2008 Elections - America Votes

[pbfoot]

We also had sub prime loans up here but all our financial institutions are solid . why you might ask because they were regulated and not left to run amuck with no laws

[Amsel]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

We also had sub prime loans up here but all our financial institutions are solid . why you might ask because they were regulated and not left to run amuck with no laws

I agree. When the goverment forces the financial institutions to make risky loans for their social experiments we see what we get. Meltdown. The Republicans tried to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but were accused of "lynching" members of the black caucus.

Under the Clinton administration the Glass-Steagal act was circumvented and now we have another depression.

The liberals have destabilized our economy. They need to be regulated.


Here is some damning evidence from a hearing to investigate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004. And we just handed over all three branches of the goverment to these idiots and theives!


YouTube - Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

[syscom3]

Amsel, I think the election of 2008 is going to prove an aberration.

This was partly a referendum on Bush (whether you like it or not) and a general d isgust in the lunacy of both parties in Washington.

Ive also long maintained that the GOP doesn't grasp a fundamental in economics ..... when people see no hope in the job market, then they will turn liberal and socialist. The whole Midwest will turn into bastions of socialism untill we get a grip on this siren song of free trade and start bringing well paying jobs back to the middle America.

[Amsel]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Amsel, I think the election of 2008 is going to prove an aberration.

This was partly a referendum on Bush (whether you like it or not) and a general d isgust in the lunacy of both parties in Washington.

Ive also long maintained that the GOP doesn't grasp a fundamental in economics ..... when people see no hope in the job market, then they will turn liberal and socialist. The whole Midwest will turn into bastions of socialism untill we get a grip on this siren song of free trade and start bringing well paying jobs back to the middle America.

You are dead on about that. This was has been planned since Kruschev was in power. The International socialists knew that we would never willingly turn to communism but we would fall for small doses of socialism until our economy crashed. Then we would run right into the communists open arms.

Here is a warning from many years ago by a high ranking cabinet member in the Eisenhower administration. The only cabinet member in history to speak out about the socialist tendencies of our own goverment......

YouTube - Ezra Taft Benson-Warning

[renrich]

To say that deregulation of the lending institutions is the cause of the meltdown is a red herring tossed out by the dimocrats. To compare the lending situation in the US to that in Canada is probably not productive. Obviously many lenders took advantage of the situation to make risky loans but the regulators forced the banks to maintain a certain proportion of loans to individuals and business in so called minority ares and to minorities. I have a close friend who is an attorney for a large bank and it is sickening to hear him relate how the Feds coerced the banks to make risky loans. It is a lot like affirmative action.

[renrich]

On the subject of perception versus reality. When FDR was inaugurated in 1932 the US unemployment rate was 23.6%. A year later it was 24.9%. By 1937 it had dropped to 14.3% but in 1938, it was back up to 19%. Our depression in the US did not truly get over until WW2. FDR saved us from the Great Depression? Prior to 1941, Admiral Richardson, CINCPAC, told FDR that the Pacific Fleet could not be protected from a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor and should be removed to the West Coast. FDR was an "expert" on naval affairs(had been SecNavy) disagreed and fired Richardson and replaced him with Kimmel. In December, 1941, Kimmel still did not have enough patrol planes to cover all quadrants out of PH. Who was responsible for the debacle at PH? In 1954, in a broadcast, Herbert Hoover stated, " I opposed and protested every step in the policies which led us into WW2." " Especially in June, 1941, when Britain was safe from German invasion due to Hitler's diversion to attack on Stalin, I urged that the gargantuan jest of all history would be our giving aid to the Soviet government. I urged that we should allow those two dictators to exhaust each other. I stated that the result of our assistance would be to spread communism over the entire world. I urged that if we stood aside the time would come when we could bring lasting peace to the world." Hoover may or may not have expressed those thoughts in 1941 but there is little doubt that FDR ignored the threat that Stalin and communism presented to the post war world. At the same time that the Soviet victory at Stalingrad took place the Big Three met at Teheran(sp) and proclaimed that "unconditional surrender" was their policy toward the Axis. At the same time, the Morgenthau Plan was exposed and approved by FDR that said that post war Germany would be converted into a pastoral, farming land with all industry permanently destroyed. Prior to those pronouncements there was a significant anti-Hitler contingent in the German High Command that was seeking to begin negotiations with the Allies to end the war. They were ignored and many decided a fight to the death was preferable to the conditions that the Allies had in mind for Germany. There appears to have been a significant opportunity to end the war much sooner than 1945 which would have resulted in an Eastern Europe not dominated by Stalin and many millions fewer deaths. FDR is rated as one of our great presidents. Perception becomes reality.

[Amsel]

Over the last 75 years over 1/3 of the worlds population was either liquidated or in bondage under international communism. It was and still is the greatest threat to human life and liberty.

[renrich]

Not only is communism a threat externally but the US is moving left into socialism without cease. I believe that Russia is the closest threat on the horizon.

[BombTaxi]

Originally Posted by Amsel

Over the last 75 years over 1/3 of the worlds population was either liquidated or in bondage under international communism. It was and still is the greatest threat to human life and liberty.

