Reply With Quote
W is really a neo-conservative.
discuss?
W is really a neo-conservative.
Are you joking?
You ask such a question about a republican who is liberal on some issues and conservative on others? Would you question that of a democrat who was liberal in the same way?
Wouldn't a better discussion be "Is Obama really a Marxist?"
W = hero!
I think Cool Hand is referring to the nationalization of mortgage, banking, insurance, money markets and auto production under Bush.
Inasmuch as "means of production" have been socialized, he's got an argument there.
Well, it's the democrats in congress pushing for this for their banking and union buddies. I'm pissed that President Bush is going along. At least with the auto bailout, it's set up to be a loan that gets called in if they don't make certain progress. When president Obama changes the deal, it's then on him and the democrat congress!
Keep in mind, President Bush is not a good capitalist. He had several failed business dealings before he was president. I wouldn’t go as far as saying he’s a communist though.
I wonder if the banking bailout was the only solution that congress would approve, so President Bush, wanting to try to fix things, went along. A very bad decision in my view.
Both parties are in it up to their necks. The GOP has a few banking buddies, too. Hanging it all on Bush and the Dems is a dodge.
Bush kicked the can. It's pretty doubtful GM and Chrysler will meet the conditions. Come March 31, there'll very likely be a forced reorganization.
Rearranging deck chairs on the anic.
Reapportioning blame doesn't change how we got into this, or help us get out in any wise. Both parties enabled the ponzi. Both for damn sure better bust ass to get us out. Pointing fingers is a waste of time.
I don't disagree with any of that, WC. I disagree with the question in the subject line, but cool hand does at least have a leg to stand on. Right now the Fed and the Treasury are fulfilling the role of lender of last resort.
Pretty soon, the USG will be the buyer of last resort too, as consumption continues to contract.
Alternatives to our epoch-making bailout were not even considered. Inexcusable.
Nobody had a gun to Bush's head. He was the President. He chose not to lead, or to listen to the people, but instead to be led by Bernanke and Paulsen, like everybody else.
$350 trillion later, there's still no game plan. It's all totally ad hoc. Bernanke and Paulson shift with the winds, bereft of political guidance or oversight, while Congress allows the President to siphon off funds appropriated for financial ins utions, for his ad hoc industrial policy.
And we let them all get away with it. We let ourselves get sucked into fruitless squabbles over whose fault it is, instead of holding their feet to the fire, and preparing the gibbet.
Bush is a national socialist. and the dems are marxists.......just great for the rest of us.
Nah, he doesn't look good in red.
Cool hand needs to read up on Grover Norquist and Minimizing government power and complete deregulation of the economy
Abe Lincoln!
You would think with all his moderate talk before the election in 2000 (pulling out of pre-emptive policing actions, for instance), you wouldn't think him a neo-conservative, but he is now.
Communism: It's a party.
"let's say some dirty words: socialism"--- Senator Bulworth
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
