Beck called "Comrade Clinton" a "liberal fascist," Edwards "a communist"
SUMMARY: Glenn Beck asserted that Hillary Clinton is "a liberal fascist ... who wants to redistribute the wealth in this country the way she believes is good for everybody," adding that her desire "to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market ... sounds like the Soviet Union," and that "Comrade Clinton has railed against the excesses of the offensive executive pay packages and an out of whack tax code that favors the wealthy while holding down the middle class." Beck also said of John Edwards: "Now, put a red star on his furry head. He's a communist."
On the January 24 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck asserted that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's desire "to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market ... sounds like the Soviet Union," and that "Comrade Clinton has railed against the excesses of the offensive executive pay packages and an out of whack tax code that favors the wealthy while holding down the middle class." He further called her "a liberal fascist ... who wants to redistribute the wealth in this country the way she believes is good for everybody." Beck added that "promising to steal from the rich and give to the poor" only worked for former Soviet dictator Josef Stalin "because he killed 50 million people to force them to live that way." He concluded that Clinton's "fiscal ideas are plenty reason enough" not to vote for her, adding: "Unless you're [Venezuelan President] Hugo Chavez." Later in the program, Beck said of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards: "Now, put a red star on his furry head. He's a communist."
Beck frequently compares supporters of progressive economic policies to communists and socialists. For instance, on the January 22 edition of his show, he said to Jeff Frankel, an economics professor from Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, "Nice of you to join us, Stalin" when Frankel suggested focusing tax cuts on "lower-income, working Americans." On January 9, Beck remarked of Edwards: "I listened to him last night give a speech, and, I mean, why not just start wearing the Soviet star on your head and the Workers World Party?"
From the January 24 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Hillary said that if she becomes president, the federal government will take more of an active role in the economy to address what she called the excesses of the market. Wow. That sounds pretty Left. But just in case you haven't had enough, it gets much, much worse.
She also said she wants to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market. OK. That sounds like the Soviet Union.
And to top it all off, Comrade Clinton has railed against the excesses of the offensive executive pay packages and an out-of-whack tax code that favors the wealthy while holding down the middle class. I can't imagine anybody putting it more plainly than that.
Hillary Clinton is a liberal fascist. She is somebody who wants to redistribute the wealth in this country the way she believes is good for everybody. It is the new New Deal, and it is what kept this country in a depression for 10 solid years while the rest of the world recovered.
Hillary, I just want to point this out. Executives earn big money because it's their skills that help their companies earn even bigger money, you know, so they can hire more employees, et cetera, et cetera. And if the companies don't like it, they should fire them and lower the pay scale.
And you don't hear me crying when your husband takes home a million-dollar speaking fee. I, instead, say, God bless America. I can't believe somebody would pay that.
And finally, businesses need tax breaks because they need capital to grow the business, hire more employees, and that expands the economy. Not food stamps.
I like to call this Economics 101. You know, and it's fine if you want to prance around like Robin Hood, promising to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but that doesn't mean it works. The only reason it worked for Stalin is because he killed 50 million people to force them to live that way.
We are the greatest country on earth because of our capitalist system, not in spite of it. So, thanks, Hillary. Just in case people weren't sure why they shouldn't vote for you, your fiscal ideas are plenty reason enough. Unless you're Hugo Chavez.
[...]
BECK: Why is -- why is John Edwards in the race? I mean, at this point?
LAURA SCHWARTZ (Democratic strategist): He is passionate about his ideas, and I have to tell you --
BECK: Come on.
SCHWARTZ: -- I'm with the group that says he shouldn't drop out. I mean, this guy has at least 15 percent. If he drops below 15 percent nationally --
BECK: Wait a minute.
SCHWARTZ: -- this guy will have some second thoughts.
BECK: OK. Wait a minute. If he's so passionate about his viewpoints, why are they so different from the last time he was in the race? He was running as a moderate. Now, put a red star on his furry head. He's a communist.
It sounds more and more like Beck is saying:
Please listen to me! Please?! Anyone?! Hel~looooooo!
Every time he opens his mouth with his ever-more-outrageous "average dumb guy" views.
Wow, I guess Beck read Goldberg's book about Liberal Fascism. I wonder if that's the new talking point. Is Beck really claiming that FDR kept us in the Depression longer? Interesting.
Beck's called a guest and a candidate Stalinists twice this week! Wow, Mr. Beck, its time to read the history books. And the communist crack at Edwards, wow, good one, are we back in the '80s?
Seriously though, is fascist going to be the fringers new insult for the left like Commie was back in the Cold War?
Don't fascists want to redistribute wealth to the corporations? I thought it was communists that wanted to redistribute the wealth to the common people.
I guess they mistakenly removed Beck's brain when he went in for hemmerhoid (sic?) surgery.
Fog,
Beck had a brain to remove? Was the operation done with tweezers ;)?
Nope. The "state" or the "society" is the critical element. Look at the historical fascist states; businesses were nationalized, and cronies of the leading party were put in charge. There's very little difference, in practical matters, at least, between fascism and communism. The root is the idea that the state knows best, and individuals are subject to that authority. It's completely opposed to our tradition of individual rights.
Guys, Beck is a hyperbolic and inflammatory speaker. His rhetoric is over the top, but address the man's points, not his style, however annoyed you may be.
Savage would be proud of little Glenn ;-)
Why do all these right-wing pundits have this obsession with invoking analogies to totalitarian leaders and regimes? Is it because conservative Republican rule is based on fear that they feel compelled to use fearful analogies? It might work on their devout followers and indentured servants of the party, but to me it just makes them seem creepy.
That's a good question.
In particular, the references these guys make to Stalin: if they intend to observe and comment on something about a present-day person, then why not just stick to facts, and cite that person's words or actions... why invoke a long-ago dead guy whose lifetime doesn't even overlap our own, and who's from a place not America but thousands of miles from it?
I don't guess folks in Russia today, invoke Stalin in their political rantings, as often as these Republican "media" prostitutes do, on our PUBLIC AIRWAVES.
I think many conservatives have this crazy idea about learning the lessons of the past. You know, what happened to people before can help predict what might happen if people make similar choices in the future.
Silly idea, I know.
Does anyone agree with the following?
Capitalism has developed immense productive forces. It has done so at the cost of excluding the great majority of citizens from influence over production. It puts the rights of ownership before the rights of man. It creates a class of wage-earners without property or social rights. It sharpens the struggle between the classes.
Although the world contains resources which could be made to provide a decent life for everyone, capitalism has been incapable of satisfying the elementary needs of the population. It proves unable to function without devastating crises and mass unemployment. It produces social insecurity and glaring contrasts between rich and poor. It resorts to imperialist expansion, thus making conflicts between nations and races more bitter.
Question: Who does it sound more like? Hillary or Edwards?
Who does this sound like?
There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.
Neither one. You're not actually promoting that pathetic myth that liberals are anti-capitalist, are you?
History has clearly shown that capitalism is an effective economic system, but is prone to abuse if it operates unrestricted. Liberals favor reasonable restrictions and conservatives favor the unrestricted abuses.
Rather than playing your stupid gotcha game, why don't you answer this: Looking at the historical results of unrestrained, unregulated capitalism can you prove the quote false?
Oh yeah, you chopped the last sentence off of the quote:
"In some countries powerful capitalist groups helped the barbarism of the past to raise its head again in the form of Fascism and Nazism."
I don't see any spin. I don't see any avoidance. Are you irked that everyone can see through your clumsy gotcha play?
Ok, I'll answer your question directly. That quote doesn't sound like something I would ever expect to hear from either of them and doesn't sound like any position I've ever heard either of them take.
Gannon and his right hand,
See the difference in my posting below. Oh, I mean when your date is over.
Hey, Gannon.............seee ya'!!
Would you agree that the sign of a financially secure nation is one with an economy that works for most citizens? Or would you say a healthy economy depends on well rewarded CEO's?
Your spin-free, mockery-free and avoidance-free response...
I only agree with parts of it.
"Capitalism has developed immense productive forces." Agreed, undeniable, and it's a good thing.
"It has done so at the cost of excluding the great majority of citizens from influence over production." This overlooks the influence of labor unions, which were much more powerful before Reagan fired the PATCO members. Since Reagan declared war on the middle class, citizens have continued to lose influence, not to mention their jobs, to foreign countries.
"It puts the rights of ownership before the rights of man." Without knowing what the 'rights of man' are as defined by who wrote this, I'm not sure.
"It creates a class of wage-earners without property or social rights." I disagree. Our rights, including those regarding our property, are defined in the Constitution.
"It sharpens the struggle between the classes." Only if the markets are unregulated. Regulation that strikes a balance between encouraging the risk takers to pursue entrepreneurship and protecting workers, consumers and the environment is what progressives have always desired.
"Although the world contains resources which could be made to provide a decent life for everyone, capitalism has been incapable of satisfying the elementary needs of the population." I agree in areas that deal with the commons, such as how we fund health care and infrastructure. Elementary needs of the commons are simply not served by private companies seeking profit. For example, private health care insurance has brought us costs for the average family that have skyrocketed at six times the rate of inflation. The number of uninsured has risen during Bush's presidency by 9 million. This is what the free market has done for health care.
"It proves unable to function without devastating crises and mass unemployment." Again, it depends on how well-regulated the capitalist market is to meet the needs of both entrepreneurs and the workers. As long as our government continues to provide corporate welfare to companies that export American jobs, often because of the health care costs I mentioned earlier, they we are truly headed for the devastating crises that is mentioned.
"It produces social insecurity and glaring contrasts between rich and poor." And again, only if the markets are completely unrestricted and do nothing to promote a self-sustaining economy while relying heavily on foreign labor and foreign debt.
"It resorts to imperialist expansion, thus making conflicts between nations and races more bitter." Still, only if the market remains unrestrained and unregulated, but there is one current, glaring example: our dependence on Middle East oil, which could be remedied by a clear, comprehensive energy policy that works toward the goal of energy independence.
It sounds much more to me like the Declaration of the Socialist International from its first congress in 1951 than either Clinton's or Edwards' campaigns. If you're trying to make the case that either Clinton or Edwards or both are socialists, your argument would be much more convincing if you, say, provided some evidence.
"Question: Who does it sound more like? Hillary or Edwards?"
Classic wingnut logic,
(Insert BS pulled out of thin air)->False Choice..
It doesn't matter though.
The country is thirsting for Progressive reforms of this perverted monster called unregulated capitalism. Hell, more people believe the sun revolves around the earth than trust corporations.
I would pay money to see Thom Hartmann debate Glenn Beck on economics.
Thom would picking Glen off his teeth within 10 minutes.
Pete:
I don't think that Beck really knows what "economics" refers to.
BECK: Hillary said that if she becomes president, the federal government will take more of an active role in the economy to address what she called the excesses of the market. Wow. That sounds pretty Left. But just in case you haven't had enough, it gets much, much worse.
MY THOUGHTS: “That sounds pretty Left.”? Of what? Left of what? The GOP’s unprecedented running up of the national debt?
BECK: She also said she wants to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market. OK. That sounds like the Soviet Union.
MY THOUGHTS: It’s on EVERYONE’S mind (even the most mindless Republican robot) that the mortgage crisis may trigger a depression in this country and maybe worldwide and you want LESS regulation!
BECK: And to top it all off, Comrade Clinton has railed against the excesses of the offensive executive pay packages and an out-of-whack tax code that favors the wealthy while holding down the middle class. I can't imagine anybody putting it more plainly than that.
MY THOUGHTS: “Comrade”? Nah nah nah ,…. She ain’t the enemy within, your masters are!
BECK: Hillary Clinton is a liberal fascist. She is somebody who wants to redistribute the wealth in this country the way she believes is good for everybody. It is the new New Deal, and it is what kept this country in a depression for 10 solid years while the rest of the world recovered.
MY THOUGHTS: Fascist? The GOP is leaning fascist, not the Democratic Party.
MY THOUGHTS: Right, I’m going to trust a guy who’s mugging to the camera like he’s got a neurological disorder to understand the complex effects of the Great Depression on different countries.
BECK: Hillary, I just want to point this out. Executives earn big money because it's their skills that help their companies earn even bigger money, you know, so they can hire more employees, et cetera, et cetera. And if the companies don't like it, they should fire them and lower the pay scale.
MY THOUGHTS: If it was that easy to fire the guys at the top, Bush and Cheney would be long gone.
BECK: And you don't hear me crying when your husband takes home a million-dollar speaking fee. I, instead, say, God bless America. I can't believe somebody would pay that.
MY THOUGHTS: You are crying about it right here!
