Well, despite the desperate attempts of feckless fiction writers (e.g., Thomas DiLorenzo) at the Mises Institute and other sham outlets, the seeds of the credit crisis were planted, nurtured, watered, and fertilized between 2002 and 2006, coming to full flower in 2007 and then toppling over onto tne house in 2008, all because of a bunch of greedy cowboy capitalists and the inane fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policies of a bunch of laissez-faire Republicans.As usual, more statements of fantasy. 'Helped manufacture'... how nice of you to skip all those that came before him that helped drive us into the mess as well. But that's what partisan hacks such as yourself excel at...
Well, despite the desperate attempts of feckless fiction writers (e.g., Thomas DiLorenzo) at the Mises Institute and other sham outlets, the seeds of the credit crisis were planted, nurtured, watered, and fertilized between 2002 and 2006, coming to full flower in 2007 and then toppling over onto tne house in 2008, all because of a bunch of greedy cowboy capitalists and the inane fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policies of a bunch of laissez-faire Republicans.
Bill Clinton was a neocon/neolib who didn't desert the Democratic Party simply because the radical left of the 60's and 70's would not be silenced. More spine than that. He has also been a lifelong defender of the middle class -- you know, the group of people that Republicans are trying to wipe out? That's why he spoke at the convention.Fascinating. I never knew Bill Clinton was a laissez-faire Republican. How very bipartisan of the Democrats to let him speak at their convention.
Bill Clinton was a neocon/neolib who didn't desert the Democratic Party simply because the radical left of the 60's and 70's would not be silenced. More spine than that. He has also been a lifelong defender of the middle class -- you know, the group of people that Republicans are trying to wipe out?
Very poor comparison. Your problem here lies in the fact that while all of these things did in fact occur, none of them was stupid. In fact, each of them was a key contributor to assuring that the complete financial fiasco created by BushCo did not morph into something far worse than what it actually did. That was quite an accomplishmnt -- something more than what even optimists of the day had dared to hope for.Stupid Keynesian Stimulus. Stupid Bailouts. Stupid Deficit spending.
That's great! We get lament after right-wing lament over the horrors of euro-socialism, and then it turns out that all these countries are actually beacons of free-market driven entrepreneurship. How many faces do you all have, anyway? It's plainly at least two.It will be hard to separate the 2, but lemme give it a try.
Overall, right-wingers have no consistent or coherent idea of what socilaism even is. But what many of them like to call socialism -- any sort of action or intervention by the state on behalf of citizens -- has been a smashing success adopted by the vast majority of the world's governments of every stripe. By the way, the people promoting lousy health care and reduced pensions in this country are all Republicans, not socialists.Overall, socialism is a failure...
According to the propaganda of the Heritage Foundation/WSJ, whose listing boils down to countries that sort of do things the way we'd like to see things done, even though actually doing things that way has always led to disaster.actually you are underestimating some of those nations. Australia, Canda, Switzerland, all three of them are more free-market oriented than the United States.
THAT'S your response? All that fact to deal with, and all you can come up with is some out-of-the-blue attack on a breast cancer surviving Jewish-American Congresswoman? What a freaking piece of work!I forget every once in a while you pull out a line that makes you sound like Debbie Wasserman Schultz :lol:
That's great! We get lament after right-wing lament over the horrors of euro-socialism, and then it turns out that all these countries are actually beacons of free-market driven entrepreneurship. How many faces do you all have, anyway? It's plainly at least two.
Here is a perhaps more enlightening measure of who is a socialist and who isn't. The data are from 2007, as everything that's been published since has been scrambled to bits by the effects of and reaction to the Great Bush Recession...
In these countries, federal spending is at least 50% of GDP:
France, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Malta, Qatar, Kuwait, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Finland, Portugal, United Kingdom.
In these countries, federal spending is 40-50% of GDP:
Germany, Canada, Spain, New Zealand, Israel, Australia, Ireland, Saudi Arabia.
In these countries, federal spending is 30-40% of GDP:
Switzerland, Luxembourg, South Africa, Japan, United Arab Emirates
In these countries, federal spending is 20-30% of GDP:
India, Russia, China, Poland
In this country, federal spending is less than 20% of GDP:
United States of America
Overall, right-wingers have no consistent or coherent idea of what socilaism even is. But what many of them like to call socialism -- any sort of action or intervention by the state on behalf of citizens -- has been a smashing success adopted by the vast majority of the world's governments of every stripe. By the way, the people promoting lousy health care and reduced pensions in this country are all Republicans, not socialists.
Whereas the "It's not all Bush's fault" people have been slow all along. Bush is already ranked as among the worst Presidents in US history, and as time passes, that rating will only worsen. Eight years of miserable disgrace and failure. An indefensible record of utter malfeasance that will haunt us for decades.
No, first off...I'm sorry, what? First off,
Which has implications for what, exactly? Do you expect that the data posted above will change now?I happen to live in Europe you know... the EU none the less.
Why would I trust understanding of the complex term "socialism" to someone who can't get past the word "federation"?Trust me, I know what socialism is.
LOL! That sure takes care of any doubts I had.It is as I said. Countries with a powerful capitalist mentality and a good capitalist system can afford proper socialist measures, like universal healthcare. Countries like former communist countries, cannot... because the capitalist mentality isn't there. There is no such engine. and there is no money to provide a lot of the socialist measures left behind by the commies and to which the population grew dependent on. So now you have populations dependent on a poor government, filled with corruption and incompetence... who have to pay a lot for all sort of socialist measures and therefore cannot afford to put money into the budget for improvement of the infrastructure, the schools and as such... it cripples itself. even if the political class would want to make things good in most eastern european countries, which frankly, they don't... but even if they did want to develop them, they wouldn't have the money to do it. Capitalism (not pure capitalism mind you, but the ideology) leads to success and prosperity. So much so that it can sustain socialism. Socialism in itself, is a failure economically and, ironically, socially. Why can't you see that socialism cannot exist outside of capitalism. It must leech on something to survive.
No, first off...
federation [ˌfɛdəˈreɪʃən]
n
1. the act of federating
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the union of several provinces, states, etc., to form a federal union
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a political unit formed in such a way
4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any league, alliance, or confederacy
5. a union of several parties, groups, etc.
6. any association or union for common action
So with pointless and poorly established semantics out of the way...
Which has implications for what, exactly? Do you expect that the data posted above will change now?
Why would I trust understanding of the complex term "socialism" to someone who can't get past the word "federation"?
LOL! That sure takes care of any doubts I had.
It used to. Then Republicans turned into the not nearly as funny equivalent of terrorists at the wheel of the DTX Deathmobile. Started when the renegade neocons threw all the paleos out of the party, then shacked up with Jerry Falwell. Went into high gear with Newt and the Arkansas Project. Went into overdrive in the post-Mark Foley era of sheer Republican outlandishness.Well, here's the deal. It takes two to tango in Washington...
Not a perfect storm at all, but a simple trainwreck of greedy cowboy capitalism egged on by the unbelievably ignorant fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy of a bunch of laissez-faire, free-market Republicans....and the Democrats and Republicans are perfect dance partners, who together brought on this perfect storm.
That would be Gramm-LEACH-Bliley, and it was opposed by Democrats until Clinton extracted the concessions he wanted in exchange for passing it and then gave it the green light. As for contributing to the later credit crisis and Great Bush Recession, that's a tough argument to make unless you are comfortable claiming that paving downtown streets makes bank robberies more likely by smoothing the path of potentail getaway vehicles. In fact, the once strict separation of commercial and investment banking had been gradually softened over the years, and by the time GLB passed, many banks were already involved in such practices and in such bookkeeping. A strict prohibition against banks owning insurance companies was still in place and removed by GLB, but few actual such moves resulted.It began with the gutting of the Glass-Steagal Act, through the Gramm-Bliley Act, which was created by Republicans, overwhelmingly supported by both Republicans and Democrats, and signed into law by Bill Clinton.
US median income lowest since 1995 - FT.com
mere confirmation of our own experience, what americans are living
what can we expect when so many more of our neighbors, friends and family members are filing for disability and food stamps than are actually gaining employment Republican obstructionist ftactics are endangering our homeland security by inciting the middle class towards anarchy and chaos.
what's new when four times as many of our associates and relations drop out of the work force than find a job
when 58% of the frighteningly few of our friends who do hook up end up pulling down between $10 and $12 per hour
CNN: Low-wage jobs explosion - Aug. 31, 2012
when real middle class incomes are down TWICE as fast AFTER the recession officially ended than they declined DURING the deepest, darkest days of depression
Household income fell 4.8% during economic recovery - latimes.com
food stamps at a record hi, poverty at a record hi
if the workforce were the same size today, even disallowing for natural population growth, as it was on jan 20, 2009, bls' unemployment # would be 11.2
we can never hit bottom til housing, which brung us here, finds its basement
Time: How ‘Shadow Inventory’ Is Killing the U.S. Housing Market
3 to 10 million homes haunt the shadow inventory
who's lying to you, time, cnn or ft?
maybe it's sigtarp you shouldn't believe
Bloomberg: Obama Loan-Modification Effort 'Failed Miserably'
LOL! I don't have to pick one. If there is one among this or any other list that applies, then your silly attempt at semantics-playing is revealed as the deflective stunt and sham that it was from the outset.Ok, which of the 6 definitions for the word federation did you wish to use?
You are still well short of convincing me. You haven't so far in fact typed a single word actually relevant to socialism or your supposed understanding of it.Second of all.... yes, you should trust me in terms of understanding socialism.
I'm opening as many doors and window here as I possibly can in order to let the light of your undeetanding shine in, yet all remains strangely unilluminated.Thirdly. Your doubts are your own and it will take willpower and open-mindedness to get you past the doubts.
LOL! If that's the light that you bring, let me assure you that it will be perfectly alright to hide it under a bushel basket.Socialism is a leeching system. It is not very dissimilar to parasites, only in that it provides something in return to the host for all the leeching it takes. In this case, the host is a good capitalism... and the parasite is socialism.
Money is simply an ambassador for value, typically the value embodied in the real goods and services produced within an economy. You seem to be suggesting that there is a sort of internal speed limit associated with the production function in economies that rely perhaps on distributive ideals and practices borrowed from socialism that does not apply within the production function in economies where such ideals and practices are not borrowed from socialism. Can you explain in more detail what that speed limit is, how it works, and how it knows whether to switch itself on or not?Do not get me wrong, I am not completely against socialism.. I just against most of socialism. I don't support complete capitalism either. None in the purest form is a humane way to govern a country... but the ratio needs to be less in the socialist part and more in the capitalist part. Why? because I cannot emphasize this enough... socialism cannot survive without a lot of MONEY. It is however a system that cannot produce said amount of MONEY and therefore must leech off other systems that do produce the money.
US median income lowest since 1995 - FT.com
mere confirmation of our own experience, what americans are living
what can we expect when so many more of our neighbors, friends and family members are filing for disability and food stamps than are actually gaining employment
what's new when four times as many of our associates and relations drop out of the work force than find a job
when 58% of the frighteningly few of our friends who do hook up end up pulling down between $10 and $12 per hour
CNN: Low-wage jobs explosion - Aug. 31, 2012
when real middle class incomes are down TWICE as fast AFTER the recession officially ended than they declined DURING the deepest, darkest days of depression
Household income fell 4.8% during economic recovery - latimes.com
food stamps at a record hi, poverty at a record hi
if the workforce were the same size today, even disallowing for natural population growth, as it was on jan 20, 2009, bls' unemployment # would be 11.2
we can never hit bottom til housing, which brung us here, finds its basement
Time: How ‘Shadow Inventory’ Is Killing the U.S. Housing Market
3 to 10 million homes haunt the shadow inventory
who's lying to you, time, cnn or ft?
maybe it's sigtarp you shouldn't believe
Bloomberg: Obama Loan-Modification Effort 'Failed Miserably'
LOL! I don't have to pick one. If there is one among this or any other list that applies, then your silly attempt at semantics-playing is revealed as the deflective stunt and sham that it was from the outset.
You are still well short of convincing me. You haven't so far in fact typed a single word actually relevant to socialism or your supposed understanding of it.
I'm opening as many doors and window here as I possibly can in order to let the light of your undeetanding shine in, yet all remains strangely unilluminated.
LOL! If that's the light that you bring, let me assure you that it will be perfectly alright to hide it under a bushel basket.
Money is simply an ambassador for value, typically the value embodied in the real goods and services produced within an economy. You seem to be suggesting that there is a sort of internal speed limit associated with the production function in economies that rely perhaps on distributive ideals and practices borrowed from socialism that does not apply within the production function in economies where such ideals and practices are not borrowed from socialism. Can you explain in more detail what that speed limit is, how it works, and how it knows whether to switch itself on or not?
According to the propaganda of the Heritage Foundation/WSJ, whose listing boils down to countries that sort of do things the way we'd like to see things done, even though actually doing things that way has always led to disaster.
That's great! We get lament after right-wing lament over the horrors of euro-socialism, and then it turns out that all these countries are actually beacons of free-market driven entrepreneurship. How many faces do you all have, anyway? It's plainly at least two.
Here is a perhaps more enlightening measure of who is a socialist and who isn't. The data are from 2007, as everything that's been published since has been scrambled to bits by the effects of and reaction to the Great Bush Recession...
In these countries, federal spending is at least 50% of GDP:
France, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Malta, Qatar, Kuwait, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Finland, Portugal, United Kingdom.
In these countries, federal spending is 40-50% of GDP:
Germany, Canada, Spain, New Zealand, Israel, Australia, Ireland, Saudi Arabia.
In these countries, federal spending is 30-40% of GDP:
Switzerland, Luxembourg, South Africa, Japan, United Arab Emirates
In these countries, federal spending is 20-30% of GDP:
India, Russia, China, Poland
In this country, federal spending is less than 20% of GDP:
United States of America
More pedantics? You could have taken a shot at answering some of the questions concerning this mechanism you seem to imply, but you didn't go there. Just as you didn't go anywhere near the implications of who's a socialist and who's not, but instead chose a romp in the weeds over your idealized version of "federal". If you want to be taken seriously, you need to start acting like it. You wasted an initial presumption on jerk-like posting and now need to make a comeback. We'll see if you are up to that.I am starting to think you have an idealized form of socialism in your mind and will not accept anything else.
Let me point out ways in which you will need to do better than this. You have not become an authority on socialism by virtue of current residence in Europe. Trying to claim status as an expert on such a basis is dishonest. You are complaining that things accepted as proven in your own mind may not be in mine. That's for sure. Your job would be to show why the conclusions you've reached are well-based and rational in their derivation. Maurice Sendak-style images of leeches are not going to get the job done. Got anything else?Any statements I make, although proven by the very reality of socialism throughout Europe, will not be in accordance to your own idealistic view and thus, will reject it.
You've already walked away from two opportunities to do just that. Wllingness not noted.I am willing to talk to you about socialism on any level because it effects the country on many level. from political programs, to social programs to economic programs.
This sort of thing is why I do not hold out much hope for you at the present time. Argument by proclamation? That's simply laughable.At the core, what i have said prior stands, regardless of whether you accept it or not. It is not a matter of debate because it is a reality.
It doesn't sound to me like you understand very well what money is either. On this level, capitalism needs a lot of money -- money which it must extract from welfare uses to devote to the formation of ever more capital. Capital in capitalism is a bit like the church during the Dark Ages, sucking up ever more wealth that would have been used for necessities by serfs and devoting it instead to the construction of ever more grand but utility-lacking cathedrals and of course, comfy lifestyles for the priestly class. What I suppose you would call "socialist intrusions" are necessary on this level to prevent such "malinvestment" in the modern world.Socialism needs a lot of money to live. It cannot survive without a LOT of money, and it is poorly equipped to make the amount of money without a huge government intrusion into private life and private business. Ironically... it is the intrusion in private life that will also cost a lot of money.
The Heritage Foundation is a propaganda mill. The so-called Index of Economic Freedom is a fraud. If that is trite, it is only because so many, many people have said so before me.triteness is all you have to offer?
The point is well ebough taken in a technical sense, but does not in fact have meaningful affect on the distribution. The data of course are not mine but were produced from those collected by the OECD and UN. These do not include sufficient detail for sub-national levels of government in the majority of countries to make consistent presentation on such a basis possible. It is meanwhile the case that US subnational levels of government account for a greater share of total public sector spending than in most other countries, but nearly every other country does in fact have a state, province, region, municipal, and similar structure of partially autonomous subnational governmental units that do in fact raise and spend money. Inclusion of US state and local spending would push us past the 30% mark alright, but past few if any of the other names on the list. You are by the way yet to address any of the implications in the original data. Seeking refuge in a demand for unavailable data will not save your day on that score.I like how you ignore the fact that in a federalist system such as our own the states take on a much larger portion of governing functions than in other nations.
Your source does a fine job of illustrating the point that everything since 2007 has been scrambled to bits by the effects of and reaction to the Great Bush Recession. It's sometimes amazing how little concern for data quality right-wingers actually have.government spending in the United States has been above 30% of GDP since 1970, and has recently broken 40%
As usual, not a fact in sight. Bush ACTUALLLY DID all the things that he gets blamed for. Stupid tax cuts. Stupid war. Stupid recession that his own stupid policies helped manufacture. He doesn't get to skate on those matters now or ever. History books will be maligning the Bush-43 presidency for as long as there are history books. Better get used to it -- you are backing one of history's great losers.