What you didn’t tell us was: do you dispute the name?  Or do you <i>wish,/i> that’s what the Democratic Party would call itself and have the policies to match?

“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake” -Napoleon.

Why not declare that they’re going to refer to the Democrats as the Giant Poopyhead Party from now on since they’re going to be adults about it?

Or do you wish, that’s what the Democratic Party would call itself and have the policies to match?

Personally? Yes, it would be great. But they will never do it.

So it looks like the Republican mission to give the word “Socialist” positive connotations again continues.

What’s interesting, I wonder if these guys (Democratic Socialists of America) would sue them?

Nah, it’s probably good for the DSA. Free publicity.

Eh- until the Republicans decide to call themselves the “Greedy Fat Racist Old F#ck” party and the libertarians decide to admit they are the “Losers who haven’t moved past high school level in wisdom”, I’m just not seeing a rush to rename the Dems.

OTOH- I do see the wisdom of letting those who are’t members of the party do the naming- as you can see, I could totally get into that part.

What you didn’t tell us was: do you dispute the name?  Or do you <i>wish,/i> that’s what the Democratic Party would call itself and have the policies to match?

Shorter Dana:  Heh heh heh.  We said poopyheads.

I think the DNC needs to pass a resolution rebranding the Republican Party as the “Poopypants Army”

I’ve become officially bored and dismissive of anything the Republicans do or think of. Yes, I sort of yet outraged in principle with respect to their obstruction of certain initiatives of the Obama administration, but I just don’t feel ideologically threatened anymore. Republicans are stuck chasing their shadows and fighting against boogiemen in their own mind. They’re more a political obstruction than a political/ideological threat, at this point.

The Republican party is basically filled with political failures who are hoping that their ideas and even more extreme talking points will make a comeback. As it is, it’s basically an amusing sideshow, somewhat reminiscent of the “Spinal Tap Mark 2” scene at the amusement park.

Before I start caring about what Republicans think or feel in any way like they’re a worthy political opponent, we’re going to have to see the Republican leadership and the aging Republican base retire and be replaced by ambitious political activists who actually want to win something.

I think the DNC needs to pass a resolution rebranding the Republican Party as the “Poopypants Army”

The First Church of George W. Bush.

or the Limbaugh Legion.

And of course, the Democrats’ best response to this would be… dead silence. The Repubs seem intent on looking like the least mature and least effective political party ever, and anything the Democrats say about that would obstruct the view of the glorious conflagration.

I hope that the Democratic Leadership quietly circulates directives that any party official or elected representative, copy to the President, responds to this every time the question is asked on camera with as genuine a snicker (extra points for a believable guffaw) as they can manage, followed by some variation on, “does someone have a real question?”

“Limbaugh Legion”

Just call them Dittoheads and cut out the middleman.

Many European countries, I would say all, have a ‘Social Democratic Party’ which is generally well-represented if not the majority party.

We’d be in good company.

I resolved in 2005 to call them No Talent Assclowns, and I’ve never looked back.

The Republican party is basically filled with political failures who are hoping that their ideas and even more extreme talking points will make a comeback. As it is, it’s basically an amusing sideshow, somewhat reminiscent of the “Spinal Tap Mark 2” scene at the amusement park.

Although, we need to remember that conservatives in general still possess much power, in the financial, media and military dimensions of society. Even the socialcons are not defeated, merely rudderless and paranoid. And as they feel more and more isolated, they become a real danger, in the physical security sense of the word danger, to those around them. They have a lot of guns and ammo, and some skill with them. And so we cannot afford to simply ignore them. The amusement is fine, but it cannot and should not become dismissal.

How about Geezers Only Party?  How about the Limbaugh Reactionary Cabal (Lurk). 

They already have made a point of calling us the Democrat Party instead of the Democratic Party.  How’d that work out for them?

The amusement is fine, but it cannot and should not become dismissal.

Sure, looking at it that way, there’s a physical threat, but it’s not an ideological/political threat. I don’t feel in danger of the Democrats losing the ideological argument on health care or losing the ideological fight over budget policies. Physical threats can be restrained and countered. But I don’t worry about the Republican ideology spreading and representing a threat to Obama’s presidency or the Democratic hold on Congress.

How’d that work out for them?

Shitty.

So clearly we should take advantage of the object lesson they have given us. We should not try to change their name to some stupid pun or joke. Instead we should continually point out the uselessness of their ideology in ways which will resonate with the general public.

and the libertarians decide to admit they are the “Losers who haven’t moved past high school level in wisdom”

Come on!  The average high schooler should be able to understand externalities and transaction costs.  Libertarianism is more like middle school wisdom.

I think the DNC needs to pass a resolution rebranding the Republican Party as the “Poopypants Army”

That or the Dick Armey ... </rimshot>

there’s a physical threat, but it’s not an ideological/political threat. I don’t feel in danger of the Democrats losing the ideological argument on health care or losing the ideological fight over budget policies.

