Why I dont vote Republican

Great Debates
81

Note for those interested: there’s a current thread discussing this very topic here.

There’s no arguing that the government has ~60% ownership of GM, so in that regard it can be considered a partial (and hopefully temporary) nationalization. But I’m under the impression that no, GM is not under government control. Most of what you mention was a result of the bankruptcy proceedings, which I believe would’ve been done whether the government had a hand in it or not. What I think the government did do was to expedite the process, making it both orderly and quick. Which is good.

I think I’d classify the current state of affairs to be more like patronage – being more of a pragmatist than idealogue, I have only minor qualms with it, so long as it’s both temporary and rare. Obviously, YMMV. But to claim that US auto companies, inclusively, are under state control is just idiotic.

Saying the student loan industry has been “nationalized” is as stupid and nonsensical as saying “keep the government out of medicare”. Blaming it on Obama is even more stupid (if that’s possible). Speaking of which, the health insurance industry hasn’t been nationalized by the HCR bill – the same architecture of private companies remains in place. That, IMO, is unfortunate, as I think it is clear that single-payer is the most efficient system.

At any rate, your claim was that Obama was “nationalizing multiple industries while trying to eliminate others”. In support, you have one company (GM), in which the government has partial (and temporary) ownership. Is that all ya got?

But much of the above is a digression from your point, which was – as far as I can tell – to claim that both parties are equally bad (or that the Democrats are worse). Except that all you’ve done thus far is to post an extended series of weak, unequal tu quoques that are based on weak Republican talking points. Which both misses and, oddly enough, reinforces the OP topic simultaneously. Congrats!

Sure, I accept the WaPo as a valid cite, just as I’d accept any major network, the WSJ, Christian Science Monitor, etc., etc. – so long as Op-eds are not passed off as news. See, I don’t accept the widespread Republican/conservative belief that MSM is biased to the point of being untrustworthy. I’d have been just as satisfied with a Fox News cite (which I think is better in this case).

At any rate, as said above, you have a single, partial instance of your claimed myriad examples. Is that all ya got? And again, how does this address the OP’s specific critique of the Republican party?

82

That’s utter excrement. I thought you were above using cheap shots like the race card.

83

Do you honestly believe that bankruptcy proceedings would have shafted the bond holders over The union’s retiree health-care benefit trust and the Treasury (a stock holder)? Bond holders have the largest claim of the three in bankruptcy proceedings and received the least.

And aren’t you forgetting Chrysler? Yes, the government owns a much smaller percentage but the government also orchestrated the large UAW stake in Chrysler and its sale to Fiat.

Sure, the last step to nationalization was not a large one. The process was gradual over the course of decades. As I stated the government went from being a guarantor of loans to a provider of loans. This was the final step.

You also seem to forget about Fannie and Freddie. These two GSEs have been taken over by the federal government. Again, this is not a huge leap but a gradual process to nationalize the mortgage lending sector.

And how, exactly, is any of this different from what is happening to the health insurance companies. They will now be funded by the federal government (via individual premiums mandated by the federal government) and will be forced to cover everybody. Plus, the federal government gets to decide what will be covered by the policies! Nationalization? Not quite. But, when the federal government does end up taking over the health insurance sector, you, of course, will say "Saying the health insurance industry has been “nationalized” is as stupid and nonsensical as saying “keep the government out of medicare”. Don’t you understand the gradualist approach to nationalization as opposed to just taking over an industry without reason? Just like Rahm Emmanuel said…never let a crisis go to waste. The mortgage and auto crises were genuine while the health care crisis was invented in order to act now.

As I stated, nationalization is to put under state control or ownership. Two auto companies fit the description. Student loan provers. Fannie and Freddie or, if you prefer, a large chunk of the mortgage lending sector. Not to mention the control that the government has exerted over the banks that took bailout money. Remember the banks being forced to take bailout money? Remember some of the banks trying to give back the money, with interest, but the government not allowing them to? Did you wonder why that was happening?

I guess you didn’t notice that a few people here claim that the left smears are not smears…they are the truth. Are you also in this camp? I assume you don’t believe the MoveOn ad that claimed General Petraeus betrayed his country was bad because he DID betray his country. Did you believe Ted Kennedy when he claimed that “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.”? Just curious…

84

No. And hence, no.

85

Yeah, young Pubbies often don’t know it. I didn’t.

86

The “third way” has been mentioned several times in this thread. As a youngster, looking at the US from afar (north of 49°), I once glimpsed a third way, maybe The third way. It took the form of a Democrat actually. His name was Scoop Jackson.

IIRC, Jackson was a very strong advocate of civil rights (and at a time when many were most definitely not), while simultaneously taking a ‘hawkish’ position on foreign policy (especially when dealing with the Soviets) and ensuring a strong military. He was one of the first to advocate for and support legislation 'protecting the environment. Fiscally, he was not afraid to spend dollars for the common good but was no ‘tax and spend’ closet socialist.

Did he represent a ‘third way’? Is there anyone now who could be described as a “Scoop Jackson Democrat” or, better still, a “Scoop Jackson Republican” ;)?

87

Arlen Specter? Conservative on security issues (crime, defense) and liberal on most other stuff. His votes since switching to the Democratic Party are a bit more fiscally liberal than his prior voting record, though.

ETA: The “Third Way” doesn’t really reflect any particular foreign policy view outside the US. It’s limited to a moderate fiscal policy.

88

Did the Tea Party movement exist when you were a Young Pub? Remember, I’m not talking about the GOP as such. I know not every Teabagger is a racist, I even see some hope in reaching out to them on issues they may have in common with progressves, but that doesn’t change the fact that the movement is permeated all through with racism and xenophobia, and you all know what “Take Back America” means in their mouths, and that it means something essentially different from what the Dems meant by it.

89

It’s absurd to say all opposition to Obama is racist. It’s also absurd not to believe that a lot of the opposition is motivated, at least in part, by racism. (I continue to be amazed by the information mismatch in political discourse. I’m more of a read-the-NY_times guy myself than a chat-with-rednecks guy, but surely if you ever wander into your local bar, or click accidentally to Limbaugh, you’ll be aware of strong racist sentiments, no?)

(1): If you’re suggesting a “stitch in time saves nine”, you’ll find no disagreement from me. Fannie and Freddie were intended to be strongly regulated, but the “Greed is God” mentality cast sanity aside until the Feds were forced to intervene strongly. Ignoring for the moment the details of federal intervention, do you object to it generally? Washington’s reaction to the credit crisis was so prompt and effective, I’m not sure the general public is aware of how catastrophic a “What me worry? Caveat empor! Creative destruction!” approach would have been.

(2): Can you honestly imagine that anyone with socialist leanings would have devised a health care solution even remotely resembling the 2009 UHC? :smack: Please! I suspect many progressives think not passing a bill at all would have been better than the business-friendly UHC we got.

As far as “the health care crisis was invented”, all I can imagine is that you think the frog jumping into a fire has a crisis that the frog in slowly heating water does not.

(3): Would Bork’s selection have led to those consequences? Of course not. If “progressives” were to give up, and let the right-wing completely run the country? In that case, I think Kennedy’s examples might be understatements.

90

I’m discarding the post I started, as it continues what could be an endless digression. Rather, I’ll (try to) opt for brevity instead – most of the following is quoting. Some minor preface is required, however. First, let’s revisit part of your previous post:

My points in responding are that not only are you (1) attempting to make a pointlessly stupid comparison (i.e., Obama is more like a Marxist than Bush is like Hitler), but that you’re also (2) claiming Obama is responsible for things that are actually attributable to Bush (or other predecessors).

Second, I don’t use the same definition of “nationalization” as you do – and it matters. As I understand it, using this list as a basis, you believe all five items qualify as “nationalization”. Personally, I would only count #2 and #3 – #1 is too imprecise (making it great for boogeyman purposes), #4 specifcally falls short of nationalization (it signifies a means of unwinding, not permanent government control), and #5 is such a dilution of the term as to make it meaningless.

Finally, because I like you, here’s a list of government’s ownership stakes (as of April 21, 2010). Perhaps it’ll be useful to you as a reference. Now:

Honestly? I’m not familiar enough with bankruptcy protection, proceedings, and restructuring to assess the details.

Again, honestly? Yes, I did forget Chrysler. :slight_smile: But I consider that similar enough to GM to not have to address it further.

If student loans were already nationalized, Obama could not have been responsible for nationalizing them. A similar thing goes for Fannie and Freddie – these were taken over on Sept. 8, 2008…on Bush’s watch.

“Regulation” is not “nationalization” (cf item #5 on definition list).

Yes, yes, dear. The downfall of The Republic is imminent. Anarchists and communists on every streetconrner and down every alley. Dogs and cats living together.

Poppycock, tommyrot, and balderdash.

What I noticed was you attempting to make false equivalencies in a desperate attempt to derail the OP. Look, I get it – you’re a small-government idealogue. If you want to rail against both major parties, froth and spew away.

But that’s not the point to which I was responding, nor is it on topic. The Republican party, now and in the recent past, either in broad outline or based on substantial and identifiable sub-groups within it, is racist, hypocritical, tactically nasty, fear-mongering, and has forsaken its moderate members. Argue those points, my friend, and leave the Dems out of it (this time).

In fact, come to think of it – if you think the 'Pubs and Dems are equally bad, why aren’t you simply agreeing with the OP?

91

Interesting side note: my employer (and therefore, I) did a lot of work for AIG’s property and casualty insurance division, which has now been spun off into a wholly owned subsidiary called Chartis.

The new levels of oversight relative to the old are astounding. We’re now billing significantly more for the same type of work because we have to report on what we’re doing any why on an extremely regular basis.

92

Why should you, a small-government ideologue, care? Doesn’t that mean more money for the banks? Hell, this is sorta your wet dream isn’t it? Government gives all it’s money to private companies to do with what they wish!

Sometimes I wonder how you guys can keep your arguments straight. Then I realize, oh, you can’t

93

When I was a young’un, Ronnie was in the White House, raining the wrath of Gawd on Qaddafi. I don’t remember hearing, “Take back America” from the Right as such. There were punks who demonized Reagan & Thatcher. And there were a few racist fringe types, but that wasn’t the “energy on the right.”

And in the 1990’s, I understood the criticism of Bubba Clinton to be about him personally, not a “Take back America from the Commies” thing.

These days, I think the GOP has adopted the racists for cynical strategic reasons.

94

Anybody who believes race is not a factor in the hatred for Obama is naive.The more south you go, the nastier the talk . Pure coincidence .

95

Actually, I wasn’t trying to make any comparison. Someone else made the comparison and I corrected them. And, by the way, I stand by my remark. Even the far right politicians in this country are closer to Marx than Hitler. Obama is merely closer still.

We may disagree about the exact definition of nationalization but my point is that government involvement up to and including telling a company who they MUST do business with and what they MUST cover is, for all intents and purposes, nationalization. Although the government may not own a stake in a particular industry they can regulate an industry to the point of complete control.

The student loan industry was functionally nationalized beforehand and now the process is complete. And, yes, Fannie and Freddie was Bush’s doing. Unfortunately that opened the door for the government to take over companies that were deemed “too big to fail”. I disagreed when Bush did it and I don’t like it any better under Obama.

See my above comment.

Aren’t you clever

No attempt to derail the OP…merely pointing out the obvious, which seems to escape you. You are doing the very thing that you accuse the Right of doing. Calling those on the Right racist is par for the course for most on the left…including the party leaders. Look at how those in the tea party have been smeared as racist gun nuts who disagree with Obama because he is black. The left seems to have the market on angry rhetoric towards the other side, as is evident from watching left wing media outlets and reading the tripe written by the likes of you and other leftists on this board.

96

I don’t think you know what you are talking about. The government did not just deposit money into banks.

And, actually, my wet dream is the government not taking my money to start off with. They should not be in a position to bail out any company.

97

I have to say, I agree with almost everything you’ve mentioned. Yet I feel like you’ve taken a wrong turn somewhere along the line. Because you see problems in your party, doesn’t mean you should cross the asile. Slander is on both sides. Regardless of what you think of Palin, even obama mentioned that attacking her family(the whole, her pregnant daughter thing) was crossing the line. Nearly every media outlet jumped on that like a pack of starving wolves. It’s the very same with the John Kerry thing; yet if you remember, Bush did say that he did not condone anyone picking at Kerry’s military record. Everyone hates Fox because they say its biased–yea, it is, no doubt, but these same people don’t mentioned the three other major networks, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, which are also clearly biased in the opposite direction.

While I personally feel I would be better described as a independant conservative, I am not indignant with someone calling me republican, because the core values you mentioned are essentially my own. I don’t like the idea’s of modern liberalism because they are–ha, dare I say it–not the ideas that our country was founded upon. I don’t like modern liberalism because it always seems to be embracing some idea that is clearly wrong, yet just can’t be proven to be so at the time. When communism began to take off in the 20’s and 30’s, intellectual’s of the American left were the ones who happily embraced it. It then was shown for what it truly was after Stalin, and most everyone then abandoned it and jumped to socialism. Now I am not saying that everything that could possibly be connected to socialism is bad or wrong, but when I see the left constantly taking us away from the core values your mentioned, I will happily call myself, and vote, republican.

98

No one attacked her family. She’s a ridiculous attention whore who just repeated THE MEDIA IS GOING AFTER MY FAMILY!!! for pretty much no reason over and over again and people buy it for some reason and believe in her victimhood.

99

It really vexes me to see so many people hating someone of whom they know nothing, outside their ability to percieve that this person is a threat.

100

Right, we have no grounds on which to analyze her behavior and what she’s said to draw our own conclusions.