When you want to control the wages of companies that aren’t in any financial trouble then you’re a socialist.
If I eat oatmeal for breakfast, does that make me a vegetarian?
If you read your own cite you would see that the money was “earned” in the stock market as a result of oil exports and real estate.
No, it means you have problems making a debate point.
I have a hard time believing that you really don’t see the relevance of my post. Alas…
Calling Obama a socialist just because he carries out some action that you deem “socialistic”, is as silly as calling me a vegetarian just because I carry out some action that can be deemed as “vegetarian”.
So, it’s nothing more than scaremongering. If people said “Obama has some socialist policies”, it just wouldn’t strike that sweet spot.
He wants to control wages, that’s not scaremongering, it’s reality. He has expressed interest in controlling the wages of an entire industry. When he turns tax-paying millionaires into tax paying thousandairs it means less taxes are collected which means he needs a new source of revenue. If the Deficit is increased then the level of taxation has to rise accordingly.
I believe you. No, I really do. It’s exactly how Rush and Beck and all the others find their daily talking points. They come up with them all by themselves.
It’s genius I tell you, GENIUS!!! 
Wait. Have we slipped into Bizarro-world already? The world where Republicans feel able to express an opinion on economics forcefully instead of sitting quietly on the sidelines pondering the destruction they have caused by their utter lack of understanding of the world in general and economics in particular?.
Do you put sugar on it? 
Oh, that’s long done. It was Clinton and ACORN forcing banks to give mortgages to welfare queens that is the cause of the problem. Hadn’t been for that, the housing market would still be booming and those credit swaps wouldn’t be an issue. Ever.
Yeah. Prviously, nobody had ever thought of pointing at a one day drop in the stock market as evidence that Obama is teh suxxor!!
Your Budweiser’s* acting up 'luc, for you forgot to mention how Clinton went into Iraq, guns blazing, to save us all from the mushroom clouds hanging over American cities.
Thanks Og that war profiteering was never an issue or the whole world might just be sliding into the crapper.
Does that sound about right, Sam?
*As per 'luc’s own description.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here at all. Let me ask you something… If Bush had announced a new policy, and the next day the dollar declined and you thought they were related, would you really need DNC talking points before posting a thread? And if you thought the two were related, doesn’t it make sense that other liberals would think so too, and therefore new blog posts and articles in liberal journals would appear saying the same thing?
Maybe you guys coordinate all your talking points, but I sure don’t. I try to make my own choices. You’ll notice a lot of ‘outrages’ on ‘righty blogs’ that I never mention here, either because I don’t agree with them or because I think the evidence isn’t strong enough to survive a debate with smart liberals on this board - which is always a good test for whether you should accept some blogger’s opinion as gospel.
In this case, the morning news that I follow was full of worrying reports that I felt were correlated, so I formed a hypothesis and posted it. It’s no surprise that others on the right found the same thing at almost the same time - it’s not rocket science.
[brickbacon]The only thing that calms me is that we elected a rational, competent person to try to deal with all of these things
[/quote]
You could’ve elected a tree stump named John Maynard Adams-Marx dressed in tights with a cape and underwear on the outside for all the good it could’ve done. This mess wasn’t made last year, or the year before that, or the previous several, or even the last decade; this has been a long time coming.
Tidying it up won’t be done under one president, but someone had to start.
From his decisions so far, it looks like Obama would’ve happily passed that buck on if he could’ve.
It was when Acorn and the welfare queens started pushing swaps and derivatives that they lost me. How ACORN got the banks to take risks with huge margins is shocking. Power to the people.
That was George Soros’ doing.
They took the guns they pried from the cold dead hands of patriotic NRA members and marched into mortgage offices demanding subprime loans, of course. Then they went to the rating agencies and forced them to rate the loans AAA.
That may be reality, but it’s an incomplete reality. Obama wants to control the wages of senior executives who work for a company that owes its continued existence to the government. The companies chose to take the government’s money, so why shouldn’t they be guided under the government’s terms?
Besides, that’s not the scaremongering I was referring to. I have no problem with saying that that particular action is socialistic - it just doesn’t make Obama a socialist. The scaremongering is in the use of the phrase “Obama is a socialist”.
No, he’s talking about controlling the salaries of ALL financial institutions, regardless of government intervention.
Well, “overseeing” =/= “controlling”, but thanks for the info nonetheless.
Even still, my point in this whole tangent is: just because something chirps, doesn’t make it a bird. That is, just because some of Obama’s policies are socialistic, doesn’t make him a socialist. So can we please stop making that baseless claim?