I do still feel danger of both those things. Progressives/liberals have not won the healthcare debate or the budget debate by any stretch. Make no mistake we have very powerful forces arrayed against us in both cases. Health industry lobbyists can outspend us easy. The financial sector has all but captured our government. Both of these elements are inimical to us and our goals.

In addition, we cannot discount the efficacy of violent action on the part of conservatives. Only a small increase in political violence of the kind which happened in Tennessee could be game-changing, and not necessarily in our favor.

So we should go ahead and laugh at moronic crap like the subject of this post. But realize that it doesn’t mean there’s no more danger.

Dana, I’m fine with the Democratic Party being called the Democratic Party because it’s the Democratic Party.

“What you didn’t tell us was: do you dispute the name?  Or do you <i>wish,/i> that’s what the Democratic Party would call itself and have the policies to match? ”

Well the Democratic Party calls itself the Democratic Party, so I’d dispute the name. I’d presume you’d dispute the August Central Council of Me and My Nuts (Me: president) voting to rename the Republican Party the Republican Oligarchic Party, because the ACCoMaMN doesn’t get to name things.

And I wish they would. Or least move left to where Europe’s conservative parties are and see how things look from there.

It still doesn’t compare to the brief oh-so-wonderful moment where Canada’s (then) two conservative parties, the Conservatives and Reform go together to function as an Alliance Party, giving us the Conservative Reform Alliance Party .... until somebody noticed the acronym.  After that for some odd reason it was simply the “Alliance” for a while.  Strange, that.  I wonder why.

Seeker:

or….

Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP) aka ‘Creep.’

“Who cares?”

That pretty much sums it up. Who gives a shit. They seem to be moving past the giddy/hysterical/“feeling liberated” phase of being defeated, and into the demoralized abject misery phase.

Magis:
Another classic.

tb:
Don’t forget the “useless flailing out at shit that isn’t really important” phase.  Anybody who has seen a spouse (who thought themselves wonderful) suddenly dumped by their spouse (who realized they were an asshole) has seen this sort of thing writ large.

So we should go ahead and laugh at moronic crap like the subject of this post. But realize that it doesn’t mean there’s no more danger.

But I think this moronic crap HELPS us. A lot.  The economy is tanked, people are losing homes and jobs, medical costs are still the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy, and the planet is continues to get less hospitable to life (which matters especially to the younger people that the repubs really need to appeal to if they’re going to survive).  And people look at these sorts of stunts and think, “THIS is what they spend their time and effort on?  Playground name-calling??  THIS is what they think is important?!!??!” 

It’s just more evidence that to the right it’s all about “winning” some kind of “game” and dominating their opponents, rather than actually wanting to solve anything or make anything better for the general population. 

Oh yeah, guys, just keep that up.  Please.

Why do they get to determine what people are called?  Are they going to file papers and pay the fees required to change the party name?

Why do they think this is going to work any better than their dogwhistles?

Fucking whiny losers.  Argue about something of substance or go home.

When people accused us of Bush Derangement Syndrome, at least we could point to concrete actions the man had taken that were the basis of our anger.  This shit?  Simply entitled assholes mad that no one cares if they go Galt.  Or pissed off that the plebes are interfering with the transfer of all wealth to the elite.

Hm. After the Dems lost the election of 2004, the party activists put in a new and different head of the DNC who embarked on a long-term strategy to reorganize the party on the ground.

Faced with the same situation in 2008, the Republicans seem to have opted for a ... different strategy, to say the least.

Dana, seriously, is this the best you can do? are activists like yourself so disconnected from the Republican party that the crazies are allowed to go wild and there’s nothing you can do about it? What is your plan to actually, you know, win elections?

the Conservatives and Reform go together to function as an Alliance Party, giving us the Conservative Reform Alliance Party

When I was in college, most Quaker and former-Quaker schools were considered sort-of sister schools (Not those fucksticks at Swarthmore, though, because they were just too good for us) and so we would occasionally discuss Earlham or Guilford. It wasn’t until after I graduated that I realized that the full name of another school wasn’t Friends University of Central Kansas.

Man, they continue to explore new frontiers in shark-jumping every day, don’t they?

Is it me or is this just a little piece of AWESOME?

Who could make this shit up? Hey lets call the whole party socialist does it matter that the Republicans are painting themselves as fucking douche-bag losers? I say fuck-um they want to do that DO IT! Why not make a resolution to call the White House the Black House and all the female Dems whores. All of these things are not going to help them in the polls with the moderates and because all the votes are in the middle this is a losing strategy. HAVE AT IT DIP-SHITS!!!

So lets review, fuck them they are stupid and couldn’t find their ass with both hands.

...and the flailing about continues.
It’s just one long death rattle for these freaks.

They keep thinking that “Dr. Rush” will save them (that’s where morons getting “democrat” and “Democratic” mixed up meme comes from)

Well, they should stop calling themselves Republicans, becasue they’ve repudiated everything Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower stood for.

<blockqutoe>What you didn’t tell us was: do you dispute the name?  Or do you <i>wish,/i> that’s what the Democratic Party would call itself and have the policies to match?</blockquote>

I wish Dana would call himself someone who knows how to use HTML tags correctly, and have the policies to match.

oh, savage irony.

“Well, they should stop calling themselves Republicans, becasue they’ve repudiated everything Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower stood for.”

Considering the huge percentage of current Republicans who were or would have been Democrats in the mid ‘60s, today’s Republicans should be called the We-Used-To-Be-Democrats-But-Our-Racism-Wasn’t-Appreciated-So-We-Took-It-To-The-Republican Party.

More realistically, the Republicans should be renamed the Conservative Party.

The Democrats should be the Liberal Party, but there are so few actual liberals in it they aren’t worthy of a name like that…

“oh, savage irony.”

Criticizing somebody else’s grammar, spelling, or HTML coding is nearly a guarantee of screwing something up…

“Extraordinary special session,” eh? I’m impressed!

In case MikeEss’s point isn’t clear, the phrase Dan was looking for is “O savage irony” (not “oh”, no comma required).

Franklin, as far as troll-bait comments go, Dana has you beat. Try again.

Why not go all the way, and just label the Democrats the Silly Party and the Republicans the Extremely Silly Party?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU

What will be the goals of our socialist society?

1. A life free of exploitation, insecurity, poverty; an end to unemployment, hunger and homelessness.

2. An end to racism, national oppression, anti-Semitism, all forms of discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. An end to the unequal status of women.

3. Renewal and extension of democracy; an end to the rule of corporate America and private ownership of the wealth of our nation. Creation of a truly humane and rationally planned society that will stimulate the fullest flowering of the human personality, creativity and talent.

Those red rat bastards! Thanks for opening my eyes, Franklin.

I’ve kinda been wanting to call them the Republan party.  They can have their ‘ic’ back when they give us the one that goes on Democratic.  Hasn’t really caught on.

Started a Facebook group. Because that’s what the kids do now.

Okay, seriously, does anyone actually think it’s the goal of the Democratic Party to seize all private productive assets and centrally allocate them?

Seriously?  Is this what you think?

If so, and I mean this in all seriousness, is there some kind of specialized counseling available for this?  Because it is fairly common (this absurd boogeyman projection), yet it really does represent a terrible break from reality.

I know it’s almost too on-the-nose, but I vote for the “Republican Dinosaur Party,” if for no other reason, then the cute No-No the Goposaur symbol designed over at Daily Kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/13/730700/-CNN:-Republicans-bashing-Republicans

“If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck.”

Dude, if you think ducks are talking to you, seek help. Fast.

“Democrat Socialist Party.”

STILL. NOT. AN. ADJECTIVE.

Party is the noun. Which means the rest of the phrase MUST be adjectives modifying the noun.

You could go with Democratist. Or “Democratic in Name Only.” even “Democrats’ Party.” or “Jedi” for all I care.

There are many ways nouns can be turned into adjectives. The English language is neat like that.

And the adjectival form of Democrat is Democratic. This is not a goddamn option.

Quack Quack… you know, the Communist Party of the USA actually supported Obama, more or less. Quack.

“Republan party”—umm, you might get more traction with “the Repubs,” provided the second syllable is pronounced “pubes.”

With the added bonus, that like “Democrat Socialist Party” it’s also on the level of middle school humor.

I think that the Republicans can rename the Democratic Party, on the condition that they allow the Democrats to rename the Republican party.  It’s only fair.  I’ve heard some pretty good suggestions so far, are there any others?  If they refuse to except the new name for their party, then they simply can not impose their new name on the Democratic party.

I’ve kinda been wanting to call them the Republan party.  They can have their ‘ic’ back when they give us the one that goes on Democratic.  Hasn’t really caught on.

This is a good idea.  Why do they like to say “Democrat party” anyway?  Is it supposed to be some kind of insult?  Or are they just being petty and childish like they always are?

Why not go all the way, and just label the Democrats the Silly Party and the Republicans the Extremely Silly Party?

Or the Keep Royalty, White-Rat-Catching and Safe Sewage Residents’ Party vs. The Standing At the Back Dressed Stupidly and Looking Stupid Party.

“We in the Adder Party are going to fight this campaign on issues, not personalities.”

“Why is that?”

“Because our candidate doesn’t have a personality.”

“He hasn’t said much about the issues, either.”

“Why do they like to say “Democrat party” anyway? “

Because it ends in “rat,” silly!

“Why do they like to say “Democrat party” anyway? “

Because it ends in “rat,” silly!

So shortening to Republans, or Republic Party doesn’t have the same insult level—again, I vote for Republican Dinosaur Party, or for short, “The Repubes.”

Thank you, Dana and Franklin, for providing further evidence for my theory that Republicans wouldn’t recognize a socialist if one fell on them.

I think that the Republicans can rename the Democratic Party, on the condition that they allow the Democrats to rename the Republican party.  It’s only fair.  I’ve heard some pretty good suggestions so far, are there any others?

Yes.  I propose they name them “Republicans”.

As in “That bastard cut me off in traffic.  What a fucking Republican” or “My Republican hurts.  Should I see a proctologist?”

“Extraordinary special session,” eh? I’m impressed!

Hey, that special Congressional session brought Terri Schiavo out of her coma, didn’t it?

I think the RNC would be best served by rebranding ITSELF and worrying a bit less about what to call their opposition.

Then again, that would be effective leadership for a viable party.

“that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week”

Do I understand that right?
theyre acutally having a special meeting for this?

not some goober proposed it at a meeting and it got seconded so they had to vote but “an extraordinary special session”????

So, Frankie….

How much of private assests have become public assests in the last (and I quote) “100 days?”

Hey, that special Congressional session brought Terri Schiavo out of her coma, didn’t it?

No, that session of congress taught Blossom about date rape awareness.

Or possibly Jessie got addicted to Caffeine pills.

one of the two. I forget which.

Jeff, it can’t be their special secret club if it doesn’t have extraordinarily extra special secret sessions to vote on grammatically incorrect labels they hope are perceived as insults.

Will the extraordinary special session result in the imposition of double secret probation?

“Major car manufacturers are now majority owned by government and unions.
Banks are now majority owned by government.”

There they were, being quietly profitable, minding their own business, not harming a soul, and then BAM!  Vladimir Ilyich Obama comes along and seizes them!  Those damn commies!

(back here in the Real World, perhaps those industries would have been fine, and remained out of the clutches of The Evil Government if they were, you know, not run into the ground by cynical and stupid management purely so they could give themselves massive bonuses and huge Golden Parachutes.  But let us not allow facts, logic, and reason to intrude on Franklin’s wankfest…)

I posted the following on the “That Was Quicker Than I Thought” thread, further evidence that my grand unified theory of conservitism is correct:

“Does anyone else think this is insecure white male right-wingese for “I’m totally crushin’ on Obama!”? It always seems that the ones coming up with these how to spot the big, bad gay man theories are the ones having gay sex i.e. Ted Haggard.”

My theory is that they stopped maturing at about age 12

As a grand unified theory of conservitism, it holds up pretty well

Know what,

The Rethugs are worried about an socialist/commie conspiracy?  I’m worried about a Borg takeover.  I just can’t fathom how they all get their identical talking points so quickly unless they’re part of the collective.  It’s, like eerie, man.

P.S.
I waiting, Frankie…patiently…sort of.

Before Obama, no govenrnment ownership of the means of production.
It is what it is.
Deal with it.

There you are!  Goodie.  Did you know we used to manufacture (the Gubmint) some of our warplanes and warships in competition with private manufacturers?  Did you know that we more or less seized the railroads during the world wars?  Do you remember the RTC?  Have you ever heard of the TVA?

“It is what it is.
Deal with it.”

...um yeah, we’re dealing with it all right.  We, including you, have each been blessed with a big ol’ bill from the Banks, through their buddies in Th’ Guvment. 

Seems they had a little problem down to the casino, lost a whol’ bunch o’ money, and they needed a little help from us to maintain the life style to which they was accustomed to…

It doesn’t matter what the goal was, it’s what’s happened in the last 100 days.

Major car manufacturers are now majority owned by government and unions.

Banks are now majority owned by government.

Government tells businesses which employees can stay and who can’t.

Does any of this really sound right to you?

Well, most of it sounds right except for the first part.  Most of this stuff happened before Obama became president.  Remember that doofus Republican who was in the white house for 8 years before Obama?

Before Obama, no govenrnment ownership of the means of production.

Again, the bail-outs started before Obama became president.  It is what it is.  Deal with it.

Next you’ll be telling me that it’s a strange coincidence that the 1976 swine flu scare happened while a Democrat was president.

Before Obama, no govenrnment ownership of the means of production.

Franklin is apparently unaware of GOCO (Government Owned, Contractor Operated) facilities.  And of how the internet was developed.

But I suspect there are a great many things he’s not aware of.

Oh, hey, Franklin.  Is this where you’ve run off to?  I’m still over at the Alan Keyes thread, waiting for some answers from you.

I have to say, I find this rather confusing.  You have a serious problem with banks and businesses becoming government property, and the government telling them which employees to keep and fire.

And yet, you actively advocate making women’s bodies government property. 

How does that square up?

As long as we’re coming up with new names for the Repubs, I’ve been partial to “Irrelevant Man-Child Party Train”.

“Irrelevant Man-Child Party Train”.

Kaje, I see where you’re going, but it sounds like an Adult Swim interlude joke.  Way too hip for the GOP.

