Leilani Garden
Well-Known Member
Hi Vi. First let me say that there is a lot in your above post with which I agree. It IS time for us to come together, to throw out the good ole boys' club and their money hungry ways, screwing us over every chance they can. What amazes me is that they cannot see that it will screw up their lives and their children's lives as well. If we screw this up badly enough (and I'm kind of concerned that we may have already crossed that line), life is going to change for the worse for everyone. And that's not just here.
Re the big bailout that did not happen. I don't know if we can really point a finger at either "side" and blame them. What happened started out small, back around '02, with speculators and mortgage brokers making creative mortgage deals. If we do NOT help bail out a lot of these homeowners, we're all going to pay the price.
Yes, it SUCKS, and it sucks big time, that we are all going to have to help them out. Too many people got super big heads and bought way too much home, adding in the fancy mouldings, jacuzzi tubs, etc. Conspicuous consumption.
Then there were the speculators, and the wanna be real estate "investors." There are a lot of people, young too, who got in on this game and bought not one, not two, but several homes. Does it bug me that a bailout might actually be helping people like that who may have used inflated equity to buy things like jewelry and go on trips to Jamaica, thinking they were so intelligent and savvy because they managed to become "real estate investors." YES, it does. But the alternative is for all of us to sink with them.
It pisses me off, yes. But let's be practical. If they all sink, we're all going down with them. I noticed Bongulator up thread said something to the effect that if it's really a free market, let it crash and burn. I agree with that statement--in THEORY only, though. Same with the airlines. They ought to just get lost if they cannot make money. Nobody's bailing out my business when I screw up and lose money. Sure, I can take a loss on my taxes, but essentially, my losses are my own. The airlines have ticked me off for a long time.
But letting all of these biggies go under, in the name of free market, is going to hurt all of us. I don't like knowing that we're all helping Joe and Susie McSuburbia finance that VVS I diamond bracelet that they bought with their bogus equity, but I don't want to sink with them.
Make any sense? I hope so.
As for the old gripe about us dreaded liberals being all about wanting to make laws for every gd thing and then some? I hear that criticism, and yeah, I agree with it--but only to a certain extent. Smoking in cars with children not allowed in California and Louisiana? Come on. Get lost. We should not be legislating to that degree. Where's it going to stop? Are we going to start arresting pregnant women for not taking their prenatal vitamins? And what about people like me, who are borderline fanatical about food? I want all corn syrup products banned, because it is a huge culprit in the obesity epidemic in this country. YEAH, it's true. So if we are going to start legislating to the degree that people are no longer allowed to decide whether or not they can light up in their cars with children in tow, then I want the gd corn syrup removed from every food product in this country.
See what I mean? I've said it before on this thread--sure, I want EVERYTHING my way. But I'm not foolish enough to believe that were that the case, we'd all live happily ever after. Moderation is the key. Yup, you heard me, this flaming liberal correctly: moderation, a good, healthy push/pull. THat's the best way for the most people to get most of what they want/need. Incidentally, although I think Clinton's presidency was one of the most successful in our history, part of that success came from the '94 midterm election, in which Gingrich (whom I cannot stand) took over both houses. So there was a push-pull. True, there was also a huge tech boom, and that helped our economy tremendously [as would new technology now regarding cars and transportation].
So . . .where were we, Vi?
Oh, yes, the book you linked me to? I finally got around to reading the review.
Liberal Fascism. Well, for one thing, it's an oxymoron. Fascism, founded by Mussolini, IS corporatism, which is hardly a liberal thing.
Check out these quotes from Mussolini:
Benito Mussolini quotes
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power
There are dozens more quotes from the founder of Fascism on that link. And they can be verified by either reading or by just googling away. Mussolini knew what he was talking about.
Now, let's talk about what exactly fascism is, and why even the title, if not the thesis and the content, of that book cannot be true.
Look at it like this--like a number line. Remember those fun things from school???
>>>COMMUNISM**********moderation******************FASCISM<<<
On the very, very far left, you have communism. No corporations. Everything's owned by all the people. And if anyone's ever read Das Kapital by Marx, or even parts of it, you might agree with me that, well, what the heck, that sure does make sense and sounds great. Hey, let's pool all of our resources and share and we'll all live happily ever after. It's also pure materialism--no religious views, in other words. The world is only what the eyes can see, what the fingers can touch, and so on.
On the very far right is fascism. It's the mirror opposite of communism. Nothing is owned by the people, collectively. "The ownership society"? Recall that snippet from '04's campaign cycle? What happens is that corporate interests start running the government, and the government screws the people by giving in to the corporate interests.
BOTH of these extreme political schemes will end in utter destruction. There has never been anyone, any movement, any nation, any THING that has tried to dominate the entire world that has succeeded--not a one. When the Soviet Union tried, oh yeah, they gave us a run for our money (literally too--look at what we spent on arms and how so many jobs were lost when the Soviets fell flat on their faces back in, what? '91?)
The Soviets fell.
The Italian fascists and German Nazis fell. So did Japan.
Ditto Napolean, and any other entity that tried to overtake the world.
At both ends of this political spectrum, right or left, communist or fascist, there will be destruction and totalitarianism--period. When we have that healthy push-pull, we will all be better off. That's why it was so terribly alarming when BOTH houses, the executive branch AND the SC were dominated by the right. Absolute power corrupts. That's just human nature.
What we have experienced in the last two Bush 2 administrations has been horribly destructive. What are they conserving anyway? RECORD deficit spending? That came back to bite Bush ONe in the ass badly. He lost his second run (to Clinton) in part because a big part of his message was: Read my lips: no new taxes.
Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I know that when I've been stupid enough to try to finance life off of credit cards, I have to pay up eventually; and it costs more to pay up that way, what with interest, you know? Reagan spent huge amounts in his quest to defeat the Soviet Union (which was going to collapse anyway), and then? Bingo. Bush One had to pay the piper by raising taxes. Same thing happened to me way back when I was a mall betty--I charged and charged, and I had a great wardrobe, and then? Well, I had to pay it off. (No, I did not lose my election that year, but that's a different evening, ha ha.)
So this deficit spending is a horror that we're all going to have to pay for. The spending has been over the top reckless, and that's putting it mildly. My grandchildren will be paying this debt off.
(Then again, how come China doesn't do some debt forgiveness with us?? I mean, did we, or did we not help them out just a tad bit in WW2?)
McCain does not know the economy. My personal impression of him is a man who has been through hell and back in politics (and in his personal and military life). He wants power so badly, and that seems to be his raison d'etre in this race. Palin? Come on, man. I literally laughed out loud when I heard about her as the choice. I thought we (obama supporters) had it all sewn up, and now? I am shocked at how many Americans are falling for this. Palin is NOT qualified, period.
Obama? Okay, I hear the criticisms, but, hey . . . I think the man is extremely intelligent. Power, ego? Yeah, but anyone who seeks that office has to have a big ego. No getting around that. Solve that one, and we'll solve a lot.
BUT--the man's mother was a cultural anthropologist. I know that rubbed off on him, had to have. And with that background, our foreign relations will, I think, improve greatly. He's also smart enough to appoint a kick ass cabinet. I hope that Bill RIchardson gets a spot on the cabinet, because I think he has great experience (governors do) and I liked his message. He was always right on the question during those first debates.
Obama will also show the rest of the world, who hate us now with a vengeance we've never seen before, that we are NOT bigots, that we are smart enough to know when we've gone too far.
And this adminstration has gone too far. This has been utter madness.
More on that book later. I read the whole review of it from the link you sent, and although it's only a synopsis of the book, there were some other glaring errors. If they are going to pick apart the liberals (people like me), then they have to at least know who we are. We are not corporatists. That's the RIGHT, the neo cons, the Pat Buchanans, the religious zealots, etc. More comments on that when I have time to respond properly with facts to back them up.
So? Did I win the liberal media argument or not? I have more, lots more on that one. Sure, Fox is bad, but CNN is really, really sneaky. More later . . ..
Diane? Thanks for your support. Honey.
