BushCo Leaving Office As "Socialists?"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 09:39:45 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

You know who I really want to hear on this, John McCain:

President Bush and the Treasury Department signaled on Friday morning that they stood ready to use some of the $700 billion bailout program for financial institutions for the Big Three car makers, after Republican senators refused to support a compromise proposal to rescue the automakers. “Under normal economic conditions we would prefer that markets determine the ultimate fate of private firms,” said Dana Perino, Mr. Bush’s spokeswoman, in a carefully nuanced statement released just minutes before the New York financial markets opened. “However, given the current weakened state of the U.S. economy, we will consider other options if necessary — including use of the TARP program — to prevent a collapse of troubled automakers.”

John McCain had a lot to say about "socialism" during the campaign. I am curious to hear him on the subject now. I think we all know President Bush is trying to avoid being a modern day Herbert Hoover. But will the GOP stick to Hooverism as its competing vision to the Democratic agenda?

Speaking for me only

< Herbert Hoover's Heirs | The Southern Senators (R-Japan) >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

BushCo Leaving Office As "Socialists?" | 44 comments (44 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Legislators have wide latitude (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 09:43:24 AM EST

to be irresponsible. They can always complain about some small point that keeps them from supporting a bill. (McCaskill and the judicial COLA yesterday is a great example of that).

But I have to say that I'm a little bit surprised that Bush is backing down on using the TARP funds. At least he doesn't want to be known as Hoover. Or Paulson explained to him the consequences of not acting.

He always thought he could find (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:01:22 AM EST

an argument somewhere to anyone calling him the worst president in the history of our nation but he finally woke up to the fact that if the Big 3 take a big flush right now it will lead to a sort of hell that nobody will forget for a century. It will leave deep disfiguring scars, and we will already have scars from what is about to hit us.


Well (5.00 / 4) (#12)
by Steve M on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:22:32 AM EST

They have been telegraphing this for a few days now. In fact, Senate Democrats were arguing "look, you guys can either pass our bill that imposes at least some conditions on the bailout, or you can have a Treasury bailout with no conditions at all." They were apparently unmoved.

It was always obvious that Congress would prefer to pass the buck to Treasury if they could, so even if Bush was willing all along to take action, you can't very well advertise it or it's going to end up in your lap.

Frankly, as unpopular as the financial industry bailout is right now, it's hard for me to fathom that anyone at all is opposed to pulling a small portion of the money from that bailout to spend on the automakers instead. What's funny is that the Republicans are so eager to lower the salaries of those goshdarned overpaid autoworkers, but you never heard a peep from them about getting investment bankers to take lower salaries. I think we all know what accounts for the difference.


: I predicted that they might do it last night (none / 0) (#17)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:29:36 AM EST

but it always seems to pay to bet against Bush doing the right thing.

Yes, if there was ever (none / 0) (#2)
by KeysDan on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 09:57:15 AM EST

any doubt as to the seriousness of the situation, Bush's reconsideration should put it to rest, even in light of McCain/Palin's dread of socialism and David Vitter's "backwards" concerns


Bush and the numbers (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by koshembos on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:02:53 AM EST

Paulson and other Bush advisers realize that letting Detroit fail means huge unemployment, may be around 10% and Dow Jones at the 6000 level. That's a terrible way to leave office.

It becomes abundantly clear that that the Republicans are at war with the American people. It's a good reason to declare the Republican party a terrorist organization.

"it's Herbert Hoover time" (5.00 / 7) (#6)
by scribe on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:03:50 AM EST

already, says Deadeye Dick Cheney.

The collapse of the economy, not the least of the auto industry, is the Republicans' fault, and theirs alone.

They wanted unfettered capitalism - and they pretty much got what they wanted.

They wanted no effective regulation - and they pretty much got it.

They wanted no or next-to-no taxes - and they pretty much got it.

They wanted no governmental services to the poor - and they pretty much got it.

They wanted lots of governmental services for the rich - and they pretty much got it.

They wanted perpetual war - and they got it.

They wanted to ship manufacturing jobs offshore to where they could profit, without having to pay a living wage to their workers - and they pretty much got it.