“There they were, being quietly profitable, minding their own business, not harming a soul, and then BAM!  Vladimir Ilyich Obama comes along and seizes them!  Those damn commies!
(back here in the Real World, perhaps those industries would have been fine, and remained out of the clutches of The Evil Government if they were, you know, not run into the ground by cynical and stupid management purely so they could give themselves massive bonuses and huge Golden Parachutes.  “

Uh huh. And making Chrysler merge with FIAT (as in “Fix It Again, Tony”) was an act of real genius. Obama seems to know about as much about business and economics as your average Pet Rock.

<blockquote>Uh huh. And making Chrysler merge with FIAT (as in “Fix It Again, Tony”) was an act of real genius. Obama seems to know about as much about business and economics as your average Pet Rock.<blockquote>

If….
Obama = pet rock.
Then…
Current Chrysler management = ?

Seriously, Eric, Fiat is one of the biggest corporations in Europe.

“And making Chrysler merge with FIAT (as in “Fix It Again, Tony”) was an act of real genius.”

And what, O Mighty Auto Exec Wannabe do you suggest?  If it involves the same clowns who ran the company into the ground, you gotta share what you’re smoking with the rest of us…

Would you like to feed and house some unemployed auto workers?  Or do you suggest they do society a favor and just off themselves?...

“Seriously, Eric, Fiat is one of the biggest corporations in Europe.”

I’m sure Eric believes if it ain’t in Murka, it ain’t shit…

Major car manufacturers are now majority owned by government and unions.

Because they begged for government money.

Banks are now majority owned by government.

Because they begged for government money.

Government tells businesses which employees can stay and who can’t.

Because they begged for government money.

Notice that there’s a little theme in all of your examples?  I wonder what the commonality between those three situations could be ...

Oh, and you may be perfectly content to have your hard-earned tax dollars thrown into a bottomless pit by banking “geniuses” who couldn’t figure out that you can’t re-sell the same mortgage 10 times and expect to pay your creditors back, but I sure as hell want to know where my money is going.

“Seriously, Eric, Fiat is one of the biggest corporations in Europe.”

And one whose products are so lousy they haven’t successfully sold any in this country in over 20 years.

At least Chrysler’s merger with Daimler-Benz a few years ago actually made sense. People here actually want to buy Mercedes cars. Fiat’s just suck, indeed, one of their “products” was the inspiration for the infamous Yugo. Doesn’t get much worse than that.

Only slightly OT:

Ran across this looking for something else:

“I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny - Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear”

  Sen. Margaret Chase Smith (R-Maine)

Something never seem to change.

“I’m sure Eric believes if it ain’t in Murka, it ain’t shit…”

Nope. Owned 4 Honda’s (two cars, two motorcycles), one Toyota, and a Suzuki.

Eric, Eric, Eric….

And one whose products are so lousy they haven’t successfully sold any in this country in over 20 years.

The haven’t been in the American market for more than 20 years.  Can’t sell ‘em if you’re not, ya know, sellin’ ‘em.  They might be a little different than you remember.

Fiat also makes Ferarris, hope I never have to put up with one of those junkers.

I’m sure the Zaibatsu thank you.

Dear Frankie the Illiterate Coward:

Please read Mnemosyne’s answers to your tiresomely repetitive talking points and answer them if you can.  Otherwise, your arguments are as worthless as you are.

Auguste:

It wasn’t until after I graduated that I realized that the full name of another school wasn’t Friends University of Central Kansas.

I suspect this story is apocryphal, but a friend of mine who worked at the campus store at a certain Catholic college claims that the nuns in charge ordered sweatshirts with the college’s initials and didn’t make the connection until the order arrived.

It was the College Of Notre Dame Of Maryland.

I will be the first to admit I have very little understanding of economics- it generally involves math, and math is the evil. Plus I’m a woman, and we all know ladies just don’t have the kind of head for complex ideas like this. (Snerk.) So let me see if I understand the basics of the recent bailouts.

Republicans: It’s ok for large corporations to ask for government bailout money, because they are the only institutions that keep this country running or are worth anything. The fact that the CEOs make a shit-ton of money proves they are Smart and Worthy People, unlike the plebeians. If we throw money at them when they ask, they in their infinite wisdom will somehow Make It All Right. We have no right to demand accountability for the money because they are Smart and Worthy People. Oh, and by the way, the war in Iraq, tax cuts to the wealthy, and unrestricted free enterprise had NOTHING to do with any of this. It was greedy labor unions and the fags or something.

Dems: Well, the last administrations really fucked up the economy, and they started bailouts in an effort to try and salvage something. We’ll continue this along with the stimulus packages, increasing spending in some areas in order to reestablish a marketplace and get money flowing again. BUT because what we are giving these corporations are incredibly large amounts of money, we want a share of ownership equal to what we’re putting in financially. We also want that control to ensure the money is being used to rebuild the company and not for CEO’s to take trips to Hawaii or give themselves huge bonuses. If they want the money they should accept the conditions since we’re trying to make the businesses work again because of how many people need the income from working there, and the profits add to the overall economy.

So, erm, am I sort of close?

