geojanes wrote:Randy, man, you write so angry in these posts. Scares me a little.

I've never read any of Obama's books . . .

Okay, but should we take the things he wrote in them seriously? I mean when he's not outright making it up, as in his "composite" girlfriend? If he indicated he was a socialist in his writing, would that have any impact on your thinking?

The Bush administration suspended all kinds of laws, completely screwed over private bondholders, and nationalized GM and Chrysler, which was perhaps the most socialist thing America has EVER done. Sucks to be you bondholders, we're just going to nationalize your asset without compensation.

Um, check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Who was it who did this? http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... ral-motors

While I agree it was "the most socialist thing America has EVER done," it was not Bush. It was in June, 2009. GWB was in Texas. It was Obama who gave the stock to the unions and hosed the bondholders.

More here.

But his administration has not been more socialist than Clinton or Reagan, and certainly less so than Bush II, and you and Steve, and Fox News damage the cause of conservatism every time you throw that word around.

His is a socialism by increment. I've stated he's no revolutionary.

As for Fox News, all I know is that O'Reilly has gone on the record saying Obama is not a socialist. So, as he's the #1 guy in cable news . . .

Dodd-Frank (Government grabbing control of and limiting the free market

In the gilded age, when there were few restrictions on the financial sector, there were bank collapses every 6 to 8 years. They always caused enormous damage, and created uncertainty in the business community.
After the biggest collapse (1929) regulations came into being that largely averted bank collapses for 50 years...
That was enormously good for business and the economy. When the free market has a set of rules that help create certainty in financial dealings it is enormously beneficial to the economy at large.
Without the regulation the financial industry has proved time and again that risk will be miscalculated. With government backing up the financial industry, in the form of insured deposits, in order to offer stability to consumers .... banks are given an enormous advantage. Expecting them to treat those deposits as other than their gambling stake isn't socialism.
The recent $2billion loss by JP Morgan is a pretty clear example of why financial insitutions will always exceed the risk they should, or create "investment opportunities" that are nothing more than casino games .... in order to create wealth for the owners and managers of the banks.
Capitalism is about the investment of money into business that create goods and services that generate a return beyond the investment. Its not about making bets .... Well, it shouldn't be, as much as Jamie Dimon would have people beleive this is investment.
Dodd-Frank is not about socialism. It is entirely about capitalism. Its about establishing the rules that avoid the inevitable busts of unfettered gamblers.... and create a genuine captialist environment. What you've been sold on by Dimon and his ilk, who fight Dodd- Frank isn't capitalism. Its a con game.

Right. The car companies were bailed out under Bush, nationalized under Obama, and largely divested under Obama. Apologies for a faulty timeline.

More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_bailout#North_America

rickyp wrote:Dodd-Frank is not about socialism. It is entirely about capitalism. Its about establishing the rules that avoid the inevitable busts of unfettered gamblers.... and create a genuine captialist environment. What you've been sold on by Dimon and his ilk, who fight Dodd- Frank isn't capitalism. Its a con game.

That's really "objective," Ricky.

It's also brilliant, if I may say. What bolder examples of capitalists exist than Barney Frank and Chris Dodd? Barney certainly knows how to make a buck on the side and Chris is no stranger to exploiting his friendships to get loans no one else could get.

geojanes wrote:Right. The car companies were bailed out under Bush, nationalized under Obama, and largely divested under Obama. Apologies for a faulty timeline.

More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_bailout#North_America

Thank you for the retraction/correction.

We now all agree that the most socialist act of government in American history was performed by our current President.

Consensus is good!

steve

We now all agree that the most socialist act of government in American history

really?
Not social security?
Not Medicare?
Not Medicade?
Not the Emergency Medical treatment and Active Labour Act?

What about public education?
Conscription?
the TVA?

Did Obama do all them too? I'm sure impressed!

Ricky surmises:

All thats happened here is that public sector employees health benefits are provided, similarly to most other insured Americans, through private companies that have not been able to control runaway health costs.
There has to be more to runaway costs then these two items... (If indeed it is ruaway costs. Maybe the expenditure makes sense.

Just on this small issue, you may not be aware of the facts. California has particularly liberal rules when it comes to retirement, health care and pension. Re health care, they are dissimilar to most other insured Americans in several ways including deductibles amount of employee contribution, and extent of coverage. They have gilded plans. Re pensions, I've read that the retirement age is fairly low, and the pension and health care payouts are very high at that point. The state has not negotiated well. I think Christie's comment cited by Archduke has it just right.

