Fondant post=18.72780.778615 said:
Okay-
Possum- 1. If you ever insult Franklin D. Roosevelt again, it will mean a private war betweenme and you. This is not me overreacting, but I get so pissed off with Americans who seem to equate responsible, socialist government with communism (as you have previously) that my vestigial sense of morality simply cannot allow it to continue. Other than that, most of your points are valid, save the fact that
2. It was the Republican party that pushed through the deregulation of the Stock Market post-1949 (Eisenhower and so on), thus destroying the checks and balances that FDR had put in place to prevent catastrophe post '29.
Thirdly, I would like to add that unless something is done to stabilise the Banking sector, and done bloody quickly, then we are in serious trouble. Think 1929- the banks were the first to go, and led on the financial crash, which in turn precipitated the Great Deppression. And this time, there will beno World War to pull you out of it. There is no British Empire to immolate itself for the preservation of civilisation any more- If this ship goes down, we're all going down with it. So start learning Chinese.
Fourthly- If Britain goes. You. Are. All. Fucked. Sideways. All of you. The Yanks, the Aussies, the Germans, the Africans, the Japanese- All of you. So much of your money goes through our nation, that should we go down at any time, you're own economies are dead in the water.
Kick out one pillar, and the others will crumble under the weight.
Dude, you've been out in the sun too long. You're going back to EISENHOWER? The Republicans deregulated the stock market and therefore fifty years later it crashed? No responsibility on the Democrats forcing banks and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac to invest in bad loans, no effect from Cuomo requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to have 50% of their portfolios in low income loans (the root cause of the sub-prime market, no point in making loans you know can't be paid back unless you know the government via GSEs will buy the loans), no effect from the Community Re-Investment Act of '77, just the evil Republicans fifty fucking years ago?
Please tell me you're joking.
You'll have to show me where I insulted FDR, whom I generally admire, especially his conduct of World War 2. If it's over my saying Fannie Mae is the direct cause of this crash, I'm not going back seventy years to lay blame. Fannie Mae is one of the few government programs that worked well as designed for decades, until Congress and HUD decided to use it as an instrument to provide homes to people who manifestly could not afford them or who have a history of not being credit worthy. If your love of FDR is such that anything he had a hand in creating is sacrosanct, then we'll have to have war; I'm not elevating the man to the level of deity.
Beyond FDR personally, communism and socialism are irrevocably linked. Socialism borrows concepts from communism and vice versa, in purest form the former being government ownership and/or control of production and possibly its means, the latter being government ownership of everything. The distinction is a difference of degree, not a difference of principle. Marx was recognized as a leader in socialism during his lifetime, Marxism being nothing more than an extension of socialism.
That said, modern Western socialism is more about equalizing results and opportunities, spreading benefits and pooling risks. I have no problem with some socialism in my government; I would not want to live in a purely capitalistic society. I don't mind Social Security, or disability. I'm old enough to remember the poor houses, after all, although they had already been abandoned. I don't even have a fear of single payer, socialized medicine as long as people understand it's not free health care, it's just cutting out the very best (and therefore most expensive) available care to spread the resources to more people. What I
do mind is having socialism spread much further. Taking money from one person to give it to another is, to me, nothing less than organized theft, without even the polite fiction that these are basic human rights. That's why I favor bailing out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, GM and Ford, and whatever other companies we decide as a society are too big or too important to be allowed to fail
with loans only. I have no objection to the government helping someone help themselves; I have a big problem with the government simply take it from one person or group to enrich another person or group because that person or group screwed up, whether in the market or in life.
What I mind even more is the loss of freedom. The more government controls, the less the individual controls; it's that simple. Every government benefit makes us less free; every government hand-out restricts the natural creativity of a free society. The more socialism, the less economic freedom and the less economic prosperity. Of course, you can also argue that there is more fairness; government schools give a chance at an education to children who would otherwise be unable to afford it. But too often people see socialism as free stuff and think that since they want it and other people have it, they too are entitled to have it just by virtue of existence. Socialism is fine in small amounts; taken in large doses it leads to the Soviet Union or pre-capitalistic Communist China.
Interesting links for things mentioned above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
http://www.rismedia.com/wp/2003-02-07/fannie-mae-exceeds-hud-housing-goals-for-9th-consecutive-year/
http://www.nmhc.org/Content/ServeContent.cfm?ContentItemID=3287