Read, Frankie, read:

Times Online
October 15, 2008

President Bush is today expected to unveil firm plans to use $250 billion worth of US taxpayer funds to seize stakes in nine of America’s biggest banks as part of a move to stabilize the US banking system.

The proposal to use part of Washington’s $700 billion rescue fund to buy bank stock is expected to be announced by the White House today. The plans follow emergency talks in Washington convened yesterday between Henry Paulson, US Treasury Secretary, and America’s most important bankers including Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, and John Mack, the chief executive of Morgan Stanley.

[...]

It is understood that Ken Lewis, the chief executive of Bank of America, the financial institution that has bought Merrill Lynch; Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase; Vikram Pandit, chief executive of Citigroup; and Robert Kelly, chief executive of Bank of New York Mellon, were also ordered to attend Mr Paulson’s summit meeting.

emphasis mine.

See Frankie, what I did was called “research.”
What you do is called “pulling it out of your ass.”

TheRealistMom:

More than sorta close.  Besides, we got the gold, we make the rules.  Isn’t that what they’ve been telling us for years?

I propose we “rebrand” the Republican Party the “Weeniecrats”. They are such losers!

1.  Many Democrats, including myself, would cheer if Obama and the Democrats actually started thinking a bit more socialist.  As it stands, they are more or less center right with a solid dose of corporatism.  The previous administration was HARD right, with a very heavy dose of Crony corporatism.

2.  There are a lot of companies in this country that are majority union owned.  Why shouldn’t Chrysler be majority owned by it’s union?  Its biggest creditor IS the pension fund.  Given that Chrysler’s employees have a very good reason to see the company return to profitability (their PENSIONS, not to mention their jobs), then this seems to me to be the company’s best chance to turn things around. 

3.  The Government has long owned a wide range of “means of production.”  Or been a key player in such.  How many factories could operate without municipally built water mains supplying water to the factories?  Roads?  Fire & Police protection?  The legal system?  What about the Postal Service, relied upon by a wide range of major american businesses - amazon and netflix are the two highest profile (besides the various companies that line your mailbox with junkmail).  You know that government owned factories produce a wide range of munitions for the military?  Here in Illinois, a very important military base is the Rock Island Arsenal, where they make bullets, shells, and the like. 

4.  Companies utterly fail their obligations to their stockholders and other stakeholders.  Companies beg the government to save them.  Government says, “OK, well you have to fire the morons who put you in this position in the first place.”  And, actually, the biggest firing of all was the one by Bank of America - where the Stockholders forced the moron out.  The Feds really should be forcing a lot more people out of these banks and auto companies. 

5.  You’re not very bright, are you?

And one whose products are so lousy they haven’t successfully sold any in this country in over 20 years.

Funny thing, neither has Chrysler.

Ka-zing!

Punditus Maximus: Okay, seriously, does anyone actually think it’s the goal of the Democratic Party to seize all private productive assets and centrally allocate them?

Who the fuck is seizing any “productive” assets?  These banks and these car companies are utterly bankrupt.  This year, the value of whatever they produce is enormously lower than the cost of their operations and liabilities.  They have a net worth of less than zero.  Far, far less than zero. 

Rather than seizing them, the Obama administration, exactly like the Bush Administration before them, are desperately trying to keep these bankrupt firms from going under once and for all.  And at the exact same time that these adminstrations, in order to save what’s left of American capitalism, are conducting the most expensive financial bailout in human history, idiots and frauds all over are insanely accusing them of trying to destroy capitalism.

Sighs. See stick. See Frankie. See stick and Frankie take a test. See Frankie lose. Frankie is a loser. Lose, Frankie, lose.

Come on let me hear that dirty word. SOCIALISM!

Hopefully the Dems are too smart to be played like this, but the party doesn’t have a good track record of fighting back when the GOP starts taunting and name-calling.

Obama took over these firms. Obama fired these employees. Obama threatens California to restore paycuts to unionized workers or not get the promised bailiout money.

Uh, Frankie?  You realize that your third example is the federal government withholding money from the state government, right?  So the federal government isn’t even allowed to regulate the money it gives to other governments, but has to hand it over with a smile and a “Don’t worry about telling us where this taxpayer money is going—there’s more where that came from!” no matter who asks. 

I wish I lived in your bizarro world where the government just hands out free money without questioning it or expecting it to ever be paid back.  But in your case, I suspect that bizarro world is called “high school.”

Obama took over these firms.

Did you even read the quote above from the Times?  There none so blind as those who will not see nor none so ignorant as those that will not learn.

Frankie, banks have been siezed long before Obama.  The unsmiling people from the FDIC show up, seize the assets and property and establish a conservatorship.  Management people are terminated.  Once the ship is righted they turn the institutions over to private hands or find a responsible buyer.  It is the government that protects your assets.

To prove the point (God forbid though you should actually read it):

From the NYT, January 10, 1991

A new owner might loosen commercial credit, helping to slow the state’s downward economic spiral. Connecticut Bank and Trust, one of the state’s largest lenders, had curtailed lending over the last year.

Magis, right-wingers have hated the New Deal and everything that went along with it, including the FDIC.

Frankie,

Here is the list of financial institutions seized or put under government control during the last year of the Bush reich (two are UK and don’t count):

From the Financial Times:

So, now it’s come to this. This is not the first company this year to suffer this fate, and the U.S. is not alone (see the two U.K. entries.) The list to date in 2008 of nationalized companies or transactions impossible without Federal intervention include:

Douglass National Bank (January 25, FDIC seizure)
Northern Rock (February 22, U.K. Exchequer seizure)
Hume Bank (March 7, FDIC seizure)
ANB Financial (May 9, FDIC seizure)
First Integrity (May 30, FDIC seizure)
Bear Stearns (May 30, acquired by J.P. Morgan Chase with Federal loan guarantees)
Countrywide Financial (July 1, acquired by Bank of America with Federal loan guarantees)
IndyMac, a former Countrywide division (July 11, FDIC seizure)
First National Bank of Nevada (July 25, FDIC seizure)
First Heritage Bank (July 25, FDIC seizure)
First Priority Bank (August 1, FDIC seizure)
Columbian Bank and Trust (August 22, FDIC seizure)
Integrity Bank (August 29, FDIC seizure)
Fannie Mae (September 7, FHFA conservatorship)
Freddie Mac (September 7, FHFA conservatorship)
Silver State Bank (September 9, FDIC seizure)
AIG (September 16, Federal Reserve loan guarantee & stakeholding)
Ameribank (September 19, FDIC seizure)
Washington Mutual (September 25, FDIC seizure and sale of retail operations to J.P. Morgan)
Bradford & Bingley (September 27, U.K. FSA seizure, with portions subsequently sold to Banco Santander)
Fortis (September 28, nationalized by Benelux governments)
Wachovia (September 29, attempted FDIC seizure and sale of retail operations to Citigroup, the subject of a bidding war with Wells Fargo, which the latter won)
Kaupthing (October 9, nationalized by the Icelandic Financial Supervisory Authority - FME)

if you don’t know the difference between “fascist” and “socialist,” you’re too dumb to be here, Frankie. Go home.

I can loan money to a business. It doesn’t mean that I own that business.

Frankie, what’s a “lienholder”?  Don’t come back until you know.

I can loan money to a business. It doesn’t mean that I own that business.
Are you saying that under Bush, the federal government had a fascist-style ownership of the means of production?

I’m still waiting for Magis to tell me that under Bush, the government owned these businesses.

Frankie,

What part of siezed, don’t you understand?
If I loan you money it means you are in debt to me and that I have a legal claim on your assests; i.e., I own your ass.  It means, in the case of a public company, we are shareholders and can vote those shares as would any other shareholder.  The list of companies is above.  If you have anything to show us other your own unsupported assumptions and Limbaugh-supplied talking points there are several up waiting breathlessly to see it.

Hitler did not own Krupp. 

P.S.
you are a purile moron,

Warmest regards,
Bubba

But didn’t you hear? Frankie has “clients!” And some are even black! He MUST know what he’s talking about…

From the FDIC Wiki

To receive this benefit, member banks must follow certain liquidity and reserve requirements. Banks are classified in five groups according to their risk-based capital ratio:

Well capitalized: 10% or higher
Adequately capitalized: 8% or higher
Undercapitalized: less than 8%
Significantly undercapitalized: less than 6%
Critically undercapitalized: less than 2%

When a bank becomes undercapitalized the FDIC issues a warning to the bank. When the number drops below 6% the FDIC can <u>change management</u> and force the bank to take other corrective action. When the bank becomes critically undercapitalized the FDIC declares the bank insolvent and can <u>take over</u> management of the bank.

(emphasis mine)

Anything else, Frankie?

Semantics.

In other words, you got your ass handed to you by not knowing basic facts like what a lienholder is, so now you’re going to try and get back to making unsupported assertions.

What a shock.

And we LIKE government takeover under certain circumstances, Franklin. It’s why you call us socialists, remember? So telling us that Obama is bad because he does this thing that we like (or at least tolerate when the requirement is there) is actually a nice counterpoint to the bad news about the torture photos, thank you. What we’re telling you, in three-or-less letter words in case that helps, is:

GWB did wut you not yen for. BHO did wut we do. We joy. You sad. Go off, far.

Semantics

If you consider the Law of the Land, semantics, I suppose.  Semantics is the study of word meanings but I don’t want to complicate things for you.  I suppose this is as close to a mea culpa as I’m likely to get from you.  Obama is doing what the law requires even as President Bush did.  This is not optional.

What is it you would have done?

Go the Hoover route and done nothing?
Give them the money and have no say?

By the way, I don’t “claim” Bush started this, I proved it to you.  C’mon, Frankie, man up and admit it.

But didn’t you hear? Frankie has “clients!” And some are even black! He MUST know what he’s talking about…

Taxidriver.

