The main thrust of it was to remind people that as the ratio of government spending to GDP narrows in the coming years, we will have the Bush administration to thank for the circumstances that brought it about. This is a special moral conundrum for people who claim to despise socialism (without understanding what it means) and admire George W. Bush (or think that he was anything less than a catastrophe).

Ohoh. That was a good point.

The situational conundrum could be described like this: that when Bush would use the power government never gave to the president in order to save the free market – that is what enables radically socialist policies. Since it actually legitimised using government power to enforce moral goals. Such as freedom and liberty, war in Iraq, and Cola for everyone (specially in the new Christian Free State in the Gulf).

While when Obama arguably is trying to argue against using power to enforce policies based on their moral rightness, and instead require Congress to debate the issues in their lunch- break from all the lobbying meetings, then he’s ensuring that the momentum of the Bush- years continue towards socialism.

In other words, what is actually happening here is that: moronic american wizzards are dreaming up yet another example of where their every move and direction will – with inevitable force – change the world, and topple mountains, and oh my gawd, and stuff. And rewrite the history books, and invent the wheel again. And that will be hailed as an accomplishment, because that’s what the wizzards declare.

Whether that’s the result of a tragedy of the wizzards’ own making, or whether it is something they’re genuinely proud of having done (which may or may not be the same, admittedly) – is irrelevant. It’s obvious who the main character is – am I right, huh? Amirite! It’s the US of Fucking A. And that’s that. All it does must be observed with caution, lest not history must be destroyed from thinking the wrong goddamn thing.

Problem is this – the US isn’t socialist. It never was. It’s citizenry has no culture for even the thought (although I imagine some are starting to imagine now, for a variety of reasons). This is also the reason why “Socialism” is known in the US as exploiting others in the name of the state: Because that’s how government works. That’s what alliances are about. Caring for others, or having a social conscience, or even a moral conscience – or even a duality where you’re aware of the moral choices you’re breaking – fuck it. Altruism might be admirable, but nothing makes people’s blood boil as much as succeeding where other people fail. Specially if it’s because you can write them off as “little people”, who aren’t worth as much as successful ones.

That may sound harsh, but when you’ve talked with enough people in the democratic party, then you will know that to be the damned truth. In other parts of the world, you would be considered either extremely naive, or supremely egotistical. But that’s just normal in the states.

So instead of socialism, where the state is an instrument for ensuring a minimum of some sort for everyone – An equal opportunity for all to succeed, if you excuse the abuse of a more familiar phrase. Instead of that, the state is an uncontrolled and unauditable business designed for farming money. Money which people fight over with any and all means, because there’s no control on it.

And the point is that regaining some modicum of control over what Congress is doing, and requiring it to actually argue properly for where money goes – something as mentioned Obama is actually attempting – that does not make the country socialist. Neither does it make the country socialist if that attempt somehow succeeds, and all appropriated money from the tax had a receipt. It would simply make sure that the it continues to be an elected body of representatives who fight for the inevitable pool of money the taxes bring in.

Except that now people – who care to pay attention – actually has a say in what to do, since they now can actually vote for what they see.

And if we disregard those who think the entirety of the US population will vote in droves for socialists if they had any power, and that power in the hands of the people is intrinsically anti- capitalist – some people argue this: that what Obama “really” wants, is to enact socialist policies like health- care. Of course – what he has suggested is to require certain services to be available if businesses are to be allowed to run insurance and health- care. Furthermore he suggests a proposition that will ensure all people should afford some minimal variant of that package.

So the argument, if anything here made sense, should be about whether it is socialist or not to enforce standards of this kind on businesses. And whether it’s a proper market- economic tactic as long as you make sure at least some people are starving, have no house, and have no health- care. Conversely – is there a principled difference by ensuring subsidies for banking and other large businesses, than it is subsidising schools and health- care? How come there’s a total acceptance for enforcing moral rights, but not actual rights?

But that argument never comes (unless it’s ruled unconstitutional in the courts). Because low and high, and rich and poor, and wizzard and commoner are engaged in an elaborate battle to believe themselves to be exploiting the other for their own gain. The little guy thinks he’s benefitting from having the high and wise speak for them. And the wizzards think they’re doing the country and the world a favour for farting artistically. But in reality it’s a game to exploit the other guy as much as possible. It’s always been, and it’s a philosophy that’s grounded so deeply it’s simply not going to go away – particularly not as long as it’s forbidden to discuss it.

