More Socialism from Republicans

[Bob White]

Where amazes me is that some see bill created and passed by a democratic controled congress as "Socialism from Republicans".

 

If Democrats did not want this to happen then they had the votes and the committee power to not write the bil and not pass it.

 

Is it socialism, yes in some ways. Is it the result of a democrat controlled congress, undeniably.

 

 

[evmori]

Hardline partyliners are almost as bad as bigots! Can't see past the nose on their face!

[OldGreyEagle]

There is this thing that is available in the executive branch, its called the veto. I know Bush knows about it as he has used it a few times. This may have been another good occasion.

 

Then there is the "Line Item Veto" something that comes up every now and then, one party or the other makes a big deal about and everyone argues about it and then is goes away until the next time a flap is made over it, sorta like doing away with the electoral college. In 2001 many democratic congressman and senators said the election result was an outrage and it was time to elect the president by popular vote. So, 6 years later, how is that going?

 

We get Socialism from the goverment because we want it, I mean we must, we keep electing these guys, dont we?

[nolesrule]

Line item vetoes were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998, because it gives the president the power to effectively rewrite legislation by removing the parts he doesn't like. Creating legislation is not a power granted to the Executive branch of government.

 

Changes to the basic separation of powers (like the line item veto) and the electoral process require constitutional amendments.

[OldGreyEagle]

My understanding was that a presidential veto can be over ridden by congress so if the legislation is wanted by enough people, then the veto gets over ridden.

 

Ok, the bill is about giving a promising Cancer Research Project a million dollars, and some COngressman adds a bridge in his District gets replaced and its against the rules for the President to say yes to Cancer Research and no to the bridge. Great system we got

 

And wouldnt a constitutional amendment have to start in Washington, then it goes to the states? So talking about changing the electoral college and actually doing something are worlds apart.

[Eamonn]

Seeing what is happening on both sides of the pond (Here in the USA and in the UK)

I can't help thinking that many of the politicians lack any real back bone.

In order to get elected both parties (Republicans and Democrats in the USA and Labour and Conservative in the UK) are happy to adopt some sort of middle of the road, centralist agenda.

This leads to Joe Public not having any real choice and the media spending time on matters of fluff.

While I'm happy and proud to be left wing and would like to see a socialist government in both countries. I'm also OK with the fact that this might not be what the people want. (That is that the left wingers might lose)

While I might not be happy with a right wing government, I would much sooner see leaders who had the courage of what should be their convictions take the bull by the horns and lead, than play this middle of the road game that has more to do with getting elected than doing what they believe in. Or should stand up for.

Ea.

[Rythos]

Someone also has to explain to me how a "Fiscal Conservative" in the White house has increased the national debt of our country by over three trillion dollars since taking office. It must be all the money spent on the timely response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, or perhaps the global spanning manhunt resulting in the successful capture of those responsible for the deaths of thousands of American citizens.

 

This President and his warmongering policies seem to have done little more than mire our country in a horrific economic downturn and destroy what little positive world opinion we had left. How many of us can say we are doing better now than we were eight years ago. I saw an apologetic quote from Michael Dukakis (remember the fool in the tank?) in Rolling Stone the other day that read something along the lines of "If I had beaten the old man, no one would have ever heard of junior" How lucky that would have been for all of us.

 

I find it hard to believe that either presidential candidate will be able to implement any serious programs of change unless they can be made budget neutral, due to the overwhelming financial black hole George has helped to put us all in (Unless your 401k is heavily invested in Military Contractors, or Big Oil that is)

 

He had such a positive impact on the view that our country holds of the GOP that they wouldnt even let him or his VP come to the convention. Even the boyfriend of Sara Palins daughter got to go to the convention for crying out loud.

 

At one point in my life I used to be an active Republican in local and county politics but I can honestly say Ive learned my lesson

 

Ry

[eisely]

Responding narrowly on the question of "bailouts" of firms in financial services. When the stockholders of the failed institutions are left with little or nothing it is not a bailout.

 

True conservatives have been pointing out for years the risk involved in the way that both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were run, but the congress would not allow bona fide reform. These institutions were also allowed to donate lavishly (bribe) members of both houses from both parties to maintain their privileged positions of the public taking the risk for private profit. Even as recently as a year ago Barnie Frank, Democrat from Massachusetts was resisting real reform. Howell Raines, Clinton's personal contribution to Fannie Mae fiasco probably deserves to be indicted for the accounting falsification that Fannie Mae engaged in during his tenure there.

 

There are a number of aspects of the way home owner financing has degenerated in recent years that troubled me. The only surprise in the current situation is that anybody is surprised.

 

Having said all that, it is critically important to the economy as a whole and the larger society that the integrity of the payments system be maintained. If this requires forced marriages of finance houses and banks and liquidation of shareholder value in the failed institutions, so be it.

[Gold Winger]

I don't think that warmongering policies had much to do with economic downturns, war is generally good for the economy. The economic downturn is the result of the greedy capitalists from both sides shutting down their factories and running to China.

 

Positive world opinion? In my lifetime, the world opinion of the US of A has only been positive when they want something from us. A disaster happens, we send help and get criticized for not sending enough. We take in the poor and huddled masses and get yapped at because we want them to follow some silly rules. It's really strange that no one seems to like our country but so many of them want to come here and suck whatever they can from the system.

