Most of the stimulus money went to rich Democrat elites.

Lemon Socialism

Ideology: An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a 'received consciousness' or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought (as opposed to mere ideation) applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.


Fiscal Conservatism: Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other Classical Liberal policies are also often affiliated with fiscal conservatism.

Capitalism: Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), is privately owned;[citation needed] labor, goods and capital are traded in markets; and profits distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries.

There is no consensus on capitalism, nor how it should be used as an analytical category.[1] There are a variety of historical cases over which it is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[2] Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Scholars in the social sciences, including historians, economic sociologists, economists, anthropologists and philosophers have debated over how to define capitalism, however there is little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.[3]

Economists usually put emphasis on the market mechanism, degree of government control over markets (laissez faire), and property rights[4][5], while most political economists emphasize private property, power relations, wage labor, and class.[6] There is a general agreement that capitalism encourages economic growth.[7] The extent to which different markets are "free", as well as the rules determining what may and may not be private property, is a matter of politics and policy and many states have what are termed "mixed economies."[6]

Capitalism as a system developed incrementally from the 14th century in Europe, although capitalist-like organizations existed in the ancient world, and early aspects of merchant capitalism flourished during the Late Middle Ages.[8][9][10] Capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[10] Capitalism gradually spread throughout Europe, and in the 19th and 20th centuries, it provided the main means of industrialization throughout much of the world.[2]

Liberalism: By the beginning of the 20th century, political liberalism had become the norm throughout the West, but economic liberalism had resulted in a vast concentration of wealth, with the majority of mankind living in a state of poverty. The economic world was shaken by a series of depressions. Freedom, which in the past had been threatened by autocratic governments, was now threatened by the despotism of the rich.[38]

Communism offered a revolutionary alternative to liberalism, promising a more just distribution of wealth.[39] The political history of the 20th Century can be seen as a cold war between liberal democracy and communism,[40] although other enemies of liberalism, fascism and more recently Islamism, have also struggled for dominance.[41]

Liberalism's answer to communism came in the form of social liberalism, as proposed by the British philosopher T. H. Green. His writing stressed the interdependence of human beings, and the need for a government that would promote freedom by providing health care and education, and fight the forces of prejudice and ignorance.[42]

Another brand of liberalism arose at this time in opposition to social liberalism, called Social Darwinism, as discussed in the writing of another British philosopher, Herbert Spencer. Where Green stressed community and interdependence, Spencer stressed individuality and self-interest. In his view, government should get out of the way, or at most serve as a "night-watchman", and allow human beings freedom to compete. In this competition, the weak would die and the strong survive, to the eventual improvement of the human race.[43]

While the social liberals strove to eliminate the poverty that made communism attractive, the followers of social Darwinism considered that a weak response, and favored war as the only sure method of destroying communism.[44] Communist parties were outlawed in many parts of Europe, and communist demonstrations violently suppressed. The communists also chose violence as the best method of attaining their ends, and communist revolutions were successful in Russia and China.[45]

At the same time that communist revolutions were changing the political landscape in the East, the social liberals were making major changes in the West. They recognized the power of capitalism to produce wealth, and believed that communism would fail on economic rather than military grounds. At the same time, they argued that the benefits of the wealth produced by capitalism should be shared with the general population, and not left in the hands of the few. They sponsored programs of civic improvement, building of schools, hospitals, public transportation systems, and sewage systems. During times of depression, these programs provided jobs for the unemployed, who would otherwise either starve or be a threat to orderly society.

Socialism: Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), but sometimes oppose each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, German and Chinese communist governments in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).[8] Modern social democrats propose selective nationalisation of key national industries in mixed economies, while maintaining private ownership of capital and private business enterprise. (In the 19th and early 20th century the term was used to refer to those who wanted to completely replace capitalism with socialism through reform.) Modern social democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and regulation of markets; many, particularly in European welfare states, refer to themselves as socialists, despite holding pro-capitalist viewpoints, thus adding ambiguity to the meaning of the term "socialist". Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.

Modern socialism originated in the late 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private ownership on society. The utopian socialists, including Robert Owen (1771–1858), tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon (1760–1825), the first individual to coin the term socialisme, was the original thinker who advocated technocracy and industrial planning.[9] The first socialists predicted a world improved by harnessing technology and combining it with better social organisation, and many contemporary socialists share this belief. Early socialist thinkers tended to favour an authentic meritocracy combined with rational social planning, while many modern socialists have a more egalitarian approach.

Vladimir Lenin, drawing on Karl Marx's ideas of "lower" and "upper" stages of socialism[10] defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.


So I dunno what is TARP?

A Republican policy?

H.R. 1424 [110th]: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Sponsor: Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D-RI1]

A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.

