Attention Forum Socialists

[waldo]

Communism has been replaced with Environmentalism - the most revolutionary lot.

ya, ya Pliny... green is the new red!

[waldo]

hey Pliny... are Harper Conservatives simply fighting the red green menace, by attempting their standard legislation bundling ploy to include affronts to environmental related concerns within Bill C-9 - the proposed "Jobs & Economic Growth Act"? Several of the most egregious C-9 Conservative amendments, posturing under the guise of 2010 budgetary deployment, are amendments that would:

- allow the Minister of Environment to avoid doing detailed environmental assessments on large projects by breaking the projects up into smaller pieces.

- exempt a host of major projects that are funded by federal infrastructure and other government sources from environmental assessment provisions.

- hand over public panel reviews for pipeline and nuclear energy projects to the National Energy Board and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission respectively away from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Stephen Harper... battling the red green menace that lurks under his bed, within his closets...

[Argus]

ya, ya Pliny... green is the new red!

To a certain extent that is correct. The zealots have found a new ideology, one which, like Communism, was all based on ivory tower academics with very little acceptance of real world compexities.

[Pliny]

hey Pliny... are Harper Conservatives simply fighting the red green menace, by attempting their standard legislation bundling ploy to include affronts to environmental related concerns within Bill C-9 - the proposed "Jobs & Economic Growth Act"? Several of the most egregious C-9 Conservative amendments, posturing under the guise of 2010 budgetary deployment, are amendments that would:

- allow the Minister of Environment to avoid doing detailed environmental assessments on large projects by breaking the projects up into smaller pieces.

- exempt a host of major projects that are funded by federal infrastructure and other government sources from environmental assessment provisions.

- hand over public panel reviews for pipeline and nuclear energy projects to the National Energy Board and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission respectively away from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Stephen Harper... battling the red green menace that lurks under his bed, within his closets...

If you had read and understood what I had said then you would know that all Harper is doing is growing government the way he likes it.

Having said that I think he does take into consideration that government should have some limits.

For those who like big government and social programs and lots of government intervention and regulation. Please note that it is never because you yourself need any service or regulation. Government services and regulations and laws are for the incapable, the criminal, and those that need to be watched. you know the welfare type, the untrustworthy, the greedy, those people.

Since it really has nothing to do with you and you don't mind helping out society's poor and ignorant class or keeping the criminal class in check or making sure someone doesn't get more than his fair share by simply donating a little of your paycheck, you might ask what the big deal is?

Because you are happy to stick it to all those unsavoury people in society they tend to get a little more unsavoury. The poor and ignorant seem to multiply, criminality seems to be more prevalent (despite the statistics), and the greedy capitalist is hogging too much of the wealth. We need more regulation, don't we? The masses are getting unruly.

Yes, government is for all of those other people, the useless eaters, the unemployable, and ineducable. You could even be content if there were no government at all but it is a necessary evil to keep all those nasty people in line, isn't it Waldo?

Hey, isn't that climate change thread keeping you busy anymore?

[waldo]

Because you are happy to stick it to all those unsavoury people in society they tend to get a little more unsavoury. The poor and ignorant seem to multiply, criminality seems to be more prevalent (despite the statistics), and the greedy capitalist is hogging too much of the wealth. We need more regulation, don't we? The masses are getting unruly.

Yes, government is for all of those other people, the useless eaters, the unemployable, and ineducable. You could even be content if there were no government at all but it is a necessary evil to keep all those nasty people in line, isn't it Waldo?

say what! Pliny... no need for you to steer your good ship away from your attempts to label, 'green as the new red'.

Pliny's world: If only all/more people were just like mmmeeeeeeee!

Edited May 4, 2010 by waldo

[Pliny]

Pliny's world: If only all/more people were just like mmmeeeeeeee!

You would really need some big government then wouldn't you Waldo!

PS: Silly me! That's what your all about anyway!

Edited May 4, 2010 by Pliny

[waldo]

So in the end we are working towards some form of "big government" and we know not which because the ideology of it hasn't been formulated yet. We can know it will be something like socialism or fascism or communism but it will undoubtedly be big government.

That's as simple as I can get it for you.

You would really need some big government then wouldn't you Waldo!

PS: Silly me! That's what your all about anyway!

yes, says board certifiable, Dr. Pliny Pragmatist

[Shady]

Unbelievable! Greece is actually conducting a census to accurately count the number of government workers!

Its leaders made promises they couldn't keep; they expanded public-sector employment so much that nobody even knew, for sure, the number of government employees.

He said he plans to conduct a census to count the public-sector work force -- yes, it's really that bad

RCP

Sound familiar? An ever growing public sector bureaucracy, taking more and more money from the private sector in order to fund it. Yep. :angry:

[bush_cheney2004]

Unbelievable! Greece is actually conducting a census to accurately count the number of government workers!

That is very funny on several levels....long live socialism!

[nicky10013]

I have been presenting here a simplified concept of governments. the intellects here insist on keeping it complicated.

Now I am going to make it really simple. Since we can't tell anything from labels. The National socialist party is not socialist.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not democratic. And I tend to think the BC Liberal party is a little more conservative than liberal. And while we ponder if China is more Fascist than Communist these days or if Stalin really held true to the Marxist -Leninist ideology and try to figure out where it really diverged from it's true socialist roots. Let's just do away with all that BS and, as I said, make it really simple.

When we are talking about the extreme left and right wing of the currently popular political spectrum we see at both ends what I think can safely be called "Big government". The bigger the government the more intervention, more regulation and the more the necessity to draw wealth from the economy to sustain itself, the greater the presence of government in our individual lives and in society.

The smaller the government's mandate, the less intervention, the less regulation, the less it must draw from the economy to sustain itself and the less their is a presence of government in our daily lives and in society. That all means of course that we must do more things for ourselves as individuals and as a society - or not, we can take risks and be less responsible for ourselves if we choose but we shouldn't expect someone to feel sorry for us if we gamble and lose. Where on the political spectrum is "little government"? At the centre? To tell you the truth, here is another confusing aspect of current political academia that perhaps the public gets tripped up on. where is the centre? I like to think it is somewhere where there is small government and as we move left we get more and more liberal progressivism in government and if we move right we get more and more conservative discipline and morality in our government. For instance, I would call Obama a leftist. Many on the left see him as a centrist and even some here who I think are quite leftist consider themselves centrist.

So the labels are all too confusing.

As a citizen and as a voter all I need to know is whether or not my vote is for bigger government, more entitlements being given away, more regulation and intervention in society, more bureaucracy, or smaller government. Most of the time the major parties are falling all over themselves giving things away and making promises to do more so there really isn't too much choice for me. I have watched political correctness come into being and all sorts of progressive ideas and concepts instituted in government, with very little opposition. In other words I feel the left has made "progress" in growing government as they see it should. The right seems, rather than stemming the tide of bigger and bigger government, intent on trying to catch up with it's own ideas on how government should grow.

So in the end we are working towards some form of "big government" and we know not which because the ideology of it hasn't been formulated yet. We can know it will be something like socialism or fascism or communism but it will undoubtedly be big government.

That's as simple as I can get it for you.

Just a word to Jack on Friedman and Hayak. Friedman was always a government economist and liked to deal with the aggregates of economics. He liked to see how they functioned in the macro sense and how it could be influenced. He also gave us the withholding payroll taxes in WW II. A brilliant idea to pay for the war and government liked it so much they kept it. Just as they did income tax in the first world war. That was Friedman.

Hayak is a different man and understood economics would not fare well under governments attempts to regulate and influence, that is attempt to control it. It had it's own self-corrective elements in his view and intervention in the ebb and flow of the economy created imbalances that would inevitably require further intervention and greater regulation.

As for Corporatism, it sounds like a sore point in your view, it only comes about under government stewardship. There should not be corporate welfare or subsidy. Large Corporations do have a tendency to amass wealth though and government knows it. It gets most of it's money from those corporations in the form of payroll and corporate taxes. It only makes sense that the two be in bed with each other and the bigger the government the more necessity to cater to where the money is in the economy. And what kind of government like that can deliver justice? If the people demand justice all they get is "social justice" and not a correction of injustice and inequality. In other words, two wrongs are created to make a right. We won't take away any one's earned entitlements so we will just give some entitlements to the whiners and even it up.

Corporatism is for sure a part of fascism. but don't ever mistake it for capitalism. Capitalism hasn't been around for at least a century.

There is no such thing as a simplified concept of government. They're complicated for a reason. Political Science isn't based on the whim of people's opinions on whether a government may be socialist or not. It's totally up to any person to agree with what a government may do or not but it's quite another to treat what a government actually is as a matter of opinion. Things like Fascism, Socialism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, party systems, styles of democracies have all been defined and for good reason. Looking through past governments and the study of the socio-economic patterns of the time, it's easy to determine how certain governance structures developed and why. We can use that today to explain what's going on in terms of domestic, international and geo-politics.

I can boil this down even further for you. Don't opine about definitions being too confusing then write an opus as if you're an expert. I worked at the U of T bookstore while I was in school and I had a weird guy walk in asking for books on einstein's theory of relativity. He said he had a theory which would render it obsolete, he just needed a book that would help him understand Einstein's theory first. This is pretty much exactly what's happening here.

[eyeball]

For those who like big government and social programs and lots of government intervention and regulation. Please note that it is never because you yourself need any service or regulation. Government services and regulations and laws are for the incapable, the criminal, and those that need to be watched. you know the welfare type, the untrustworthy, the greedy, those people.

Nonsense. I wouldn't trust commercial fishermen as far as I can spit and especially lobbyists that work for fishermen.

Above all else though we need far more rigorous regulation of the government's regulators because they're even less trustworthy than us fishermen and our lobbyists.

[WIP]

When we are talking about the extreme left and right wing of the currently popular political spectrum we see at both ends what I think can safely be called "Big government". The bigger the government the more intervention, more regulation and the more the necessity to draw wealth from the economy to sustain itself, the greater the presence of government in our individual lives and in society.

Now what you have to prove is that government redistributing wealth is an evil in itself. I have only met a few anarcho-capitalists in my time who would argue for no government services and no taxes. The conservatives who want small government seem to see no contradiction in supporting a huge military-industrial complex, or even social programs that they benefit from -- for example, most older conservatives are adamant that the most expensive domestic programs - health care and pensions are a fundamental right that cannot be touched...spending has to be cut elsewhere, not the programs that they depend on!

And as for regulation...well, we're seeing what's happening in the Gulf now, and the damage done by ineffective regulating agencies that are compromized by the industries they are supposed to monitor. Lack of regulation is a bigger problem than too much regulation over the last 30 years.

The smaller the government's mandate, the less intervention, the less regulation, the less it must draw from the economy to sustain itself and the less their is a presence of government in our daily lives and in society. That all means of course that we must do more things for ourselves as individuals and as a society - or not, we can take risks and be less responsible for ourselves if we choose but we shouldn't expect someone to feel sorry for us if we gamble and lose.

The doctrine of mutual self-interest has fallen apart over the last couple of years, after seeing how greed and irrational behaviour cause market bubbles and collapses, not to mention how the wealth becomes increasingly concentrated at the top, among the wealthiest citizens. Eventually, economic inequality makes democracy obsolete. You can have an plutocracy or a democracy, but you can't have both.

As for Corporatism, it sounds like a sore point in your view, it only comes about under government stewardship.

And this is exactly what happens when a society moves towards fascism. The basic definition is having all of the most powerful interests in a society working together in close collaboration. When the political leaders, the wealthiest bussinessmen, the military and religious leaders all get together to run a nation, then you have fascism. And fascists use the symbols and emotional touchstones of the common people to keep them in line and continuing to support a small class of people who are working directly against their economic interests. Back during the Depression, when the Nazis and Fascists had taken over much of Europe, the American playwright Sinclair Lewis noticed this fact and stated:"when fascism comes to America, it will be wearing a cross and flying the stars and stripes."

When it comes to the struggle between fascism and socialist revolutionary movements like communism, the left will use resentment against the rich and powerful ruling class to rally people behind them, while the fascists will use religion, racial identity, nationalism and fear of foreigners to gain loyal followers. Therefore, these two movements are not the same, and work at cross purposes from each other. And, in spite of the success of Marxism in Russia and China and elsewhere in the 20th century, most of the battles between left and right wing are won by the fascists, since they usually have most of the levers of power on their side, along with the handy emotional appeals to religion, race and nationalism to draw upon.

[Shady]

This is a perfect illustration of the results of decades of socialist policy. These people are rioting against math. Greece is broke. They've been spending more money than they produce for decades. You can't win a riot or protest against math. Math always wins.

Unfortunately these people have been made wards of the state. They owe their livelihoods on government spending. One of the many unintended consequences of socialism and the so-called redistribution of wealth.

[Pliny]

There is no such thing as a simplified concept of government.

Of course not. Politics is a "science". It must therefore be complicated. I made my point as simple as possible. I can't make it any simpler. The ideologies of big government never materialize as they are formulated. Socialism, Fascism, Communism whatever you want to call them never work out the way they are dreamed.

Men with power are opportunistic and paranoid of those close to power, they will thus never adhere to a strict ideology and will make it up as they go along. The idea of an all powerful central authority in the form of a dictator or a Board of Directors inevitably turns to tyranny.

They're complicated for a reason. Political Science isn't based on the whim of people's opinions on whether a government may be socialist or not. It's totally up to any person to agree with what a government may do or not but it's quite another to treat what a government actually is as a matter of opinion. Things like Fascism, Socialism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, party systems, styles of democracies have all been defined and for good reason.

And the reason is? Use of the terms seems to be irrelevant. When someone claims their party to be the National socialist party, does the definition mean nothing? In your estimation you have said just that.

You can argue that the term was used erroneously and as a ruse to foster votes. Essentially then how the terms are defined is unimportant. All I want to understand is the vision of the future that any ideology promises. It is awfully confusing when you look at a Dictator like Castro and call him a communist. Where's the politburo? Where is the equal distribution of wealth when he has his own private hospital and a bank account with billions? Yes the definitions are very important.

You just refute National Socialism is socialism because it is on the right wing of the political spectrum and socialism is on the left wing. That's your total argument essentially. The glorification of the State becomes irrelevant to socialism. All socialist concepts become right wing policies of....something else.

As I said, the reason why the philosophical ideology of any form of big government, socialist, fascist, communist, whatever you want to call it, is irrelevant, is basically because, as much as they would like to make everyone equal, no one is equal and will not act entirely within the perspective of the collective.

Looking through past governments and the study of the socio-economic patterns of the time, it's easy to determine how certain governance structures developed and why. We can use that today to explain what's going on in terms of domestic, international and geo-politics.

I can boil this down even further for you. Don't opine about definitions being too confusing then write an opus as if you're an expert.

Did I sound like I was an expert? I'm sorry. That was entirely unintentional. I would like people to look for themselves.

I worked at the U of T bookstore while I was in school and I had a weird guy walk in asking for books on einstein's theory of relativity. He said he had a theory which would render it obsolete, he just needed a book that would help him understand Einstein's theory first. This is pretty much exactly what's happening here.

Not quite. I am not totally unschooled in politics and history. The theories of big government, central authorities engineering society, are all promises of an idyllic paradise brought about by government. They have proven in history to be nothing but an excuse for tyranny. Why? Well, basically, we are not "one". In order for "us" to be one we must all be one. Some of us cannot be them and none of us can be me - the individual. There has to be a balance. The State recognizes but nullifies the individual. One in gaining understanding must eventually arrive at the question, "who is the State?". It is you but you have become convinced you are nothing.

[Pliny]

Nonsense. I wouldn't trust commercial fishermen as far as I can spit and especially lobbyists that work for fishermen.

Above all else though we need far more rigorous regulation of the government's regulators because they're even less trustworthy than us fishermen and our lobbyists.

As I said, everyone else needs regulation.

[Pliny]

Now what you have to prove is that government redistributing wealth is an evil in itself. I have only met a few anarcho-capitalists in my time who would argue for no government services and no taxes. The conservatives who want small government seem to see no contradiction in supporting a huge military-industrial complex, or even social programs that they benefit from -- for example, most older conservatives are adamant that the most expensive domestic programs - health care and pensions are a fundamental right that cannot be touched...spending has to be cut elsewhere, not the programs that they depend on!

As I said, Conservatives rather than attempt to remove entitlements won by the left insist upon legislating their onw entitlements and special interests.

It is an evil in itself because it metamorphoses from an agreement into extortion. Taxation must invite the voluntary co-operation of the citizen. You cannot contract yourself to government to supply your needs and include future generations as if you know what their needs will be.

And as for regulation...well, we're seeing what's happening in the Gulf now, and the damage done by ineffective regulating agencies that are compromized by the industries they are supposed to monitor. Lack of regulation is a bigger problem than too much regulation over the last 30 years.

I don't seem to remember a time when it wasn't regulated. Seems like we need different regulations not more.

The doctrine of mutual self-interest has fallen apart over the last couple of years, after seeing how greed and irrational behaviour cause market bubbles and collapses, not to mention how the wealth becomes increasingly concentrated at the top, among the wealthiest citizens. Eventually, economic inequality makes democracy obsolete. You can have an plutocracy or a democracy, but you can't have both.

Does a failure of the doctrine of mutual self-interest mean the individual should be nullified?

In my view government pushed a policy of home ownership for all. They then minimized the risks of sub-prime mortgages by having Fanny and Freddie buy as much of them as they could. Eventually the bubble they created burst. and then they blamed wall Street. Well, Wall street should never have trusted the government. But hey, they are guilty of abandoning principle and economic reality.

And this is exactly what happens when a society moves towards fascism. The basic definition is having all of the most powerful interests in a society working together in close collaboration. When the political leaders, the wealthiest bussinessmen, the military and religious leaders all get together to run a nation, then you have fascism. And fascists use the symbols and emotional touchstones of the common people to keep them in line and continuing to support a small class of people who are working directly against their economic interests. Back during the Depression, when the Nazis and Fascists had taken over much of Europe, the American playwright Sinclair Lewis noticed this fact and stated:"when fascism comes to America, it will be wearing a cross and flying the stars and stripes."

What powerful interests are you behind? Big Government alone?

When it comes to the struggle between fascism and socialist revolutionary movements like communism, the left will use resentment against the rich and powerful ruling class to rally people behind them, while the fascists will use religion, racial identity, nationalism and fear of foreigners to gain loyal followers. Therefore, these two movements are not the same, and work at cross purposes from each other. And, in spite of the success of Marxism in Russia and China and elsewhere in the 20th century, most of the battles between left and right wing are won by the fascists, since they usually have most of the levers of power on their side, along with the handy emotional appeals to religion, race and nationalism to draw upon.

I agree, we should abandon all forms of big government. The bigger they are the bigger they get. Maybe we could regulate them?

[eyeball]

As I said, everyone else needs regulation.

No I clearly said, I need regulating too. Everyone does.

I do believe however that the more we regulate the regulators, especially the ones nearest the top of the pyramid, the less regulation we'll need below. I'm counting on a trickle down effect of decency and honesty. Society may just need better examples to follow to better itself.

Edited May 5, 2010 by eyeball

[WIP]

Does a failure of the doctrine of mutual self-interest mean the individual should be nullified?

It is not an either/or situation. There is always a tension between the rights of the individual and the welfare of the group. And when the group's safety or wellbeing is threatened, individual rights and desires take the back seat. Conservatives recognize this when it comes to threats of foreign invasion, and in the latest example after 9/11, they over-reacted like a hyperactive immune system because of what the rest of us would discover was a terrorist threat from a group that did not have the capability to continue sustained terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Nevertheless, it did not stop the Bush Administration from attacking every civil right that had not already been compromised by the War On Drugs.

If the left compromises property rights and economic rights to try to adjust incomes and living standards, the right does the same thing in the same of public safety and morality standards.

In my view government pushed a policy of home ownership for all. They then minimized the risks of sub-prime mortgages by having Fanny and Freddie buy as much of them as they could. Eventually the bubble they created burst. and then they blamed wall Street. Well, Wall street should never have trusted the government. But hey, they are guilty of abandoning principle and economic reality.

I'm anything but a financial expert, but the blame it on Fannie and Freddie strategy is a red herring, since Fannie and Freddie were stuck assuming a lot of bad loans from other sources, and many of these mortgage contracts should have been considered fraudulent to start with, such as escalator mortgages and no-money-down mortgages. The mortgage lenders were parceling up their risky loans as mortgage securities, dumping the risk of a bad loan on to third parties. That is the key problem I think...if the lender still had the responsibility of collection, they would have been a lot more concerned about ensuring that the borrower could pay.

There was also the obvious implications from the way right wing media covered the story, that their blame-the-borrower strategy focused on race. Over and over again, Fox News made sure they featured stories of blacks going into foreclosure, in an attempt to cement the impression that Wall Street wasn't to blame, it was those blacks buying houses they weren't entitled to in the first place. Considering some of the other inflammatory racial rhetoric that accompanies the illegal immigration issue, I have to wonder if the right wing strategy is to keep their people loyal by appealing to white racial identity.

What powerful interests are you behind? Big Government al

I agree, we should abandon all forms of big government. The bigger they are the bigger they get. Maybe we could regulate them?

As soon as we abandon all forms of government, we end up with something like Somalia. A vacuum can't stay empty for long, and the divide between left and right has little to do with the size and scope of government; the defining line is what the role of government will be. A right wing big government wants lots of money for military spending and interfering with the sexual and lifestyle habits of the population. They may concede property rights, but on the other hand it's interesting to note that it was the right wing members of the Supreme Court who were responsible for adding to the power of Eminent Domain -- essentially giving private corporations the power to expropriate property for the public good! When it comes to the rights of the individual, the leaders of influence on the right are more concerned about the individual corporation than the individual citizen.

[nicky10013]

Of course not. Politics is a "science". It must therefore be complicated. I made my point as simple as possible. I can't make it any simpler. The ideologies of big government never materialize as they are formulated. Socialism, Fascism, Communism whatever you want to call them never work out the way they are dreamed.

Men with power are opportunistic and paranoid of those close to power, they will thus never adhere to a strict ideology and will make it up as they go along. The idea of an all powerful central authority in the form of a dictator or a Board of Directors inevitably turns to tyranny.

Hitler stuck with it.

Also love the science jab. It's complicated for some. Not so for others. Clearly you fit into the former.

And the reason is? Use of the terms seems to be irrelevant. When someone claims their party to be the National socialist party, does the definition mean nothing? In your estimation you have said just that.

You can argue that the term was used erroneously and as a ruse to foster votes. Essentially then how the terms are defined is unimportant. All I want to understand is the vision of the future that any ideology promises. It is awfully confusing when you look at a Dictator like Castro and call him a communist. Where's the politburo? Where is the equal distribution of wealth when he has his own private hospital and a bank account with billions? Yes the definitions are very important.

You just refute National Socialism is socialism because it is on the right wing of the political spectrum and socialism is on the left wing. That's your total argument essentially. The glorification of the State becomes irrelevant to socialism. All socialist concepts become right wing policies of....something else.

As I said, the reason why the philosophical ideology of any form of big government, socialist, fascist, communist, whatever you want to call it, is irrelevant, is basically because, as much as they would like to make everyone equal, no one is equal and will not act entirely within the perspective of the collective.

The problem with this statement is the definition of national socialism doesn't at all correspond to orthodox socialism. Furthermore, those definitions aren't irrelevant. To the normal person, the definitions may need not apply. However, when attempting to actualy engage in an academic debate, it would be helpful to actually know the definition, not use half baked ones from fox news commentators only to label them later as irrelevant. In terms of actual ideology, these terms are absolutely essential in determining the way governments are structured and operate.

You also further demean you're argument with the fatal flaw of assuming that all ideologies try to make everyone equal. Some do, certainly others don't. This again goes to the weakness of said argument. Just by that very fact alone those definitions you find cumbersom and complicated must in themselves have intrinsic value.

Not quite. I am not totally unschooled in politics and history. The theories of big government, central authorities engineering society, are all promises of an idyllic paradise brought about by government. They have proven in history to be nothing but an excuse for tyranny. Why? Well, basically, we are not "one". In order for "us" to be one we must all be one. Some of us cannot be them and none of us can be me - the individual. There has to be a balance. The State recognizes but nullifies the individual. One in gaining understanding must eventually arrive at the question, "who is the State?". It is you but you have become convinced you are nothing.

Frankly, you sound totally unschooled. Sorry.

Edited May 5, 2010 by nicky10013

[Oleg Bach]

GERMANY after destroying EUROPE 60 years ago is totally responsible for the creation of the EU...and if Greece is the orphaned child under it's dark bat wing then the bat had better feed it some milk.

[Bonam]

GERMANY after destroying EUROPE 60 years ago is totally responsible for the creation of the EU...and if Greece is the orphaned child under it's dark bat wing then the bat had better feed it some milk.

As terrible as Germany's deeds in WWII were, it can't be held responsible for the political and economic shape of Europe 70 years later. To suggest that bailing out Greece is a payment of some wartime reparation is crazy.

[ToadBrother]

As terrible as Germany's deeds in WWII were, it can't be held responsible for the political and economic shape of Europe 70 years later. To suggest that bailing out Greece is a payment of some wartime reparation is crazy.

Bailing out Greece is about preventing the Eurozone from cracking to pieces. Now we can debate why it happened, and to my mind, Greece probably should never have been allowed into the European Common Market to begin with, but at the end of the day, and despite a lot of anger in Germany over the whole thing, the alternatives were a lot worse. Certainly other countries in Europe have been able to, for the most part, fund a social safety net. Germany was able to do it despite having to absorb the absolutely broken East German economic machine, and despite its troubles, the German economy is still pretty powerful.

Greece, economically, was a basket case long before the latest market meltdown. It went hugely in debt for the 2004 Olympics, due, in part, to the surprise extra costs of security that was imposed on it after 9-11. I remember at the time the EU was fairly skeptical of the questionably low deficits Greece was posting. Remember, to be a member of the EU currency union, a country is supposed to maintain a deficit of no more than 3% of GDP and a debt ratio of no more than 60%. Greece's debt-to-GDP ratio is forecast to be something like 120%-140% within by 2012-2014. This fundamentally means that, without a bailout, the rest of the EU could quite suddenly face a full-fledged member of the economic union defaulting on its debts, which would create a major crisis for the currency as well as the Common Market. Clearly Greece has not lived up to its obligations.

I'll readily agree that the social safety net that many European countries enjoy is pretty absurd. Greece, in particular, has outrageously generous civil service pension packages, and I've heard the average retirement age for a Greek civil servant is something like 50-55. To be honest, apart from any costs of the welfare state, from what I can tell, Greece is just badly managed and governed.

Obviously too much of a welfare state is a major drag on the economy, but I think inefficiencies are as well. In Ireland's case, it wasn't even so much the welfare state as much as it was the wild west attitude that happened with the easy flow of credit. And, as we can tell from the early days of the Depression, simply allowing people to starve doesn't lead to a stronger economy, either.

[Smallc]

I'll readily agree that the social safety net that many European countries enjoy is pretty absurd. Greece, in particular, has outrageously generous civil service pension packages, and I've heard the average retirement age for a Greek civil servant is something like 50-55.

53. They now have to raise it to 60. That, and government employees apparently can't lose their jobs, even if they never show up.

[ironstone]

I think you're making two errors, both related. First of all, Obama is not a socialist.

But ok, that argument can go round and round forever, so here's a better one: many of the posters here whom you deem "socialists" most likely are not.

Myself, for example. Just like, to guess at a number, 90% or more of North Americans, I consider myself a capitalist, but with a belief in certain "socialist" (broadly termed) ameliorative properties to diminish some of capitalism's harsher effects.

And virtually everyone, no doubt yourself included, feels the same way. The difference is only a matter of degree, not of basic philosophy.

To date,I haven't seen much from Obama to indicate that he is NOT socialist.During the course of his life,he seems to have surrounded himself with the radical leftist types(in his own words,no less).

Out of control spending,hurts everyone in the long term.

[Smallc]

To date,I haven't seen much from Obama to indicate that he is NOT socialist.

That's funny, because I haven't seen anything at all to indicate that he is.