And every step of the way, Democrats and particularly progressives were telling them - "this will all wind up very badly".

And the Republicans made fun of the Democrats for reminding them that the last time the Republicans got what they wanted - the world got the Great Depression.

Well, the Democrats were right and the Republicans were wrong. And what the Democrats predicted would happen, has happened and will continue to happen.

And the Republicans own this collapse. All of it. Just like Hoover owned the Great Depression.

Yes, the outsourcing of (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by KeysDan on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:36:25 AM EST

jobs was seen as a great way to increase profits, but the geniuses neglected to think the ramifications through since that involved long range planning (i.e., beyond the next quarter). No jobs or low wages do have an impact, they seem to be finding, on the ability to purchase goods and services. Even that nasty old capitalist, Henry Ford, recognized that workers needed to be able to buy his cars. The continuing goal of many Republicans over the past 70 years has been to undo the New Deal but only with mixed success, that being mostly of the obstructionist variety. However, the past eight years have enabled realization of many of their goals. And, just look at us now.


The difficulty is that (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Cream City on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 07:33:33 PM EST

Dems owned Congress. So they do not get off scot-free in this collapse.


: The Democrats certainly did not control Congress (none / 0) (#41)
by Don in Seattle on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 07:47:33 AM EST

at the time we went to war, or when the Bush tax cuts were passed.
Democrats were the minority party in the House after the elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004. The Senate was very closely contested (i.e., 51-49 majorities, including nominal Independents like Wellstone, Jeffords and Sanders) in 2000, 2002 and 2006. Republicans controlled the Senate 55-45 after the 2004 election. It was not until this year that the Democrats took real working majorities in both chambers, and of course the new Congress hasn't been sworn in yet.
As to your second point, you're right: Nobody is going to get off scot-free in this collapse.

I know that the Republicans need to (5.00 / 5) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:09:51 AM EST

be called out on their B.S. but I have to say that Mitch and friends have truly frightened me this go around and commenting on the "socialism" thing seems petty to me. Only to me though, not saying it is wrong. These Southern Senators aren't just nuts though......they are F-ing dangerous. Watched Corker tell a talking head moments ago that he couldn't answer a question about the subsidies that the foreign auto makers get in the Southern states of these crazy Southern Senators unfairly favoring the corporate structure of those same auto makers in such a way that you can't compare the corporate structure of the big 3 to the foreign competition. Corker said he couldn't answer the question being asked because he was getting some sort of talk over in his earpiece.

Who says the 700 billion (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by NYShooter on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:35:21 AM EST

boondogle to the banks is a waste?

Our good friends at J.P. Morgan/Chase; you know, the ones who didn't want, nor need, the money, have found a good use for it.

What was supposed to help liquidity, and lighten the load on needy people, is instead being used to beef up their collection efforts. They have found a loophole in the Social Security exemption laws, and are freezing the recipients accounts to get them to pay on other loans that have gone into default.

If there is even one penny of non SS funds in the account holding the SS money, it is considered "co-mingled" and the bank has a right to freeze it, rendering the funds useless to the seniors.

That'll teach the old geezers! Who said Jamie wasn't earning his multi-million dollar bonus?

Wow... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by kdog on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:40:15 AM EST

almost sounds fascist!


I'm trying to help (5.00 / 4) (#28)
by NYShooter on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 11:02:49 AM EST

an old friend of mine, disabled, bed-ridden, living on SS. His son, thinking he was helping, wired him $100 into his account. Big mistake! J.P. Morgan is conducting "sweeps," whereby they email hundreds of banks at a time sniffing out these types of things. My friend had $800 in SS funds in his account plus the $100. Morgan is demanding a $500 payment on an old defaulted loan to release the remaining funds.

When I spoke to a Morgan Rep, I told her that he had run out of his life sustaining medication, run out of propane, and the utility had scheduled to cut off his electricity in a couple of days, she responded, "well, we froze his account two weeks ago, he must have other money somewhere, how has he been living?"

I wish I was making this up. I'm mad a Morgan, but my real anger is at our representatives who write these laws, and allow the bank's lobbyists to insert these poison pellets into the wording.

