection Agency into a superpower with incredible control over what products we can and cannot buy or use.

Freedom? Sorry, we can’t afford it in this economy. Choice? Don’t bother. The government knows what’s best for you.

Welcome to the Socialist States of America.


  1. almandine

    Fascism has been called socialism with a capitalist veneer. It’s also been called corporatism. Neither, however, captures the ruthlessness that fascism embodies.

  2. almandine

    The Social Security Admin has the Supplemental Security Income program, which is based on financial need and not work history.

  3. almandine

    Hi oceanika –

    In an earlier post in this thread I mentioned a lack of definitional anchors. Too often it seems folks paint with a push broom and cover much more than they intend, had they given better reflection. You’re better than most a staying between the lines, but I was detecting that “kill em all and let god sort ’em out” approach.

    My approach is that the people are the problem. Specific people, not ordinary folks doing “ordinary duties”. Dumping toxic waste is not ordinary, just criminal. Not investing in required safety is not ordinary, it’s criminal. Making accounts look right when they’re not is… you guessed it, criminal. Wrong definitional anchors.

    Corporations can certainly be made culpable, e.g., fines, etc., but the folks actually responsible for their miscreant acts are the real culprits. There’s no excuse for letting them off, but our judicial system is as broken as our business – no – political model. Anchors.

    From where I view it, railing against corporations, business in general, capitalism, you name it misses the mark entirely and detracts from ANY ability to set things right. If you can’t define the problem correctly, how you gonna fix it?

    BTW – I have NO corporate ties, but I am anti-fallacious.

  4. Chick

    Oceanika, there are some very intellectual comments that I admire on this site. Your’s are some of them. Thank you for your informative contributions.

  5. Carl Nemo

    Hi Lcoast,

    In my case you are preaching to the choir. I’m very proactive concerning an interface with my Congressional reps via email, snail mail, phone calls, and attending town hall meetings when they show up in the Vancouver, WA area. Unfortunately I get the drift that they are simply punching our t.s. cards and invariably vote in a way that’s beneficial for the globalist/corporatist agenda.

    My caustic response concerning the “black helicopters” that you directed towards Doug Thompson’s article made no sense to me; ie., being out of place, so I just thought I’d add my two cents worth concerning the reality of such “black helicopters”. Delta Force and key designated contractors are very organized, so if martial law is declared they will go about their business of rounding up targeted malcontents mostly those that some faceless bureaucrat has deemed a threat to the corporatist state; ie., their status quo.

    Just think of all the errors to date in terrorist designation on the part of Homeland Security causing boarding problems at airports. Guess what this same fumbling, bumbling is ported over the very lists they will use to round up designated persons of interest. Many people will lose their lives and freedom simply due to either screw ups or intentional targeting by Homeland Security geeks gone rogue. Pretty scary huh!? It’s of little consequence if you believe so or not; it’s a “fact”…! 😐

    I don’t want our nation to fail and surely hope beyond all hope that there’s forward motion on the playing field, but to date all I witness is our failed government pitching taxpayer dollars at a host of problems; ie., money they don’t even have unless offshore lenders are willing to float our mindless, out of control welfare/warfare state; ie., business as usual. Recent Treasury bond/note auctions indicate otherwise. We’re flat dead broke as a nation, but our Executive branch and Congress continue on a path of swiping our national CC no differently than some mall rat that cannot control their endless shopping sprees leading them to personal financial disaster.

    I’m for solutions, but not at the expense of destroying what was one “the full faith and credit of the United States of America” concerning its commitment to fulfilling its long term sovereign debt responsibilities.

    Carl Nemo **==

  6. gazelle1929

    “Social security is only socialized because many of its recipients get checks without having paid their dues. ”

    It seems to me that if you don’t pay your premiums you don’t collect the insurance benefits. Can you expand on your statement?

  7. oceanika

    In a comment I made a above about the inherent problems when a “for-profit” enterprise provides (i.e., denies) Access to Health Care, I tried to make the case that Corporations were motivated by profit. I granted that corporations have a right to make a profit, but that made them unsuitable to administer a public trust. As a consequence, some others in this thread perceived this as a slur on corporations – as if corporations were the personification of free-enterprise, capitalism. I assure you that perception is false, it’s only an objective (as I can make it) observation of reality.

    Submitted by almandine on June 22, 2009 – 2:24pm.

    “A corporation is a business… an administrative entity… a mechanism to enact business transactions. No self, no soul, no ethics, no morality – by definition.”

    I accept your definition, but did you mean to imply that this definition absolves “corporations” of any culpability?

    One significant point from Wikipedia:

    “…a corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own any more than it has a body of its own; its active and directing will must consequently be sought in the person of somebody who is really the “directing mind” and will of the corporation, the very ego and centre of the personality of the corporation.” A quote from an English court case in 1915 that first introduced the “alter ego” theory of corporate liability.

    So, your definition is gratuitous without the people that run corporations. This leads to the next objection:

    “Are you saying that everyone who ever worked for or led a corporation is corrupt?”

    Your question, of course, is disingenuous and rhetorical, but worse, it’s an example of fallacious reasoning, the fallacy of composition, committed when it is concluded that what is true of the parts of a whole must be true of the whole without there being adequate justification for the claim. But, let’s let that go – I’ll address the question anyway.

    There are corrupt people everywhere, some even work for and lead corporations, many more are unethical and some have no morals, but, strange as it seems, that is not the problem.

    Corporations (and all businesses in general) are governed by one imperative: make a profit. Read this next sentence carefully. This is not inherently bad. The bad acts of corporations are committed by ordinary people carrying out their ordinary duties to serve the imperitive.

    • “Dump the toxic waste in the river, if we’re caught we’ll pay the fine.”
    • “If we don’t invest in safety/infrastructure/research, our profits will look better this quarter and I get a fat bonus.”
    • “It’s more profitable to launch a public relations campaign to tout our commitment to public service than actually perform any. Hey, it’s not illegal.”
    • “If we can find an excuse not to pay for that by-pass surgery…”
    • “These accounts don’t look right but if I say anything, I’ll lose everything.”

    Short term gains coupled with limited personal liability doth make villains of us all (to paraphrase Shakespeare).

    There have been plenty of real villains bred by the corporate structure; just the word ENRON should be evidence enough. Simple greed and social irresponsibily hiding behind the corporate impetrative has produced enough misery in this country. These are the guys you trust to provide us with Access to Health Care?

    How can anyone call it Socialism when the truth is, this country has been taken (and taken-over) by the big corporations! Keep private profits private but make the losses public?!! The corporate apologists among us cry SOCIALISM if corporate regulation is mentioned, TOO-BIG-TO-FAIL when their actions take them to the brink of ruin. It feels so morally righteous to say, “LET’EM SINK” but, you know the only ones going to sink are the poor working stiffs who lose their jobs, pensions and homes. The ones who caused it all will be quite comfortable with their stashed wealth – doubly so when they buy up the foreclosed houses to rent back to those who lost them.

    So you see it’s not really socialism after all, it’s NATIONAL-DEFENSE.

    Now, before another round of accusations arrive, let me say, I’m all for good old American free-enterprise capitalism, it’s just that I don’t see how this anti-American corporatism rates your support. When big companies out-source your job to another country, don’t pay taxes by hiding their profits off-shore, or make the US pick up the bill when they crap-out on your pension, don’t you get feeling that America is not at the top of their priorities? When the corporate elite suck profits out of their business leaving it unable to compete, robbing the country of yet another national resource, and when their reckless actions result in a recession/depression, what do they say? “Nothin’ personal, it’s just business.”

    However, the government deserves special culpability for NOT doing what needs to be done, to keep these un-American corporate villians in check. But hey, can you blame them — they don’t want to be called socialists, do they?

    Well, that was a little long, but I like to give a full reply, not just a glib response or cheap shot.

