Quote:
|
Originally Posted by miraja2
dalakhani,
In my opinion, I think this basically comes down to a situation where I am using a narrow, academia-based definition of socialism, and you are using a broad, popular culture-based definition. That's fine. It doesn't really seem like we are making any headway in convincing each other, so it is reaching the point of being a completely useless conversation.
All I would add at this point is some questions similiar to what you asked earlier:
- Would a socialist advocate a tax cut that exceeded a trillion dollars where the wealthy were the overwhelming beneficiaries?
- Would a socialist advocate a state-based deregulation of the energy system which ended up meaning that utilities are no longer obligated by law to reinvest ratepayer money back into the transmission system, and instead replace that level of government planning with total reliance on "the market."
- Would a socialist advocate taking apart the state controlled social security system and replacing it with a privatized system?
I think you will agree that the answers to all of those questions is no.
Socialists are primarily interested in re-distributing wealth from capital to labor. Does Bush fit that description? Not even close. I think the massive tax cuts for the rich alone probably disqualify him from consideration.
You cite a bunch of examples where the administration has increased the role of the government. Nobody could disagree with that. They certainly are less concerned about limiting the size and scope of the federal government than any other Republican administrations since Teddy Roosevelt. On that front we certainly agree.
I just think that without a simultaneous committment to changing the fundamental economic power relationships in the country (where they seem to have the exact opposite goals in mind) the term "socialist" is inappropriate.
In the end though, it seems like it all comes down to semantics.
As for the Fannie May discussion, it seems to me like we are saying the same thing. It started out as a government organization. It was such for 30 years. Then it became a private company with, as you call it, an "implied guarantee" from the government. It was that "implied gurarantee" that I was referencing when I called it not a "truly private company." To me, that implied guarantee is fairly significant, and makes it (or I guess I should now say, 'made' it) fundamentally different that any private company without such a gurantee. I never meant to imply that it wasn't a company where those at the top made outrageous profits. They did. But it seems to me like the implied guarantee from the government was probably significant on that front. I just thought your earlier "in the blink of an eye" statement implied that the government became involved in this business for the first time ever this summer. That was the point I was trying to address.
|
Remember-Bush has a constituency. He has many masters to keep happy. I bolded your points and i will address each one.
1. Would a Socialist offer a tax cut that overwhelmingly benefitted the wealthy?
A. No. But...a conservative would follow those tax cuts with budget cuts. In the first five years of office, Bush increased the deficit by 1.5 trillion. NOT taking into account Defense and homeland security, the Bush administration saw over the largest spending increase in US history. Socialist?
2. Would a socialist advocate state based control of the energy system and replace it with a privatized system?
A. No. Again, though, the devil is in the details. He wanted to use federal dollars to create, modernize and expand the energy system. Socialist?
3. Would a socialist take apart the state controlled social security system and privatize it?
A. No. But...read the plan. It would basically turn social security into a Thrift Savings Plan with a Central administrator that would invest the money for the GROUP. Now is that socialist? Here is the link to the whitehouse proposal:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/so...alsecurity.pdf
Fannie and Freddie's guarantees were strictly implied. You said "the were never really private" which wasnt the case. A government SEIZING a private company and propping it up with tax payer money is Socialist in nature. That was my point.
There is no academic that would deny that many of Bush's policies were indeed socialist in nature. The only debate would be about the degree...no pun intended.