The MSM just has to publicize this, and show the public what's being done with their tax dollars.


Unbelievable.... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by kdog on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 11:34:38 AM EST

over a measley 500 dollar debt.

Morgan and the govt. are one in the same now...I'm tellin' ya man, fascism is the word. A socialist country would not allow a bank to deny a sick man access to his last 900 bucks.

Thanks for the reminder for why I don't use banks. Sealy Postuerpedic Savings never freezes funds, and no ATM fees:)


update... (none / 0) (#34)
by NYShooter on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 02:43:03 PM EST

I sent the whole package to Rep. Maurice Hinchey.

When I first contacted his office, his representative said, "like it or not, that is the law, and, you know "ignorance of the law" is no defense." It was only when I said, "Look, Mr. Hinchey is supposed to represent US." "You mean to tell me that when this legislation was being debated, legislation meant to indemnify SS funds for our seniors, he knew about, and condoned, this ourageous loophole?" "If he was a party to this obcenity, shouldn't he try and help the victims of this malfeasance?"

"Send me the paperwork.......sigh"

Stay tuned.


: "Sigh".... (none / 0) (#44)
by kdog on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:39:17 AM EST

yeah...its a real bummer when you are asked to do the job you're paid to do. Poor Maurice:(
Please do keep us posted Shooter...what an outrage. I wouldn't count on much help from co-conspirator Hinchey...but I'd sure as hell love to be wrong.

I think Josh Marshall nails this one (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by ruffian on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:51:31 AM EST

From TPM:

Finally, this issue now goes well beyond the fate of the American automakers. Senate Republicans are following this course for three key reasons -- first is payback against a major industrial union; second is payback against states like Michigan and Ohio who have been moving away from the GOP; third is the desire to advantage Japanese auto manufacturers who disproportionately do business in their southern states.
What even the White House can see at this point is that having one or more of these companies go under right now will rapidly accelerate the economic crisis, and in unpredictable ways.

He also wishes, as I have said many times, that the Dems would make them really filibuster these bills - talk and talk and talk and make the obstruction obvious. I don't know why Reid is not insisting on that.

: The pain-free filibuster (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by sj on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 11:21:25 AM EST

has been chapping me for years. The Bad Guys get all the benefits and none of the pain of a traditional filibuster. No need to schedule bathroom breaks.
Instead the pain goes to the hand-wringing Dems. Reid and Pelosi both. Major disappointments who are visibly ineffective.

Socialism?... (none / 0) (#3)
by kdog on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:01:07 AM EST

Maybe a bizarro world upside-down version of socialism.

I still say it more closely resembles facism.

Then you don't understand fascism (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:04:24 AM EST

Fascism.... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by kdog on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:19:05 AM EST

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

You could say the nation is being exalted above the individual, and that the economy and social issues are regimented. Though we don't have a dictatorial leader and opposition isn't being forcibly supressed, as of yet.

I was thinking along the lines of Moussolini's definition anyway..."the merger of government and coporate power". I don't think anyone can deny the power-merging going down.

So we're not a full-on fascist state, but we resemble one.


Lots of people, including you, (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:24:52 AM EST

like to apply the label "fascism" without understanding what it really means. You're missing the aesthetic and political components completely.

Fascism is not just an economic program, and it's not just right wing authoritarianism.


And it usually involves ... (none / 0) (#16)
by Robot Porter on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:28:12 AM EST

a very funny man with a bald head or a strange mustache yelling a lot.

I think it even says this in Websters.

;)


: heh (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:30:33 AM EST

: The guy with the funny... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by kdog on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:34:56 AM EST

mustache got his start in a sh*t economy in a country bankrupted by war...sounds kinda familar:)

Yeah (none / 0) (#35)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 05:33:15 PM EST

It is also universal health care. Fascists were big for it.


They Sure Were (none / 0) (#36)
by squeaky on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 05:43:43 PM EST

Just ask Dr Mengale, he provide free health care to a quite captive audience.


Ah, Godwin's Law, one step removed. (none / 0) (#38)
by Cream City on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 07:34:52 PM EST

Italian fascists (none / 0) (#40)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 06:47:48 AM EST

Germans were national socialists.


