So, does anyone believe the conservative douchenozzles who somehow pop up in the most liberal state (massachusetts) and I frequently hear how Obama will turn this nation into a socialist govt. and fuck the economy? I'm getting much more into politics but the line between each of their plans hasn't been drawn for me....

Of course he'll be able to create Socialist policies. If its in their interests,even far right Republicans and Conservatives can and will, and just have. The Government intervention into the banking system by bailing them out is a prime example of just how far the rich will go socialist to protect their interests, even thought they've spent the last 30 years deregulating and denationlising just about everything that moves because it was in the interests of growth and profits,or so they told us. Until it went pear shaped, of course.

You said...."nor does it mean he will be able to create socialist policies" as if no one can create socialist policies, and I gave you an example of a massive socialist policy that has just been done, and endorsed by Repblicans and Democrats alike,ie, the state has intervened in the private sector by propping up Banks. Did I misunderstand you?

ok...you make a good point about Socialist policies usually being more clearly defined as making sure everyone has access to basic welfare. In the UK we have a free health service which I personally am particularly proud of. If you're ill, you can see a local GP, and if you need medical care, you can recieve it in Hospital, free of charge. Ok,off on a tangent for aminute, sorry.

Back to your point about this bailout not being a socialist policy. Well, one of the big reasons politicians give us for the bailout and propping up of the economic system by the government with tax payers money is that without the bailout we'll ALL be worse off. They couldn't say we're getting involved to help the rich because who would pass that? No,they say this is going to help everyone. Now, politicians dont lie (hahahaha) so they're not thinking about the rich, but about the poor too, apparently. So, if they have the welfare off EVERYONE at heart with this bailout I'd say it was the most Socialist policy you could ever get.

"that the rich are getting the government to intervene to *prevent* Obama from enacting any socialist policies, by preventing him from having any money to work with"

That has to be the biggest load of rubbish I've ever heard. So basically, this whole economic downturn is a conspiracy by the Super Rich illuminati to make sure any available funds are spent elsewhere , so that there's no money for Obama to work with.

I've heard it all now. Oh yeah, Bush is really a lizard, and 9/11 was a Government plot to ensure we all hate Muslims.

Seriously, I think you forget that the World is slightly bigger than just the US. I hate to break it to you,but Europe has Governemnt and Ecomomies too. Even Kazakstan does. Thats in Eastern Europe,just in case you've never heard of it. We're just about to stuff themat football.

"Skrum, crashes happen in October because of Halloween.
Pat, you're a moron."

rifty... i think he has already proven that he cannot actually put up a worthwhile argument for anything... don't waste your time arguing with him

Also... In socialism the state owns or controls the factors of industry, which it has done in the bailout... making it a socialist theory. That does not however mean that we are anywhere near being a socialist economy. Any type of regulation at all is socialist, but can still be tolerated to a certain extent in a capitalist economy.

I think most of you have missed the point here. This isn't just a "US" issue, the world markets are ALL falling. It isn't just because America has had lax policies on unregulated markets. This is a global recession. Poor business decisions will lead to poor economic policies. But who are the governments supposed to trust if their advisers come from the very companies that got everyone in to this mess?

I ask you this Pat, Are you registered to vote? Are you old enough to vote?

If not, I think you've missed the issue with your baby analogy. It isn't like the economists were naive new business practitioners. They were well educated and intelligent people. I blame the companies, and hell no the government shouldn't step in and take over the loans. Even with the bailout the markets continue to fall. Do you know why? Banks can't loan money to each other, STILL! They are all hoarding their assets. The people to blame are the companies who allowed this to happen, to approve loans that they knew were going to be defaulted or unaffordable. So why should i put my hard earned dollars in to companies who show in a free market, capitalist society, that they can't handle it?

NO, NO, I say, enough is enough. Small government has worked for so long in this country, and the damn democratic senate, and the damned democratic nominee are gonna drag this country through the goddamn mud.

AND I QUOTE FROM THIS WEEKS 'The Week'

"Capitalism is dead."
-Steve Brant, Huffingtonpost.com

"Under the old capitalism, the public was willing to endure the moderately bad times that often followed the very good ones."
-Irwin Stelzer, The New Republic

I say to those who blame a republican president's office, look to the senate, because they effect the outcome of markets a whole lot more than the executive branch does. Don't be so quick to point the finger, when this doesn't just turn around over night. Everyone knew that the tech bubble had bursts, this had nothing to do with presidential parties. Clinton got lucky, technology stocks were up, people had money, people were happy with government. Markets crumble, stocks fall, people are poor, it must be the governments fault right? Not so, markets rise and fall, don't blame the president. Fools.

Oh man.

No one has missed the point at all. This IS a global issue, and it IS because of the US's unregulated market. Our recession has obviously led to an extremely drastic reduction in international trade, which since we are one of the largest and most important cornerstones to the global market, has led to recessions in most other countries aswell.

So my analogy is only wrong if im not registered/ old enough to vote...? interesting...

Either way wish, the baby in the analogy is the moronic person who took out a loan they couldn't afford AND the morons who gave the loans to them. They might not be naive and new but they were still unbelievably stupid to not see the ramifications of giving a loan to someone who clearly could not, or would not, repay it. And sadly, this is to be expected, and it should have been. Our government should foresee the fact that businessmen are greedy and people are stupid, and there should be regulations in place to protect them from themselves. A play pen for instance, with nice soft walls and nothing to choke on...

Also, i am not blaming the president, it is indeed mostly the fault of the congress (although he didn't help the situation thats for sure) He is already responsible for enough major fuck ups. But its interesting how you tell us not to blame Bush but then say Clinton was lucky that he didn't have this problem, when during his administration our national debt was entirely erased, a debt which is now over $10 trillion, IN EIGHT YEARS... which is made even more baffling by the fact that in the past war has always helped the economy.

I find it incredible, by the way, that you can still sit there supporting George Bush after he has, for the past 8 years, done nothing but make a huge mockery of our nation while taking a giant shit on each and every one of us as-well as our constitution. As far as our democratic nominee goes, he is the one chance this country still has to come back from this debacle in one piece, whether you believe it or not, you will see.

Go back to watching FOX NEWS, and continuing to think George Bush has done a good job as president...

Ugly - the point of the analogy was not to be that specific, and didn't need to be. The parent is the government who sat back while letting the unregulated economy choke to death. The child is both the idiotic person who took out a loan they couldn't afford and the lender who greedily gave them a loan, knowing they couldn't afford it, or the economy as a whole. It outlines what originally caused the problems, and does not need to take into account the other variables. I believe i made that quite clear the first time, and it is pretty accurate.