Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is the Rescue Plan Socialism? The Far Left Says, 'No Way, Comrade'
WSJ-Online ^ | OCTOBER 4, 2008 | MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS

Posted on 10/04/2008 7:57:55 AM PDT by Pontiac

If conservative Republicans are right and the $700 billion financial-sector rescue plan signals America's slide into socialism, you'd think Seth Dellinger would be celebrating.

"They can reorganize capitalism in different ways, and they will," says Mr. Dellinger, a college graduate turned working-class meat cutter. "But it is above all with a view toward continuing a system in which a small minority of super-rich families controls everything."

To Mr. Dellinger, 32, capitalism's crisis may be socialism's opportunity. He's making the case to anyone who will listen that the U.S. should adopt a Cuban-style government before the Bush administration and Congress empty the treasury in order to keep workers from storming the barricades. "What they're trying to do, above all, is prevent millions of workers from lining up outside banks all over the country, because they know they'll have to send troops and cops," says Mr. Dellinger. "That kind of scenario could unfold quicker than people think."

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a conservative Texas Republican, warned his colleagues on the House floor Friday not to react in panic, jettison free-market principles and start along the "slippery slope to socialism."

"This is not socialism," says Sam Webb, national chairman of the Communist Party USA. "Bailing out the biggest financial corporations in the country is a far cry from what we have in mind when we think about socialism."

The left wing faces fissures of its own. The Socialist Workers, Mr. Dellinger's party, considers itself the true heir of Marx and Lenin and seeks to emulate the Cuban model of Fidel Castro. It argues that the Socialist Party is laboring under the false impression that capitalism can be reformed, and the Socialist Workers members scorn the American Communist Party as a cross between closet Stalinists and closet Democrats.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: 110th; bailout; communism; demron; hensarling; socialism; socialists
This is a great article. Pity I can’t post it entirely. Also a pity that WSJ is a subscription site so most of you won’t be able to read the whole article. But these bits are worth talking about.
1 posted on 10/04/2008 7:57:55 AM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Nationalizing AIG shows that we are socialist.


2 posted on 10/04/2008 8:01:54 AM PDT by itsPatAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Well, what frightens me is that if the hard lefties/socialists/commies are saying it’s NOT socialism, that pretty much means it is.

Hoss


3 posted on 10/04/2008 8:01:57 AM PDT by HossB86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
Socialist Workers Party presidential candidate Róger Calero, a 39-year-old Nicaraguan meatpacker, is on the ballot in the five states that allow noncitizens to run for president, even though the Constitution bars them from serving. Mr. Calero said in an interview that should the party win, he is confident voters would approve a constitutional amendment allowing him to take office.

He should also be quite confident that he has not a prayer of winning because he is not on the ballot in at least 45 states.

Anybody know which states allow non-citizens to run for the Presidency?

4 posted on 10/04/2008 8:03:58 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

5 posted on 10/04/2008 8:05:31 AM PDT by NoobRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoobRep

Always love that one.


6 posted on 10/04/2008 8:07:14 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Yes and now does it make any diff who wins election. Real estate and finance are now already socialism. Next will be health insurance comanies and oil companys. It’s over.


7 posted on 10/04/2008 8:07:52 AM PDT by screaminsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
Excuse me for laughing, but the WSJ is now a totally discredited operation, trying to rationalize the utter collapse of their brand of globalized state capitalism.

That's all this article is. A cheap attempt at saying, "see see! even the commies don't think this is socialist! its ok! give us the taxpayer cash!".

This is the end of the line, maroons. The government is running a soup line for the rich. Think the rest of the gang won't chime in for some?

Next up: 5 year plans from Paulson.

8 posted on 10/04/2008 8:09:07 AM PDT by Regulator (Obama = Mugabe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

Next will be health insurance comanies and oil companys.
in 2009


9 posted on 10/04/2008 8:10:51 AM PDT by Vaduz (and just think how clean the cities would become again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
"Bailing out the biggest financial corporations in the country is a far cry from what we have in mind when we think about socialism."

This is why the doctrinaire socialists ("Progressives" as they call themselves) joined with conservatives in voting against the "bail out". They will support only those policies that increase individual dependence of government and that weaken free enterprise. They are waiting for a complete economic collapse so a communist system can be built on the ruins.

At the core of our problems today is a lack of transparency in finance which perverts the forces supply and demand and denies most people of the opportunity to participate in a market they do not see or understand.

10 posted on 10/04/2008 8:11:24 AM PDT by JimSEA (just another liberal-bashing fearmonger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

“This is not socialism,” says Sam Webb, national chairman of the Communist Party USA. “Bailing out the biggest financial corporations in the country is a far cry from what we have in mind when we think about socialism.”

