Why do Republicans and Democrats alike use nationalization as a strategy? If it's socialism, why are Republicans using socialist philosophies?

Taking into the public ownership is not the same thing as purchasing a majority of shares. Nationalization would be the government seizing a company (or companies) in their entirety and taking control of them. What the Treasury did was purchase stocks while GM was going through Chapter 11. This is colloquially known as partial nationalization, but in truth it's quite different.
this isn't true. Frederick Henderson resigned due to pressure from the board. According to his own words: "There was no direction or input from the government," he said. "It was completely by the board and of the board."

Barack Obama is not a socialist and anyone that says otherwise is flat out wrong. It's not a legitimate complaint.

To bring this back to the OP: it's not a legitimate complaint because past presidents have done similar things, both Democrat and Republican, throughout the 20th century.

If they want to criticize the nationalization, partial or no, they should focus on how it is carried out, not that it happened at all. Obama said it was temporary. Hold him to that. That's a legitimate criticism. Let's not call him a socialist for doing what's a part of the American tradition in politics and economic policy.

He's not a far-left Marxist radical seeking to dismantle the republic. To harp on about that is folly.

I wasn't referring to Frederick Henderson. I was referring to Rick Wagoner who was thrown out by Obama when Obama nationalized GM.

The White House admitted to booting Rick out.

GM CEO resigns at Obama's behest - Mike Allen and Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

.

I don't know what you call it when a government takes over a company but that alone sounds like socialism to me based on the links I posted previously.

What is a legitimate complaint? That Obama is a tax and spend liberal, based on his latest plan to give a $100 billion tax break and then raise taxes to pay for it?

citation please for this tax break/raise?

This has been in the news a lot in the last week. Here's one reference

News Headlines Obama Unveils Plan to Spend $50 Billion on Infrastructure

Do you really expect the oil companies to just absorb this tax hike and not pass it on to us consumers? Even if BP is one of the collection agents for this tax, it's still a tax.

you're being disingenuous. he's extending an already existing tax credit (not starting a new one) and he's scrapping some tax breaks on companies that don't need them (not raising taxes on the populace).

at least be honest when you're describing something

No. The White House asked him to resign after the treasury purchased controlling interest in the company. They didn't demand it, he wasn't booted out. They asked. And, just like with Henderson, they had the backing of the board.
Source
Nope.

Source
Nope.

Source
This one is slightly closer, but it wasn't the means of production and the distribution of goods, it was just temporarily purchasing controlling interest in a corporation which had just gone bankrupt.

Sorry, but it's not socialism.
You're saying tax breaks somehow become socialism when you agree to pay for them?
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/me...e-facepalm.jpg

That tax credit had an expiration date. Obama wants to extend it for 10 years at the expense of another $100 billion that isn't on the books now.

By closing a loophole, the oil companies tax bills are going to go up. I really don't expect them to absorb that cost. So part of the higher cost of petroleum products will be to cover the increased tax bills.

Corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes.

---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

No, that was a reference to Obama's latest spending/tax plan. If I was Obama and Biden, I'd hang my head in shame too.

so you're in favor of the government redistributing the tax payer's money to the energy companies in order to keep the energy companies from raising prices on the tax payers? Sounds like the tax payers are getting fucked either way, so it seems odd to be really for one side of it and really against the other

That's another form of subsidy which can be eliminated, along with Obama being honest and admitting he is raising taxes on all of us.

wait, so you're saying that cutting the subsidy will result in the energy companies passing the cost on to the consumers (bad) but you're in FAVOR of cutting the subsidy?

Obama has repeatedly said he does not wish to raise taxes on the middle class. The Bush tax cuts are set to expire this next year. He's been very consistent about stating he's only interested allowing those cuts to expire on the top 2.5% of tax payers.

But tully, he may wish to not do it but those articles and pieces on the healthcare program I've read will increase money coming out of the middle classes pockets. If you don't want to call them taxes and call them fees fine, but they still are an increase of money out of pocket with no choice to decline, just like taxes.

re: the bush tax cuts, because people with any sort of wealth have some sort of financial adviser even if it is just an accountant doing their tax planning, they have already been planning on moving as much wealth as possible this year from direct gifts to building more family trusts. I think that the impact on the rich will be minimal because of this, and if it's not done this year it will be pushed out in future years because let's face it, all politicians fit that rich mold and they have a conflicted interest in protecting their own family money.

The government shouldn't be subsidizing any business. Businesses succeed or fail on their own. Remove the subsidy to the oil company and let them deal with that. If their price goes up, so be it. We are already paying that price anyway by means of the subsidy.

Next, Obama starts aggressively cutting spending on all government programs, including funding the military to the point we have a credible defense.

Then Obama starts paying down the deficit with the money he saves by cutting government spending.

No more $50 billion giveaways to his construction buddies. No more $100 billion giveaways to his favorite corporations. His last exercise in giveaways to the tune of a $750 billion stimulus program flopped. He should not get to do it again.

All I was doing was pointing out that Obama has not said he wants to raise taxes on everyone.

On the health care issue some of what you're saying I agree with and some I do not.

Really for years costs and fees have been increasing due to tax cuts. Everything from fees to use national parks to playing sports in school. I remember when playing sports at school was a given. Now it's a pay to play program in many places. This of course has little effect on the wealthy and serious effects on the poor.

You make an interesting point about taxes and how the wealthy deal with them, almost makes me wonder why they spend so much time fighting against them. Because in many ways you're right, they simply find loop holes and shelters and don't pay anyway. Reminds me of a stump speech Bush Jr. used to give where he stated "you can't raise taxes on the wealthy, they're just going to find loop holes and hire accounts and won't end up paying anyway." Not a direct quote, but really close. That amazed me. The argument being that it's impossible to enforce the tax code so why bother? I mean it would be stupid to try to close the loop holes so lets just keep shifting more of the burden to the middle class.

At some point all the money, massive amounts of money spent on the Bush Jr. tax cuts and the wars are going to have to be paid back. Cutting education, health care, Social Security or increasing taxes on the poor and middle class seem like really good ways to ensure the wealthy keep getting more wealthy and the middle class keeps sinking lower.

Infrastructure funding is Obama's giveaway to construction buddies?
Political contributions of the construction industry are heavily towards Republicans.

So how would you pay for long overdue repair of the crumbling public infrastructure?

The stimulus program flopped? Not according to a broad consensus of economists.

The stimulus, along with the the bank bailout (TARP) and policies of the Fed kept the economy from tanking completely and turned it around to the tune to six quarters of positive GDP growth after five quarters of negative GDP growth...and significant job creation (certainly not enough to correct for the 8+ million lost in the prior eight years).

What would you have done with an economy that was sinking to the lowest levels since the Great Depression if you were in that position in 2009? Nothing and hope for the best and that the economy fixes itself w/o further significant decline?

Oh, btw...the notion that Obama is a socialist because of the temporary govt purchase of controlling interest in GM is just nonsense.

The government has begun the process of selling its GM stock as was planned.

Construction workers are heavily unionized, with unions as a major Democratic party backer

Let the states fund it. The federal government funds way too many things that should be at the state level, and with a one size fits all approach that isn't necessary.

9%+ unemployment, housing and auto sales down after Obama borrowed against futirs sailes with his stupid programs, consumer spending down, foreclosures up. Some recovery.

Yes. Eventually it will recover.

In this election cycle:
General Contractors - 61% contributions to Republicans

Special Trade Contractors - 63% contributions to Republicans

Building Materials and Equipment - 72$ contributions to Republicans


So you prefer a piecemeal approach...where smaller, poorer states will just have to live with the crumbling infrastructure that affects not only the state's economy, but the national economy as well.


So you dont think five -six quarters of positive GDP growth (ave 3+%) is a good thing? or a positive result of the government's action? Or that unemployment would have likely been even higher (as much as 2-3%) than the current 9+%.

All sectors do not recovery at once and employment is always the last to recover.

Oh and consumer spending has been going up in the last 12-18 months...not down.

Eventually?

Sure the economy would have recovered eventually?

At what cost? How many more unemployed would have been acceptable? How many more quarters of negative GDP growth would have been acceptable?

Subsidies (like tariffs) are America's way of exercising economic sovereignty in a globalized economy. Without them, America cannot compete on price due to labour, land, and other operational costs.

And you'd think Republicans (and conservatives and free-marketers in general) are okay with the high unemployment. It forces workers to accept lower-than-usual pay and removes a lot of the leverage that unions have when it comes to bargaining power. Maybe the recession will act as a long-term correction to the bloated average pay that Americans receive compared to the rest of the world. American workers, after all, are overvalued in many respects.

I guess they criticize Obama because he's "ruining it." He wants to preserve the quality of life for the average American, and that's just ruining it for the free-marketers who would have otherwise stood to benefit from a "correction" to the American labour force.

Let the market fix the economy. Let American workers earn less, and everything else will fall into place. America's wealth has been too spread out to be sustainable. Let wealth flow where it should: to the hands of the few.

conservatives advocate class war but in the main lack the ethical and intellectual integrity required to own up to what they're advocating. so they pretend its something else. but it isn't.

You can simply look at the data and see every time the cons have controlled things spending has increased, the debt has increased, the wealthy have become more wealthy and the ranks of the poor have swelled.

I'll be interested to see what happens when guys like Miller from Alaska take their seat in the senate. I find the Alaska situation interesting because while a high % of Alaskans have historically complained about federal spending they've enjoyed massive federal pork barrel hand outs. I think they're the #1 state when it comes to federal funds coming in as compared to federal taxes being paid. If Miller does as he's promised and cut the federal spending how will the pop. of his state react? Could be interesting.

I'll go along with that. Let the states pay for what they can justify and afford rather than Washington giving them money. Maybe that will help put an end to federal boondoggles and incentives for Congressmen to 'bring home the bacon'. Let's make the federal government a lean operation.

Not if Obama is artificially inflating the economy with $750 billion of borrowed money, and where he wants to do it again with at least $150 billion this year. Not when the GDP annual growth estimate for the 2nd quarter of 2010 was revised downward to 1.6% GDP Growth Revised Lower to 1.6% - TheStreet where the explanation is that the federal money supply ran out.



---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 PM ----------

So then, if the US can't compete in say the market for steel, then we the taxpayers get to subsidize the steel industry to make up the difference. Similarly with other subsidized products and services. That seems like a pretty dumb idea, especially when I'm being forced to pay for something I wouldn't use in the first place. If the people running the business can't make a profit, they should be doing something else.

They generally do if they can't get enough funding. They move operations or outsource overseas or they get cash infusions from foreign interests---China, for example.

so the state governments (that are all millions in debt) are expected to fund the infrastructure now too? Fine, raise state income taxes to Federal levels and maybe they can manage that

If the states are funding it, then they can make the decision whether the work is really needed and how to prioritize it to stay within their budgets. It means fewer projects that get created just to prove that some Senator is capable of getting money from Washington. It means the state gets done what it thinks really needs to be done rather than what somebody in Washington thinks makes a perfect one size fits all solution. Finally, it shrink's Washington's budget and their ability to meddle in things they shouldn't be be meddling in.

according to an associated press article from yesterday, the poverty rate in the united states is soaring:

The Associated Press: US poverty on track to post record gain in 2009

i expect that its required for the right to act as though these numbers follow from problems with the stimulus package, which they opposed in any event, rather than from the implementation of their core economic ideology. but that's transparently false. conservative economic ideology, implemented, is class warfare. here's the latest data that demonstrates it.

what's remarkable is that anyone takes that economic ideology seriously now given that we all know its consequences are disaster.

When you shift power from the Federal government to the State government, you end up with a State government that is just as corrupt as the Federal

You know what's funny? The guy Minnesota elected to carry the title of Governor while he runs for president has real conservative fiscal bona fides. He'd sooner cut healthcare programs for thousands of sick kids and handicapped folk than raise taxes. A few years ago, his budget policies lead to a brilliant plan whereby the state department of transportation, which was unable to secure money elsewhere, tried to front a multiyear, multihundred million dollar highway construction plan. They seemed a bit shocked when there were no takers.

It was also on his watch that a large highway bridge collapsed after a "we'll do whatever the cheapest option is" maintenance plan had been in effect for several years. Sure, the bridge construction wasn't as specified, but it stood for 40 years. Perhaps a more rigorous (and expensive!) inspection scheme would have caught the problem before it got out of hand. In a way, it was kind of a good thing that the bridge collapsed, because its collapse caused widespread bridge inspections throughout the state and now there have several instances where tenuous bridges that likely would have been ignored have been replaced.

The point being: local people already make infrastructure decisions. Sometimes they make really bad ones. Local decisions aren't always better, they're just more influenced by local politics.

Can you tell us what he is, in terms of what he stands for?

As for your list, I'll play along for a bit:

A portion of his heritage is Kenyan, why not claim it, with pride?
How does a tradition or fundamentalist Muslim view what Obama is?
What is wrong with a socialist agenda, if you believe in wealth rdistribution?
Don't some people see the use of drones an act of terrorism? Our military presence in foreign countries?
As President has Obama done anything to address the chronic problems born of institutional racism that has afflicted the African American community in this country?
Has Obama attempted to segregate, isolate and blame 1% to 2% of our nation's population, the "rich" in his case, through a campaign of propaganda?

---------- Post added at 01:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 PM ----------

Do you ever watch MSNBC?

A democrat. The best way to describe President Obama is as a democrat. He's slightly left of center, but he's afraid of looking too liberal so he moved right on certain issues (especially war/rendition/assassinations). He likes to compromise and doesn't understand how to beat Republicans at their own game.

But, Willravel, it's substantially more difficult to freak out about Obama for being a Democrat.

Point out one single Democrat thing he's done since being in office....just one single thing....I dare you!

The first Democrat thing he did was not immediately do anything upon taking office.

I really doubt that there is150,000 miles of road in the US that are in such desperate need of rebuilding that the feds have to fund it over and above state highway maintenance budgets. That's an average of 3000 miles of road in each state that is in bad shape.

If the railroads want 4,000 miles of railroad, let them fund it. The government has spent quite a bit of money tearing up old railroads and turning them into rail trails so people can 'hike' and 'bike'. Now Obama wants to spend taxpayer money to build new ones. Neat way to waste taxpayer money.

Despite some pretty graphs from some website that asks questions about astrology and other silliness to determine political orientation, Obama is not 'right of center' except in some bizarro liberal universe. If anything, he lands solidly in the the liberal camp on issues like this, and even in the socialist camp on some issues.

If true, perhaps this capsulizes the problem. For Bush, the things he did were not about beating Democrats, he acted according to his convictions. And for me, I have little respect for people who compromise their convictions or those who don't have any. For example, I read your various positions and you are consistent, we disagree on almost everything, but you have my respect.

What this thread is likely getting at is that many people who are causing problems view Obama as further left than centre-left, which he hardly is. Any claims to socialism placed on Obama are a bit silly because similar claims could be placed on Republican presidents as well.

It would seem that perhaps America should own up to its own socialism rather than pretend it's against it.

Do you need a list of things I freak out about regarding Obama. To start:

For example if I developed a 20 year relationship with you, the way Obama did with Rev. Wright, you would have a defender until death. I would never toss you to the side for political reasons. I would talk about how we may disagree, but you would be my friend, my comrade, etc. I would defend you, your rights, you eccentricities, how I understand the evolution of your views. You would always have open door to me. And it would not matter how much we disagreed. Certainly, you can bet I would never stop trying to influence you, but I could never do what Obama did with Rev. Wright. Obama's handling of Rev. Wright freaked me out. I did not understand it, never did and never will. We are wired different. the respect I had for Obama after that went close to zero.

I appreciate that.

I don't get how President Obama being a moderate capsulizes the insane accusations being lobbed against him, though. He should have pushed for single-payer and settled on a public option, but didn't, and yet "Obamacare" (the healthcare reform bill) was being characterized as a communist plot. Those accusations were so loud and so stupid they drowned out the concerns of honest people that are in trouble because of our messed up healthcare industry. Like it or not, there are substantial problems in the healthcare industry and the healthcare bill probably would have addressed them better if the administration didn't have to deal with the "death panel" or "socialism" bullshit.

What I think is going on are these are fucked-up, disingenuous political tactics. Calling President Obama a socialist or a Nazi or a Kenyan are less about abject racism or unbelievable stupidity but more about the right being willing to get down in the dirt and do some of the most despicable things I've ever seen just so they can get a majority back and get to deregulating and giving tax breaks to the rich.

Again, this is funny stuff. You could call me whatever you want, and actually if you go back and read some of the stuff I have been called, I could: I can give it back (my first choice) - ignore it (my maturity level doesn't usually allow this) - make jokes about it (my second choice) - leave (I am a fighter, death before surrender - yea, it lacks wisdom, luckily I surround myself with people wiser than me) - or get all whiny about it (the choice made by Obama and many of his supporters).

Try it, call me something. Call me a greedy capitalist pig? Call me a gun loving, mindless twit. call me irrational. Call me a war monger. Call me Pol Pot. Call me whatever you want, but as the joke goes, just don't call me late for dinner. I know what I am and what I am not.

I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the people who spread the birther lies and the death panel nonsense and the Nazi bs. These aren't being spread by Ace, but by Rush and Beck and Orly and Hannity and Palin. Those are the people I'm talking about, unless I've missed something and you're a birther or someone that thinks the president is a communist Nazi.