Commentary on Powell's endorsement of Obama

[BlueCross]

Hardly surprising, I think, but I thought this commentary on it was unusually insightful.  Most the time I just read some of these commentaries and point my finger and laugh, but I did like this one.  Of course, I'm pretty leftist so perhaps that has something to do with my view:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/20/borger.column/

[Brugdor]

In fact, what was most notable was Powell's dire assessment of the state of the GOP: "The party has moved even further to the right," he said, adding that, "over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower."

Yes Powell, the party that just helped sign that huge socialist bailout bill is moving farther to the right. The party that nominated the biggest amnesty for illegals backer is moving farther to the right. The party that merrily helped spend us into oblivion in the last decade is moving further to the right.  

[Jeff]

Yes Powell, the party that just helped sign that huge socialist bailout bill is moving farther to the right. 

I think you meant capitalism, not socialism. Bailouts for business owners because they're greedy cheats is not an aspect of socialism.

[Brugdor]

Yes Powell, the party that just helped sign that huge socialist bailout bill is moving farther to the right. 

I think you meant capitalism, not socialism. Bailouts for business owners because they're greedy cheats is not an aspect of socialism.

However the government starting to take over banks? Yeah that's socialism. And of course the bailout was all done under the pretense of helping all of those poor souls who bought houses they knew they couldn't afford. So even though those people probably won't see a dime of that money, it was done in the name of socialism.

[Solwyn]

I think you meant capitalism, not socialism. Bailouts for business owners because they're greedy cheats is not an aspect of socialism.

From my understanding, the simplest definition of socialism is when the government owns the means of production or economy. With the government buying up all of these mortgages, it sounds to me like this is socialist. Yes, they're bailing out capitalists, but they're doing it by making them a part of the system.

But in my opinion, the republicans are shifting in two directions. Right, and down (towards authoritarianism).

Look at the patriot act, for example. Very conservative when it comes to the ends justify the means philosophy, as well as supporting surveillance to prevent terrorism,  but authoritarian in the idea of giving that much power to the central government.

[Hoopy Frood]

Yes Powell, the party that just helped sign that huge socialist bailout bill is moving farther to the right. 

I think you meant capitalism, not socialism. Bailouts for business owners because they're greedy cheats is not an aspect of socialism.

However the government starting to take over banks? Yeah that's socialism. And of course the bailout was all done under the pretense of helping all of those poor souls who bought houses they knew they couldn't afford. So even though those people probably won't see a dime of that money, it was done in the name of socialism.

Actually, no. What the government is doing right now is far closer to Fascism, not Socialism.

[Hoopy Frood]

I think you meant capitalism, not socialism. Bailouts for business owners because they're greedy cheats is not an aspect of socialism.

From my understanding, the simplest definition of socialism is when the government owns the means of production or economy.

Nope. That's communism. Socialism is the workers controlling the production.

[Solwyn]

Nope. That's communism. Socialism is the workers controlling the production.

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.

The government = the people. Communism (from what I understand) is the idea that everyone is truly equal in this way and that there is "no" government, whereas socialism is the practical application of these principles, in which the agreed upon government owns these things.

I mean, am I wrong? I always understood that the difference was that communism is more of a utopian ideal in which there is no government, and that socialism is accepting a practical application of those principles in which an elected government acts on those ideals.

[Brugdor]

Yes Powell, the party that just helped sign that huge socialist bailout bill is moving farther to the right. 

I think you meant capitalism, not socialism. Bailouts for business owners because they're greedy cheats is not an aspect of socialism.

However the government starting to take over banks? Yeah that's socialism. And of course the bailout was all done under the pretense of helping all of those poor souls who bought houses they knew they couldn't afford. So even though those people probably won't see a dime of that money, it was done in the name of socialism.

Actually, no. What the government is doing right now is far closer to Fascism, not Socialism.

Depending on who you are, socialism can seem a lot like fascism.

