Poor Seth.  Fighting a battle that has already been won.  Maybe he would get the picture if we dressed Paulson in a blue jumpsuit and a hardhat.

I think the real God Father of this bail out is Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler’s first Finance Minister and President of the Reich Bank. He would be soooo proud.

It is socialism for the rich, the poor and workers do not benefit in the least.
When the bankers and corporate pirates schemes work out well for them, they brag about ‘free enterprise’ and count their money - when their schemes collapse the workers take the hit and are forced to ‘bail’ out the pirate ship.
Some socialism.

Dr. Schact was a lot smarter then these gents. His bailout worked for awhile.

Maybe Lenin is very actual today especially in his work about the State’s Capitalism and Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism.
It is about this what’s happens now, or State’s socialism? To ask is to answer, I think.

This is well put:

The expansion of state power over the economy enacted by the former Goldman Sachs CEO is enough to make Stalin blush.

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2952

Over course it is socialism.  Socialism always benefits the elite.  The poor don’t gain much.  The middle class simply gets knocked to the dirt.  So then, ideologues feel better that they have gotten what they deserved.  The majority of the money confiscated by the socialist elite trickles up.  But the prols are satisfied with the act of revenge.  There’s a lot of talk about fighting for democracy but you don’t hear anymore is fighting for freedom and liberty.  It is now considered “reactionary” and you are against globalization you are “isolationist” to which I proudly proclaim GUILTY AS CHARGED!

I have a good friend who is an ex-SWP member.  It is basically a (small) cult. 
The one cool thing about them compared to other far left groups is that they make their members get real
honest to goodness blue-collar industrial jobs.  Hence, you have this candidate, probably a pony-tailed kid from the suburbs while a college sociology major, working now as a meatpacker.  Who knows, if he manages to get married, has kids, and tries to send them to a multiethnic school, he might even turn into a Buchananite some day.

The wonderful egalitarianism of the socialists is that in the event of a party held for 101 people...and they show up only to see 99 chairs, a vigorous and emotional debate would ensue while the Party Leaders use this diversion to split 30 or so chairs amongst themselves and send them to their Dachas........before then turning the crowd loose to destroy all the remaining chairs so that nobody has one....... equally.

International bankers promoted and financed Lenin and his goons and are the main financiers of both major political parties so it’s no surprise that both financial systems are failing.

The original US financial model was fine then you let the banks make the rules by appointing economic advisors to political candidates making them unregulated and maximising there profits whilst increasing government debt.

You’ve got these two fools running for president and have no clue as to how to fix the economy who want to go to war with Iran when were still got security problems in Iraq.

I don’t know much about economics but I’m pretty sure fighting multiple large scale wars will pretty much destroy the US economy and how exactly are we going to finance it the US has no reserves its economy it dependent on loans from China and Japan

Actually at least Stalin was smart enough to build infrastructure projects in Russia like the metro system these guy are going to start shipping all there money overseas probably to there Chinese banks.

You obviously are not stupid people, but why, why do you guys persist in this BS about calling every state intervention socialist? I know that many people have ideologically programmed themselves to regard these as synonymous, but they aren’t.

This is as just as dumb as the neocons calling every enemy a “fascist”. It’s an Orwellian abuse of the English language, and you guys have smart enough critiques without having to fall into this kind of lazy nullification of thought.

“Socialism for the rich, free-markets for everone else” is a fair enough bumper sticker version of events.

The socialists I’ve known range as much in political ideas and personal temperment as pretty much any other section of the political population - don’t tell me you haven’t noticed the racial collectivists lurking around here, for example.

Please, knock it off. You’re better than this.

I apologise for being a comment hog, but I can’t let the comment about “nationalised healthcare” pass…

I live in a country with a genuine public healthcare system - an institution the subject of a great deal of criticism, in large part because of the corporate empire building and privateering infecting it. It was a lot rougher around the edges in the past, but with a hell of a lot less inefficiency when the nuns were running it, too (e.g. less “clipper twits” running around in ties with clipboards).

If you compare what an American pays out of their own pocket for healthcare (so-called) in the US, compared to here, our system is actually more efficient at delivering healthcare, and to the greatest number of people. It’s considered Christian to make sure people have access to a doctor, not a socialist plot for world domination.

Why is that Conservatives can have no problems with “socialised” warfare, judges, police, roads, and firemen, but a functioning health service as a common good is the mark of the beast?

You guys could offer so much in terms of “value for money” standards and de-bureaucratisiation, but you chicken out each time.