The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.- Vladimir Lenin
The government is borrowing way beyond our ability to repay, and is printing money at a rate that is making it as worthless as the cotton fibers it is printed on.
Borrowing excessively is a problem.
Printing money to cover debt doesn't seem to be our current problem, however. That would lead to an inflationary spiral. This is a bad thing, yes; but from the current position of the Fed and of the Government in general, our problem is not with inflation at this point, which is I believe what you were saying Lenin was suggesting the weakness was in the Capitalist system.
It is with deflation, which is why the interest rates are at such a low point and why people are still not borrowing money. Why buy, the reasoning goes, when if we wait, the price may dip even l;lower? This is the sort of spiral that can lead to Depressions.
Near as I can tell, you have your economics backwards.
The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.- Karl Marx
It matters not in the least which political agenda you espouse, this is a blinding truth of the American Political system, This time, it happens to be the Democrats making moves to oppress the American people with their exorbitant taxes and power-plays.
Which new taxes do you have to pay?
Which power plays do you speak of?
We had a pretty much balanced budget when Bush came into power. Bush ran up an enormous debt with a war, and with tax cuts we could not afford. The tax cuts put us in the hole, as did the war. Somebody has to pay the money back, unless you advocate borrowing and defaulting. You can blame the Democrats for facing up to reality, you can't blame them for the tax cuts and you'll have trouble blaming them for the war.
You want to run up a debt and run out on it, is that your point? Is that what you teach your kids?
Everytime someone who does not agree with the current far-left liberal thoughts (and by that, I mean the Rachel Maddow's and those even further left) is shouted down, and is not permitted to have their own thoughts. To these people, the only people allowed to exercise their first amendment rights are those who completely and totally agree with them. (for proof, I submit Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, and any other conservative thinker who attempted to speak in public around these ultra-left loons only to be shouted down, and have things thrown at them.)
I'm sorry, I';m mildly amazed, that's all.
Where were you when Karl Rove and Company shipped down Republican Party workers to lay siege to the folks doing the recount for the Florida elections, and disrupted it? Were you not paying attention to what the TEA Party has been doing to meetings Congressmen have been holding with their constituents to explain the Health Care legislation, refusing to allow them to explain the bill and the situation and shouting them down? Showing up at political meetings carrying guns?
It may be your right, but it does not have a warming effect on free speech, Ringo, Does it? I say this as a guy who would have trouble speaking before a bunch of folks carrying guns myself.
And, by the way, anybody who calls Rachel Maddow "far-left" has serious problems with their distance vision. They seem unable to distinguish among somebody who has left wing sympathies (and can occasionally criticize left wing politics and politicians for being foolish); and somebody who's a left wing ideologue; and somebody who's a screaming left wing revolutionary.
You, Ringo, have confused somebody who's a left wing intellectual with somebody who's a left wing ideologue and parroting party line with somebody for whom the Party is far too conservative and moderate. Your understanding appears to end with what other people have told you is far left, and you have believed them.
I believe you have also misjudged the dangers of the Radical Right. The moderate right has been purged or is in the process of being purged from the American political scene (within the Republican Party). What used to be everyday rational Eisenhower Republicans would no longer be tolerated in the Modern Republican Party. They would be called RINOs. They would not be funded in Party sponsored races. Radical Right Wing ideologues would be run against them.
My sincere belief is the closest thing we have today to an Eisenhower or a Rockefeller Republican is President Obama, whom I will often speak of as Republican Lite. It is pitiful that the current Republicans despise him. The health Care bill he got through was essentially the 1994 Republican Bob Dole sponsored Bill that was supposed to be the Republican Answer to Hillary Clinton's Bill. And Hillary Clinton's Bill was far from a solid single payer lefty wing system.
You're simply not remembering your history.
Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.- Benito Mussolini
You are very right, I believe.
Your examples, however Government Motors, Banks, Insurance Companies, Educational Lenders, etc are wrong and don't prove that the current government is anything like that.
Krupp, for example, and Bayer, in Germany were hefty financial supporters of the Third Reich. Many of their officials joined the Party, and the Government found that the company interests were very much the interests of the Government as well. They granted sweetheart deals to the companies for supplies of munitions and various chemicals, and in return gave these companies access to slave laborers from Concentration camps and labor camps to be worked to death at quite literally slave wages. This, by the way, is an example of what Marx would call Predatory Capitalism. Soap was produced from human fat in the concentration camps, human hair was used as mattress stuffing, all at a profit for both the companies and the government.
I.G. Farben and Bayer were, I believe, suppliers of the Zyklon B. Gas used in the Concentration camps for the elimination of "undesirables such as Jews, Labor leaders, Communists, homosexuals, gypsies and so on. Think of that the next time you take a Bayer aspirin.
G.M., on the other hand, asked for a government loan. The same conditions came to bear on that loan as would have come to bear on you, had you taken out a loan. You default, you lose your collateral. G.M. was particularly high handed about it, asked for several extensions, got them, and then refused to pay.
What would have happened to you?
Was the Government supposed to allow GM to push them around because it was GM? Evidently GM thought so. The voters wouldn't have stood for it. I don't think the Government is thrilled to have this White Elephant on its hands, but until there's a satisfactory re-organization plan or it's sold off piece by piece to repay the taxpayers, we've got it.
It's not like we're running it to compete with more functional car companies. We'd rather not have it at all. Unless you would, in which case, you should make them an offer.
I know there is more to write about, but my brain is mush, and I'll have to try again later.