Stealth socialism

[hipeter924]

did you submit your American passport yet and applied for North Korean one?

if not - STFU

When you start giving a damn for people in poverty, and join the Democratic party. Socialism through Dirgisime was the best boom Europe ever had, whereas neo-liberalism caused a global recession. If you think 'socialism' is only Stalin or Mao, then your problem. Please note also that North Korea is not socialist, Kim Jong Il's father built his own ideology, just as Hitler or Pol Pot build their own.

Please submit just one example where a Democrat has done anything to benefit someone, anyone in poverty...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

 

[GWV5903]

When you start giving a damn for people in poverty, and join the Democratic party. Socialism through Dirgisime was the best boom Europe ever had, whereas neo-liberalism caused a global recession. If you think 'socialism' is only Stalin or Mao, then your problem. Please note also that North Korea is not socialist, Kim Jong Il's father built his own ideology, just as Hitler or Pol Pot build their own.

Please submit just one example where a Democrat has done anything to benefit someone, anyone in poverty...

My s.o. gives stuff to the Salvation Army.

Kindly submit a Democrat that has made a true impact for the long term positive effect on poverty...

Your s.o.?

FDR's creation of SS is not a positive effect...

 

[dblack]

Please submit just one example where a Democrat has done anything to benefit someone, anyone in poverty...

My s.o. gives stuff to the Salvation Army.

Kindly submit a Democrat that has made a true impact for the long term positive effect on poverty...

Your s.o.?

FDR's creation of SS is not a positive effect...

I'm sure there are plenty of others. My point wasn't to defend the welfare state. I disagree with it fundamentally. But the partisan stuff gets old. The constant claims the Democrats do no good or that Republicans are this or that aren't very useful.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please submit just one example where a Democrat has done anything to benefit someone, anyone in poverty...

My s.o. gives stuff to the Salvation Army.

Kindly submit a Democrat that has made a true impact for the long term positive effect on poverty...

Your s.o.?

FDR's creation of SS is not a positive effect...

Yes it is. You lose.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, Sweden is not a socialist economy.

So you're calling all the people who call Obama a socialist idiots too.

No, I am calling you an idiot.

So it's correct to call Obama a socialist? lol, you are, as always, all over the map.

Your position (1) is that even if the US adopted every possible socialistic policy/program in Western Europe,

we would still not be a socialist couintry.

Your position (2) is that the US is in legitimate danger of becoming what you define as a socialist country.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Socialism is awesome, better than corporatism in America by all accounts.

So, how did Socialism buy you that machine you're typing on right now? You and Micheal Moore have more in common than you know.

My Social Security income pays all of my basic day to day survival needs. My two pensions pay for anything else I feel like spending money on.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sounds like something a rightwing nutjob would say, doesn't it? It is actually Grayson bragging about what Obama has done to the country.

In Part 1 of my interview with Rep. Alan Grayson published on Monday, we talked about Syria and national security policy. In Part 2, we turn to domestic matters. Grayson is actually one of the only trained economists in Congress, graduating from Harvard with an economics degree.

We talked about whether Dodd-Frank stabilized the financial system, the role of the Federal Reserve in the economy, and his surprising view on the fears of a government shutdown. We also talked about his recent partnerships with House Republicans. Below is a transcript of our conversation.

With the five-year anniversary of the Lehman Brothers collapse upon us, everyone is talking about whether we remain vulnerable to another crisis. You were on the Financial Services Committee when Dodd-Frank passed in 2010. Has it worked to make the financial system safer, or has nothing much changed?

Yes, nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is the passage of time. Sometimes time does not heal. We still have the problem of some institutions being too big to fail, and nothing has been done to make them smaller or less interconnected. Nothing has changed the fact that, because of the sense in the market that some institutions are too big to fail, the big get bigger and the small get smaller. The cost of capital is smaller for institutions perceived as government-backed, than for ones not as credit-worthy, with counter-party risk.
The one good thing that’s happened in the past five years, in the sense of making people hopeful that the economy might survive a collapse, is that the Federal Reserve’s unconventional monetary policy put us back on a low-level track toward growth. They showed that monetary policy in extremis can work to some degree.

How big is the Fed balance sheet, $3 trillion?

$3.5 trillion. We’ve had a government takeover of the bond market. Stealth socialism’s been created. Government simply ends up owning more and more and more. If government had taken over the steel industry, maybe it would have been more noticeable. They’ve taken over the financing of housing industry as well, with a desired result. The result is now, finally, particularly in areas that were hard-hit, like mine in Central Florida, housing is ticking up again. So the Fed did in essence create an economic baseline that has led to something along the lines of 50,000-100,000 jobs created a month, setting a foundation for recovery for the U.S. economy.

?I scared the crap out of them!?: Alan Grayson details how to work with the GOP - Salon.com

Using terms such as Socialism, Fascism and such is hyperbole, used to make an emotional impact; the fact that much of Dodd-Frank has not been implemented isn't the result of Socialists hiding in the wings but of Republicans protecting those institutions too big to fail from being regulated, allowing the irresponsible practices of financial institutions which brought us the Great Recession of 2007 to continue unabated. The rich keep getting richer and the rest of us - including you Windbag - either tread water or sink.

 

[dblack]

Sounds like something a rightwing nutjob would say, doesn't it? It is actually Grayson bragging about what Obama has done to the country.

In Part 1 of my interview with Rep. Alan Grayson published on Monday, we talked about Syria and national security policy. In Part 2, we turn to domestic matters. Grayson is actually one of the only trained economists in Congress, graduating from Harvard with an economics degree.

We talked about whether Dodd-Frank stabilized the financial system, the role of the Federal Reserve in the economy, and his surprising view on the fears of a government shutdown. We also talked about his recent partnerships with House Republicans. Below is a transcript of our conversation.

With the five-year anniversary of the Lehman Brothers collapse upon us, everyone is talking about whether we remain vulnerable to another crisis. You were on the Financial Services Committee when Dodd-Frank passed in 2010. Has it worked to make the financial system safer, or has nothing much changed?

Yes, nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is the passage of time. Sometimes time does not heal. We still have the problem of some institutions being too big to fail, and nothing has been done to make them smaller or less interconnected. Nothing has changed the fact that, because of the sense in the market that some institutions are too big to fail, the big get bigger and the small get smaller. The cost of capital is smaller for institutions perceived as government-backed, than for ones not as credit-worthy, with counter-party risk.
The one good thing that’s happened in the past five years, in the sense of making people hopeful that the economy might survive a collapse, is that the Federal Reserve’s unconventional monetary policy put us back on a low-level track toward growth. They showed that monetary policy in extremis can work to some degree.

How big is the Fed balance sheet, $3 trillion?

$3.5 trillion. We’ve had a government takeover of the bond market. Stealth socialism’s been created. Government simply ends up owning more and more and more. If government had taken over the steel industry, maybe it would have been more noticeable. They’ve taken over the financing of housing industry as well, with a desired result. The result is now, finally, particularly in areas that were hard-hit, like mine in Central Florida, housing is ticking up again. So the Fed did in essence create an economic baseline that has led to something along the lines of 50,000-100,000 jobs created a month, setting a foundation for recovery for the U.S. economy.

?I scared the crap out of them!?: Alan Grayson details how to work with the GOP - Salon.com

Using terms such as Socialism, Fascism and such is hyperbole, used to make an emotional impact; the fact that much of Dodd-Frank has not been implemented isn't the result of Socialists hiding in the wings but of Republicans protecting those institutions too big to fail from being regulated, allowing the irresponsible practices of financial institutions which brought us the Great Recession of 2007 to continue unabated. The rich keep getting richer and the rest of us - including you Windbag - either tread water or sink.

It's probably more useful to simply refer to government interference in the economy. Because that's what it is. And the question comes down to whether we want government to have the kind of power or not. When it does have that power, success in business becomes a matter of political influence rather than satisfying customers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's funny how some of the rightwingers will react around here once they find out they've painted themselves into a corner.

you have never been out of the corner

learn the correct terminology and the difference between socialism and social-democratism.

fakey is hopeless, but you have some signs that your cortex might be still working

Democratic socialism is merely a variation or sub-set of the broader term 'socialism'. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you're calling all the people who call Obama a socialist idiots too.

No, I am calling you an idiot.

So it's correct to call Obama a socialist? lol, you are, as always, all over the map.

Your position (1) is that even if the US adopted every possible socialistic policy/program in Western Europe,

we would still not be a socialist couintry.

Your position (2) is that the US is in legitimate danger of becoming what you define as a socialist country.

Obama thinks he is a socialist, does that make him stupid?

My position is that Sweden is not a socialist economy, which is the question you asked. Your problem is that I am understand the difference between a socialist and socialism. Barney Frank is a Socialist, that does not make the economy of Massachusetts socialist.

What is my definition of a socialist country?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The broken reactionary media and their running dogs will flatly say Sweden is not socialist.

Lies.

Socialism WORKS! for Sweden... or does it?

Sweden's Socialist-Based Society Can Be a Model For America

Paul Krugman and the Socialist Hellhole That is Sweden - Forbes

Paul Krugman and the Socialist Hellhole That is Sweden - Forbes

It's funny how some of the rightwingers will react around here once they find out they've painted themselves into a corner.

It's funny how you don't have an argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sounds like something a rightwing nutjob would say, doesn't it? It is actually Grayson bragging about what Obama has done to the country.

In Part 1 of my interview with Rep. Alan Grayson published on Monday, we talked about Syria and national security policy. In Part 2, we turn to domestic matters. Grayson is actually one of the only trained economists in Congress, graduating from Harvard with an economics degree.

We talked about whether Dodd-Frank stabilized the financial system, the role of the Federal Reserve in the economy, and his surprising view on the fears of a government shutdown. We also talked about his recent partnerships with House Republicans. Below is a transcript of our conversation.

With the five-year anniversary of the Lehman Brothers collapse upon us, everyone is talking about whether we remain vulnerable to another crisis. You were on the Financial Services Committee when Dodd-Frank passed in 2010. Has it worked to make the financial system safer, or has nothing much changed?

Yes, nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is the passage of time. Sometimes time does not heal. We still have the problem of some institutions being too big to fail, and nothing has been done to make them smaller or less interconnected. Nothing has changed the fact that, because of the sense in the market that some institutions are too big to fail, the big get bigger and the small get smaller. The cost of capital is smaller for institutions perceived as government-backed, than for ones not as credit-worthy, with counter-party risk.
The one good thing that’s happened in the past five years, in the sense of making people hopeful that the economy might survive a collapse, is that the Federal Reserve’s unconventional monetary policy put us back on a low-level track toward growth. They showed that monetary policy in extremis can work to some degree.

How big is the Fed balance sheet, $3 trillion?

$3.5 trillion. We’ve had a government takeover of the bond market. Stealth socialism’s been created. Government simply ends up owning more and more and more. If government had taken over the steel industry, maybe it would have been more noticeable. They’ve taken over the financing of housing industry as well, with a desired result. The result is now, finally, particularly in areas that were hard-hit, like mine in Central Florida, housing is ticking up again. So the Fed did in essence create an economic baseline that has led to something along the lines of 50,000-100,000 jobs created a month, setting a foundation for recovery for the U.S. economy.

?I scared the crap out of them!?: Alan Grayson details how to work with the GOP - Salon.com

Using terms such as Socialism, Fascism and such is hyperbole, used to make an emotional impact; the fact that much of Dodd-Frank has not been implemented isn't the result of Socialists hiding in the wings but of Republicans protecting those institutions too big to fail from being regulated, allowing the irresponsible practices of financial institutions which brought us the Great Recession of 2007 to continue unabated. The rich keep getting richer and the rest of us - including you Windbag - either tread water or sink.

Why do you keep blaming Republicans for Obama's stupidity? Did you forget he supports Dodd-Frank, which actually encoded "too big to fail" into US law?

By the way, next time read the OP before you post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, I am calling you an idiot.

So it's correct to call Obama a socialist? lol, you are, as always, all over the map.

Your position (1) is that even if the US adopted every possible socialistic policy/program in Western Europe,

we would still not be a socialist couintry.

Your position (2) is that the US is in legitimate danger of becoming what you define as a socialist country.

Obama thinks he is a socialist, does that make him stupid?

My position is that Sweden is not a socialist economy, which is the question you asked. Your problem is that I am understand the difference between a socialist and socialism. Barney Frank is a Socialist, that does not make the economy of Massachusetts socialist.

What is my definition of a socialist country?

Whether intentionally or not you have forgotten the context of the conversation that started this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So it's correct to call Obama a socialist? lol, you are, as always, all over the map.

Your position (1) is that even if the US adopted every possible socialistic policy/program in Western Europe,

we would still not be a socialist couintry.

Your position (2) is that the US is in legitimate danger of becoming what you define as a socialist country.

Obama thinks he is a socialist, does that make him stupid?

My position is that Sweden is not a socialist economy, which is the question you asked. Your problem is that I am understand the difference between a socialist and socialism. Barney Frank is a Socialist, that does not make the economy of Massachusetts socialist.

What is my definition of a socialist country?

Whether intentionally or not you have forgotten the context of the conversation that started this.

I forgot the OP I posted?

 

[GWV5903]

My s.o. gives stuff to the Salvation Army.

Kindly submit a Democrat that has made a true impact for the long term positive effect on poverty...

Your s.o.?

FDR's creation of SS is not a positive effect...

I'm sure there are plenty of others. My point wasn't to defend the welfare state. I disagree with it fundamentally. But the partisan stuff gets old. The constant claims the Democrats do no good or that Republicans are this or that aren't very useful.

The Partisanship is old...

The Welfare State is crippling all of us and it is a product of the DNC to stimulate pity, I can't make this shit up...

We have to call a spade a spade, I clearly recognize the short comings of the GOP, in our world they are still more productive for growth than their counterpart...

The DNC has single handedly created division on most levels, it's constant grind of inequality and racism is nothing more than a tool to manipulate...

 

[GWV5903]

What's wrong with socialism?

And you make my case so easy...

Please list the life changing technology that the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela and China have contributed to the world at large...

 

[GWV5903]

My s.o. gives stuff to the Salvation Army.

Kindly submit a Democrat that has made a true impact for the long term positive effect on poverty...

Your s.o.?

FDR's creation of SS is not a positive effect...

Yes it is. You lose.

So you can live a productive retired life on SS?

Where? Nuevo Laredo?

You cannot live off of SS income, even if everything you own is paid for, it will not cover the basics...

I understand you are happy in life accepting this lie as well as the rest of the BS you swallow, but the facts do not support it...

 

[auditor0007]

Socialism is awesome, better than corporatism in America by all accounts.

All out socialism is not a good thing. Having social programs that benefit all of society is not a bad thing either. There does need to be a strong balance with a strong private sector.

 

[auditor0007]

Kindly submit a Democrat that has made a true impact for the long term positive effect on poverty...

Your s.o.?

FDR's creation of SS is not a positive effect...

Yes it is. You lose.

So you can live a productive retired life on SS?

Where? Nuevo Laredo?

You cannot live off of SS income, even if everything you own is paid for, it will not cover the basics...

I understand you are happy in life accepting this lie as well as the rest of the BS you swallow, but the facts do not support it...

If you downsize your home to a reasonable home with lower property taxes and have the home paid for, you can do okay on SS through retirement. You won't have any money for extras but you will do okay. It also depends on the amount you receive. If you are only receiving $1200 per month, then no, you won't be able to make it, but if you are married and both receive $1500 plus per month, then you can probably do okay.

 

[GWV5903]

Yes it is. You lose.

So you can live a productive retired life on SS?

Where? Nuevo Laredo?

You cannot live off of SS income, even if everything you own is paid for, it will not cover the basics...

I understand you are happy in life accepting this lie as well as the rest of the BS you swallow, but the facts do not support it...

If you downsize your home to a reasonable home with lower property taxes and have the home paid for, you can do okay on SS through retirement. You won't have any money for extras but you will do okay. It also depends on the amount you receive. If you are only receiving $1200 per month, then no, you won't be able to make it, but if you are married and both receive $1500 plus per month, then you can probably do okay.

If you can live on $1,200 to $3,000 a month, more power to you...

We live in Texas, very low cost of living, I doubt you could manage that here...