BECK: I like to call this Economics 101. You know, and it's fine if you want to prance around like Robin Hood, promising to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but that doesn't mean it works. The only reason it worked for Stalin is because he killed 50 million people to force them to live that way.
MY THOUGTS: So if Clinton, “the liberal fascist”, is elected, you’re implying that she’ll kill her opposition, in this case the Republicans? You’ll say anything, won’t you?
BECK: We are the greatest country on earth because of our capitalist system, not in spite of it. So, thanks, Hillary. Just in case people weren't sure why they shouldn't vote for you, your fiscal ideas are plenty reason enough. Unless you're Hugo Chavez.
MY THOUGHTS: This country is not it’s economy. The economy is an aspect of the country. And a capitalist SYSTEM demands all sorts of systemic controls to behave optimally for the country, not just the wealthiest people.
solonpiggy-piggy,
You nailed it, what stands for today's liberalism is the establishment of a command economy..ie communist state. Control is taken from the free markets to a centralized government. Gee, sounds alot like what we have heard from the democrat candidates.
Here's some Poly-Sci 101, on the farthest left you have complete command and control of economics, politics, information and media, movement, etc., say North Korea. Remember fascism a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship. (May I see your papers!)
Move a little closer to the center and you have Communism or 'higher socialism'. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", or communism. Supposedly, the worker here is in control of the means of production and distribution. No private property or ownership, information and media restricted and overseen by the single leader and/or party. Look at Cuba today and where Venezeula is headed.
Socialism is desribed by Marx as the transition from capitaliam(free enterprise) to communism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds." This is much of what is seen in Europe today, many group freedoms, ie press, commerce, travel but with heavy regulation. In Germany for instance, educational ability determines how far you can go in school, from trade to collegiate and beyond. If you can't pass the test you probably won't go beyond a high school type of program or get a license to start your own business. Commissions or committees dictate what you can and can't do vocationally.
On the right, you have a continum as well. 'Capitalists' are basically those who support the market control of an economy. This too can be oppressive, for instance the barons of industry in the late 1800's until the 1930's like Carnegie and J.P. Morgan. Our country has attempted to balance monopolies and industrial growth with greater individual freedom.
As you move further right, smaller government and individual liberty takes greater import. Democrats used to be here but have moved further left by emphsizing class struggle, groupism (rather than unifying, exacerbating racial, gender, etc. differences) and increasing government control over economy via regulation and taxes. Sadly, many republicans are taking the same path.
As a conservative, I value individuality, personal responsibility and reward for anyone's endeavors. I don't want this government to move beyond what the framers of the constitution intended.
Continuing with the lecture, to the right of conservatives you find libertarians, people who want only the barest of government structure. These were the people before the 60's that were called liberals. Now socialists purport to be liberals even though the ideals of each are diametrically opposed to each other.
Beyond libertarians on the right are anarchists, those who desire no government presence at all. Only the actions of the individual are appropriate in defiance of control, governmental or otherwise, are prized.
Glad to clarify the language issue and explain why conservatives see the likes of Hill, Barack and John as contrary to the principles of individual freedom and limited government. They lend themselves to the ideals of increasing socialism.
Unregulated capitalism has led to at least 2 depressions and is on the verge of another. The Robber Barons of the late 1800's and the Republican Great Depression of the 1930's were the direct result of capitalism run amock. When will you people learn? Will it take more bread and soup lines, or what? The so-called free market combined with transnational corporations who have no affiliation with anything other than the almighty dollar are leading us over the brink. In almost 30 years of Reagonomics (Voodoo Economics) this country has been hollowed out economically. In the early 70's we (the U.S.) were the biggest importer of raw materials and the largest exporter of finished goods. Today the opposite is true! We have transformed from a creditor nation to an indebted nation in that same span. This cannot continue consequence free. Dick Cheney was wrong; Deficits do matter and the bill is coming due!
ProudConservative,
Perhaps we haven't met before and you misread my post. I am a libertarian. I used the socialist quote to point out that the democrat candidates are more and more socialist every single day. Hillary "I want to TAKE those profits" and Barack "your RIGHT to health care" and John "6 million homeless vets" are the modern day socialists.
Your lecture was nothing short of brilliance (you can always tell if you've told the truth by how insulting the lefties get in their responses).