I don’t mean to split hairs, but you’re a communist, not a socialist. Socialism is one of those nebulous terms that can translate as anything between minimally-fettered capitalism and a dictatorship of the proletariat, so long as the drift is toward more government.


11 posted on 10/04/2008 8:11:42 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

“Mr. Calero said in an interview that should the party win, he is confident voters would approve a constitutional amendment allowing him to take office.”

I’m no Constitutional scholar, but isn’t it too late to pass the amendment after he’s elected? I mean, who’s gonna be in office during the ratification process? And what assurance is there that that president will step aside after the amendment becomes law?


12 posted on 10/04/2008 8:15:33 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA
They will support only those policies that increase individual dependence of government and that weaken free enterprise. They are waiting for a complete economic collapse so a communist system can be built on the ruins.

You got him down.

If you read the rest of the quotes from this loon you see that he wants a Cuban style of government; The worst sort of totalitarian Marxism.

13 posted on 10/04/2008 8:16:35 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine
It’s over.

It’s not over until the emaciated Gulag inmate sings.

14 posted on 10/04/2008 8:18:29 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

Yes and now does it make any diff who wins election. Real estate and finance are now already socialism. Next will be health insurance comanies and oil companys. It’s over.


It’s not over. We have to fight back. Everyday. Giving up is the worst thing you can do.


15 posted on 10/04/2008 8:21:44 AM PDT by bioqubit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
start along the "slippery slope to socialism."

heh...we 'started' on the "slippery slope" when we elected FDR to a 3rd term!

16 posted on 10/04/2008 8:22:56 AM PDT by CRBDeuce (here, while the internet is still free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itsPatAmerican

When did we ‘nationalize’ AIG?


17 posted on 10/04/2008 8:23:24 AM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
That's all this article is. A cheap attempt at saying, "see see! even the commies don't think this is socialist! its ok! give us the taxpayer cash

Did you read the article or just the excerpts?

The gist of the article is that both the left and the right have been brought to the same point of opposing this bill for different reasons. (and some of the same)

18 posted on 10/04/2008 8:23:40 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: narses
When did we ‘nationalize’ AIG?

A few weeks ago when the feds became 80% owners. The owner of AIG is the nation AKA they've been nationalize.
19 posted on 10/04/2008 8:25:13 AM PDT by itsPatAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

I would say you are correct. Besides that from history’s view point; his term would expire before the amendment was ratified.


20 posted on 10/04/2008 8:25:57 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

We’re all lucky this bill passed. Now lets hope it works. Socialism, Communism and Fascism were all direct results of the failure to stop a crisis from becoming a catastrophe in 1929. Half the world gave up on capitalism because of it. That void was filled by socialism, communism and fascism and we spent the next 70 years fighting them.

You think allowing the Treasury to invest in mortgage bonds is socialism? Just watch what happens if this doesn’t work and hundreds of banks begin to fail. President Obama and Speaker Pelosi will have all the justification they need to enact a new “New Deal” and nationalize much of our economy.


21 posted on 10/04/2008 8:28:47 AM PDT by grayhog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
"This is not socialism," says Sam Webb, national chairman of the Communist Party USA. "Bailing out the biggest financial corporations in the country is a far cry from what we have in mind when we think about socialism."

They have to get Obama elected first.

22 posted on 10/04/2008 8:30:24 AM PDT by denydenydeny ("[Obama acts] as if the very idea of permanent truth is passe, a form of bad taste"-Shelby Steele)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

It does only in the sense that if McCain wins, we have hope in 4 years with Palin and her crew. Don’t give up on McCain. It’s really Palin we’re after. And NObama we have to defeat. I understand your point about what happened in Congress, but you can’t just give up. Freedom isn’t free, and after yesterday, it really doesn’t exist. But, that said, don’t surrender.


23 posted on 10/04/2008 8:31:13 AM PDT by FrdmLvr ("Stand up, Chuck!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HossB86

Well there’s dancing in the streets in the People’s Republic of Cambridge, Mass. That’s usually a bad sign.


24 posted on 10/04/2008 8:32:39 AM PDT by OpeEdMunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: itsPatAmerican
So receivership is now nationalization in the new lexicon? How odd.
25 posted on 10/04/2008 8:32:45 AM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CRBDeuce
heh...we 'started' on the "slippery slope" when we elected FDR to a 3rd term!

If you want to be a stickler you could go back to Teddy Roosevelt and his creation of the National Park System.

26 posted on 10/04/2008 8:33:35 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
Next up: 5 year plans from Paulson.

Well stated.