  8. Jim C

    Well , I’m certainly releaved you don’t do all that , but what you said was no ” morality – by definition “. wouldn’t that be amoral , who said immoral , you lost me on that one ? ” Maybe I actually READ both what I encounter and what I write. Maybe I’m more interested in truth and actual solutions instead of partisanship and blame. Maybe I’m not full of it “. With all those ” maybes ” it seems you’re a bit uncertain , but I’m sure you’ll work it out , hang in there bub .

  9. almandine

    Maybe I just don’t make broad-based statements based on innuendo and half-truths, geared only to sling mud as far as I can without proper foundation. Maybe I actually READ both what I encounter and what I write. Maybe I’m more interested in truth and actual solutions instead of partisanship and blame. Maybe I’m not full of it.

    BTW – amoral means WITHOUT morals, not immoral. That’s what I said in the first place. Pay attention.

  10. Lcoast

    Yo Nemo,

    If Delta Force is so frickin organized and powerful so as to be able to achieve its goals as you suggest, why bother with any of it? Why vote? Why read blogs like this? Just arm yourself and hope you take a few of the bastards with you on your way out.

    No one is more concerned about the confluence of government with telcos, Blackwater, the jacking of the Department of Justice, the expunging of archives and the massive shredding effort employed during the past 8 years than I am. I know which way the wind blows…the point being is that if you want to fight back, labeling programs as socialist, worrying about things that go bump in the night is not going to make it happen.

    Industrial America and the systems that support it was shot in the head in the 80s and its been flopping around in a death dance since then. It’s getting ready to keel over and we’re going to need more than trial by labels or playing partisan politics in the Congress. We’ve got to get serious about SOLUTIONS, and not massage the propaganda. Obama has some interesting ideas, but no cojones or appetite to take them out to their logical conclusions. The Pugs have no ideas, just fear and white boy rage. Not encouraging, to say the least.

  11. Jim C

    Corporations by their very nature are amoral , they are obligated by law to serve their shareholders , not their community or their country . The people who work for corporations are simply employees with no power , only a few in top positions are decision makers and yes , many of them are quite corrupt ; Have you been paying any attention to whats transpired in the last year and a half , or for that matter the last 30yrs ? From many of your posts it seems not .

  12. bjiller

    Seventy years late.

    Doug, your “Welcome to socialism” is about 70 years too late. We’ve had corporate socialism since the Great Depression. It was just covered up by a series of wars in which big money and big business made fortunes. And it’s not just Obama. Bush’s original bailout of AIG was exactly the same “too big to fail” corporate socialism. The only reason Obama had to socialize GM was because Bush was too cowardly to do it, or to let it fail.

    The sky is just falling a little faster than it was last Fall, but the fall started under Bush.

  13. Stratocaster

    If this os socialism, it is corporate socialism. The corporations are cared for, and the average person is left to fend for himself.

  14. giving-up-in-nc

    The answer is to throw the crooks out of office that are running this country. From what I’m reading people are getting real pissed off about what is going on. It wont be easy but people are only going to take so much crap before something gives and the stuff is piling up pretty deep.

    I agree with you that corporations are controlled by individuals and are obviously not void of human beings. But most corporations are also not transparent entities, and they do not freely communicate their nefarious dealings with the public so “naming names” is not always an easy thing to do. I know this because I worked for some of the biggest ones.

    Laziness of the US populace? Where the heck were you last year. Did you see the tens of thousands of people that got off their duffs to get Obama elected. That was a huge effort by average folks to elect somebody that was supposed to effect some real change in this country. I guess well know in a few years if all that effort was a waste or not.

    Apathy? You’re typing to people that probably spend hours reading about politics and trying to have intelligent discussions with each other about them. We’re not people that are sitting in front of their TVs watching “I’m a Celebrity get me out of here”.

    And as far as blogs and chat rooms solving nothing? Look at Iran, they are using them to help coordinate a possible revolution.

    The first things that need to be done when solving big political problems it to first know you are not alone in what you are thinking then in being able to organize.

  15. almandine

    I mentioned it. My idea. Time for reality.

    The country is being run as a plutocracy: my point entirely. This is not capitalism we’re experiencing, it is plutocracy – plain and simple. Capitalism requires the application of resources (capital) to the production of goods and services – the application and production of which have been outsourced to foreign lands – not kept at home by which to advance our own society. We have become nothing more than the ruled class… and that is why we’re being treated as worthless eaters. What we do is consume. We produce DEBT. We get ill. We need care. We become beholden to those who would promise us ANYTHING as long as we vote for them so that they can print more money and scam the rest of the planet IN OUR NAME.

    Isn’t it funny that all those foreign terrorists hate AMERICANS, when all we’ve done is lent our good name to the GLOBAL ELITE, i.e., the Federal Reserve and its bankers, the Bilderbergers, the CFR, Trilateral Commission, the MIC and those leeches we’ve elected to federal public office.

    Don’t sully the capitalists who would only make an honest living in a most respectable way. Give credit where credit is due.

  16. giving-up-in-nc

    No one mentioned a plutocratic society but seeing you did I think this wiki definition is a pretty good one

    “Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth.

    In a plutocracy, the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of those systems.”

    So in other words a plutocracy can work just fine within a capitalistic system. One does not exclude the other. And if you honestly think that this country is not being run by the wealthy than I got a bridge in Brookland I’d like to sell you. I’ll take my payment in Euros.

  17. NumbnotDumb

    The BIG question is “What is the answer?”

    People speak of corporations but corporations are controlled by individuals on boards who make decisions to obtain profit. Corporations are not “magically” controlled entities, void of human beings. Why not name names?

    Has laziness/apathy infected the US populace to the point of inoperability? Have blogs and chat rooms become the “venting rooms” which calm the soul, yet solve nothing?

    Knowledge of the remedy followed by action is all that can turn this dilemma around.
    Know the problem, know the solution, implement solution/action.

    A thought:
    To sit in a burning house and debate the best way to escape the house benefits no one if you are eventually overcome by flame and burn to death.

  18. almandine

    Oligarchs running a plutocratic society. Doesn’t sound like any form of Capitalism I ever heard of…

    maybe that’s part of the problem – lack of definitional anchors.

  19. almandine

    A corporation is a business… an administrative entity… a mechanism to enact business transactions. No self, no soul, no ethics, no morality – by definition.

    Are you saying that everyone who ever worked for or led a corporation is corrupt?

  20. oceanika


    I hope no one mistook my post for a “defense…on behalf of corporations.” I am rather more in your and Jim C’s camp. Corporations are, by design, amoral; that’s why you should never trust them to work in anyones interest but their own.

    The take-home-message: Access to Health Care should never be treated like a commodity to be monopolized for private profit. Make Access to Health Care a public trust! Make Congress represent the public’s welfare, not private profit.

  21. almandine

    Social security is only socialized because many of its recipients get checks without having paid their dues. The system is supposed to be a retirement mechanism based on FICA TAXES paid in by employer and employee, but even illegal immigrants without that history stand to get paid via SS.

    But then again it won’t matter – as Jethro would say, naught times all the dollars in the system still equals naught. And that’s what their worth… coming soon to a bank near you.

  22. giving-up-in-nc

    I ran across an interesting video, but it looks like I can’t post it’s url so I’ll briefly describe it.

    The professor basically says that for 150 years or so, the american workers wages increased, their productivity increased, and company profits increased, all in a roughly unison manner.

    That ended in the 1970s when wages peaked and have basically remained flat since. There were several reasons for that, but foreign competition in a global economy was one of the bigger reasons.

    But during that time of stagnant wages, workers productivity kept increasing and so corporate profits skyrocketed. This is because companies didn’t have to pay workers more for their ever increasing productivity.

    Now workers still wanted to consume like they did when their wages were rising, but they didn’t have the money anymore. But corporate america flush with these huge profits was more than happy to loan workers money so they could keep on spending.

    Well as we all know now, and should have known then, that is not sustainable and the whole thing came crashing down. So as I watch this whole mess play out I really can’t shed a teardrop over any possible demise of our current capitalistic system that feels it has no need to share the wealth with the working class. This system has made it very clear that it obviously does not have my best interest at heart.