I do have a slight disagreement, or perhaps just a different theory. The bipolarization of the liberals and conservatives, I believe is this:
The "conservatives" are the ones who consantly desire a return to the status quo, and the "liberal" wants a departure from it. If the status quo is small government and low taxes (our Constitutions "status quo", the "conservative" will be for smaller government and low taxes, and the "liberal" would advocate more government control and higher taxes (See Hillary Clinton). If the status quo is, say, Socialism, then the "conservative" in that case would lend himself to socialism and the "liberal" would desire more freedoms. So, in my eyes, "liberalism" and "conservatism" can only be defined as a dynamically dependent political position and not necessarily a standardized set of values. That's why you'll see liberals and conservatives in THIS country call EACH OTHER Nazis and Facists. That's my .02, anyway.
Chris, Your criticisms of the left are confusing. You think they are advocating socialism, which you decry. Now you do admit that any community of people who collectively do anything are practicing socialism? The military is an obvious example.
Do you wish to abolish social security? How about Rural Electrification in the 30s, instituted by the federal government because private electric companies refused to bring electricity to rural areas. (not cost effective for them.)
I assume you don't think public utilities are a good idea?
Further, I think you could have a better discussion here if you didn't insist on setting a tone of disrespect when you post.
What history book are you reading? Rural Electrification happened only by the intervention of the Federal Government.
If you have an alternative history, post the right wing site info. (By the way, my parents lived during that era and know the facts about this.)
"Many believed privately owned power companies were charging too much for power, did not employ fair operating practices and were subject to abuse by their owners (utility holding companies), at the expense of consumers. During his presidential campaign, Roosevelt claimed that private utilities had "selfish purposes" and said, "Never shall the federal government part with its sovereignty or with its control of its power resources while I'm president of the United States." By forming utility holding companies, the private sector controlled 94 percent of generation by 1921, essentially unregulated. (This gave rise to Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA)). Many private companies in the Tennessee Valley were bought by the federal government. Others shut down, unable to compete with the TVA. Government regulations were also passed to prevent competition with the TVA."
The article goes on to present the Libertarian view that things would have been better if the private companies had continued. This is absurd, since private companies refused to bring electricity to many rural areas.
I had written a long reply, and then the puter lost it.
Roosevelt says that private utilities have selfish purposes. Oh my, a private company wants to make money. Would you invest capital in an enterprise knowing you would lose money. Doubtful. So what does he do? He puts them out of business with the PUHCA. He was a demagogue. Since when does the u.s. have sovereign power over energy.
He could have achieved the same thing as he did with rural electrification, which the TVA was not part of, by offering utilities loans, guarantees, subsidies, etc. But he took them over or forced them out of business instead, because they had, dare I say it, selfish motives.
personally, i'm against subsidies for the most part. but that's another story.
You aren't very convincing. Private companies do some things very well. Infrastructure that everyone needs, such as electricty, water, roads, police & fire departments in my view are better held by the public. I grew up in Omaha, which has public power. It ran very efficiently. Giving subsidies to private companies to get them to supply rural areas with electricity is not the most efficient way to do it. My opinion.
As far as Roosevelt being a demigogue...depends. I think he was an opportunist, and was quick to seize credit for other people's work and ideas...but he was willing to experiment and should be viewed objectively, not skewered or given sainthood.
well, Mary, If a person chooses to live a hundred miles from nowhere, why should the gov't be obligated to run a power line to him/her? The day of the family farm is over, I can tell you. We have 1000 acres in South texas and people are selling their irrigation equipment for scrap because of the cost of fuel. Let's drill in Anwar and offshore. Let's have nuclear. Don't tell me I have to use a cf bulb and think that's going to solve the problem
I am invested (a small position) in a biodiesel company in Houston. Actually, we process grease trap waste, but now biodiesel is the b ig thing. Somehow we can make money out of this with the subsidies. I doubt I will ever see a penny, the industry is so ridden with criminals.
As far as rural electrification, come on, that was in the 1930s when there were many family farms in isolated areas. Many came from homesteading families who were ENCOURAGED to come settle the prairies. It was a godsend to all those isolated areas.
Drilling in Anwar? Only enough oil for 6 months. The oil companies are not pushing this idea much, they've done the studies.
