In Denver, the end of capitalism

Denver Post ^ | 8-28-08 | David Harsanyi

[MtnClimber]

Well, it's no wonder Democrats didn't want former President Bill Clinton to speak on the economy. Some delegates might have had the temerity to wonder: Hey, why did we experience all that prosperity in the '90s?

It certainly wasn't due to populism, or isolationism, or more government dependency, or any of the hard-left economic policies being preached nightly by speakers at the Democratic National Convention.

No, it was capitalism — more of it, not less of it.

Naturally, every political convention features its share of demagoguery. But buried beneath all the idealistic talk in Denver are some ugly details.

Those who had the inner fortitude to remain conscious through speeches by Bob Casey and Mark Warner were surely entertained by the theatrics of populist Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (a man who represents the possibility of America — a place where even a former cast member of "Hee Haw!" can become governor of Montana).

When Schweitzer claims "we must invest" in projects he likes, he means government will take it and invest it for you.

[MtnClimber]

Those who fail to learn from history.....

[EagleUSA]

It certainly wasn’t due to populism, or isolationism, or more government dependency, or any of the hard-left economic policies being preached nightly by speakers at the Democratic National Convention.

No, it was capitalism — more of it, not less of it.
::::::::::
And when you sort through all the lies of Clinton’s speech, you could see his attempt to bolster his own legacy (non-existent) claiming responsibility for the economic prospertity during his terms. Just another lie among all the other lies.

Yes, the radical left is all about socialism, not capitalism, not strength and militarism, but weakness and pandering. Just a repeat Carter/Clinton scenario BUT WORSE.

[Nailbiter]

ping good article

[JimRed]

What resally puzzles me is how so many heavy duty capitalists (Soros, Gates, et als) can support a system which wishes to destroy them.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I don't know about you, but I want someone far more successful than myself, or my neighbors, running the country.

Exactly.

[MtnClimber]

Someone should point out that Republicans took over congress under Clinton and he is taking credit for the results of “The Contract With America”.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

“””What resally puzzles me is how so many heavy duty capitalists (Soros, Gates, et als) can support a system which wishes to destroy them.”””””

There is a saying:

“””Stay close to your enemies.”””

I believe that explains why Warren Buffet and Bill Gates make contributions to the Democrats. By doing so they get a voice at the table.

As far as Soros is concerned, I do not know what makes that guy tick.

[Carley]

The difference between the republicans and democrats is that we did the right thing despite the fact that slick willie was going to take credit.

We forced welfare reform, we forced balanced budget legislation, and we held slick willie’s feet to the fire.

[Carley]

In some cases it’s all about personal self interest.

The big corporations want nationalized health care because health care costs are killing their bottom line.

They don’t care if the average person winds up with rationed health care and long long waits to see a doctor. They will always have the money to make sure they and their families are well taken care of.

The unions have just about destroyed the golden goose in the USA and now they’re trying to push business further off shore.

[EagleUSA]

Someone should point out that Republicans took over congress under Clinton and he is taking credit for the results of “The Contract With America”.
:::::::::
Let us hope the speeches at the GOP convention point these things out about the criminal, lying DemoRATS. Hope!

[Emperor Palpatine]

The liberals give Bubba the credit, too.

Of course you even mention Newt and the Contract With America and all you get are vein-popping tirades about his divorces.

[okie01]

What resally puzzles me is how so many heavy duty capitalists (Soros, Gates, et als) can support a system which wishes to destroy them.

Ironically, it's simple.

Gates, Soros, Buffet, et al know that, in a pseudo-socialist order, their fortunes will be safe. It will be the people who wish to emulate them that will be at risk. Thus, a liberal success would result in the elimination of competition by political means.

There is a direct parallel: Krupp, Thyssen, Farben, et al were ardent supporters of Hitler's national socialism. They recognized that the regime didn't threaten their wealth and status. Instead, cooperation with the state insured they would prosper -- in a highly regulated environment that didn't brook free market competition.

The "end of capitalism" doesn't mean the "end of wealth". Instead, it means the end of competition and opportunity.

[GSWarrior]

I am under the impression that the economic good times under Bill Clinton was due in large part to the over-inflated stock market of the ‘90s.

[MrB]

I believe there are a couple of factors with the ultra rich capitalists pushing socialism.

One, they are at a point where they are insulated from confiscation, so it wouldn’t affect them.

Two, I believe Gates, Buffet, Soros, et al, made their billions “too easy” and don’t relate to folks working their asses off to get rich.

Three, they could be of the mindset of keeping the “billionaires’ club” exclusive. That means using the gov’t to keep anyone else from getting ultra-wealthy.

[driftdiver]

“What resally puzzles me is how so many heavy duty capitalists (Soros, Gates, et als) can support a system which wishes to destroy them.”

IMO its because they have ‘made it’ and no longer consider themselves part of the unwashed masses. In most cases they have loopholes which will protect existing wealth but punish new rising stars.

[expatguy]

bttt

[MtnClimber]

Maybe the ultra rich or ultra famous really did sell their souls to get there.

The leftist Saul Alinsky confirms in the introduction of his book what I have long suspected; they worship evil.

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

—Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, 1971

[Nick Danger]

The big corporations want nationalized health care because health care costs are killing their bottom line... They don’t care if the average person winds up with rationed health care and long long waits to see a doctor. They will always have the money to make sure they and their families are well taken care of.

Please explain what you mean by this. It sounds like you are saying that "big corporations" are individuals who have "personal self interest" and whose 'bottom line' goes into their own pockets.

Since this is not the case, I have trouble guessing what point you are trying to make. In the U.S., large corporations are pretty much owned by "average persons" through pension funds, 401-K's, etc. Why wouldn't "average persons" want all the profits they can get put into their retirement savings? And if that is what they want, what right does anyone else have to criticize that or attempt to change it?

Also, have you forgotten that under HillaryCare, there were no private physicians? Doctors were subject to criminal prosecution if they took patients outside the government system. How could anyone "have the money to make sure they and their families are well taken care of" if the doctors would go to jail for treating them?

It just doesn't seem like you've thought this through.

[LZ_Bayonet]

"invest" - This capitalist word is being co-opted by the Socialists.

Socialists who use the term should be instructed (by Freepers I would suggest) to use the proper term "divest". And we should correct them whenever possible.

divest
1 a: to deprive or dispossess especially of property, authority, or title
b: to undress or strip especially of clothing, ornament, or equipment
c: rid, free 2: to take away from a person
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/divest

As in [brackets mine]

divest
1 a: to deprive or dispossess especially of property, authority, or title [the taxpayer]
2: to take away from a person [i.e. the taxpayer]

A socialist phrase such as, "We need to invest in job training." Should be corrected, as in: "We need to invest divest taxpayers and use the funds for job training."

[driftdiver]

“And if that is what they want, what right does anyone else have to criticize that or attempt to change it?”

What right does anyone have to criticize? you’re joking right?

They are trying to force national healthcare because they think it will reduce their overhead. The average pension or mutual fund owner has no input into those decisions. Individuals in positions of power make those decisions. Largely they are made to increase this quarters profits and their individual bonus.

What right does a company have to tell me what doctor I can choose to see? or to tell me I cannot have a life saving surgery?