    American capitalism’s purpose is not to enrich my life, or make my life more enjoyable to live, or even allow me to survive. in my opinion this whole system is setup for the Oligarchs that run this country so they can make more money than they could ever possibly spend in a hundred lifetimes.

    So for a lot of us working stiffs, or would be working stiffs if we could get a job, socialism really is not a scary thing it used to be. And let me be clear here, I’m not talking Russian style socialism. Im talking about European style socialism where the state acknowledges some responsibility to provide for its citizens.

    I tell you what is really scary is our current out of control capitalistic system that is rigged for the rich. It’s a system that allows american jobs to be shipped overseas, and foreign workers allowed to come here to take good paying tech jobs from americans so the elite at the top can make bigger profits.

    A system that legalized usery so rich SOBs can make bigger profits. A system that kills and maims it young in endless wars for big profits for the few at the top. And a system that can’t even bring itself to put aside profits to provide a health care system for its people.

    Remember when you attempt to to use the “boogeyman” argument you have to make sure the boogeyman you are using is scarier that what you are comparing it to.

  23. Leighperson

    The Republican Party is using the same fear tactics with healthcare that they have been for terrorists and terrorism.

    They use words like “socialism” to describe healthcare for all to scare people away from the idea of it. They have been using it for years.

    They’re basically saying that if you are for healthcare-for-all that “the socialists are going to get you” and it’s working for too many as easily as the other.

    If you want to be technical, Social Security is “socialized”, but nobody is complaining about that. How many people are going to refuse their Social Security checks because of it? Not many.

    I dare anyone to look into the eyes of a child who is dying and tell them they can’t have healthcare or treatment because it’s “socialism” and much of the propaganda is spouted by those same people who claim to be “pro-life” while they also commit the worst crimes of humanity that anyone has in decades on a war of lies that has been going on for years. It’s heartless and cruel to deny healthcare to anybody.

    As I have been putting on petitions, if they can afford billions per day on their illegal war, they can afford to give everybody healthcare. In a country like ours, not doing that is inexcusable. People need to imagine if they were the one without healthcare and what it would feel like to be told, “Sorry. You don’t have health insurance, so you’re just SOL.”

  24. Carl Nemo

    Hi oceanika…

    “Any time a corporation must make a choice between providing a benefit to society and making a profit, it is the fiduciary duty of the management of the corporation to deny the benefit to society”…extract from post

    After reading your well written defense of the actions on behalf of corporations, I believe you’ve answered any questions concerning outcomes relative to their interface to their paid off, running dogs in the U.S. Congress; ie., they win, we lose, as always…!

    Carl Nemo **==

  25. Jim C

    We don’t have a healthcare system , we have a bunch of greedy corporate pigs that have put themselves in the position of being middle men . They make fortunes by denying care and treatment while pushing premiums as high as possible while giving as little care as possible . Insurance companys don’t supply healthcare , they simply act as gate keepers skimming as much as they can while working furiously to deny coverage .

  26. Carl Nemo

    Thanks Almandine for providing a link outlining the “grand subterfuge” for destroying the middle class along with a reasonable, centered, social order.

    What is perceived as an aboveboard conflict is actually a well-planned, long term kluge to destroy freedom and choices for all time and all places with the resultant being absolute and total power moving into the hands of a few planetary oligarchs…!

    Carl Nemo **==

  27. oceanika

    Our health care system is broken, and American families and businesses urgently need a solution.
    Forty-six million Americans are uninsured.
    Premiums are growing four times faster than wages.
    Half of all personal bankruptcies stem from medical expenses

    Let’s make it clear; we are NOT talking about a “government-run health care system” rather it is about “government-provided health insurance” or more accurately, “Access to Health Care for all Americans.”

    The only reason we are even discussing Access to Health Care is because private insurers have not served the interests of the insured, only the interests of profit.

    We can’t begrudge a corporation for making a profit, but in this case it’s profit at the expense of human welfare. A corporation’s only obligation is to profit the stockholders. Any public good they may provide is merely incidental to making a profit. Any time a corporation must make a choice between providing a benefit to society and making a profit, it is the fiduciary duty of the management of the corporation to deny the benefit to society. They are only doing what they were set up to do. Unfortunately, when a customer’s health gets in the way of profit, I think we can predict who loses.

    This would be the place to list the unethical, the callous and in some cases, the illegal practices that have been used to deny service but such misdeeds are already quite well known. These are not cases of occasional ethical lapses; these are deliberate corporate policies. Private insurers seem to prefer long, expensive litigation to squash whoever would threaten their profits rather than provide humane service. If that last sentence sounds inflammatory, it’s only because these policies have been so outrageous.

    Managing Access to Health Care for profit will always be problematic – for the insured. The conclusion is: Access to Health Care should never be treated like a commodity to be monopolized for private profit.

    “Supporters of a new public plan contend it would give people more choices, create more competition and ‘keep insurance companies honest’…”

    I doubt that you can trust big corporations to “keep honest”. This is the same argument that de-regulated banks, insurance companies and ENRON. History has shown us over and over that corporations, motivated solely for profit, will not “keep honest”. This is not a rhetorical slam against corporations, just a statement of fact. By all means, give us choices, but the public plan is only one that has any chance of “keeping honest.”

    “Opponents say private insurers could not compete with a public plan that didn’t have to make a profit. They argue that private health plans would end up going out of business, leaving only an entirely government-run health care system.”

    As former Vice President, Dick Cheney would so eloquently put it, “So…” Why should the nation grant a monopoly to an industry that does not have an authentic interest in the welfare of the nation? Why should we surrender ourselves to them; so we can be used as a resource to be exploited? Private pharmaceutical companies sought legislation that protects them from competing in the “open market”, and were granted the Medicare Reform Act of 2004 which prohibits Medicare from negotiating for lower prices. Taxpayers are now paying higher prices so private pharmaceutical companies can maximize profits.

    An enlightened society has a real interest in the “good of the public” and the public has the right to expect accountability. The same is not true for the “private sector.” So, in a modern society, as rich as ours (current financial situation not withstanding), Access to Health Care should be made a public institution – just like “fire departments.”

    Some may not realize it, but at one time, individuals bought fire “protection” from private fire companies. If your house caught on fire they would come to put it out. If your neighbor’s house caught fire they would stand-by and watch it burn. If two fire companies were fighting for your business, one might try to sabotage his competitor resulting in the loss of your home. An enlightened society saw that this was an inherently flawed system and assumed the responsibility for the good of all. This is what must be done with health insurance.

    Would this change the quality of service? Private insurers have always dictated who may receive treatments, surgeries and drugs. They routinely second-guess doctors and deny treatment. By eliminating the need to maximize profits, quality of service can only get better.

    Members of the U.S. Congress enjoy government-provided health insurance. The insurance program that Congress receives, at taxpayer’s expense, allows the government to negotiate premiums and prices. If politicians grant this to themselves and their families, why would they deny it to the rest of us? Why indeed?

    So let me repeat it again: Access to Health Care should never be treated like a commodity to be monopolized for private profit. Make Access to Health Care a public trust! Make Congress represent the public’s welfare, not private profit.

  28. Jim C

    Free enterprise system , you must be kidding , we don’t have a ” free enterprise system ” , we have a corporate kleptocracy . I don’t know how old your grandpa was , but I guess he wasn’t old enough to remember when the elderly were the single most impoverished group in the United States . Either that or one of the top 1% who could care less about the rest of their brethern . Most were forced to work until they simply fell out , then they were consigned to the streets begging . Social ( I said ” social ” ) security changed that . I generally enjoy your offerings but this one made me want to hurl . You can worship at the putrid false corporate alter of ” free enterprise all you want but beg pardon if some of us decline , particulary those of us who know something about history . Socialism , I have no problem with some socialism . But since you and gramps hated it so much why don’t you build your own roads , hire your own police , fire dept , waste collection , water dept and all the other social government agencys the rest of us unwashed masses depend on . I just wish your gramps was here today and of course not bothered by some socialist union so he could try to pay for his free enterprise healthcare . I’m sure he wouldn’t want ” social security ” either , I’m sure he would have been able to save for his retirement on todays generous wages , that is if some corporation didn’t outsource his job and of course wipe out his retirement . I’ll take a little european socialism any day compared to this greed driven mess we have today .

  29. almandine

    Interesting that “conspiracy” could turn on a dime in the other direction. Also interesting that “conspiracy” means only that folks get together to push for a particular outcome. Check this site, the lead article and the supporting articles on the left:


    And we thought there were only the fascists left to play such games.

  30. Carl Nemo

    Yo Lcoast…

    “You sound like one of those black helicopter conspiracy guys who are hording ammo waiting for the gummint to come a’knocking to take your children away. Seriously. You’re much better than that.” …post extract


    Guess what pal, these “dark forces” do exist and it’s known as Delta Force along with select government contractors to do the same. If the balloon goes up they will be taking targeted citizens away “hog-tied” on the floor of a chopper in the dead of night for proper disposition and handling.

    I know so! : |

    Carl Nemo **==

  31. Lcoast

    Chill, Doug.

    You sound like one of those black helicopter conspiracy guys who are hording ammo waiting for the gummint to come a’knocking to take your children away. Seriously. You’re much better than that.

    I’m a red-blooded capitalist, lib-leaning libertarian whose skepticism of all parties involved is well-earned. However, framing the argument in terms like “socialist” is just plain foolish. Accepting what you say at face value, there is no free-market alternative. We’ve tried that for 30+ years and here we are. So what good is the “socialist” label do?

    We have to reframe the argument to end this stupid talkshow polarity that’s crippling our creativity and ability to work our way out of this mess. Rants like yours don’t help. We have to reject the notion that EVERYTHING the government does is corrupt and bad. That everything private enterprise does in the name of profit is good (or bad, depending on your view) and find ways without the labels to make things work.

    That was my hope of Obama, but he’s too cautious and careful for my taste. Government is the only entity with the scale to incentivize change of the magnitude that’s required. The private sector has been well of the opportunities for green transformation since the 70s–I worked for Ford and can tell you that firsthand. They’ve known healthcare was a disaster in the making and that it costs corporate America a fortune as-is. None of these things will get fixed until there is an uber-body to force it. You can call it socialism if you like, but I don’t believe socialism’s in our gene pool, nor is it the goal of at least the Obama administration. Beside, lock step adherence to government control is a Republican attribute, not a Dem attribute–(see, Bush, George W. 2000-2008, inclusive).

    The challenge ahead is not arguing whether the private sector of government can solve our challenges. That’s an old argument that’s been shot dead and is irrelevant. The question is how do we get past this an invent new systems. That’s the only way we get out of this without a cataclysm.

  32. griff

    Another good one, Doug. But don’t be so shy next time, huh? Socialism is too nice a word for it.

    Hell, Russia didn’t have as many czars as we do now. The “Evil Empire” has nothing on us.

    “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison

  33. Carl Nemo

    Doug, a spot-on rant concerning the corrosive forces at work against our national traditions.

    “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” — George Bernard Shaw

    Carl Nemo **==

  34. giving-up-in-nc

    When reading short emails it is sometimes hard to be sure what somebody really means. So it appears that we both apparently agree this country is being run as a plutocracy. That does not preclude capitalism from also functioning, and decent people running decent businesses within it.

    I never said I had a gripe with decent people running companies to make an honest living . My gripe is with the oligarchs at the top that are running the middle class into the ground, and that INCLUDES people that are trying to run small businesses.

    As I said, in my opinion this whole system is rigged for the super rich and EVERYBODY else is slowly being crushed under the weight of it.

    I am not against honest capitalism. I am against capitalism that has no rules and as a result harms peoples lives.

    I have a personal story that shows the difference between european style capitalism and US capitalism. A few years back a bunch of us that worked in a multinational US based company had our jobs outsourced. Several hundred US jobs were effected. At a meeting concerning the outsourcing somebody asked if anybody was going to be outsourced in the London office. We were told “Oh no, they have laws against that over there…”

    Need I say more?