If I may just offer my 0.02

While it is undoubtedley true that Stalinist and post-Stalinist regimes slaughtered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, I think mentioning this in the same debate as Barack Obama's election is a hideously over-the-top reaction. Obama is not even a socialist, never mind a communist or a Stalinist (by the way, the three things are totally different. Stalin was not a communist or a Marxist, just as Obama is neither of those things). I think that suggesting the US is sliding into communism just because the president-elect is somewhat to the left of centre is an sensationalistic argument, to say the least. I also find it hard to believe that 'international socialists' have being planning Obama's election since 'Kruschev' [sic] was in power', as suggested below. What I can see, as an outsider looking at the current political debate in the US, is that an awful number of people on the right want Obama to fail. Without their support, he probably will, self-fulfilling the prophecy, and probably plunging the US into a deeper mess as a result. If the US fails, Europe, and particularly the UK, fails with it, hence my interest.

Perception, as you say, becomes reality.

Rgds,

BT

[Njaco]

While I agree Bomb that this is a little "over the top" for this thread, Obama is a bit more than "somewhat to the left of centre". His voting record shows that he was the most liberal of liberals in the Senate.

[BombTaxi]

Originally Posted by Njaco

While I agree Bomb that this is a little "over the top" for this thread, Obama is a bit more than "somewhat to the left of centre". His voting record shows that he was the most liberal of liberals in the Senate.

Obama may well have one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate, but that says more about how far to the right the Senate is than how far to the left Obama is, IMHO. He is no more a 'Lefty' than Gordon Brown or Tony Blair, who are centrists by any standards, particularly European standards. I don't see Obama nationalising public services, utilities, transport infrastructure, raw material extraction or heavy industry, as Europe has done in times past. He is not calling for an immediate full-scale withdrawal of US troops from Iraq & Afghanistan. He is not planning a comprehensive and all-inclusive welfare state. To my mind, these things would be the hallmarks of true 'Socialist' government in the US (and most other places in the world).

Perhaps what really inspired me to post at all was the sheer degree of hyperbole and conspiracy-theorism that I have seen here and in many other places on the net and in the media since Nov 4th. I have already addressed the claim that the current state of affairs was somehow planned by the former USSR - but then I suppose it is sometimes easier to think that than to accept that the world's capitalist economy came dangerously close to total collapse a few months ago.

I am frequently baffled by the fact that although the US claimed 'victory' in Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War , many posters still identify 'communism' and 'Russia' as the greatest threats to World peace. Surely, if you guys won the longest war in modern history, the threat is neutralised. Or is fascism and the expansionist tendencies of the former German Empire still a threat to security as well?

Again as an outsider looking in, what I see in the US is a terrible fear of change and of progress. Even as the US fights the War on Terror, it is harking back to the War on Communism, and it almost seems to me that some are glad that the threat is there, that there is another shadowy, ill-defined 'other' against which American values can be defined. And as I have already said, I see many people willing Obama to fail, solely to justify the criticisms that they have made of his administration, even before it takes power.

And one last observation I am quite shocked by the strength of terminology flying about here. However left of centre Obama is, he is still just as far from being a Stalinist as Reagan was from being a fascist. If people mean to draw a genuine comparison with such hyperbolic language, then I am disturbed by the exceptionally warped view of history and politics that they possess. If they are merely trying to be inflammatory, I am saddened by their unwillingness to accept the change that the Democratic process has produced and get behind thier new leader in this undoubtedly troubled time.

[syscom3]

Bombtaxi, Obama has the most liberal voting record in the senate. All his life he has been a champion of socialist ideology.

To say otherwise and paint him as a moderate or left of center politician is being dishonest.

Maybe he will goven towards the center, maybe not. But the whole world will find out soon enough.

My prediction: Obama is going to be a one term circus act. If he doesnt cause the collapse of his administration, his friends and appointee's will.

[BombTaxi]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Bombtaxi, Obama has the most liberal voting record in the senate. All his life he has been a champion of socialist ideology.

To say otherwise and paint him as a moderate or left of center politician is being dishonest.

Maybe he will goven towards the center, maybe not. But the whole world will find out soon enough.

My prediction: Obama is going to be a one term circus act. If he doesnt cause the collapse of his administration, his friends and appointee's will.

One thing we can agree on then... he will govern from the centre A second thing: he will only last one term, although I think he will fall through being constantly undermined that from anything his administration does that is qualitatively wrong. The guy has got almost half a nation of opponents before he even starts.

Now, I paint him as being 'left of centre', because I really can't see how he is being a 'socialist', as I have said above. I think maybe on either side of the pond, that word has a somewhat different meaning. I would say he has a long way left to go before he a socialist. But that is just my 0.02

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by BombTaxi

Now, I paint him as being 'left of centre', because I really can't see how he is being a 'socialist', as I have said above. I think maybe on either side of the pond, that word has a somewhat different meaning. I would say he has a long way left to go before he a socialist. But that is just my 0.02

I agree with bomber here guys. From our (European) point of view, Obama isn't that far left. All depends on from what point of view you look. Claiming Obama to be a communist is over the top indeed. More left then usual in the US is probably a fair comment, but compared to here, he isn't very extreme.

And I also don't buy Amsel's conspiracy theory either.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Alright the elections are over. It is time to close this thread.