« Experience: The Red Herring of Any Election | MJS's Blog | Fascism is the Name for What's Happening »
Republicans Oppose Socialism? Hardly.
(Please excuse the stream of consciousness approach to this post. It's somewhat of an unorganized rant. I apologize in advance.)
So-called "conservatives," the ones who dominate the Republican Party and have creeped their way into Democratic circles as well, have a habit of insisting that they are fiscally responsible and for full, free, and unfettered capitalism. The market knows best, they say. Let the market fix things. Don't give aid to the poor, the unemployed, the down-trodden. They are where they are by way of their own faulty decisions. If they are to succeed, they should have to compete in the free market like everyone else.
Oh, if this conservative mantra only applied to their rich voting bloc, their corporate lackeys. But it does not. It never has. It's free markets for the poor, but socialism for the rich. And this banking crisis and the proposed bailout is but one more powerful example of this.
What? You want more money for education? For jobs programs? For clean water? There is no money for those things, we are told. We're mired in debt and can't afford to be spending like a 10-year-old whose just been given his allowance.
But if a bank fails, if a corporation goes belly-up (for making preadolescent-like decisions), suddenly the heavens open and money comes pouring from the sky. It's the same money it's always been: taxpayer money. That money, the very wealth of America, is what gets redistributed on a daily basis. (Psssst. Don't say redistribution of wealth too loudly or you'll be labled a commie and that will be the end of the discussion.) But this wealth doesn't usually get redistributed from the top down, anathema to any lover of so-called free markets, but rather the bottom up, which is precisely what is about to happen with these bank bailouts. It's the same thing that happens with defense contracts and health research: Tax dollars get funneled in, profits go to a few. Socialize the cost, privatize the gain. Take $700 billion of taxpayer money to pour into the banking system so that their CEOs and higher ups can get rich again.
That's not free-market capitalism folks. That's robbery. Criminal.
So the next time a "conservative" extols the virtues of the free market, be sure (s)he's at least consistent. What's good for the rich is good for the poor, or (not and) vice-versa.
So-called "conservatives," the ones who dominate the Republican Party and have creeped their way into Democratic circles as well, have a habit of insisting that they are fiscally responsible and for full, free, and unfettered capitalism. The market knows best, they say. Let the market fix things. Don't give aid to the poor, the unemployed, the down-trodden. They are where they are by way of their own faulty decisions. If they are to succeed, they should have to compete in the free market like everyone else.
Oh, if this conservative mantra only applied to their rich voting bloc, their corporate lackeys. But it does not. It never has. It's free markets for the poor, but socialism for the rich. And this banking crisis and the proposed bailout is but one more powerful example of this.
What? You want more money for education? For jobs programs? For clean water? There is no money for those things, we are told. We're mired in debt and can't afford to be spending like a 10-year-old whose just been given his allowance.
But if a bank fails, if a corporation goes belly-up (for making preadolescent-like decisions), suddenly the heavens open and money comes pouring from the sky. It's the same money it's always been: taxpayer money. That money, the very wealth of America, is what gets redistributed on a daily basis. (Psssst. Don't say redistribution of wealth too loudly or you'll be labled a commie and that will be the end of the discussion.) But this wealth doesn't usually get redistributed from the top down, anathema to any lover of so-called free markets, but rather the bottom up, which is precisely what is about to happen with these bank bailouts. It's the same thing that happens with defense contracts and health research: Tax dollars get funneled in, profits go to a few. Socialize the cost, privatize the gain. Take $700 billion of taxpayer money to pour into the banking system so that their CEOs and higher ups can get rich again.
That's not free-market capitalism folks. That's robbery. Criminal.
So the next time a "conservative" extols the virtues of the free market, be sure (s)he's at least consistent. What's good for the rich is good for the poor, or (not and) vice-versa.
Advertisement
"Oh, if this conservative mantra only applied to their rich voting bloc, their corporate lackeys. "
THEY AREN'T CORPORATE LACKEYS! THEY'RE THE ONES IN CHARGE! IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
September 23, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Calm down.
September 23, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, and we hear them spout that something like healthcare coverage is not "urgent" or "not necessary for the whole of America". It will cost too much. What?
--The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis.
--Hospitals provide about $34 billion worth of uncompensated care a year.
--Another $37 billion is paid by private and public payers for health services for the uninsured and $26 billion is paid out-of-pocket by those who lack coverage.
--The uninsured are 30 to 50 percent more likely to be hospitalized for an avoidable condition, with the average cost of an avoidable hospital stayed estimated to be about $3,300.
--The increasing reliance of the uninsured on the emergency department has serious economic implications, since the cost of treating patients is higher in the emergency department than in other outpatient clinics and medical practices.
When these dollars are not paid by the uninsured, who do you think eventually pays for them? You do. I do. We all do. And before anyone wants to blame illegals, remember that 80% of the people uninsured are working Americans (native and natural born).
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
September 23, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans use Americans' innate sense of fair-play against them. They make argument about how unfair it is for the rich to pay a higher marginal tax rate than the rest of us. Or, about how unfair it is for the poor to receive help from the rest of us.
At no time, do those who buy this fair-play argument realize that the system itself is not fair. They only focus on what their neighbor is or isn't getting. Their neighbors are not the rich, and so they see what the rich are or are not getting.
In addition, market theory is based on an academic fantasy. The fantasy based assumptions include: purely rational thinking by all participants (no emotionalism), all participants have equal access to information (LMAO), and that no participant has more power to move the market than any other (my coffee just shot out of my nostrils).
September 23, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
...and so they DON'T see what the rich are or are not getting.
September 23, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
These are the same people who want the government to control birth, marriage and death.
gmafb.
September 24, 2008 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is NOT socialism, it has another name. What we have here is much, much worse.
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power." - Franklin Roosevelt
September 24, 2008 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely. I just used the word socialism because it is what the Republicans often use to refer to Democratic Party proposals (i.e. socialize medicine). The name you're looking for is fascism. They very definition of fascism as put forth by Mussolini himself is a corporate state. Above I used the word 'lackey' when I should have used 'master'. I just used a common phrase without thinking about it (stream of consciousness).
September 24, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink