[clue-talk] The stimulus bill

[Jed S. Baer]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:38:43 -0700
David Rudder wrote:

> Throwing around the phrase 
> "socialism" doesn't explain anything, other than you listen to Rush too 
> much.

I don't listen to Rush at all. But, IMHO, it's impossible to not see the
socialistic idea in many of the policies promulgated by Obama, et. al.
(and that includes Bush41 and 43). You don't have to be a dittohead to
see that.

> "Redistribution of wealth" is another one of those empty 
> phrases.  Bush's administration moved wealth from the poor to the 
> rich...how is that not redistribution?

Exactly. Doesn't make it "not socialism", or socialistic. And it's still
wrong. Doesn't matter which direction it goes, when the government
interferes with the running of the economy, and takes money from people
for the sole purpose of giving it to someone else, that has a socialist
taint.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or
needs." -- Karl Marx.

You don't want to call it socialism? Fine. Let's call it Marxism then.
Whatever, it ain't capitalism.

> When President Bush signed the 
> TARP legislation, how come that wasn't "government-controlled 
> corporations", but Obama's package which pays small businesses to fix 
> bridges is?

Yes, because it does so by forcibly taking people's money, and spending
it upon something which those people wouldn't, of their own choosing. If
you don't think it's "forcibly", I invite you to stop paying your taxes;
eventually, agents of the state will come to your house with weapons.

> In Bush's legislation, the government actually took a 
> controlling interest in corporations. 

Yeah. That doesn't excuse what's happening in Congress right now under
Democratic control. 2 wrongs, you know.

> I'd like to challenge this board to come up with a single US president 
> from the last century that embodies conservative principles.

Got me. But then I tend to look at the political field from a whole
nother point of view from most. But I do love to link to Walter Williams'
articles about Democrat presidents who wielded the veto pen with far more
gusto than any Republican I can think of.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/09/13/constitution_day

[paste]
President Grover Cleveland vetoed many congressional appropriations,
often saying there was no constitutional authority for such an
appropriation. Vetoing a bill for relief charity, President Cleveland
said, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the
Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General
Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering
which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
[/paste]

You want more?
http://www.google.com/search?q=walter+william+grover+cleveland+site%3Atownhall.com&sa=++Google+Search++&lr=lang_en

Egads! What a long URL. Let's try something else --

http://tinyurl.com/williams-on-cleveland

There, that's better.

And still, the question hangs in the air. Who, exactly, is going to pay
for all this stuff? Doesn't anybody give a flying framebuffer for the
economic future of their kids/grandkids? I mean, anyone who's in favor of
all this incredible spending?

jed