The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on February 14, 2009, 09:48:46 AM
-
An ironically-name, un-aborted liberal asks:
DemocratSinceBirth (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-14-09 09:42 AM
Original message
Where Is This Socialism Or Communism Meme Coming From?
Advertisements [?]Last I checked there was no central planning and nationalization of the means of production.
Obama's stimulus plan strikes me as garden variety Keynesianism; expansive fiscal and monetary policies to stimulate and compensate for depressed consumer spending.
To wit his fellow ought-to-be-aborted retards respond:
Deja Q (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-14-09 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. Because those people give dumbshits an undeserved reputation.
And that ain't easy to do.
treestar (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-14-09 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
4. Republics believe they can change the meanings of words
And would like to dumb us all down to their black and white view of the world, thus anything to the left of complete laissez-faire is "socialism" "communism" and "Marxism."
Any government restriction puts a limit on what they can do with their property and thus is "communist."
treestar (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-14-09 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. "marxist" and "communist" and "trotskyite" are synonyms of
"socialist" and "liberal democrat" also too.
Morans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8196804
And on it goes. Nevermind the fact that on any other day they laud and applaud openly any mention of the failure of capitalism.
Yet, just down the hall we read:
Pirate Smile (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-13-09 07:08 PM
Original message
Ambinder: Oh Big Bank? Dr. Geithner Is Here To See You
Advertisements [?]Andrew Sullivan:
About Those Bank Stress Tests
They may well be a subtle and strategic means to pull of nationalization. Ambers:
The point here is that the administration CANNOT force broad nationalization down Congress's throats; they CAN begin to make that argument when there is proof that a major bank is insolvent. How does the administration prove this? By giving these banks physicals -- stress tests.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/20...
Ambinders:
Oh Big Bank? Dr. Geithner Is Here To See You
There is a subtlety to the Obama administration's TARP principles that needs to be made explicit.
It's an arguable point, but these so-called stress tests, which will be involuntarily given to major financial institutions, are the spark plugs for a much larger government intervention in the banking system.
My premise is that policy and politics intersect. TARP II will not be administrated in a frictionless universe.
The major question for Treasury these days is: is the problem one of liquidity or insolvency? The administration's private answer: we know that it's an insolvency problem; we'll deal with liquidity in the near term and set up a way to deal with solvency over the long-term.
The point here is that the administration CANNOT force broad nationalization down Congress's throats; they CAN begin to make that argument when there is proof that a major bank is insolvent.
How does the administration prove this?
By giving these banks physicals -- stress tests.
When it turns out that one, two, or four major banks or institutions are unquestionably on the brink of insolvency, it will be MUCH easier for the government to step in and seize them, politically and administratively. Whether this is done by some new entity, a la Sweden, or by an existing entity, like the FDIC, is unclear, probably will depend on conditions at the time.
The government has neither the capacity or capability to see all the banks. And I'd bet that many physical might simply be given some medicine -- beta blockers, if you will -- in the form of cash to keep them minimally solvent until the crisis has passed.
But others might be deemed too big too fail, and TARP II allows the government to take them over if necessary.
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/stress_tests_an...
Got it?
Obama is deliberately stressing banks--and with it people's money--to see which ones can be nationalized.
How is this news greeted by the socialism denying retards?
FrenchieCat (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-14-09 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. That's why Wall Street hated what Geithner had to say......
and why the Corporate media is attempting to ridicule him.
Those here who join Wall Street and the Corporate media in this endeavor,
should think twice.
Parker CA (892 posts) Sat Feb-14-09 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
3. Thanks for these links. It would be nice to see Obama and team head
in this direction.
Bread and Circus (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-14-09 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
4. I think the one thing Obama could do to unite liberals, right wingers, and centrists is
to clean house on the banks...
It seems everyone hates the idea of pure handouts w/ no strings attached.
Kdillard (948 posts) Sat Feb-14-09 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
7. Obama knows what he is doing. He wants to build his case
Edited on Sat Feb-14-09 10:21 AM by Kdillard
before any thought of Nationalization of the Banks becomes DOA. I can just imagine the nashing of teeth from the Republicans if it is even hinted that is what is going to happen. Wall Street was scared because they have a sense what's up and it won't be good for them. Again Obama is ahead of the game.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8195570
These 2 threads are/were on the same page and yet the DUmmies are oblivious. They just waft from one emotional reflex to the next without sense of continuity or introspection.
-
We don't call them DUmmys for nothing.
-
In all the tiny compartments of what passes as their "minds" you will find a legion of contradictory beliefs.
That is a must for one to be a liberal.
-
DemocratSinceBirth
Where Is This Socialism Or Communism Meme Coming From?
Last I checked there was no central planning and nationalization of the means of production.
Obama's stimulus plan strikes me as garden variety Keynesianism; expansive fiscal and monetary policies to stimulate and compensate for depressed consumer spending.
Keynes wanted gov't to intervene in the economy to prevent the collapse of capitalism, but modern-day liberals want the gov't to intervene in the economy in the interest (as they view it) of the workers, even going so far as to desire the Nationalization of many, if not all, industries. As illustrated, there are many DUmmies who want exactly that.
.