Quote:
|
Originally Posted by miraja2
Again, and I am trying really hard not to be a typical academic here, but providing links to on-line encyclopedias and dictionaries is not really proving much of anything. I gave you a couple of actual books that I have read that I think would educate you more on the topic if you are interested. Some ideas are complex and can't be fully reduced to one-sentence definitions. I can assure you that no serious academic would ever classify the Bush administration as socialist. They just wouldn't. Now I realize I probably can't prove this to you since for you proof seems to only consist of posting a link, but I suppose if you are really that interested you could try contacting some leading academics and asking them so you could see for yourself.
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth at all with my analogy. I really see no reason for a discussion such as this to get this heated. It seemed to me (and it actually still does) that you seem to be equating all governmental action with socialism. That definition of socialism just seems out of whack to me. By your definition, it seems to me like you would you categorize Henry VIII as a socialist. Do you really think that makes sense?
Also, you really need to get your facts straight on the whole mortgage thing. Fannie Mae was founded as part of the New Deal, and was an official government agency for over thirty years. When it was later partially privatized (sometime in the early 1970s I think?) it was never truly a private company, so I don't know if your "blink of an eye" statement really works.
And perhaps more importantly, is it really that shocking? Afterall, the United States Post Office has a statutory monopoly on mail delivery to private mailboxes. It is literally against the law for someone to start a business that would deliver packages to private mailboxes. The governmet is controlling, regulating, etc. all aspects of that industry, and for a large portion of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, held a legal monopoly on any sort of delivery service at all.
Does that mean that the early nineteenth-century government that authorized this monopoly was socialist?
I guess my argument is that your definition of socialism seems so broad, that almost every government in history fits the description. At that point, does the word even have any meaning at all?
|
Miraja-
Please dont mistake my rhetoric for anger and it wasnt my intention. Actually, I find discussions like these many times enriching as long as one can support one's position with "fact" or the closest thing available (now that is broad).
Let me clarify my position on Bush considering that was what led to this and perhaps you can come up with one yourself.
To say that Bush is in all ways "socialist" would be silly. Of course he isnt a complete socialist and i said as much earlier. However, I would dare say that he is the most socialist Republican president in the last 100 years and probably beyond.
You bring up an example of the US postal service. Fine. And you can probably think of a couple of other government ventures along the way that are socialistic in theory as well. But have you seen a Republican president that was THIS SOCIALIST? For Example:
-He committed 200 billion dollars of federal money to rebuild New Orleans after Katrina
-uncountable billions in smart growth
-negoitated a deal where an privately held bank Bank of America bought a privately held mortgage company-countrywide and gave Bank of America a sweetheart favor in exchange.
-negotiated a deal where a privately held bank JP MORGAN CHASE bought a privately held investment bank-Bear Stearns and guaranteed the deal with public funds.
-injected 150 billion dollars of public funds back into the economy with this bogus stimulus package.
-is currently shopping for a buyer for Lehman Brothers
-took over fannie and freddie to the tune of 100 billion each.
And this isnt a socialist administration in many ways?
Lastly, i thought it was especially ironic about you telling me to "get my facts straight" with the mortgage industry considering that i help run a bank and i actually have final say in the paper we portfolio or sell. LOL. For your info, FNMA and FHLMC were Quasi govt agencies. FAnnie was created in 1938 and was converted to a PRIVATE company in 1968 so that it wouldnt appear on the fed budget sheet. It was indeed a PRIVATE company that received ZERO federal dollars or guarantees until last weekend when the fed took over.
The statement that i bolded "it was never truly a private company" is patently false and just flat out wrong. It was a privately held corporation with a board and a ceo and it made PROFIT and gave out disgusting bonuses to its board members. The only real connection to the government was the "implied" guarantee on the conforming paper.