Soviet Socialist States of America

PoliticalCitizen · September 17, 2008

With the recent buy-outs of big banks by the US Government taxpayers ended up collectively owning these companies.

Does it not transform USA into a... Communist country?

JerrySeinfeld · September 17, 2008

With the recent buy-outs of big banks by the US Government taxpayers ended up collectively owning these companies.
Does it not transform USA into a... Communist country?

It certainly takes them in that direction. Good post.

bush_cheney2004 · September 17, 2008

With the recent buy-outs of big banks by the US Government taxpayers ended up collectively owning these companies.
Does it not transform USA into a... Communist country?

No...there is a big difference between "buy-out" and "bail-out".....real commies are in no position to do either.

eyeball · September 17, 2008

Neither are real capitalists it seems. Don't look now BC but Comrade Sam just bought 80% of AIG.

Link

Edited September 17, 2008 by eyeball

bush_cheney2004 · September 17, 2008

Neither are real capitalists it seems. Don't look now BC but Comrade Sam just bought 80% of AIG.
Link

Then somebody else owns 20%.....welcome to America.

M.Dancer · September 17, 2008

Communists don't loan corporations money....

Drea · September 17, 2008

:lol:

"We ARE NOT Communists!"

"We do NOT believe in SOCIALISM"

Ha ha ha

Edited September 17, 2008 by Drea

eyeball · September 17, 2008

Communists don't loan corporations money....

No, they just print it out as fast as they can shovel it out the door. So I wonder how long will it will be until this little buy-out bubble pops?

M.Dancer · September 17, 2008

Leave it to those who have no concept of making money to not understand the difference between bailing out a company and nationalizing it.

bush_cheney2004 · September 17, 2008

Leave it to those who have no concept of making money to not understand the difference between bailing out a company and nationalizing it.

Correct...otherwise I would own a piece of Chrysler Corporation.

PoliticalCitizen · September 18, 2008

Correct...otherwise I would own a piece of Chrysler Corporation.

You can call it whatever you want but the fact is the State owns 80% of the company. The State is the People. And banks are just the beginning

bush_cheney2004 · September 18, 2008

You can call it whatever you want but the fact is the State owns 80% of the company. The State is the People. And banks are just the beginning

You get a pass...for obvious reasons, comrade.

Edited September 18, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

August1991 · September 18, 2008

With the recent buy-outs of big banks by the US Government taxpayers ended up collectively owning these companies.
Does it not transform USA into a... Communist country?

No.

But it does raise fundamental questions of the role of the State. Libertarians and anarchists pretend that a civilized society can exist (indeed can only exist) without the State or with a minimal State.

I disagree.

Given current technology, the State is best placed to accomplish certain tasks compared with any other institution. Among these tasks is the role of ultimate guarantor.

Leftists, who sometimes prone the importance of the State, have never given any serious thought to what role the State is ideally suited to accomplish. I have always enjoyed Riverwind's post because they showed some thought on this question.

PoliticalCitizen, your OP is just blind partisanship. It is as if you are declaring your support for the Montreal Canadiens or Wes Anderson movies: you're a fanboy.

moderateamericain · September 18, 2008

No.
But it does raise fundamental questions of the role of the State. Libertarians and anarchists pretend that a civilized society can exist (indeed can only exist) without the State or with a minimal State.

I disagree.

Given current technology, the State is best placed to accomplish certain tasks compared with any other institution. Among these tasks is the role of ultimate guarantor.

Leftists, who sometimes prone the importance of the State, have never given any serious thought to what role the State is ideally suited to accomplish. I have always enjoyed Riverwind's post because they showed some thought on this question.

PoliticalCitizen, your OP is just blind partisanship. It is as if you are declaring your support for the Montreal Canadiens or Wes Anderson movies: you're a fanboy.

Unfortunetly Im going to have to side with PC on this. Governments owning controlling intrest in banks is never a good thing. I dont necessarily see us going Communist but the sooner the Government can find a buyer for it the better.

PoliticalCitizen · September 18, 2008

PoliticalCitizen, your OP is just blind partisanship. It is as if you are declaring your support for the Montreal Canadiens or Wes Anderson movies: you're a fanboy.

I'm not the only one saying this:

http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/1709200...aig-rescue.html

"Last week we argued that, with the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie, comrades (George W.) Bush, Paulson and Bernanke had started transforming the USA into the USSRA (United Socialist State Republic of America)," said Nouriel Roubini, a New York University economist.

My favourite acronym would be USSA - Union of Socialist States of America

Pliny · September 18, 2008

I'm not the only one saying this:
http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/1709200...aig-rescue.html

"Last week we argued that, with the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie, comrades (George W.) Bush, Paulson and Bernanke had started transforming the USA into the USSRA (United Socialist State Republic of America)," said Nouriel Roubini, a New York University economist.

My favourite acronym would be USSA - Union of Socialist States of America

Communist, Neocon right wing extremist, which is it?

"Communism" is just one of those old world terms that conjure up images of totalitarianism. Roubini sounds like a good socialist but a poor economist. Obviously he is an economist who believes the economy is a tool necessary to government for correct social engineering. The fact that socialism has been creeping into American society for over a century seems to escape him. Bush is not particularly a socialist, You would think that socialists, and Roubini sounds like one, would be praising Bush for his steps towards the "nationalization" of industry but the communist label and the neocon label are designed to make "socialists" feel smug and leave the modern "conservative" with nowhere to turn.

Why "socialists" would decry the "nationalization" of the financial sector, as untrue as that may be, of an economy as communist and demand the nationalization of other sectors such as health care and education is beyond me?

Barts · September 18, 2008

With the recent buy-outs of big banks by the US Government taxpayers ended up collectively owning these companies.
Does it not transform USA into a... Communist country?

Communist is probably a mischaracterization. However, it is very clear that the US financial sector, at least, is in a socialist arrangement with government. To suggest otherwise is delusional. Ironically, for the sake of the Great American Capitalist Myth it is good that the government is there to provide the social safety net for Big Finance. If it did not do so, America -- lock, stock, and barrel -- would wind up being owned by nationals of other countries.

stevoh · September 18, 2008

What other alternatives do the Republicans have for keeping various critical companies alive? If one company owns half the morgage market in the US, what happens to people who have morgages with that company if it was allowed to go bankrupt?

bush_cheney2004 · September 18, 2008

What other alternatives do the Republicans have for keeping various critical companies alive? If one company owns half the morgage market in the US, what happens to people who have morgages with that company if it was allowed to go bankrupt?

The same thing that happens when any company goes bankrupt.....mortgage products (loans) are bought and sold every day. People with affected mortgages would just be transferred to a viable holder initially or as part of a court approved settlement for the bankruptcy.

PoliticalCitizen · September 20, 2008

Next step towads the triumph of Marxism-Leninism:

US Government will buy all bad mortgage debt within the next 2 years, spending between 500 Bill to 1 Trill.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/09/20/bailout.html

Shady · September 20, 2008

Actually, Soviet Socialist States of America is a fairly appropriate title, considering it was socialism which was primarily responsible for the current economic mess.

kengs333 · September 20, 2008

Actually, Soviet Socialist States of America is a fairly appropriate title, considering it was socialism which was primarily responsible for the current economic mess.

Yeah, that's right... greed, materialism, consumerism, selfish individualism are all hallmarks of socialism... :rolleyes:

PoliticalCitizen · September 20, 2008

Yeah, that's right... greed, materialism, consumerism, selfish individualism are all hallmarks of socialism...

Especially exploiting and robbing the poorest - the "sub-prime" population layer

Shady · September 20, 2008

Especially exploiting and robbing the poorest - the "sub-prime" population layer

Those are the unintended consequences of good intentions.

There's no disputing what caused the "sub-prime" problems.

1. President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loansthat he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

2. Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

When you mix in greed, and gross mismanagement, with abhorrent social/economic policy, you arrive at the financial mess we're seeing today.

Even Robert Reich, United States Secretary of Labor, serving during the Clinton Administration references the same problems.

REICH: In the latter years of the Clinton administration -- when I was not there any longer, I should add -- there was an attempt by Alan Greenspan and Bob Rubin and a few others to deregulate financial markets, and they did. They split commercial banking off from investment banking. And many people say, "Well, that was the beginning of the problem," and then, of course, in 2003-2004, Alan Greenspan reduced short-term interest rates to the point where every single bank wanted to lend money. I mean, if you could stand up straight you could get a bank loan because there was so much pressure to get that money out the door. Money was so cheap. So, yes, there is some responsibility on Democrats, some responsibility on Alan Greenspan and the Fed. (MSNBC)

Pliny · September 21, 2008

Communist is probably a mischaracterization. However, it is very clear that the US financial sector, at least, is in a socialist arrangement with government. To suggest otherwise is delusional. Ironically, for the sake of the Great American Capitalist Myth it is good that the government is there to provide the social safety net for Big Finance. If it did not do so, America -- lock, stock, and barrel -- would wind up being owned by nationals of other countries.

The federal reserve was granted a monopoly by government so that is indeed some sort of socialist arrangement.