[eisely]

Responding to Goldwinger's post, I agree that the war policies have not caused the the current economic difficulties. I disagree strongly with his statement about greedy capitalists and China.

 

Even though I hold a doctorate in economics, I do not pretend to always understand what causes economic cycles. If I could successfully predict business cycles and turning points I would be a far wealthier person than I am.

 

Having said that, it is fairly obvious in hindsight that the current slowing of growth in the economy (not the same things as negative growth) is due to the same housing crisis that has brought so many financial institutions down. The boom of a few years ago was largely driven by over building in the residential home sector. This too rapid growth was a direct result of policies put in place by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage more "sub prime" lending through Mortgage Brokers. The problem with Mortgage Brokers is that they never have any skin in the game. I also saw a piece lately where about 25% of the mortgages in default were clearly obtained fraudulently. Since Mortgage Brokers are the first line of defense in the system, it was the failure of these people to do what they should have been doing that helped push this whole thing over the edge.

 

There were also large numbers of borrowers who never planned to occupy the homes they were buying (and lied about it) as a pure speculative play. With zero down mortgages available, what was there to lose? Should these borrowers be bailed out?

 

All this inflated apparent housing demand beyond ordinary levels with the resulting boom in residential construction that pulled the rest of the economy along more rapidly than it would otherwise have grown.

 

We are now blessed with a substantial excess inventory of unoccupied houses that will be a drag on many markets for years.

 

The manufacturing sector remains surprisingly strong and exports are booming for some industries (e.g., aircraft, industrial equipment). Frankly I find this a bit surprising personally as the US has always had trouble competing in the world market for manufactured goods since the first days of the republic. The reason is very simple.

 

We have always been a high income country compared to other countries. This is one of the main reasons people still want to come here. For certain kinds of manufacturing where the technology is settled and easily acquired, the US is not competitive and it has nothing to do with evil capitalists. Think of footwear and clothing. Where we are competitive is in the higher technology goods where we have higher labor productivity and superior products, such as aircraft.

 

The one major manufacturing sector that I am concerned about is automotive. There the fault lays with both management and labor and I note that the US manufacturers are all asking for their bailouts now. Any bailout of these companies will also be a bail out of the United Auto Workers union. Don't wish to seem anti union here as there are many union members who are scouters and who participate in this forum. The UAW has made some sacrifices in recent contracts, but the companies are still not competitive. One of the more humorous characterizations of General Motors I saw recently noted that GM was a company that ran a health care system and made autos as a sideline. Where does one draw the line?

[Gold Winger]

It could be that the housing market had a downturn because people aren't making any money. Why aren't they making money? Because we don't make stuff here anymore. The people who used to make a living making plastic cups, drills, toys, and Boy Scout uniforms don't have jobs anymore. Why? The greedy capitalists sent those jobs to China.

 

It's all about greed and the capitalist mantra, "More for me and the heck with you."

 

Unions? They're just as greedy as the capitalists.(This message has been edited by Gold Winger)

[eisely]

Goldwinger,

 

Economic actors (consumers, workers, corporations, farmers, etc.) acting in their own interest in a free society are what makes the free market economy run and has generated the economy that we have today. If you want to call this greed, so be it. I plead guilty to acting out of greed.

 

However, the data show you are dead wrong regarding the housing situation. I quickly accessed the data maintained by the Dept of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis on personal income. The housing crisis was becoming apparent to insiders even in 2006 and became public almost a year ago. During the ten quarters beginning in the first quarter of 2006, personal income and disposable personal income both grew every single quarter through June of 2008. The cause of the collapse in housing was not insufficient income of home buyers.

 

Only in the last few months has personal income actually declined and we may now be in a bona fide recession. I submit that the current decline in personal income is the result of the housing collapse, not the cause.

 

We do make stuff here in the US, but the answer to economic growth is not to create barriers to trade but to allow the market to focus resources where we have real comparative advantages and leave the other manufacturing where we are not competitive to others.

[Gold Winger]

What do we make here? Not much. Computers? Consumer electronics? Bicyles? Tableware? Staplers? Pato furniture? Power tools? Free market? It's greed. Just plain cupidity.

 

Disposable income? Sure, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the rich have more money to waste but the poor are living in the gutter and eating Alpo.

[nolesrule]

The theory of a free market only works properly in closed systems. Once you start outsourcing labor to other markets (because it is cheaper in part because of lower costs of living), prices may reduce, but the money doesn't stay in the market and flows into another market. This reduces spending power, yet cost of living doesn't reduce as energy, water and other necessary services don't reduce in price.

 

At the same time, people locally are forced into lower wages, because, well, their jobs would be outsourced to another country if they didn't...and even that isn't guaranteed.

 

 

 

 

[Gold Winger]

I saw the former CEO of Citicorp on the Charlie Rose Show and he said that even though we are suffering localized pain we should be happy that we're improving the standard of living in other countries. Sure, the guy also talked about his $300,000,000 donation to Cornell.

 

I guess if I could give away $3 megabucks and still afford to pay the rent, I wouldn't care about a bit of localized pain either.