Obama to Reboot WPA

Barack Obama is looking towards our collective future while borrowing from our past, apparently. The last time this country was in such a financial downward spiral, a visionary named Franklin - the to-that-point far lesser known fifth cousin of an older and bolder dude named Teddy - became president and rammed through quasi-Socialist legislation to turn this country into a pseudo-Socialist regime. Or so some like to Monday Morning Quarterback still, seventy years later. So, fittingly, pinko-Communist President-Elect Obama is reaching into the past and taking a page directly from FDR's "get us the hell out of this not-so-Great Depression" playbook. Obama announced his economic plan... and I feel like I've heard it before:

President-elect Barack Obama promoted an economic plan Saturday he said would create 2.5 million jobs by rebuilding roads and bridges and modernizing schools while developing alternative energy sources and more efficient cars.

Building roads? Building bridges? Modernization projects? Flying cars? Sounds to me like the Works Progress Administration, Version 2.008 (never heard of it? Educate thyself here).

Well, sounds well and good, Barack. But let's not forget that the Great War, not the WPA, was ultimately responsible for finally kicking the dust off of American industry and throttling the Great Depression. Not that the WPA (and its other be-acronym'd cousins) didn't build some great roads, bridges and dams. And if I get my flying car technology, then it's a raging success. But it does beg the question:

So, President-Elect-Comrade Obama... if we're really reliving the Great Depression, who are we going to attack to get out of it?

***UPDATE*** Socialism Not on March; Paulson's Hubris, Conversely, Is

I didn't want to update my previous Socialism post because, like Socialism, it produced long lines and red tape and I didn't want to make it any longer and less efficient. So this is an update, but in a new post. If you want to know about Socialism from my old post, look here.

But for those of you wondering about the bank bailout and the government taking shares in troubled banking institutions, fear not:

As reported by that bastion of Marxism, Fox News, in this article, Treasury Secretary Paulson is up on the Hill with Ben Bernanke, his own personal Friedrich Engels, explaining the newfangled direction of the bailout to the folks. Hank and Ben went up the Hill to fetch a pail of money.

According to Hammerin' Hank, the banks receiving bailout money, even in the form of share purchase, will have the ability to use the money pretty much however they please. Sure, most of them will try to unfreeze credit lines for homes and small businesses and students and loans like those. Sure, some of them will try to build up a reserve to avoid running out of money - a Socialist "war chest" if you will.

But for all you "better dead than Red"ers out there, the time to panic has passed. You see, the banks will be able to use the money at their own discretion. They won't be nationalized. If they were, how could they use the money for things "such as buying other banks or paying dividends to investors."

Wait, what?? We're giving them money so they can purchase other failing banks, or pay shareholder dividends??? Um, no. Mr. Secretary, that's not Socialism. That's lunacy. Let me make sure I have this right:

My tax dollars. They go to Washington. They go to you, Hank. You give them to (fill in name of failing bank). They give them to (fill in name of shareholder of bank).

Well, at least that quells those war drums trumpeting the end of Capitalism. Perhaps we should be banging on the gong of "this is a really really really bad idea and we don't need to label it anything other than a really bad idea. The idea itself should scare you without a need for a label."

Is Socialism Upon Us? Um, no.

Last week, several of our faithful contributors and I took on our friend James over at The Kansas Citian, having a spirited chat about his claim that "Democratic Socialism" has come now to America. I will not spend too much time recapping the debate, but if you wish to see its genesis, you may find it on his blog, to which you may link at left and you should read anyhow because it's just a good read generally.

James' specious claim is not unique - it's a foul being cried by conservatives throughout the land. The cries rang out when President-Elect Obama campaigned (as others did and had before him) on a platform that included a need to provide health insurance and access to medical services for the approximately 45 million Americans that do not have it currently. The cries turned hysterical when Secretary Paulson reached out his hand and asked for $700 billion. And, frankly, the cries have reached a pitch that only dogs can hear now that Congress has unveiled a plan - which is likely to fail, at least in the short term - to bail out the American automobile industry as well.

The battle cry of these outraged folks is simple: America is marching towards Socialism, and nobody seems to care or be as outraged as we are.

Well, the Potatoe has sat on this subject and just chuckled for long enough, but Bob Rumson is getting just a little too much airtime and it's time for us to chime in and point out the great big huge flaw in your theory.

There are many reasons why none of these things are Socialism of any stripe. I say "any stripe" because one of James' main points was that this isn't necessarily "Socialism" per se but rather "Democratic Socialism" - a more moderate offshoot of the ideology and one that isn't necessarily incompatible with a generally Capitalistic society (a theory that is somewhat head-scratching in itself, but that's for another day). However, this isn't Democratic Socialism either. But James does get extra points for not just screaming "SOCIALISM!" at the top of his lungs like many conservatives have but by trying to make a reasoned showing that these actions are akin to a move towards a Socialist society, or at least a Democratic Socialist one. We here at the Potatoe think these reasons are bullcrap on a chef salad, and I'm going to explain the one big stinking reason why in a minute...

Listen, there are many reasons we are not moving towards Socialism. Many. Do the research yourself - you don't have to take my word for it. As one small example, take the History News Network and Professor Andrew M. Schocket's word. Who? Well, see, the HNN, in their own words, are "an informal syndicate of professional historians who seek to improve the public's understanding of current events by setting these events in their historical contexts." They took it upon themselves to write a nice little article detailing the history of government involvement in banks in this country, and that in no way should this bailout be considered a step towards Socialism. But let's see what HNN's conclusions are:

One thing remains the same: regardless of how much money the government invests, the bailout plan still allows bankers to be in charge of bank policies, for better or, as we have seen recently, for worse. It's not socialism that we're getting or socialism that we have to fear, but unregulated capitalism. Capitalism got us into this mess, and we are counting on government-backed capitalism to get us out of it.

Sounds like they don't think we're headed towards a jackbooted Cheka operative stomping on your Christmas tree and declaring your house confiscated for the good of the Collective. But there's one big fat reason why none of this is Socialism of any kind. Frankly, I'm surprised it doesn't get more play in the mainstream media, but it might just be too simple. But before I reveal the reason, I want to pose the following hypothetical:

A man breaks into my house. In the course of attempting to kill me, I wrest a gun from him and it accidentally goes off, killing him. In shock and terrified, I run from my house and call the police straightaway. They arrive, survey the scene and arrest me and charge me with murder in the first degree. Should I be convicted of murder at trial?

That sounds pretty dumb, doesn't it? Sounds like I should be exonerated in this scenario, does it not? Of course it does. And why?

Well, any fan of Law & Order could tell you - I lacked motive. I acted in self-defense. Not all homicides are murder, as we all know - only premeditated ones. Ones with intent. With what is called mens rea. The mental commitment to the idea of killing. The example offered above contains no intent. I am not guilty of murder. (note: this is a simple example to make a point. Do not bring your bar exam review materials to the computer and quote the Model Penal Code to me or I will show you an example of premeditated murder. Put it away, nerds.)

And this is why we are not becoming a Socialist country - in any way. Socialism is a political idea and requires motive and commitment. You cannot blunder into Socialism. Socialism is not a reaction to an emergency. Socialism is not temporary or a stop-gap measure. It is a political ideology. You cannot accidentally be Socialist just as you couldn't accidentally be Christian. It requires adherence to a system of beliefs, not just some temporary actions that might have overlap. You can't be temporarily Socialist just as you couldn't be temporarily Christian. "Oh, I found this dude on this cross here and decided to worship him for a sec - you guys have a whole name for this?" No. That's not how these things work.

See, here's the thing: the federal government has zero interest in an ongoing ownership stake in banks or the automobile industry. None. Not one person has posited that this is something the government should operate or "nationalize." Should there be oversight? Perhaps. Should we bail them out so they don't collapse in this turbulent economic period? Possibly. But this is not Socialism. Socialism is the act of nationalizing these institutions because the government decides they should be owned and operated by the government for the good of the people. That is absolutely, positively not being proposed. Never has. Never will. Not Socialism of any stripe. The government does not want to own AIG or GM. You will find zero people advocating this as a permanent solution. That is the absolutely basic and completely rudimentary reason why this is not Socialism, and it is so simple that I can't understand why it's so hard for some people to grasp.

As far as healthcare is concerned, those who scream that providing some sort of government health care for the 45 million Americans who currently have none is Socialism just do not understand (and, for my dollar, are dicks, frankly). If they truly believe this, they obviously believe the United Kingdom, Canada and virtually every other "First World" country is Socialist, since these countries have far more nationalized health care systems than any candidate in United States history has ever proposed. The proposal for providing health care for all Americans is not the same as putting the health care system under national control or "nationalizing" it. It is far closer to the public school system - where every child is entitled to a public education, but is free to opt out and send their children to private school if they choose to and can so afford. So far, I haven't heard anyone spout off that our education system is inherently Socialist because we have public schools paid for by tax dollars. If someone would like to make that argument, bring it on.

Fact of the matter is that I'm getting really tired of listening to uninformed and hysterical mouth-breathers accuse people like Secretary Paulson of moving the country towards Socialism. Hank Paulson is one of the most devout Capitalists alive today. You do not work at Goldman Sachs if you are dabbling in Socialist tendencies. I don't necessarily agree with the actions of Secretary Paulson, Speaker Pelosi, President-Elect Obama or President Bush on the banking and auto crisis. But then again, I'm not sure that this isn't simply the solution with the least flies on it. I'm not qualified enough as an amateur economist to conclude one way or the other.

However, I am plenty qualified to pronounce this as being absolutely positively NOT Socialism. Unless your contention is that our government intends to take over ownership, operation and oversight of the banking and automobile industries on a permanent and complete basis, screaming Socialism is simply wasting valuable oxygen. Why so many other people have such a hard time getting there is beyond me.

Joe The Plumber: Spreading the wealth actually pretty great

As Gawker is reporting courtesy of Inside Edition, Joe the Plumber has been having a little trouble making ends meet of late. Probably because he has been acting as the McCain campaign's foreign policy expert, and not actually, you know, plumbing. Well, it appears that Mr. The Plumber is not earning any money, is actually broke, and as a result is subsisting on the money that magically turns up in his mailbox sent to him by people with more money than he. Sound like anything to you? Go ahead, think about it for a second.

As Mr. The Plumber explained to Inside Edition's Deborah Norville:

"I'm not getting paid for things. It's starting to get hard
to eat,"

On the eve of election day, Joe, a single dad, told INSIDE EDITION he's getting by with help from friends and family, along with donations from well-wishers.

"It's hard being on the receiving end, a little bit of
pride gets in there sometimes," admits Joe.

"So you just go to the mailbox
and there's an envelope with a check in it, written to your name?" marvels Norville.

"Yes ma'am," Joe says.

So, lemme get this straight Joe. You think it's socialism for the government to take money from rich people in the form of taxes that everyone has to pay and give it to everyone including poor people who pay less taxes in the form of services. Ok, you're wrong, but I'm following your logic. But how do you feel about poor people who don't work but instead take money from rich people for free? Spreading the wealth? Socialism? Welfare? Rich people having their hard earned money go to provide food for poor people? Anything ringing a bell here? Anything? Hello? Is this thing on?

We Will Help You Pay For School Says Obama, Conservatives Cry Foul

Quick note: Listening to Townhall radio right now - i.e., "intelligent conservative radio," and no it's not an oxymoron - and Michael Medved leads in to a segment with a sound byte from Obama on the stump, warranting that his would-be administration will help America's youth pay for college.

Here's the snippet from Obama: "I will make college affordable for every American. Period."

Medved is apoplectic! America "moving in the direction of France or Sweden." Bigger government! Redistribution! Socialism! He describes a November 4 imprimatur for an Obama presidency as "lurching to the left."

Have the hardened, corroded right-wingers become so out of touch with the dire straits of the voting populace to believe that anyone wouldn't support an economic plan including just a smidgen of help with college tuition? I mean is this even an issue? Even contrarians like myself can't find a bone to pick with this no-brainer.

In fairness to Medved, he's probably been chewing the fat again with Dennis Prager. You know Prager - he's the brilliant voice in "intelligent conservative radio" who told me this morning on my way to work at the brick foundry outside of Cody, Wyoming that "college makes people dumb." Here's a picture of Prager in case you see him on campus and want to get some of your retard drool on his penny loafers:

***UPDATE***: Medved continues to gather torches for the mob, this time bemoaning another Obama rallying call for a "fundamental change." Medved quibbles, "most Americans do not want a fundamental change of this country."

Why don't we let "most Americans" speak for themselves in four days?

***UPDATE***: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming America." For Hugh Hewitt, this means destroying the military, higher taxes, the end of the free market, a "regulatory state," etc. You know - the "blah blah blah" for John McCain, thrown into "dick-fingered" air quotes. By the way, Hewitt believes not only that McCain will win, but "the numbers could be big" in his favor. Boo! Boo Democrats! Boooooooooooooooo!

McCain-Palin Remains In The Crack Of America's Ass

I received the following email this morning from McCain-Palin (apparently there are traitors among us, anti-American elements in our midst, signing me up on Republican mailing lists. I'm suspending my campaign to hunt down these cyber terrorists. GOP succubus Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is a person of interest):

I'm Joe the Plumber
Monday, October 20, 2008 12:08 PM
From:
"McCain-Palin Team" Add sender to Contacts
To: dqpotatoe@hotmail.com

How are you "Joe the Plumber"?Tell us in 30 seconds...

We want you to tell us how you are "Joe the Plumber" and why you're supporting John McCain and Sarah Palin in thirty seconds. You could even see your video as an official McCain TV ad. By now, "Joe the Plumber" is a household name and has become a symbol of Barack Obama's plan to "spread the wealth around." During a recent campaign event in Toledo, Ohio, "Joe the Plumber" asked a simple question and got a surprising answer from the Democratic nominee.

When he asked why Barack Obama's tax plan was going to punish him for working hard and living the American Dream, Barack Obama responded, "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

In that brief exchange, the American people got to see what this campaign is all about ... a choice between honoring the hard work of everyday Americans like "Joe the Plumber" and increasing taxes to "spread the wealth."

In these tough economic times, there is no doubt that John McCain and Sarah Palin stand firmly on the side of hardworking "everyday Joes" who understand the value of honest work and the American Dream. That's why we want to hear from you and share your story with the American public. It's simple ... make an ad telling us why you are "Joe the Plumber" in 30 seconds and we'll put the best ad on the air as a TV ad. Share your story of living the American Dream, working hard, or owning a small business to tell America why you're standing with John McCain and Sarah Palin. Click here today to learn more and submit your video before Friday, October 24th. Then help us spread the word about this exciting opportunity - tell your friends to visit JohnMcCain.com/Joe to submit their own video and share their story.

Please visit this page if you want to remove yourself from the email list.
Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008

*******

How am I "Joe the Plumber?????" Well, let's see - neither of us are licensed to work as a plumber. Neither of us are about to buy a plumbing business worth $250,000 or more. And neither of us like paying taxes (though there's a stark difference between us: I actually pay my taxes, whereas Joe faces a $1000 plus lien for back taxes. What a patriot! Criminal disobedience!).

How am I not like "Joe the Plumber?????" I have hair. I resist transforming into a glam-whore at the first sniff of media attention. Oh, and I go by my real first name.

So "Sam" the Plumber asked Barack Obama a "simple question and got a suprising answer": "When you spread the wealth around, it is good for everybody."

Does anyone honestly disagree with any part of this statement, even those of the uncompromising free market ilk? We are all capitalists (no matter what McCain-Palin would have you believe). We all respect ownership, free alienation of land, the opportunity of investment, competition and growth. And, sorry to break it to you, we are all socialists to a certain extent, accepting the benefits of social security, welfare, medicare, airline bailouts, financial sector bailouts, public transportation, human services, emergency services, etc. We grouse about higher taxes, but have no problem reaping the daily harvest.

Despite the rah-rah speeches on the stump, our current economy and the markets that drive it are hybrid forms that seek a seamless synergy of both the capitalist and socialist model. Don't worry, Republicans: it's not European socialism. Don't worry, Democrats: it's not the economic lotusland told around the Republican campfire either.

A suprising answer proffered by Obama? "Spread the wealth around?" As opposed to hoarding all of the wealth in the grubby hands of a few monocled fat cats - you know, Johnny Eight-Houses or Cindy My-Earrings-Could-Feed-Your-Family-For-A-Year - which has been a super sweet boon for our country's economic stability as recent events have shown.

Don't worry, Joe the taxpayer - AIG knows what to do with your money. Toga! Toga! Toga! Toga!

Trickle-Down Economics doesn't work if you bury almost everyone below the basin, then let them die of thirst:

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

And if McCain-Palin had a longer attention span than the average eight-year-old and provided a modicum of context instead of one strategic sentence out of one hundred sentences, they would realize that Barack Obama makes sense, Barack Obama is not going to steal your money to finance his "anti-American" agenda and that pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is impossible if you don't have bootstraps. You would realize that Obama' entire response to plumbers across America was unmitigated brilliance and one of his finest moments of the campaign:

Because my attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. But, listen, I respect what you do and I respect your question. And even if I don't get your vote, I'm still gonna be working hard on your behalf 'cause I want to make sure … small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it. All right. (applause) One other thing I didn't mention. For small-business people, I'm gonna eliminate the capital gains tax, so what it means is if your business succeeds and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains that you get, we're not gonna tax you on it 'cause I want you to grow more so you're actually going … you may end up … I'd have to look at your particular business but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan. I can't guarantee that 'cause I'd have to take a look at your business.

No one gives a damn about Joe/Sam the Plumber, Bill Ayers, Charles Keating, Reverend Wright, Reverend Hagee or G. Gordon Liddy. They care about keeping their jobs, providing for their families, receiving affordable and quality healthcare and working towards their retirement.