27 posted on 10/04/2008 8:34:49 AM PDT by FrdmLvr ("Stand up, Chuck!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: itsPatAmerican
Yes, capitalists have succumbed to SOCIALISM.

Legislation was the bait.

Capitalists had no choice but to NOT RED LINE the housing market. So now you have people that had NO BUISNESS giving out money and folks were eager to EXPLOIT that. Now, as responsible taxpayers , YOU get the BILL, as usual.

28 posted on 10/04/2008 8:34:50 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: narses
So receivership is now nationalization in the new lexicon? How odd. Commies play word games, I call it honest like I see it. Not odd at all, but your defense of nationalization is. Is DU packed?
29 posted on 10/04/2008 8:36:25 AM PDT by itsPatAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Commies: We must boil the frogs slowly....

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k6KUDv1wzraWhwlBt1


30 posted on 10/04/2008 8:36:48 AM PDT by Earthdweller (Socialism makes you feel better about oppressing people.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz

Depends on how long it takes to put the healt ins. and oil companies in the same position they put the banks.


31 posted on 10/04/2008 8:42:09 AM PDT by screaminsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

The watwr is warming right up. Ahh so nice with the bailout plan feels just right.


32 posted on 10/04/2008 8:44:49 AM PDT by screaminsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
When did the American people make a compact with the government to be a bank?

It's socialism.

33 posted on 10/04/2008 8:48:54 AM PDT by TigersEye (This is the age of the death of reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
But Mr. Dellinger, a Socialist Workers Party candidate for Congress, says that what might smell like communism to free-market purists looks like just another capitalist shell game to him.

Sorry Seth but communism is quite well defined. (The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto)

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

http://www.geocities.com/heartland/7006/com-man.html

34 posted on 10/04/2008 8:52:27 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA
No, everything was very transparent. The bubble of popular delusions and madness of crowds burst and institutions had paper that these Masters of Finance woke up to and saw they were near neigh, but not completely, worthless. Not all financial business, or businessmen. Just a lot.

That was obvious. It wasn't opaque, unclear, clouded.

They then started caterwauling that these notes were worthless. But, I didn't see them offering to take a penny on the dollar for them, because then they would have to book a loss.

If they did put them out, at a penny the notes would of been scooped up, sight unseen.

So, that's a lie.

Naturally this type of hit to those types of banks, would of required them to raise their rates to recover. So, now their other customers who would get the costs dumped on them started crying, why should we pay? But where could they go. Oh, that's right, Washington! Of course, the cause and solution to all are problems.

Do The Hustle

35 posted on 10/04/2008 8:54:26 AM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Just watched the Socialist Party Presidential candidate, Brian Moore, on Fox News with Neil Cavuto. Moore likes the plan. He seems to think this bailout-rescue is a big step towards socialism.

You know what, he’s right.


36 posted on 10/04/2008 9:01:24 AM PDT by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
He seems to think this bailout-rescue is a big step towards socialism.

We’ve been baby stepping towards socialism for over a century.

We fight it as hard as we can but we are just bailing out the boat while some one else is shooting hole in it.

37 posted on 10/04/2008 9:10:00 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
He seems to think this bailout-rescue is a big step towards socialism.

We’ve been baby stepping towards socialism for over a century.

We fight it as hard as we can but we are just bailing out the boat while some one else is shooting hole in it.

38 posted on 10/04/2008 9:14:40 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

They are right. It is not socialism in the strict sense. It is corporatism, which is a collectivist cousin of socialism.


39 posted on 10/04/2008 9:32:49 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Fine, call it Fascism. Where the businesses stay in private hands, but the government has so much regulation and fingers in them they essentially control them.


40 posted on 10/04/2008 9:43:30 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itsPatAmerican
The owner of AIG is the nation AKA they've been nationalize.

And now we will soon owe $700 billion, or far more in reality, more to foreign lenders because WE ARE BROKE and $13 TRILLION in debt now and can't cover the bailout ourselves. I'm not financially savvy enough to intelligently comment on this type thread, but since I, my kids, and their kids, and their kids, ad infinitum will be taxed through the nose to pay for this debacle I will anyway and risk showing my ignorance.

First of all, IMHO lenders who encouraged unqualified buyers to buy homes, luxury vehicles, and other properties they couldn't afford by offering sub prime rates should not have been bailed out by taxpaying people who are struggling to stay afloat themselves when they knew perfectly well that they were heading for a future collapse that would ultimately drive the US even deeper into insolvency. How on earth can anyone justify allowing execs of failed lenders to walk away from the disaster they created with tens of millions of dollars in their pockets when they are responsible for costing the taxpayers trillions of dollars that we don't have, and may have trouble getting from the usual overseas sources who must be close to the point of telling us to get our house in order or do without their help?

