Do you believe there are socialists in Washington?

[StorminNorman]

I'm not disputing this idea, but rather the rhetoric being used. I'm saying, what is the point of even mentioning it? And what is the point of giving a specific number? I think it's not a case of calling something what it is. This is using the word "socialist" as code for "un-American."

The Congressman was asked about the Obama administration. He said that he still had hope for Obama's Presidency, that he was more opened to ideas than Bush was. He then went on to say that he is fearful in the direction Washington could go, "some of these guys I work with, the men and women in Congress, are socialists."

I don't understand what is wrong with that statement. I think trying to imply he was using "socialist" as a code word for un-American is being intellectually dishonest.

Why can you not call someone a socialist without people jumping to cries of McCarthy?

Now as to giving an exact number, I am a bit confused there. I am having lunch with the Congressman sometime this week, so maybe I can get some insight.

 

[Cosmic]

For one thing, since he didn't name any names, we obviously don't know who he was referring to, exactly. So in a way, he's creating an air of suspicion with his statement. He has a secret list of socialists in congress! So what are we supposed to get from that? What exactly is he getting at, if anything?

I mean, if you're going to go that far, you might as well just say who it is. Because what else would be the point of even saying something like this aloud in public, other than to accuse people (without naming them) of corrupting America from within their positions of power in government?

So yes, I think there's a very McCarthy-ish aspect to this, and I'm calling it dirty politics, and cowardice...to hide behind his little secret list, when we all know how many Americans commonly hear the word "socialist" and think first of Josef Stalin.

 

[StorminNorman]

For one thing, since he didn't name any names, we obviously don't know who he was referring to, exactly. So in a way, he's creating an air of suspicion with his statement. He has a secret list of socialists in congress! So what are we supposed to get from that? What exactly is he getting at, if anything?

But that wasn't his original statement. The 17 socialists or whatever came afterwards, and I haven't seen that statement in context. Again, I plan on asking him more about that statement.

I mean, if you're going to go that far, you might as well just say who it is. Because what else would be the point of even saying something like this aloud in public, other than to accuse people (without naming them) of corrupting America from within their positions of power in government?

But where is he accusing people of corrupting America? All he is saying is that there are some people whose beliefs are socialist. What is wrong with that? He isn't saying they are anti-American, he isn't saying they should be removed from office, he isn't saying they should be investigated, he isn't saying they should be watched, he isn't even calling them dangerous. So comparing Bachus to McCarthy is simply wrong. Completely, utterly and totally wrong.

So yes, I think there's a very McCarthy-ish aspect to this, and I'm calling it dirty politics, and cowardice...to hide behind his little secret list, when we all know how many Americans commonly hear the word "socialist" and think first of Josef Stalin.

So because Americans hear "socialist" and think "Joe Stalin" it's wrong for any politician to describe someone's ideology as socialist?

 

[Cosmic]

Norm, if it's as innocent as you're making it sound here...then why can't he just say who it is? Why is it even worth pointing out the fact that reps in Congress are socialists? Otherwise, for the reasons I pointed out, making this sort of claim without any sort of context, serves to cast a shadow of suspicion over people. It's dishonorable, and it does bear resemblance to the tactics of Joe McCarthy. Fortunately, as someone pointed out above, there are signs that people are finally beginning to see thru this nonsense.

 

[StorminNorman]

Norm, if it's as innocent as you're making it sound here...then why can't he just say who it is?

Because I don't think he is looking to name names. Again, I don't think these comments were made with the intent of making headlines. I don't think these comments were made with the intent of starting a crusade against socialism. It sounds to me that Congressman Bachus was asked about the state of Washington by a bunch of Alabama officials, and he said that he is worried about the government becoming more socialist. I think such a comment then became something bigger than the Congressman attended.

Why is it even worth pointing out the fact that reps in Congress are socialists?

Why is anything worth pointing out?

Otherwise, for the reasons I pointed out, making this sort of claim without any sort of context, serves to cast a shadow of suspicion over people. It's dishonorable, and it does bear resemblance to the tactics of Joe McCarthy. Fortunately, as someone pointed out above, there are signs that people are finally beginning to see thru this nonsense.

It only resembles Joe McCarthy if you want it too. It takes a skewed perspective to reach such a conclusion.

 

[DACrowe]

I dont see how spending us into massive debt will assist us....

And I disagree, but respect your opinion. I was just critiquing the Republican Party and your claim that Iraq overshadowed their shenanigans.

 

[DACrowe]

If someone says "Obama is trying to save capitalism from itself"?

Maybe.

But this isn't, also, real life. It's a different medium. My ability to demonstrate an emotion, a tone, etc. is greatly restricted when dealing with simple black and white. So is used to demonstrate disbelief, amusement, hilarity, etc.

Fair enough. But I honestly believe that is his true effort and he, like FDR, is breaking some conventional norms as the markets are failing and the system is stalling in this country. He is attempting to keep it from breaking and all bankers and CEOs care about is if they get their ****ing bonuses, even if their company is literally being propped up by the government. They really are oblivious to the plight of the situation.

 

[StorminNorman]

He is attempting to keep it from breaking and all bankers and CEOs care about is if they get their ****ing bonuses, even if their company is literally being propped up by the government. They really are oblivious to the plight of the situation.

But I don't see that at all. For one, bankers know that a long term job is always more lucrative than a short term one - so the idea that they care nothing about the future success of their banks and only about their bonuses just simply doesn't add up. This also doesn't explain why Obama prefers to not allow banks from paying back government money and instead wants control over them.

 

[DACrowe]

Tax Cuts had nothing to do with the debt of today. Tax cuts stimulates the economy.

And I agree in basic economic theory that is correct, particularly during recession. Perhaps that is why Obama is in fact cutting taxes. But cutting taxes during expansion and increased government spending can inflate both the market and the deficit and is a reflection of poor governance for the sake of paying off money lenders on Wall Street as aptly demonstrated by the Republican Party in the 1980s and this previous decade. Both of which was bad fiscal policy and both contributed (note, I did not say caused) to recessions. It is the reason George H. W. Bush was forced to raise taxes during his presidency, a good call that cost him re-election.

As for stimulus, I think it works when properly implemented. It managed to create a sense of trust in the market during the Great Depression and did begin the road out of recession until 1936 when, during a bid for re-election, FDR cow-toed to Republican Congressional representatives who demanded lower taxes and he cut stimulus spending and continued lowering taxes...and the economy turned around and re-enetered recession. I am of the mind that those who despise government spending and preach only tax cuts only look at supply side and refuse to see the bigger picture. Sometimes the market does not just "fix itself," at least not without much help. And before someone claims WWII ended the depression, let me point out what about WWII ended the Depression? Insane amounts of mobilized government spending on an effort that the Opposition Party was not trying to tear down and the creation of new industries from government finance.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[DACrowe]

But I don't see that at all. For one, bankers know that a long term job is always more lucrative than a short term one - so the idea that they care nothing about the future success of their banks and only about their bonuses just simply doesn't add up. This also doesn't explain why Obama prefers to not allow banks from paying back government money and instead wants control over them.

they've shown a complete incompetence of management and most want to pay back in reaction of losing bonuses. I have a friend in the banking industry whose parent company took TARP and to no end *****es about Obama and his economic plans because it is going to force him to have to retire a few years later than intended in the distant future.