comments for topic:

Pinko Commie Republicans

(click here to view original posting in a separate window)

Regarding "government ownership," who pays for it? Would it be limited, varied, extensive--or pervasive?

* Who will give? The Bourgeoisie and the "Rich"
* Who will receive? The Proletariat
* And who shall take? The State

What then is "government ownership" but dictatorship?

Mr. Ledbetter refers to the concept of private ownership as a "compelling vision" that has "completely collapsed." Thankfully, rumors of American Capitalism's demise are grossly exaggerated and our system has not collapsed at all! Not yet, that is, despite our sell-out President, FannieMae/FreddyMac, the Democratic Congress and the blind greed of Wall Street.

When Mr. Ledbetter suggests that allowing the federal government to take the reins of some of our largest financial institutions is "the only way to keep the American economy alive" he betrays his own lack of balance and expertise. Our American economy is not on life support. And to make any such suggestion at this moment is naive at best, but irresponsible in the extreme. That is precisely why such measures are being adopted: to keep specific financial institutions afloat so as to prevent panic engendered from just such irrational (exuberant?) exaggeration.

Re: "The government is telling us that capital and credit markets cannot, for several reasons, solve the current crisis on their own"

only the federal government and its massive taxpayer base have the authoridy and the resources to solve it.

Yeah, the government bureaucracy has the authority while we're the "resources." That means YOU, sucker, and me! By the way, I listened to alleged "socialist" Paulson and Bernanke today and they both look and sound scared, and that should scare us all. For if they're vamping in the hope that this may work, then we really may be in serious trouble--if it does not.

Re: "This is the political party--[meaning the Republicans, of course!]--that for decades has insisted on deregulation and free markets."
Free markets mean just that: free to rise or fall as they may. But to 'fix' (or fake) markets means something criminal and regulation simply means setting guidelines & standards by which we may watch what those free (or fixed/criminal) markets are doing. But it was the Clinton presidency that deregulated the real estate mortgage markets and bank lending policies! So if the next or future administrations are thinking of "enacting a socialist takeover," they will--among other tyrannies--simply be furthering the marked criminality of previous administrations, so typified by the Clinton presidency. This, in the strictest sense may not be considered socialism, nor is it in any sense Capitalism. But it is most definitely crime in the ORGANIZED sense.

Mr. Ledbetter goes on to say, "During the Cold War, socialism became an especially unsavory idea because it was linked to the countries that pointed missiles at us." He neglects however to mention the standard of living, quality of life and freedom of thought and expression denied the people inhabiting those socialist countries. And he quips, "you don't see the Spanish having to take over their banking sector, at least not yet" Perhaps that is because (for the most part) they've managed to be less socialist than their European neighbors--and perhaps less socialist than we're becoming. In addition, their society, profoundly Catholic and culturally conservative, adheres to a stable monarchy. Or, maybe it's because Francisco Franco won the Spanish Civil War and beat the Communists to hell!

He goes on to say that, "Americans' general ignorance about the true nature of socialism is a vacuum that will likely be filled by those whose best bets are evasion and distortion" without himself ever defining the "true nature of socialism," which in itself is an evasion.

Mr. Ledbetter concludes his premature free market eulogy with perhaps some of the most blatant understatements of the 20th and post-20th century:

"State socialism is intrinsically unstable and thus doesn't have a great track record" REALLY?
"the Soviet Union collapsed for a reason. "
No shit, Sherlock!
"Purists of Marxist theory viewed state socialism as at best a condition to be temporarily tolerated"
In a TOTALITARIAN STATE?

Thanks for the lovely article. 'Twas a good read. But if free markets don't work, I'll still go along with our imperfect, impaired and impounded Capitalism and all the prosperity, freedom and hope it has engendered for the last 230 years over any socialist, welfare/FAREWELL Police State. Let's stick with the Founding Fathers and just imprison the criminals of all parties, classes and kinds.

I found Ledbetter's article rather silly. Taking this bailout as an emergency measure does not make the U.S. a socialist nation. Why is it such a big revelation that capitalism doesn't exist in a pure and pristine form? That doesn't make America the Soviet Union.

Ledbetter sounds to me like just another grunt in the army of opportunists on both sides trying to score partisan points off the economic crisis. To be honest, I am sick of them all. There's enough blame here for everyone to share, enough mismanagement in both Democratic and Republican administrations. Those who think that only Republican greed is responsible for the financial meltdown should take a look here.

So Ledbetter would feel better if Paulson invoked the name of Marx? He has doubts about the viability of the new American Marxist project? Would he rather we just did nothing and let the system tank? I am missing constructive suggestions here - instead, I see only partisan posturing. Leave that to the candidates - they are both experts at it.

There seems to be something wrong with the Boston Globe link in my previous message, so here is the article in full:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

JEFF JACOBY
Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
By Jeff Jacoby , Globe Columnist | September 28, 2008

'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he'll find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.

Well, today the House Republicans proved Ledbetter wrong. They killed the bailout rather than go for "socialism." They also handed the election to Obama.