California has crazy tax rates. Mass. is generally at a 5.3% personal income tax whereas California is over 10% at the top levels. Our sales tax is 6.25% vs. 7.25% for California. I imagine their property taxes are just as bad. There's no reason why California's taxes have to be so high given that they are providing the same sorts of services as other states. It's a management issue. (And I'm not saying that Massachusetts is well run, as I'm sure Dr. Fate would be willing to expand on.)

rickyp wrote:If they are being fired because they've come out, and the union isn't leaping to their defence, , ....

Because your original post on the subject was

In Alabama, a right-to-work state, you can be fired for a lot of reasons. And being gay isn't included under federal civil rights protections, like workplace laws that prevent discrimination based on religion, or sex. This leaves state employees in Alabama, including teachers, in the closet. Really. Teachers in Alabama schools are afraid to come out, or even risk being thought of as gay, because they could be fired for it.

where the clear implication you are trying to make is that the teachers being fired for being gay is related to the right to work aspect of the state. Which is patently wrong.

So now back track and wiggle out of that and refuse to admit you were wrong like you usually do.

rickyp wrote:I certainly wasn't lecturing you when I pointed to the difficulties in gays and lesbians coming out. (I don't know why you would take that personnally.)

I didn't take it personally. However, besides your post comes across as arrogant, condescending and prickish (as usual) which tends to piss me off, I would be willing to bet you have little to no first hand experiences with homosexuals coming out. Therefore, you really shouldn't be lecturing others on those difficulties.

rickyp wrote:I'm confirming that if there are not protections in place then there is systemic discrimination. Or if the system in place to advocate for them (say the Alabama teachers union) chooses not to act, then also you have systemic discrimination.

Of course you are assuming facts not in evidence when you state the union didn't advocate for them because they were gay. It could be they were bad teachers, they voluntarily chose not to join the union, or they were asshats that nobody liked.

rickyp wrote:steve

We now all agree that the most socialist act of government in American history

really?
Not social security?
Not Medicare?
Not Medicade?
Not the Emergency Medical treatment and Active Labour Act?

Did you read George's comment? Obviously not. If so, you and your barrister missed it's meaning.

Ray Jay wrote:Just on this small issue, you may not be aware of the facts. California has particularly liberal rules when it comes to retirement, health care and pension. Re health care, they are dissimilar to most other insured Americans in several ways including deductibles amount of employee contribution, and extent of coverage. They have gilded plans. Re pensions, I've read that the retirement age is fairly low, and the pension and health care payouts are very high at that point. The state has not negotiated well. I think Christie's comment cited by Archduke has it just right.

To further this explanation, traditionally, private sector employees would not have medical benefits after retirement. They would have to purchase Medicare Part B plans to supplment regular Medicare. If they have access to the company's health insurance plans, they would have to pay the premiums on their own. So either way, they are paying for the Medicare suppliment out of pocket.

Public sector employees would typically not only have access to the insurance plans but the would not have to pay the premiums. Further, coverage is often not only free for themselves but also for spouses (and possibly other dependents).

This means there is no incentive for the employee to try and limit medical cost. For example, NJ teachers can pick from 6 different plans but just about everybody takes the most expensive plan with the best available benefits because there is no cost incurred by the employee. Therefore, the entire expense is carried by the tax payer.

Doctor Fate wrote:Did you read George's comment? Obviously not. If so, you and your barrister missed it's meaning.

I read it. George used a word that you did not. 'Perhaps'. That alters his meaning somewhat.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Did you read George's comment? Obviously not. If so, you and your barrister missed it's meaning.

I read it. George used a word that you did not. 'Perhaps'. That alters his meaning somewhat.

Right, as in "arguably the most socialist . . . "

It doesn't change the substance.

It doesn't detract from the point that there are other things that are 'arguably the most socialist' that are not proposed to be reversed by the same Presidents that carried them out, either. When George made his original statement, he was thinking that was not the case. Which kind of changes the context, too. But George can put his own case.

Or that Randy was listing a whole bunch of stuff as 'socialist' which wasn't, while thinking he was being so polite to apologise for repeatedly calling George ignorant.

What gets me is that you oh so civilised conservatives are able to post stuff like this:

If the Republican party hadn't fought tooth and nail against the president and both houses of congress from 2008 to 2010, we'd be all wearing little black pajamas right now, stanging in lines for bread, and renaminng Washington, DC "Obamatown".

and apparently we are the irrational and hyperbolic ones with no manners.

Even Russell's bringing out the cuss-words this week. It's all so welcoming!

Swear word free since 2008...