Newsweek Says It All "We Are All Socialists Now"

The new Newsweek that just came out has this "We Are All Socialists Now" as it's cover story.  So I thought we could look at some of the article.

"If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world."

How to USE the government?  The government is USING US!  Holy geeze.  This entire article is sickening.  

The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not—and many, especially Congressman Pence and Hannity, do not—the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.

Here they are talking about the first FAILED bailout.  They are putting it on the Bush office even though it was a Democratically controlled Congress!  Then it says we are moving "towards" a modern European state (this is sleight of hand).  It implies we are PROGRESSING towards something modern and away from something "old" or "antiquated".  WTF?!  We need to move in the OTHER direction TOWARDS our Constitution!

All of this is unfolding in an economy that can no longer be understood, even in passing, as the Great Society vs. the Gipper. Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.

I would like to know what the government spending was TWO decades ago when the Gipper WAS in office (since they seem to want to reference him).  What was the spending like in 2000 and 2001 PRIOR to the 9/11 attacks?  From that point on (rightly or wrongly) the government spending increased dramatically towards military spending, additions of new departments (homeland security et al.) etc.  

...and for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether we should have one.

Say's who?  I don't want to manage a "mixed" economy and I want to emphatically protest the idea that we should have one!  I'm not just accepting it as inevitable and moving on.  That is how we got here in the first place!

The architect of this new era of big government? History has a sense of humor, for the man who laid the foundations for the world Obama now rules is George W. Bush, who moved to bail out the financial sector last autumn with $700 billion.

Once again dumping it on one man...G.W. Bush.  He was NOT the best President (in my humble opinion) however, to put the total onus on him is spin at it's best.  This is exactly the type of article that creates PARTISAN politics.  You can't work with another party if when it all goes wrong it falls solely to blame on the party that lost the election(s).  Ridiculous.

The story, as always, is complicated. Polls show that Americans don't trust government and still don't want big government. They do, however, want what government delivers, like health care and national defense and, now, protections from banking and housing failure. During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and "liberal" an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew. But the economy grew just as fast, so government as a percentage of GDP remained about the same. Much of that economic growth was real, but for the past five years or so, it has borne a suspicious resemblance to Bernie Madoff's stock fund. Americans have been living high on borrowed money (the savings rate dropped from 7.6 percent in 1992 to less than zero in 2005) while financiers built castles in the air.

WHERE in the Constitution does it say government "delivers" Healthcare?  It DOES state that the government is supposed to provide national defense (Article II Section 2 and Article I Section 8)
This part of the article is a stupid "straw man" argument (look it up).

How could the economic growth be "real" when it was all based upon fiat money from the Federal Reserve System?  We were running on credit alone, and when it came time to pay, we didn't have the funds!  Read the following link from 4+ years ago:

FYI...Ludwig Von Mises is considered one of the founders of Austrian Economics...I am a follower.  The current system of economics we operate under is Keynesian Economics (championed by J. Maynard Keynes).  I am providing a few links...Hayek and Von Mises are genius in my opinion.  Keynes basically is Socialist lite with emphasis on central banks and central/governmental planning.

Now comes the reckoning. The answer may indeed be more government. In the short run, since neither consumers nor business is likely to do it, the government will have to stimulate the economy. And in the long run, an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more government taxing and spending. The catch is that more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment). Growth has always been America's birthright and saving grace.

More government in the "short run"?  Once you give the government certain powers or certain liberties they are LOATHE to relinquish it.  
The government will have to stimulate the economy...?!  They (the government) are a huge part of what has driven us to this predicament.  

Notice how they put in global warming and energy costs in there.  Global warming is not a proven fact...  What is the agenda for the government to be so involved?  Why not private enterprise and capitalism?  As for the statement "demand more government taxing and spending".  Global warming and higher energy costs should not be Federal government per the 10th Amendment.  The aging population is DEPENDANT upon the Federal Government for their retirement because their money was taken from them and now they are suckling at the teat.  Our proudest generation is DEPENDANT on the government!  Once you are dependent on the are enslaved to the federal government.  Others just see all of this as an entitlement...something that they are owed or deserve.  WTF?!

The Obama administration is caught in a paradox. It must borrow and spend to fix a crisis created by too much borrowing and spending. Having pumped the economy up with a stimulus, the president will have to cut the growth of entitlement spending by holding down health care and retirement costs and still invest in ways that will produce long-term growth. Obama talks of the need for smart government. To get the balance between America and France right, the new president will need all the smarts he can summon.

They don't see the irony in their statement that he must borrow and spend to fix from too much borrowing and spending?!  wow.

"Having pumped the economy up with a stimulus" which has not and will not work btw...

Then (again with NO sense of irony or disgust)..."to get the balance between America and France right..."  ???  How about looking at where the government has already overstepped it's Constitutional restrictions, repealing those laws/bills/legislation and enacting a Constitutional STATE OF EMERGENCY and get back to our founding guidelines and ideology.  

Welcome to the United States of Amerika my friends.

Grits4life Grits4life
46-50, F
5 Responses Feb 10, 2009

Puck...I think that you are right. Too many loons in power all over the world. It won't take much to light off this powder keg.

I'm afraid we may get out of this depression, the same way we got out of the last one. Sorry if I'm a bit off thread.

Dog..get a clue.<br />
<br />
The government works for us, not the other way around.<br />
<br />
I hate the thought of my taxes paying your social security while you sit around on your rump getting wasted and letting your brain waste away.<br />
<br />
Actually, it will be the people who take back this country...soon I hope.<br />
<br />
Also, socialism and communism has been responsible for the largest loss of life in history. You might want to open that "insane" closed mind of yours before you go spouting off such nonsense.

orien ... don't you recall what the last fascist military takeovers in Europe gave us? Think now ... WWII and the largest loss of life and property the world has ever seen.<br />
Now you want the military to stage a takeover. MY GOD MAN you are insane!

I only get that rag because they have been sending it for free the past several weeks. Not surprised, nobody with any intelligence subscribes to that garbage. It immediately goes in the trash. I was intrigued by the cover headline...thinking maybe those idiots have finally come to their senses, but no...they are proud that we are socialists.<br />
<br />
Both parties (got that libs...I said both) are to blame and it is now time for a second revolution. The politicians need to be rounded up and made to pay for what they have done to this country. Hopefully, the military will get things started. Many citizens will be right there to help out.