So yeah – you’re headed for socialism about as much as Bush is headed for a one way trip to Mars in a remote- controlled space- ship. It’s not going to happen by accident, for fuck’s sake.

immediate incarceration/execution of all hedge fund managers because they are “enemies of the people”

Would this boost to public moral & ethical hygiene deter other just-as-venal afficionados of perfidious fuckery from joyfully taking their places?

Sadly, Nyet!

Shit! Maybe I am a socialist. This sounds entirely reasonable to me.

I’m reading a book about the bombing of Wall Street in 1920. Oh, what happy times.

What about the goddamned revolution, then, and the rise of the worker to kill the oppressing capitalists! Aren’t we about to win after all! Help!

http://www.newsweek.com/media/63/090207_COVER-coverlarge.jpg

I bust on socialists with jokes about big black mustaches and stuff because I bust on everyone. It’s just how I deal with stress. Frankly, I think an eliminative tax on stock profits is a fabulous idea – stock is a form of theft, and this would be a great way to eliminate it. As far as I can tell, a position like this makes me something of a moderate socialist – probably to the left of France’s PS, or Canada’s NDP, but better able to work with them than I am the American Democratic party. But what choice do I have?

Yeah. But this?

The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration— effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not—and many, especially Congressman Pence and Hannity, do not—the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.

Nationalizing the banking and loan industry is not “moving toward a modern European state.” It’s moving way beyond it. This is not the normal and prevalent state of affairs in a modern European state.

Well, in reality, we have already effectively nationalized the risks of the banking and mortgage industries. The rewards? Not so much. I wouldn’t call that socialism by any measure, particularly those quotes above about egalitarian compensation. I don’t know what you might call the thing that such behavior is moving toward, or past, but it ain’t a “modern European state”. I can think of a few European states from about seventy years ago that might have treated capital as favorably and let it have the sort of hand at the wheel that we do today, but I’ll let Godwin rest in his hole for now.

The central banks don’t really correspond to the Fed.

Buying crappy regular banks wouldn’t help at all; it is a horrible plan and makes me fear for the competence of Geithner. Summers was a well known “neo-Liberal” who helped push the privitazation not just her but around the world through the IMF, and I expect nothing different.
Nationalizing banks, though, is not buying them. We don’t have political leaders who are radical enough to make the necessary changes I am afraid, so buying their assets is the likely course of action.

My sense is that AJ is more aliterate than illiterate – it can read but chooses to just look at the pretty pictures instead.

The folks defending the Newspeek piece need to wake up & smell the abbatoir. Take a good hard look at the subtext. Why does the article say America is becoming more French as opposed to more Japanese, or more Swedish? Looks like a dog-whistle to the readership-segment that’s still eating “Freedom-Fries” & boycotting Merlot & Brie just like Bill-O told them to … & missing the boat on getting what socialism really means isn’t a minor quibble at this point, it’s semantic effluent with a smiley-face pasted on. Knowingly purveying “reasonable” bullshit to people who don’t know any better may be fun – & even profitable, for a while – but it’s also increasingly lethal in a world where it translates quickly into policy.

I’m just surprised they didn’t use an Obama “O” with a hammer-&-sickle in the center – guess they’re saving that cover for the midterms, eh?

The real reason AJ can’t read Jillian’s letter is that it’s now in a drug-OD-induced coma – that’s what happens when you do 8 or 10 big fat rails too many trying to forget your lost integrity . As information gets more abundant, noise gets harder & harder to sell – & AJ is a noise-aholic.

Homework: “Hey, I read up on Obama’s economic dream team and my ass is bleeding freely. Is it possible I’ve been punked by a Stephen King magical black man? Is it even remotely possible that the physician with the gold-coin jones, or the midget with the ultra-hot red-haired wife, might have not only had a point, but still have a point, like Captain Krugman (peace be unto him)?”

And I’m sorry, but if you read all your news in English, you’re still missing a hulking great chunk of the big picture. The NYT, like Al Jazeera, has an overseas edition which is required to ease off the batshit stupidity. Reading the International Herald Tribune is not the way to get a fuller picture of current events.

Thank you.