Yea: 268 (62%)
D221 R47 0
Nay: 148 (34%)
D3 R145 0
Present: 0 (0%)
0 0 0
Not Voting: 13 (3%)
D7 R6 0

S. 3683: A bill to amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act

Sponsor: Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK]

A bill to amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to require approval by the Congress for certain expenditures for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Killed by Democrats who controlled congress and never allowed a vote.

S. 3693: Stop the Greed on Wall Street Act

Sponsor: Sen. Bernard Sanders [I-VT]

A bill to limit the amount of compensation for employees and executives of financial institutions assisted under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and for other purposes.

Killed

S. 3698: Accountability for Economic Rescue Assistance Act of 2008

Sponsor: Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]

A bill to prohibit any recipient of emergency Federal economic assistance from using such funds for lobbying expenditures or political contributions, to improve transparency, enhance accountability, encourage responsible corporate governance, and for other purposes.

Killed

S. 18: Troubled Asset Relief Program Inspector General Improvement Act

Sponsor: Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]

A bill to improve the authority of the Special Inspector General charged with overseeing the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and for other purposes.

Killed

H.R. 7334: TARP Accountability Act of 2008

Sponsor: Rep. Steven LaTourette [R-OH14]

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to require each insured depository institution which receives an investment or other assistance under the Troubled Assets Relief Program to include in the quarterly call report the amount of any increase in new lending that is attributable to such investment or assistance, and for other purposes.

Killed

S. 3731: Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Act of 2008

Sponsor: Sen. Claire McCaskill [D-MO]

A bill to amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (division A of Public Law 110-343) to provide the Special Inspector General with additional authorities and responsibilities, and for other purposes.

Passed by Senate. A record of each representative's position was not kept.

H.R. 7321: Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act

Sponsor: Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA4]

To authorize financial assistance to eligible automobile manufacturers, and for other purposes.

Aye: 237 (55%)
D205 R32 0
No: 170 (39%)
D20 R150 0
Present: 1 (0%)
0 1 0
Not Voting: 26 (6%)
11 15 0
Required: Simple Majority of 408 votes (=205 votes)

For the 111th Congress there were well over a hundred TARP related bills if you care to analyze them be my guest.

 

Can't help but notice that in your defintion of fiscal conservatism it said that classical liberal policies are often associated with fiscal conservatism. What do you make of that?

 

Wicapedia take it with a grain of salt.

 

I think you already know this (WikiP again):

A version of Herr Paulson's 3 pages long (readable!), can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html
Basically it says "give me $700,000,000,000, no questions asked"
Aballister that's half your GDP... would double Switzerland's after Paulson banked it...

So TARP started w/Paulson and ended (like any law at the time) with King Bush the Lesser's signature
Republicans!

Somewhere in there, far leftie Pat Kennedy seized the chance to pork it up with his own favorite failure of a pet project, "the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act"
which I hadn't heard of until JoesLogic put Patty's name on this steaming pile.

Comrade Kennedy kinda much sucks at politics: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400215

Hell I would have handed him TARP too. The guys sitting next to him probably sh!t themselves when it went through.

Today I learned that Bush was a liberal socialist. So was Paulson, which is kind of a surprise since he was CEO of Goldman-Sachs. They're probably satanists too. Hail Xenu!

 

Well at least you're learning a little bit YES Bush II was fiscally speaking a Liberal. Your ignorance about the American political system really shines through when you call legislation signed off on by Democrats and opposed by Republicans "Republican" legislation.

And I also see you are still far too stubborn to acknowledge the ideology of a policy.

 

Well he was certainly very socialistic and liberal to his oil buddies. They made a fortune while the rest of America speared right into financial destruction. As a matter of fact, under Bush the oil companies made so much profit (record profits mind you) that they came under scrunity.

But hey.... they gave us all jobs right, Joe? Why dont we put some more money in their pockets so they can give us even MORE this year!

 

This from the guy who thought his vote helped elect Clinton! You spend waay too much time on this stuff. Regardlesss, double score: straw man + ad hominem! "I dare you" was funnier however.

in case anybody cares I was (correctly) identifying Paulson and Bush as REPUBLICANs, mostly 'cause I guessed it would wind Joe up pretty good.
this is, after all, a humor site.

arguing politics anonymously... on a humor site forum... many references to intelligence... calling people names...

back atcha, here's some guesses:

1) you're fairly smart but it didn't show in your grades... even if you beat the other kids you were the smartest of a dumb group, and you knew it.

2) you don't work, yet aren't active in local or state politics (otherwise you'd actually be trying to DO something with your opinions) Could be the ranting puts people off, but my guess is you're depressed. Seeking validation anonymously is kinda weird... but it's easier than real world interactions.

The Demoncrats definitely voted in TARP (merry christmas joe, hope that helps you out),
but Bush is a REPUBLICAN.

By the way I'm black, jewish, communist, and gay. You poopy head!

 

No need to get sore. I had to call that out because I know you arn't ignorant and know better. Have a nice day.