I don't know much about high finance, but even a fiscal dummy like me can see that this entire debacle and the government's response to it stinks to high heaven. Where was government oversight of banking and lending institutions when this was going on, it wasn't done in secret. I have to wonder how many in Congress and the Senate are also walking away from the debacle with pockets stuffed full of the green paper that the government still insists is money.

Any of you out there who may be in the banking business or who know a lot more about it that I obviously don't are more than welcome to try to educate me on the intricacies of high finance if you care to.

41 posted on 10/04/2008 10:14:19 AM PDT by epow (Nobama for President and Commander in Chief??,..... nosir, noway, nohow;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Fine, call it Fascism.

Unfortunately that seems to be the path that the Dims are leading us down.

Ever increasing regulation mantra of the left.

The Dim’s talking points of the banking crisis blaming the Republicans for not regulating the financial markets point to their desire to tightly control every aspect of the flow of wealth.

42 posted on 10/04/2008 10:44:07 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Not only the wealth, but how all of our businesses must operate.


43 posted on 10/04/2008 11:28:51 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Not only the wealth, but how all of our businesses must operate.

That is part of how they control the flow of wealth.

The primary method of course is the tax code.

44 posted on 10/04/2008 11:44:14 AM PDT by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: narses

Capitalism allows mismanaged businesses to fail and be their assets to be bought by other businesses. Socialism makes way for the governments, using taxpayer funds to catch or save failing businesses before they go into bankruptcy.

CitiBank with funding from the Federal Reserve was going to save Wachovia but they took too long. Instead Wells Fargo stepped in and bought Wachovia with NO assistance from the Feds or the taxpayers. Now the hook is in the hands of the Wells Fargo stockholders, NOT the US taxpayer.

Give American businessmen enough time and we tend to straighten out every mismanaged business. It goes against our good sense to allow a need to sit unnourished for very long. It takes a little time to gather all the private investors together and agree on who will provide what percentage of the money necessary, which in turn also separates risk percentages into affordable numbers.


45 posted on 10/04/2008 1:26:13 PM PDT by B4Ranch (I'd rather have a VP that can gut a Moose, than a President that wants to gut our Second Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: epow

>I’m not financially savvy enough to intelligently comment on this type thread, but since I, my kids, and their kids, and their kids, ad infinitum will be taxed through the nose to pay for this debacle I will anyway and risk showing my ignorance.<

Where you will feel the most obvious difference may not be in tax increases but in denial of services due to your financial net worth. That’s another way of saying that you will have to pay a larger co-payment to receive something than previously.

Kind of like going to the hospital and learning that your bed costs you $400 a day plus your insurance premiums, while the illegal alien next to you is being treated for free. You have a house, two cars, a boat, a small hunting cabin in Colorado and a 401K while that poor man doesn’t have anything of value.

Or your Social Security payments will be $1000 a month while the other guy gets $1500 a month because you have a net worth of $800K. He only has his 6 year old Chevy. You can afford to maintain your lifestyle from your own assets, he can’t.

Instead of outright taking from you and giving to someone less fortunate that’s how it’ll work.


46 posted on 10/04/2008 1:37:06 PM PDT by B4Ranch (I'd rather have a VP that can gut a Moose, than a President that wants to gut our Second Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: itsPatAmerican

Speaking of socialism.

Which political party adopted the following as part of their platform?

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.
The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: . . . an end to the power of the financial interests.
We demand profit sharing in big business.
We demand a broad extention of care for the aged.
We demand . . . the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchase of the national, state, and municipal governments.
In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of the entire system of public education. . . .
We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents. . . .
The government must undertake the improvement of public health - by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor . . . by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.
[We] combat the . . . materialistic spirit within and without us and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good.

Obama & Democrat Party? Good guess, but no. Answer: The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany. Nazi for short. The excerpts above were adopted in Munich, on February 24, 1920. Source: Der Nationalsozialismus Dokumente 1933-1945, edited by Walther Hofer, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Bucherei, 1957, pp. 29-31.


47 posted on 10/04/2008 4:38:10 PM PDT by donaldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: donaldo

Call me crazy, but that doesn’t really sound like the democrat. For as radical as we like to think they are the are closer to us than any other party in the history of time. People have an overwhelming drive to define themselves by what they are not. We need an ‘other’...ours are the dems. Flame away.


48 posted on 10/04/2008 6:01:23 PM PDT by itsPatAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: itsPatAmerican
Flame away.

Not until you say it in English.

49 posted on 10/05/2008 8:28:08 AM PDT by TigersEye (This is the age of the death of reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson