Notices
Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: Your mind on Socialist Party of USA?

  1. #1 Your mind on Socialist Party of USA? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,093
    .


    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 08:03 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    It fails so utterly in USA because Americans vote for victories, not to drive policy/platform shifts.

    If 2% of Americans voted Socialist we'd see a remarkable shift-left by Democratic, in order to recapture those "lost" ballots, which could be decisive in future elections. Then the Conservative party would tend to shift-left, to peel away some upset Democrats. And so forth.


    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Socialism is still too dangerous sounding a word, I think. This platform you describe needs a new name, and it needs to be very clear that it's not trying to abolish private property or redistribute wealth arbitrarily.

    As long as every business that gets "nationalized" is taken from its owner by way of just compensation, instead of outright governmental theft (as has been the case in many communist takeovers), it might be nice to move in a new direction. Rich people can stay rich. We just don't want them in charge is all. Clearly the "free market" hasn't shown itself to be as efficient and trustworthy its followers claim it to be.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    We just don't want them in charge is all. Clearly the "free market" hasn't shown itself to be as efficient and trustworthy its followers claim it to be
    Like hell it hasn't. Almost all of the innovations, jobs, and economic progress that's built the United States, economies of Europe, and even framing the huge explosion of China's industry have come from private industry.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,093
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 08:04 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    [QUOTE=Stanley514;299258]
    What do you mean exactly as ``private``?
    As in not owned by the government.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    It failed because we are primates in a certain environment. And the only news sources most Americans have to fill their brains with info. are all corporate backed.

    Theres a heart and soul in a socialists way of thinking , like the people in the Greeen party. But our corporate backed media system does not allow programing that could educate Americans to other ways of thinking.

    And (PERHAPS, MAYBE), white Americans (males in particular) in Southern areas (and other areas ) are a bunch of racist, nazi leaning idiots (no not all of us, but still as a group.) These people dont seem to care about people our planet or our goverment. These idiots just dont like welfare. They dont like giving money to poor and (oppressed) people.

    I just realized that most Americans are against wellfare (giving money to poor people.) That is crazy !!

    Maybe the reason socialists cant get more than 0.01% of the vote is, socialists stand for things most Americans are against.

    People like the socialists want to help the poor, and make every person count as a human being.

    But we are a country that is against wellfare (giving money to poor people.)

    And maybe when your a country that is against giving money to poor people, the socialist party just does not get a lot of the vote.

    I wish that I could laugh at this moment, but none of this is funny.
    Last edited by chad; December 29th, 2011 at 03:49 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    I just realized that most Americans are against wellfare (giving money to poor people.) That is crazy !!

    Maybe the reason socialists cant get more than 0.01% of the vote is, socialists stand for things most Americans are against.
    That's right. We expect people to earn their way. Charity whether from the government or private agencies should only help those who are completely out of options...like they are missing two legs....or can barely tie their shoes. Everyone else should be extremely motivated to invest time to improve themselves and their communities so they can survive. Safety nets should only catch the most desperate.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    If I understand it right from USA socialists platform they mean situation when
    entreprises are owned and managed democratically rather than individually or by inheritance.Do you think such property form is by definition inferior? If yes, why exacly?
    Yes it is inferior. Bureaucrats are worse at running a business than businessmen because bureaucrats will have a job and get paid as much money whether they succeed or fail. Their jobs depend on things like political skills or being a relative of someone in power.

    Socialism tries to reduce disparities in income. Disparities in income are good because they provide an incentive to improve one's position. It is like differences in pressure in the atmosphere, which causes the wind to blow. Without that, your economy is becalmed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Bureaucrats are worse at running a business than businessmen because bureaucrats will have a job and get paid as much money whether they succeed or fail. Their jobs depend on things like political skills or being a relative of someone in power.
    But surely the biggest bureaucracies in the world are those within the international corporations?

    And 'being a relative of someone in power' is a great help to advancement in most organisations. Try the Murdochs, Waltons, Rockefellers for starters.

    As far as political skills go, I rather thought the people who are good at extracting advantageous employment contracts/ promotions or personal pay raises are the prime political operators in large organisations.

    There have to be better arguments than this for describing the advantages of private rather than government (or employee) control of enterprises.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Bureaucrats are worse at running a business than businessmen because bureaucrats will have a job and get paid as much money whether they succeed or fail. Their jobs depend on things like political skills or being a relative of someone in power.
    But surely the biggest bureaucracies in the world are those within the international corporations?

    And 'being a relative of someone in power' is a great help to advancement in most organisations. Try the Murdochs, Waltons, Rockefellers for starters.
    Corporations will still fail if they are too inefficient. Not bureaucracies.


    As far as political skills go, I rather thought the people who are good at extracting advantageous employment contracts/ promotions or personal pay raises are the prime political operators in large organisations.

    There have to be better arguments than this for describing the advantages of private rather than government (or employee) control of enterprises.
    One works and the other doesn't. Isn't that a good enough argument?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,093
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 08:04 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I just realized that most Americans are against wellfare (giving money to poor people.) That is crazy !!

    Maybe the reason socialists cant get more than 0.01% of the vote is, socialists stand for things most Americans are against.
    That's right. We expect people to earn their way. Charity whether from the government or private agencies should only help those who are completely out of options...like they are missing two legs....or can barely tie their shoes. Everyone else should be extremely motivated to invest time to improve themselves and their communities so they can survive. Safety nets should only catch the most desperate.
    I agree with you that people need to earn their way and when our economy was booming, stricter measures should have been in place for those applicants applying for welfare benefits. Today, our economy is not booming. Our once loyal corporations to patriotism got greedy and funded our politicians so the free trade agreement was in place so they could find cheaper labor in another country and this is where they should provide welfare benefits for those people that lost their jobs. Do you realize that there are 300 applicants for a McDonald's position and this is the case in many other fields of employment opportunity.

    Our government knew what the consequences of what enabling big businesses to leave the U.S. that it would create the current situation we are in with our economy. Our government's job is to govern and maintain the system our society created eons ago so a person has the ability to obtain a job, raise a family, save a nest egg for retirement, and so on. They have failed and this was done out of greed, pure and simple. So at this particular time in history, people have the right to expect socialized programs to help them and our leaders should allow them since they created the situation in the first place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    If I understand it right from USA socialists platform they mean situation when
    entreprises are owned and managed democratically rather than individually or by inheritance.Do you think such property form is by definition inferior? If yes, why exacly?
    Yes it is inferior. Bureaucrats are worse at running a business than businessmen because bureaucrats will have a job and get paid as much money whether they succeed or fail. Their jobs depend on things like political skills or being a relative of someone in power.
    So will CEO's. Back when private business meant sole proprietorships your argument would have been spot on, but the tort laws and resulting explosion of law suits throughout the 60's, 70's..... and on to the present have made all those entrepreneurs too gun shy to risk their own fortunes. Everything is run by proxy now.

    That's our main problem. The private sector has come full circle and become exactly like the public sector for all intents and purposes. Just as bureaucratic. Just as inefficient. Just as apathetic (think of AIG execs demanding their bonuses after the company failed under their watch). The main difference that still exists is that a corporation is much less accountable to anyone than government is. Even its own stock holders.



    Socialism tries to reduce disparities in income. Disparities in income are good because they provide an incentive to improve one's position. It is like differences in pressure in the atmosphere, which causes the wind to blow. Without that, your economy is becalmed.
    If we want to be pundits we can argue the virtues of a 100% flat income distribution vs. an absolutely skewed distribution of income. However, if we want to be scientists we would suggest a balance between the two. Clearly superior effort deserves a superior reward, but that doesn't mean one guy needs to earn a godzillion dollars while 2 million people earn pennies per day.

    The people earning pennies per day are still exerting an effort.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    We just don't want them in charge is all. Clearly the "free market" hasn't shown itself to be as efficient and trustworthy its followers claim it to be
    Like hell it hasn't. Almost all of the innovations, jobs, and economic progress that's built the United States, economies of Europe, and even framing the huge explosion of China's industry have come from private industry.
    And the housing bubble? Was that a government conspiracy?

    Again, let us not be pundits. The free market isn't a total failure, but it's not a total success either.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Bureaucrats are worse at running a business than businessmen because bureaucrats will have a job and get paid as much money whether they succeed or fail. Their jobs depend on things like political skills or being a relative of someone in power.

    But surely the biggest bureaucracies in the world are those within the international corporations?


    And 'being a relative of someone in power' is a great help to advancement in most organisations. Try the Murdochs, Waltons, Rockefellers for starters.

    Corporations will still fail if they are too inefficient. Not bureaucracies.

    Really??? I was thinking they would get bailed out.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    And the housing bubble? Was that a government conspiracy?
    In large part yes--though I'd call it stupid government policies rather than conspiracy. When government established programs so anyone, no matter how unstable or feeble their income (see affordable housing laws), could buy homes and forced banks to issue those loans, they created huge artificial price hikes across the nation.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,093
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 08:04 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Corporations will still fail if they are too inefficient. Not bureaucracies.
    What do you think on failure of bureaucracies in most of eastern european
    countries at the end of eighties?
    They proved that socialism is a failed system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,093
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 08:05 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Corporations will still fail if they are too inefficient. Not bureaucracies.
    What do you think on failure of bureaucracies in most of eastern european
    countries at the end of eighties?
    They proved that socialism is a failed system.
    If so, then Mexico also proves that capitalism is a failed system.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,093
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 08:07 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    If so, then Mexico also proves that capitalism is a failed system.
    The same is true about Argentina and many others.But what to talk about Latin America
    if even in Spain (which is most developed country in Spanish speaking world) 50 % of
    young people can`t find any job?!!
    Spain unemployment at record high near 5 million - BusinessWeek
    Spain is struggling to recover economic growth after crawling out of nearly two years of recession prompted to a large extent by the collapse of a real estate bubble.

    Opposition conservatives are tipped to score a landslide win in general elections on Nov. 20 over the ruling Socialists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    In large part yes--though I'd call it stupid government policies rather than conspiracy. When government established programs so anyone, no matter how unstable or feeble their income (see affordable housing laws), could buy homes and forced banks to issue those loans, they created huge artificial price hikes across the nation.
    More or less Fox News bullshit.

    Probably the least important freqeuntely mentioned factor. It affected a very small proportion of even the direct loans made, turned in better numbers (repayment rate, foreclosure rate) than the ordinary loan of the type, and had nothing at all to do with the derivatives market that was the overwhelming cause of the crash.

    The inner city was trashed mostly by mortgage fraud on the part of unregulated capitalist entities colluding for mutual capitalist profits. The suburbs were trashed mostly by free market capitalist speculators granted easy money by unregulated capitalist banks. The whole thing was driven by the capital investment needs of big financial firms and banks centered on Wall Street - again, lack of government involvement was conspicuous: Goldman and Lehman and Bear Stearns and AIG and the like were operating in a market more closely approximating a "free market capitalist" ideal than almost any ever seen on earth.

    btw: One of the easier socialist/capilatist comparisons is Cuba with Haiti. One reason it works is that it fulfills the stereotypes so well that even the wingnut crowd is willing to admit Cuba is socialist - it's one of the worst examples of socialism on the planet, an authoritarian regime operating under blockade and boycott and continual hostility from the world's dominanat economic power: and it still works better than its neighbors, who have no such disadvantages but are burdened with capitalist influence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    it still works better than its neighbors, who have no such disadvantages but are burdened with capitalist influence.
    I wouldn't like to use this as an example of socialist versus capitalist. It's really good government versus appalling government.

    Governments that claim to be socialist or even communist are just as capable of weakness, nepotism and corruption as any capitalist or purportedly capitalist government. The big difference should always be focused on outcomes. Cuba managed throughout decades of blockades and boycotts and very restricted opportunities for trade to consistently outperform even the USA on essentials like infant mortality and breast cancer survival rates. That's got very little to do with socialism and everything to do with focusing on the important things that matter to your community. A good monarch or the classic 'benevolent dictator' or even some capitalist societies could do exactly the same if they chose to do so.

    If you look at inequality, try Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett who wrote "The Spirit Level" for starters, the big issue is not the form of government but the better or worse outcomes. The most equal societies in the developed world are the Scandinavian countries and Japan. But they get to this outcome by completely different routes.

    In Japan, the difference in incomes from least to most are nowhere nearly as wide as in Western countries, but they have low taxation and virtually no formal social security as we know it. So there's not much inequality. The Scandinavians have high gaps in incomes but they use taxation and government payments to finish up with almost the same result as the Japanese. Both have excellent results in the classic inequality indicators of education, health and crime. Much, much better than the US, UK or Australia. (Though I do think we should leave crime out of this, sometimes, not always. The USA is so much an outlier on crime statistics compared to other developed economies that it can seem irrelevant, because it looks more like some of the developing countries. Much more fruitful to look at the similarities and comparative differences in education, health, teenage pregnancy, status of women and other such indicators.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,093
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 08:05 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Spain is struggling to recover economic growth after crawling out of nearly two years of recession prompted to a large extent by the collapse of a real estate bubble.

    Opposition conservatives are tipped to score a landslide win in general elections on Nov. 20 over the ruling Socialists.
    1) United Kingdom has largest external debt in Europe (if not to count Ireland).By far larger than Spain or Greece (as percent to GDP).Or what do you think on Berlusconi`s policies which nearly lead to bankruptcy of Italy.
    Is there also socialists guilty?
    2)As I know socialist parties which were rulling in Spain,Portugal,France and Greece did almost nothing to develop
    co-op sector.I guess it remains very small in those countries.So which their policies were failing you think?
    An interesting agenda of USA Socialist party is to develop democratic workers' self-management.Do you think European
    ``socialists`` did huge acheivments in this direction?
    Workers' self management is a dumb idea. You don't need a socialist government to do it. Yet, there are no large companies managed by the workers. That's because it doesn't work. The workers cannot do their own jobs and learn how to manage the company too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,093
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 08:05 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady
    I wouldn't like to use this as an example of socialist versus capitalist. It's really good government versus appalling government.
    If you regard authoritarian oppression and economic regimentation as "really good government"; and if you intend to overlook, rather than highlight, the characteristic influences of different economic systems on governments.

    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    Yet, there are no large companies managed by the workers. That's because it doesn't work. The workers cannot do their own jobs and learn how to manage the company too.
    There are no large companies managed by their capitalist owners, major investors, board members, etc, either. A large company is managed by hired and trained professional management, almost by definition. So?
    Quote Originally Posted by stanley
    2)As I know socialist parties which were rulling in Spain,Portugal,France and Greece did almost nothing to develop
    co-op sector.I guess it remains very small in those countries.
    It's a good idea to look a little more closely at political parties than merely their name - people call themselves "socialist" in many European countries that have endured fascist government recently, simply for the good image of socialism in its opposition to what they experienced under fascism. In the US, you see people calling themselves Libertarian, Independent, Republican, Democratic, for similar reasons.

    Meanwhile, there are large cooperatives in Spain and other countries: Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    In large part yes--though I'd call it stupid government policies rather than conspiracy. When government established programs so anyone, no matter how unstable or feeble their income (see affordable housing laws), could buy homes and forced banks to issue those loans, they created huge artificial price hikes across the nation.
    More or less Fox News bullshit.
    Not entirely BS. Unless you qualify GW as being corporately owned (and that would make it a much more complicated question.)

    Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    - 2002 June 17:President G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through billions of dollars in tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith based organizations.

    -
    2003 December: President Bush signs the American Dream Downpayment Act to be implemented under the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The goal was to provide a maximum downpayment assistance grant of either $10,000 or six percent of the purchase price of the home, whichever was greater. In addition, the Bush Administration committed to reforming the homebuying process that would lower closing costs by approximately $700 per loan. It was said it would further stimulate homeownership for all Americans.
    - 2004
    HUD ratcheted up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affordable-housing goals for next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent, stating they lagged behind the private market; from 2004 to 2006, they purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans.

    - 2004
    October:SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley. Freed from government imposed limits on the debt they can assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1.
    Basically, GW and some others were trying to push a home ownership agenda, where incentives and discounts would be offered to groups that traditionally didn't perform well in the mortgage market to try and get them to own homes.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Spain is struggling to recover economic growth after crawling out of nearly two years of recession prompted to a large extent by the collapse of a real estate bubble.

    Opposition conservatives are tipped to score a landslide win in general elections on Nov. 20 over the ruling Socialists.
    1) United Kingdom has largest external debt in Europe (if not to count Ireland).By far larger than Spain or Greece (as percent to GDP).Or what do you think on Berlusconi`s policies which nearly lead to bankruptcy of Italy.
    Is there also socialists guilty?
    2)As I know socialist parties which were rulling in Spain,Portugal,France and Greece did almost nothing to develop
    co-op sector.I guess it remains very small in those countries.So which their policies were failing you think?
    An interesting agenda of USA Socialist party is to develop democratic workers' self-management.Do you think European
    ``socialists`` did huge acheivments in this direction?
    Workers' self management is a dumb idea. You don't need a socialist government to do it. Yet, there are no large companies managed by the workers. That's because it doesn't work. The workers cannot do their own jobs and learn how to manage the company too.
    Depends how we split the hairs. There have been some very large employee owned corporations, where the workers' union managed to actually acquire enough stock to declare itself owner.

    United Airlines was one such company from 1994 until 2001, when the whole 911 thing kind of crashed their business. The downside of employee ownership is it's really hard to get those employees to accept a pay cut.

    United Airlines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In 1994, United's pilots, machinists, bag handlers and non-contract employees agreed to acquire 55% of company stock in exchange for 15% to 25% salary concessions. The flight attendants voted to not participate in the deal, and at the beginning some wore buttons saying "we just work here." The Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) made United the largest employee-owned corporation in the world. United used the opportunity to create a low-cost subsidiary, Shuttle by United, in an attempt to compete with low-cost carriers.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,093
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 08:06 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Not entirely BS. Unless you qualify GW as being corporately owned (and that would make it a much more complicated question.)

    Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    - 2002 June 17:President G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through billions of dollars in tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith based organizations.

    -
    2003 December: President Bush signs the American Dream Downpayment Act to be implemented under the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The goal was to provide a maximum downpayment assistance grant of either $10,000 or six percent of the purchase price of the home, whichever was greater. In addition, the Bush Administration committed to reforming the homebuying process that would lower closing costs by approximately $700 per loan. It was said it would further stimulate homeownership for all Americans.
    - 2004
    HUD ratcheted up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affordable-housing goals for next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent, stating they lagged behind the private market; from 2004 to 2006, they purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans.

    - 2004
    October:SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley. Freed from government imposed limits on the debt they can assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1.



    Basically, GW and some others were trying to push a home ownership agenda, where incentives and discounts would be offered to groups that traditionally didn't perform well in the mortgage market to try and get them to own homes.
    That never added up to a major factor in the housing price bubble, though - or the crash, except for the SEC suspension of the the net capital rules, which did significant harm.

    The subprime stuff Fannie and Freddie grabbed starting mostly in '05, as they jumped on the bandwagon years late with too little money (they were losing too much business to the bubbling private sector to stay out any longer) was not only small by comparison but also better behaved - it ended up defaulting at a lower rate than the much larger pile of private subprime loans, partly because it only involved resident purchased residential houses whereas the larger market was stuffed with flippers and pyramid real estate scams and "investment" schemes and other capitalist debris, partly because its criteria were more strict and conservative than the private capitalist market had come to consider normal.

    Fannie and Freddie are not socialist organizations, btw.

    Meanwhile, the derivatives market that destroyed the US economy was ten or twenty times the size of the entire US mortgage market - prime, subprime, subsidized, the lot. Fannie and Freddie subprime adventures were ticks on the elephant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Returning to the original question: Why does *that party* fail in the USA?

    Here's a good point I'd like to elaborate on:
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Socialism is still too dangerous sounding a word, I think. This platform you describe needs a new name...
    Contrast Canadian "Conservative party" with the American version. Canadian Conservatives today are what Americans must rate "socialists". I.e they embrace universal health care, subsidized education, homeless shelters, etc. Most nations have actually become socialistic to a degree idealists of former centuries would find utopian. Of course you will always have divided opinion on whether the country should proceed more right or left. But that's from the perspective of the day.

    Socialism has made great progress in the USA. Only the name has failed utterly.

    As I said before, the USA is locked in a two-party system. Neither party's going to change its name, regardless of how far it may shift from early ideals.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,093
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 08:06 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Socialism is still too dangerous sounding a word, I think.
    In France, currently, the most popular presidential candidate is a socialist
    and member of the Socialist Party.It doesn`t make French people scarry.
    The socialist candidate is a corrupt piece of Sh#& and in the pocket of globalist elites the same way Obama is just a tool for Wall Street. The EU has been supported by individuals with CIA-asset-ish backgrounds and it is anti-democratic for it has been implemented regardless of what people voted for, and the people have two main BOGUS choice between corrupt candidate that do not expose the racket of public debt (which is exacerbated by borrowing at interest what could be issued by a local currency).

    Left and Right are more or less meaningless, because in France with both main parites being corrupt shills for the elites, the semi-major party that is least worst for workers is the Front National which is "labeled" extreme right. I dont consider myself to be right wing what ever that means, but if I was in France I would nonetheless vote for the FN right-wing party as the least corrupt option.

    Note that France's socialist-y policies have made it a very good place to live as far as Quality of life is concerned (up till recent years that is because it has been under covert attack by NATO elites/agents/traitors/collaborators and has been sabotaged at an increasing rate for years, specially with Sarkosy.
    Last edited by icewendigo; February 8th, 2012 at 08:13 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Socialism is still too dangerous sounding a word, I think.
    In France, currently, the most popular presidential candidate is a socialist
    and member of the Socialist Party.It doesn`t make French people scarry.
    There are very few things in the world that could possibly make the French scary.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    There are very few things in the world that could possibly make the French scary.
    Well, not now. They've pulled their heads in quite a lot since the Rainbow Warrior fiasco/tragedy/farce.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Socialist Party of the USA
    By kowalskil in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 7th, 2011, 12:30 PM
  2. Socialist United States
    By kowalskil in forum Politics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 2nd, 2011, 11:24 AM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 24th, 2010, 01:56 PM
  4. The Pirate Party!
    By icewendigo in forum Politics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 30th, 2009, 09:59 AM
  5. It's a Rainbow Party!
    By Coffee in forum Art and Culture
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 17th, 2005, 11:49 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •