I saw this item on NewsBusters right after I read this morning's column by Robert Samuelson. I enjoy Samuelson because, right or wrong, he explains his point clearly. This morning's column discussed the stimulus plans for Japan during their problems, and how it compares to our problems. I think it's worth reading.

To this point, however, I noticed that Samuelson's argument applies here. Samuelson's conclusion is simple: growth has to be real. Our bubble was created by credit, i.e., deficit spending by consumers. As he says, "The question is whether our system is adaptive enough to create new sources of growth to fill the void left by retreating shoppers." That makes sense to me. So the question is whether these "stimuli" packages actually promote and sustain real growth. Unfortunately, I think not.

And of course, the obvious question for Rodriguez: the fact that all the Republicans opposed the bill it is matched by the fact that all the Democrats supported it. Yet only the Republicans are challenged to defend themselves - why aren't they playing nice? Liberal media bias on display...

Cantor is not atypical of his fellow Republicans when he asks "Who's going to pay for this continued succession of bail-outs?" Of course, when he says "bail-outs" he's referring to the vital help millions of Americans need in order to keep their jobs and their homes.  He's talking about states that are going bankrupt, and about to lay-off tens of thousands of teachers, police and firefighters. He's questioning how smart it is to help any of them because, he says,  those who are still able to pay their mortgages don't want to pay for it. A great philosophy. Look out for #1, and screw millions of hard-working people. Fortunately, most Americans don't share this "me first, country second" ideology. Cantor, a member of the "party first, country second" coalition,  thinks we should cut taxes for the rich and give big tax breaks to business, because he knows both will always do the right thing for America. Right. Clearly, this man thinks the electorate will respond to this 'do nothing' and 'say no' style of leadership.  The bottom line here is that Cantor is an obstructionist who is only concerned about positioning his moribund political gang for the next election. The good news is, if he keeps talking like this, there won't be a single red state left on the map by 2012. 

only make us Marxist. BHO is a Saul Alinsky disciple.how do we pick and choose who should benefit for these bailouts. how about no one. if my company fails, because we ran it poorly, it fails and that's that. stop this insanity. we vote for things we have not read. how does that happen.

 allow me to Love America

If only the MSM would abandon their:...Crepe breakfasts...Quiche Lunches...Waygu Beef Dinners. Perhaps they would get the courage...Hell! The curiosity, to find-out what the general public thinks and feels about this spreading Collectivism. Alas the Obamedia instead are increasingly ingratiatng themselves to the nouveau party apracthicks of an increasingly Socialistic Democrat Party...

__________________________ 

Long Live...THE REPUBLIC !

What a joke. I've never known any situation where "large-scale government intervention" was necessary.

The small remnants of capitalism we have left in our country are under assault. The statists in our government are trying to seal the deal with massive new wealth transfers and hidden legislation. And they don't care if most of the public is against it.

A Time to Choose: Big Business, or Big Government?

What will we choose and how will we do it? We're running out of time. Our politicians, with the help of the mainstream media, are forcing these changes through at break-neck speed. We better get on the ball quickly, or we're screwed.

 *If you like the comments, check out the articles. 

Better to pile on late than never.  The people that need government to support them, help them keep their jobs, help them keep their houses and make sure they take a shower once a week and wash their clothes need to move to kuber.  You know, that socialist nirvana in the Caribbean?  Those of us who post here, especially the regulars, are Americans.  The rest of you are something else.  Get some bootstraps.

This is where McLame led us.  The law of unintended consequences is in play on so many levels.  But no matter, we the people (meaning us- the democrats, the press, the bureaucracy, the unions, the educators of young skulls full of mush), are finally going to make things right.  And those Republicans that stand in our way are going to get steamrollered.  Alinsky- Rules For Radicals #13:  Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  They actually have several rotating targets of convenience-  Bush, Palin, Rush, Sean, and anyone they deem to be conservative whether that is true or not.  As well as several symbolic targets like conservatism, capitalism, free speech, and the uncontrolled dissemination of information.  As we can all see without talk radio telling us about it, there is a full scale assault on capitalism now.  Socialist/Progressive thought has been spoon-fed our children from the moment they entered pre-school.

The Fix is In and It's Working

I suppose this is why print media and the press in general don’t care about their tumbling revenues; when The Pelosi gets the regulated internet and restricted Congress that she wants, and Obama gets his thugs and his Justice Department monitoring, intimidating and shutting down alternative media (and the dissenting voices we’ve been told are “patriotic” when a Republican is in the White House) the incestuous mainstream press will go back to being the only game in town. Pravda West.

One point of distinction, though is that even though Obama is thought of by most thinking people as socialist, his tendencies actually appear to be more fascist.  As a reader of "Liberal Fascism", I can see why.  Michael Ledeen points out why "We are all Fascists Now":

...the state is getting more and more deeply involved in business, even taking controlling interests in some private companies.  And the state is even trying to “make policy” for private companies they do not control, but merely “help” with “infusions of capital,” as in the recent call for salary caps for certain CEOs.  So state power is growing at the expense of corporations.

But that’s not socialism.  Socialism rests on a firm theoretical bedrock:  the abolition of private property.  I haven’t heard anyone this side of Barney Frank calling for any such thing.  What is happening now–and Newsweek is honest enough to say so down in the body of the article–is an expansion of the state’s role, an increase in public/private joint ventures and partnerships, and much more state regulation of business.  Yes, it’s very “European,” and some of the Europeans even call it “social democracy,” but it isn’t.

It’s fascism.  Nobody calls it by its proper name, for two basic reasons:  first, because “fascism” has long since lost its actual, historical, content;  it’s been a pure epithet for many decades.  Lots of the people writing about current events like what Obama et. al. are doing, and wouldn’t want to stigmatize it with that “f” epithet.

Second, not one person in a thousand knows what fascist political economy was.  Yet during the great economic crisis of the 1930s, fascism was widely regarded as a possible solution, indeed as the only acceptable solution to a spasm that had shaken the entire First World, and beyond.  It was hailed as a “third way” between two failed systems (communism and capitalism), retaining the best of each.  Private property was preserved, as the role of the state was expanded.  This was necessary because the Great Depression was defined as a crisis “of the system,” not just a glitch “in the system.”  And so Mussolini created the “Corporate State,” in which, in theory at least, the big national enterprises were entrusted to state ownership (or substantial state ownership) and of course state management.  Some of the big “Corporations” lasted a very long time;  indeed some have only very recently been privatized, and the state still holds important chunks–so-called “golden shares”–in some of them.

Back in the early thirties, before “fascism” became a pure epithet, leading politicians and economists recognized that it might work, and many believed it was urgently required.  When Roosevelt was elected in 1932, in fact, Mussolini personally reviewed his book, Looking Forward, and the Duce’s bottom line was, “this guy is one of us.”

None of this is new.  Socialism and it's offshoot, fascism, has been on the march since Rousseau and the French Revolution (note: we are not talking about modern liberalism used as a cover for progressivism/socialism/fascism here):

That socialism has displaced (classical: i.e.George Washington, etc.) liberalism as the doctrine held by the great majority of progressives does not simply mean that people had forgotten the warnings of the great liberal thinkers of the past about the consequences of collectivism.  It has happened because they were persuaded of the very opposite of what these men had predicted....Where freedom was concerned, the founders of socialism made no bones about their intentions.  Freedom of thought they regarded as the root-evil of nineteenth-century society, and the first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, even predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be "treated as cattle."...

...Nobody saw more clearly than Tocqueville that democracy as an essentially individualist institution stood in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism:  "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom," he said in 1848; "socialism restricts it.  Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number.  Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word:  equality.  But notice the difference:  while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks the equality in restraint and servitude." ...There can be no doubt that the promise of greater freedom has become one of the most effective weapons of socialist propaganda and that the belief that socialism would bring freedom is genuine and sincere.  But this would only heighten the tragedy if it should prove that what was promised to us as the Road to Freedom was in fact the High Road to Servitude.  Unquestionably, the promise of more freedom was responsible for luring more and more liberals along the socialist road, for blinding them to the conflict which exists between the basic principle of socialism and liberalism, and for often enabling socialists to usurp the very name of the old party of freedom.  Socialism was embraced by the greater part of the intelligentsia as the apparent heir of the liberal tradition:  therefore it is not surprising the to them the idea of socialism's leading to the opposite of liberty should appear inconceivable.  -"The Road to Serfdom", F.A. Heyek, ch. 2.

So what we are now seeing, as illustrated by Rodriguez's (possibly purposefully) clueless grilling of Cantor, is the continuing assault on Capitalism and Conservatism.  Will we see "reactionary" forces being led off to re-education or concentration camps to be "disappeared"?  Doubtful.  As Jonah Goldberg pointed out in "Liberal Fascism", it is more likely to be a "soft fascism" that accomplishes it's goals through coercion and ostracism, i.e.  "RODRIGUEZ: Are you afraid of being seen as obstructionist?", repeated over and over and over and over again in various forms and formats until they eventually make the good guys who truly want individual freedom, look like devils.

Goldberg:  "...since we must have a working definition of fascism, here is mine:  Fascism is a religion of the state.  It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people.  It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good.  It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure.  Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives.  Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy.  I will argue that contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism."  (my bolding)

Note that Mussolini, Hitler, Roosevelt, and JFK all fit the mold of the public's longing "for a national leader attuned to the will of the people", even though each was a myth, created through the use of the power of media support and outright propaganda.

It's going to be a hell of a fight.

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com

Would any of you sign a 1000+ page business contract without reading it first? 

Can the Republican Party accept that there are situations when large-scale government intervention is necessary?"

Yes, I would like large-scale government intervention into the cells of al Qaeda, and into the armies of any nation that attacks our nation thinking they have the slightest chance of pulling it off.  Massive government intervention, I'm all for it.

I don't hear jack SQUAT from liberals about anything about government getting out of people's way, about smaller government, about how government intrudes on Americans, etc etc.  Nothing.