Not Mutually Exclusive Terms (none / 0) (#42)
by squeaky on Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 05:05:16 PM EST

Fascism is an authoritarian or totalitarian nationalist ideology,[1][2] which is primarily concerned with notions of decline or decadence, and which seeks to solve such problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth, exalting the nation or race above all else, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.

Wiki

Although there is technical debate about the true meaning of fascism, the colloquial use of the term absolutely includes Nazism.


: I would (none / 0) (#43)
by Wile ECoyote on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 03:27:32 PM EST

disagree, but then I look at Chavez and have to think about it.

Britt's 14 defining characteristics (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by hookfan on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 12:02:45 PM EST

all seem to apply. As to dictatorial leader think "unitary executive". Of course they aren't spelled the same so the comparison wont satisfy some who are anal retentive or merely pedantic. suppression of political opposition was in the embryonic stage with the justice department being used for political ends, and activists being placed on terrorist watch lists. If one takes the approach of comparison with Fascist regimes so labeled in the past, rather than merely playing definitional wordgames, placing our situation in or near the same category as fascist is not absurd imo.
If one looks at the similarities, regardless if one agrees on definition of "fascist", our situation looks perilous if one gives a rat's tail about liberty and a functional democracy.


The nerve of you kdog! (none / 0) (#32)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 01:55:13 PM EST

Having an opinion that isn't Andgarden approved.

Didn't you get the memo that today is his day to decide what people know, think and understand?


: I thought that was everyday:)...n/t (none / 0) (#33)
by kdog on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 02:04:53 PM EST

'Socialism' and 'Communism' (none / 0) (#8)
by oldpro on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:05:46 AM EST

don't have quite the ring or the reverberation they used to in the body politic...particularly not since the Chinese pretty much own our economy.

McCain didn't get far with that line.

spare me (none / 0) (#11)
by diogenes on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:19:39 AM EST

In fact, the GOP senators didn't want to throw money down the toilet. Chrysler is dead anyway. If the government doesn't want the car companies to go bankrupt, they can still impose bankruptcy-style rules (on creditors and union contracts) before flushing away more money. Let's see what Obama's great idea will be.

: Please give evidence of what you claim (5.00 / 4) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:23:51 AM EST

the GOP senators didn't want to throw money down the toilet
How was this demonstrated and what toilet was the money going down?

: So, Now the GOP Senators Get (5.00 / 5) (#27)
by santarita on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:59:56 AM EST

on their high horse about throwing $$$ down the toilet? Where were these guardians of government money when Halliburton and KBR were awarded no-bid contracts? Where were they when $8 billion couldn't be accounted for?
I think they pick and choose their battles in very obvious ways - they turn a blind eye on military extravagance and go on full assault against unions and against any social program that might benefit the bulk of the people in this country.
The most charitable thing I can find to say about these folks are that they have allowed their allegiance to an ideology to cloud their vision of what is in the best interests of the citizens of this country.

I will be amazed if, (none / 0) (#14)
by alsace on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:24:02 AM EST

in the 95th month of his reign, Bush finally does something I agree with.

Law of averages said it would happen someday (none / 0) (#22)
by ruffian on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:37:37 AM EST

I'm just as surprised as you that it finally might happen though.


Immigration Reform (none / 0) (#25)
by CST on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:42:26 AM EST

Too bad it didn't matter


: Yep, it was gonna be (none / 0) (#39)
by Cream City on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 07:37:20 PM EST

the hot button in 2008. Funny how that didn't happen, with Bush and McCain being on the good (read, reasonable) side of the issue.
Too bad where I am, not far from the district of Sensenbrenner. We hoped that with immigration the issue, his inanity on it would bring him down here. But nope, you-the-rest-of-the-nation are stuck with him again, too.

I just don't understand. (none / 0) (#24)
by shoulin4 on Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 10:41:38 AM EST

It's almost as if they want to be known for starting another depression, thereby elminating any clout that they may have been able to hold on to after the last eight years, not to mention the butt-whooping they received at the election. I agree with the person above that they should be a registered terrorist organization, but then again, I've believed that since our wonderful leader was first "elected".