[Doombot]

Yes Powell, the party that just helped sign that huge socialist bailout bill is moving farther to the right. 

I think you meant capitalism, not socialism. Bailouts for business owners because they're greedy cheats is not an aspect of socialism.

However the government starting to take over banks? Yeah that's socialism. And of course the bailout was all done under the pretense of helping all of those poor souls who bought houses they knew they couldn't afford. So even though those people probably won't see a dime of that money, it was done in the name of socialism.

Actually, no. What the government is doing right now is far closer to Fascism, not Socialism.

Like Hitler of the Nazis?

[Brugdor]

Look at the patriot act, for example. Very conservative when it comes to the ends justify the means philosophy, as well as supporting surveillance to prevent terrorism,  but authoritarian in the idea of giving that much power to the central government.

How is that different from Russia during the peak of communism over there? The government controlled everything and had absolute power with no checks and balances in place.

[Jeff]

Yes Powell, the party that just helped sign that huge socialist bailout bill is moving farther to the right. 

I think you meant capitalism, not socialism. Bailouts for business owners because they're greedy cheats is not an aspect of socialism.

However the government starting to take over banks? Yeah that's socialism. And of course the bailout was all done under the pretense of helping all of those poor souls who bought houses they knew they couldn't afford. So even though those people probably won't see a dime of that money, it was done in the name of socialism.

Actually, no. What the government is doing right now is far closer to Fascism, not Socialism.

Depending on who you are, socialism can seem a lot like fascism.

That's because totalitarianism can exist, and has existed, at both ends of the political spectrum.

Quote pyramid!

[Solwyn]

Look at the patriot act, for example. Very conservative when it comes to the ends justify the means philosophy, as well as supporting surveillance to prevent terrorism,  but authoritarian in the idea of giving that much power to the central government.

How is that different from Russia during the peak of communism over there? The government controlled everything and had absolute power with no checks and balances in place.

That's what I'm saying. Communism and Fascism are equally authoritarian, but they are on the left and right sides of the spectrum.

Socialism, in this case, would be more authoritarian than what we currently have, but would probably be more towards the left due to the fact that morality is not regulated, rather equality would be enforced by law (security over liberty).

Totalitarianism would be 100% authoritative (sometimes called populist) and Anarchy would be 100% libertarian.

I don't think either of those are good, but I'll ALWAYS choose freedom over security. I'd rather be afraid of terrorists than my own government. But that's just my 2c.

[Brugdor]

I don't think either of those are good, but I'll ALWAYS choose freedom over security. I'd rather be afraid of terrorists than my own government. But that's just my 2c.

And I agree but remember both parties keep voting for that pesky Patriot Act no matter how much one side says they hate it. That's because, as you just pointed out, both sides can benefit from the authoritarian qualities of it.

[Solwyn]

I don't think either of those are good, but I'll ALWAYS choose freedom over security. I'd rather be afraid of terrorists than my own government. But that's just my 2c.

And I agree but remember both parties keep voting for that pesky Patriot Act no matter how much one side says they hate it. That's because, as you just pointed out, both sides can benefit from the authoritarian qualities of it.

I never supported one side or the other. I just pointed out that both sides are becoming more authoritarian, and this just proves it.

My argument is still this: it seems the popular thing now is to try to turn America into a socialism (socialized medicine/insurance, socialized business practice, etc). Why not just move to any of the many nations where socialism is the accepted norm, if that's what you want? All of these nations assume that it'll work for us like it did for them, but as has been seen in the last eight years, it doesn't work for us. We're too big, we have too many parasites. You get presidents like Bush who increase spending without increasing taxes, so the government keeps printing more money that's worth less and less and our economy ends up where it is right now.

A buddy of mine from Finland always raves about how great his government is but then I see that he pays thrice what we do in taxes. And I'm fine with that... for Finland.

If you don't like it you can geeeet out.