Neither capitalism nor socialism are political philosophies, they are ideas for economic control to be exercised within other political systems. Both can exist under democracies, dictatorships, monarchies and other systems. Most of Europe's socialist economies are known as Democratic Socialists because that is what they are. In the same way, much of the Third World/developing countries have totalitarian governments with extremely laissez faire capitalist economies.
Communism and Socialism are NOT the same thing. In fact the trick question quote posted earlier is from a document that goes on to say:
"Communism falsely claims a share in the Socialist tradition. In fact it has distorted that tradition beyond recognition. It has built up a rigid theology which is incompatible with the critical spirit of Marxism.
Where Socialists aim to achieve freedom and justice by removing the exploitation which divides men under capitalism, Communists seek to sharpen those class divisions only in order to establish the dictatorship of a single party."
Also, Poli-Sci 101, does not present things in nearly such a slanted way as you did, but I'm pretty sure you are aware of that. As someone who claims to believe so strongly in individual liberty why do you stop with the false claims of freedom that Conservatism puts forward? Why even stop at Libertarianism? Why not go straight for the abolition of the state completely and become an Anarchist and opt for total and absolute liberty?
All social constructions require that members exchange some level of personal liberty and conduct themselves according to an agrred on set of rules so that the society may function. The question isn't really about liberty, it's about how much and what sort of restrictions the society can agree upon.
I'm a huge 1st Amendment kind of guy but I see the need for laws regarding false and libellous speech, use of the words and works of others and the public display of pornography. Again the question is how do we as a society make rules on these things?
We've already decided that absolute freedom is not the best option. Now we just argue about what the rules are going to be.
PROUDCONSERVATIVE:
I'm confused on where you draw the "socialist" line.
AS a "proud conservative", answer this one question:
Would you approve overturning all law that requires hospitals to treat all who come to their emergency rooms, unless they can prove ability to pay for the services they receive there?
Simple question. What's your answer?
I salute you, Tex, if you made it past the "Far Left North Korea" part of that exercise in extreme typing.
Proudconservative, if you're competing with Beck in some kind of Assbackwards Olympics, Beck may have to settle for the silver.
Liberal fascism? Apparently this knob doesn't own a dictionary. What is up with the recent push to align fascism with liberalism? Only a moron wouldn't see that fascism is a phenomenon that stems from those suffering from a reich-wing world view! Liberalism and progressivism have saved this country in the past and I am hopeful that we can come to the rescue yet again. The New Deal truly made this the greatest country the world has ever known and these neo-clowns want to dismantle it piece by piece. They have been on the wrong side of history on every issue and they will be judged thusly. Does anyone doubt that the Limbaughs, Hannitys. and Becks of the world would have been the loudest voices of opposition to the notion of a "Non-Flat" world? Knuckle-Draggers All! And, the 'Pinko-Commie' rhetoric is infantile but should I really expect anything different from this simpleton? Unregulated capitalism does not work. It inevitably leads to monopolies and all of the ills that have played out time and time again in this country. You'd think that we would have learned this lesson by now. I, for one, am sick of it!
Wait, wait, wait......"Pinko-Commie" is infantile?
Then how would you classify "knob, moron, neo-clown, knuckle-dragger and simpleton?"
Respectable and mature?
Glenn Beck.
Now, put a pointy little hat on his pointy little head.
He's a dunce.
bear in mind, beck is a recovering alcolholic. this could well explain his inability to distinguish between fascism and liberalism, two almost diametrically opposed political/social philosphies; long-term alcoholism kills brain cells, primarily those used for analytical thought processes.
i note that none of the conservatives are attempting to use adam smith to promote their idea of a laizzez faire capitalist utopia, unrestrained and guided only by the "invisible" hand of the market. possibly because mr. smith, in his economic treatise "the wealth of nations", opined that unrestrained capitalism resulted in anarchy in the markets. therefore, it was necessary to have some governmental controls, as well as the social opprobrium, to keep all the players honest.
but mr. beck wouldn't know that, because i remain unconvinced that he reads.
Why are all these guys so oddly unattractive? I mean aesthetically. Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Gibson, Novak. It's clear that they have some very real insecurities. Were they the kids that no one talked to or couldn't ever find a date? Were they constantly ridiculed by classmates, like Snape in the Harry Potter book? Do they have some type of imaginary score to settle? I'm just sayin' . . . oh never mind.
You nailed it.
It's true, most of these "media" prostitutes are chosen for their inferiorities, which extend also to having an inferior (often gross) physical appearance. And this same inferiority (moral and intellectual and physical) is also often evident in the Bush administration's minions and underlings... it's not mere coincidence: they are also chosen for their inferior nature, which definitely includes having an inferior and often grotesque appearance.
It's my guess that such people are easier to direct and command, and just naturally subject themselves to their "superiors", and are even awed (almost mesmerized) in the presence of people of "superior" status. In addition, such inferior types are naturally more limited in their careers and in the money those careers pay, and therefore are much less likely to refuse or rebel against or even disappoint, their "superior" employers.
How else can you explain tim russert's success?
Jeepers!! The Beaver "read" Goldberg's book (minus the critical thinking parts) and he transforms himself into Joe McCarthy. Golly, that was cool!
Don't worry, he'll be off his facist and commie kick (aren't those mutually exclusive?) and on to homeless vets soon.
Beaver - have you considered Access Hollywood?
Yeah, if only Hoover were still in office, the depression would have been over in mere weeks.
Sorry, you conservatives will have to work to dismantle public education quite a bit more before the public will buy your revisionist history about FDR. Maybe in a few more decades.
You keep trying to make it worse, and myself and the rest of America will continue to work to make it better and better.
Quick: name me an industrialized country without a public education system.
If your understanding of history is the product of a liberal public education you may have a point.
Of course, I could skip the conservative public education and teach my daughter to be narrow-minded and intolerant at home.
Gosh that's terrific!!
Maybe you and The Beaver can start your very own revisionist history and Joe McCarthy chapter. No dues and critical thinking required!!
Buff:
Apparently you have not actually studied history.
Firstly, Hillary is a fascist, of that there can be no doubt or argument. Most recessions last six to eleven months, but FDR managed to drag the depression on until 1941 when the war pulled the economy out of the tank. FDR insisted on big government programs like the TVA (which put a bunch of local utilities out of business), the CCC, and the WPA, and these did nothing for the economy. They were as bad as the stupid stimulus plan now before the senate.
FDR could have built up the armed forces during all those years, but he didn't and the military numbered less than that of Portugal at the outbreak of war. Not very prescient.
The proof is in the pudding. The stock market from 1930 to 1950 did basically nothing because the business climate imposed by FDR and continued by Truman (taxes, reliance on gov't solutions, etc.) created great doubt and uncertainty. Only later reforms helped the market to get out of the basement. This included JFK tax cuts, and even Clinton's reduction of taxes on capital gains, not to mention Bush's cuts.
Arthur Laffer, Jr. writing yesterday stated that if Hillary's plan to increase marginal tax rates at the top, while reducing them below the top, will result in terrific economic dislocations that will take years to repair. Remember, Andrew Jackson through destruction of the central bank and requirement that all government lands be paid for with specie set off the Panic of 1837 and a depression that lasted more than a decade.
Oh, someone opined that communists wanted all business to go to the government, and that a fascist wants it to go to big companies. WRONG. The only difference between the two is that communists owe their loyalties to Russia, fascists don't, but they all believe the same thing: More power to the central government at the expense of independent businesses. So FDR was a fascist too.
There is a good essay about Mr. Laffer, his curve and supply side economics on Daily Kos: Why the Laffer Curve is a Joke
It tried to link to it, with no success, sorry. Here's some excerpts:
"So that, as I understand it, is the conservative view that underpins what has been sold as supply-side economics. It is understandable and sympathetic, but I submit that this framework is an impoverished one, because it does not consider the ways in which government revenue collection promotes growth.
You heard me right. Government revenue collection promotes economic growth.
The first clue is that I am distinguishing between "taxes" and "revenue collection."
Here's the second: it doesn't make sense to make the same "taxes are a disincentive to the taxed" formulation for all money that the government collects. Are income taxes a disincentive to making more money? Of course not. Even at a 50% tax rate, if you get a $500 raise, that's still $250 going directly into your pocket. If booze costs twice as much because of liquor taxes, then you are economically limited -- at maximum, you could buy half the amount you could without the taxes. If the income tax rate is 50%, it does not follow that you will only work half the hours, or half as hard.
It turns out income tax is special, and is part of a bigger feedback loop that the idea of tax as disincentive doesn't capture. Laffer's curve probably works pretty well to describe other forms of taxation, like tariffs or sin taxes. But with income tax, you have to follow the dollars.
The reason for this is that in reality, government does more than remove barriers to economic growth. Government makes active investments in economic growth. Spending money on infrastructure, R & D, and especially education are investments in the public. And they are investments that the government is particularly suited to make, because of its own unique advantages. First of all, the government operates on a much longer time horizon than you or I or even most corporations can afford to. Secondly, the government has tools that let it recapture dividends from its investments even when the precise effects can't be pinned down. One of those tools is what we know of as income tax.
When the government educates kids, there's far more chance that they'll grow up to be the next generation's Thomas Edisons. When we get nice new things like light bulbs (or other value-adds like assembly lines or interchangeable parts or the internet), then everyone's quality of life goes up. When we create new ways to add value, new industries arise, and the economy grows. When the economy grows, and everyone is better off, then personal and corporate income is going to rise. And it will rise in proportion to the amount of value added. And the government should claim a dividend for that, so that it can reinvest in the next generation of R&D, and the next generation of infrastructure, and the next generation of kids. We all benefit from this generation's internet (or light bulb, or hydropower project), and we all chip in for the next one (fusion, hopefully)."
Jonah Goldberg made the point that Stalin laid down the rule, that if you of the commie mind you could only be called a communist if you owed allegiance to Mother Russia. Otherwise, he referred to you as a fascist. I didn't check it out, but it doesn't sound far fetched. I don't think Hitler and Il Duce were so different from Stalin, they just had different titles.
What? Goldberg made a point?
Also, if it is just a matter of titles, were Hitler and Mussolini Communists? Are these titles or idealogies? Which of these bad comparisons are you using to attack Democratic candidates? Are we liberals Facists or Communists? Are we both?
"Firstly, Hillary is a fascist, of that there can be no doubt or argument. "
Thanks for starting with this. It lets us know that you have no concept of the difference between fact and opinion. Knowing that, we also know that there's no point in arguing with you as you are someone who doesn't understand something basic and fundamental to the communication of ideas and the conduct of intelligent debate.
What would the outrage be from the conservatives in this country if say, Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman called John McCain or Mitt Romney a conserevative fascist? I would think they would be forced to publicly apologize by their employer.
"We are the greatest country on earth because of our capitalist system, not in spite of it"
Um..... Glen,
Don't you realize that this is only just a myth? This line of thinking only exaserbates the myth of "American Exceptionalism" and is only used by the weak-minded fool so that they don't have to face the truth that this countries, as great as many of its people are, system that runs it.... sucks!
It sucks because it is set up to distribute all that wealth mainly the top 2% and very little to trickle down to the rest of us.
Capitalism is a good system. When it isn't run by an elite group of thugs that think they are somehow deserving and everyone else can go suck an egg.
When one looks carefully at the way Capitalism is set up here in America they have two choices:
1) Share that knowledge with everyone and find ways to change it so that this Democracy can thrive and be stronger than ever!
or
2) Keep that knowledge secret or lie about it to keep things the same so that you can be part of the destruction of this Democracy of ours!
PS.....
I'm in the belief that those that scream unintelligently about Communism, Facism, or Un-Americanism are likely themselves exactly what they are screaming about, they just do it not looking at a mirror, least they recognize themselves for what they are!
hstybuf6553,
Not only am I speechless by your retort, I'm equally amazed at your superior intellect.
Instead of being childish about my post, why not do the adult thing and perhaps engage me in a serious debate on whether I'm correct or not?
I don't expect much from you, your reply to me already proves that, but it would be nice if you could do a little bit better than simply resorting to calling me a 'loon'.
For instance, why am I a 'loon' in your eyes?
What facts do you know of that would support your presumption about me? Please share!
Why didn't you attack my stance, as opposed to attacking me? Afraid of something?
This seems to be a running theme with many conservative right-wingers today!
Tommy and BruceAce1, both conservatives for whom I'm slowly growing a respect for, don't simply resort to name calling on this site, at least they attack the stance and not the messenger.
Buff:
Do you think that W. would have gotten anywhere if George H. W. Bush was not his father?