Just a note on Fiat (yeah, I’m late)—the Fiat automotive group includes Ferrari and Maserati. They’ve also won 12 European Car of the Year awards, more than any other manufacturer. So using EricJG’s logic, this should be an even better merger than Chrysler/Mercedes. Who the hell doesn’t want a Maserati?

Semantics= you conflating ownership with oversight.

I’m pointing out that your feigned outrage that the largest shareholder (and lienholder) in a company would try to dictate how that company is run bears no resemblance to how the real world works.  Read a biography of Carl Icahn if you’re genuinely surprised to hear that companies get taken over and have their boards of directors thrown out all of the time.

You’re frighteningly ignorant of how business works, and it’s sad that all of us dirty hippies have to point out that you don’t even know how the system you’re supposedly defending doesn’t work the way you think it does.

Like I said before I really am “noob” at economics and finance, so bear with me when I ask this question. If the largest shareholder/ loaner doesn’t get to control a company, who does? Do they decide it by a beauty pageant or something? Or is it like on the playground, where it’s by “I was here first you find your own swing”? Or maybe you play eenie-meeny-miney-mo in the boardroom?

The government is not just any ol’ shareholder and when they get control, they have the full force of government behind them.

And ... what?  I mean, you must have a point in there somewhere.  Are you saying that only certain shareholders should have a voice in corporate governance?  Should all public (aka government) entities be forbidden from holding shares in companies, or is it just that they shouldn’t be allowed to have the same voice that other shareholders have?  I think Wall Street would be pretty unhappy if CalPERS and other government agencies were forced to pull their funds away from the stock market but, hey, if you don’t want government and business to ever mix, we’d better start banning them from the market.

The government is not just any ol’ shareholder and when they get control, they have the full force of government behind them.

actually, all shareholders have that.

That is, when they have control, the company is legally obligated to do as the controlling interest says. That’s what control means. And it doesn’t matter what any of the minority shareholders think, the controlling interest gets to say what’s what.

And they have the full force of government, meaning it’s a legal contract that can be enforced by calling in the Jack booted thugs Objectivists seem to think are oppressive and wrong when they’re doing anything except enforcing a contract, which is what they’re doing.

In fact, government is typically LESS of a force in these things, as they are often legally forbidden from exercising degrees of control they could have as any private party with the same level of financial stake in a company would have.

Once again, despite being repeatedly asked, our Frankie doesn’t offer solutions, only blather.

Once again, Frankie, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE when Lehman Brothers collapsed?

We were told that if we did nothing, we could expect 8.5% unemployment. If we did nothing, GM and Chrysler would go bankrupt.
Well, hundreds of billions later, we have high unemployment and we see GM and Chrylser going bankrupt. The only difference is the Dems have raided the treasury of their pet projects under the guise of ‘stimulus’.
Capitalism has produced the enormous wealth this country enjoys. The socialism and hypersensitivity to differences of outcomes will kill the golden goose.

Once again, Frankie, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?  I note you totally ignored the banking part of the equasion.

What is your source of the “we were told” quote?  Your ass, again?

Now, why can’t we account for the money given to the banks?

Says who?  You?

Where’s the money Magis?

In millions of places.  It was meant to provide liquidity to the system.  It’s in small businesses, it’s in refinanced mortgages, etc., etc.

What good did any of this do?

It stopped 2008 from being 1929.  The stock market is up 30% over it’s low.  Construction spending is rising.

There, see how it’s done, at least by a gentleman?  You ask me a question and I answer.  Why won’t you answer?  Or won’t you answer that either?  Are you a man without honor or just one without a clue?

I have no problem referring to the Democratic party as social democrats because that’s precisely what they are, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.

It’s amusing to me that the opponents of socialism are invariably those who would benefit from it the most.  Those people are the Christian right (whose religion is, apparently, centered around the socialist policy of “love thy neighbor”) and the working poor (who would be protected by social safety nets to ensure their quality of living is acceptable).  Interestingly, in stark contrast to their own interest, they invariably support robber baron capitalism.

The big question is, “Why?”

Oh, and we can’t forget the big businessmen who ran to the government for help when they were about to collapse… then turned around and launched into diatribes about the “evils” of socialism and how we’re apparently becoming a “nanny state.”

Non sequitur, anyone?

“This demonstrates that their motivation is not simply financial and that they have a vision of the proper role of government and a nanny-state is not it.”

It isn’t that I don’t understand the conservative opinion, but rather, that I think they’re wrong.  I point out their masochism only because I find it amusing, not because I don’t understand why.

The problem I have with their attitude is that they lay the blame for anything bad happening on government intervention; it just isn’t true.  Nobody ever complains when so-called big government brings about new things that make our lives better, and an example I like to cite is the Internet.

And of course, like Chuck said, you are precisely the kind of person who would benefit the most from a so-called “nanny state,” [...]

Just to make perfectly it clear, I’m not so presumptuous as to speculate whether or not Rainy Frank himself would benefit from more socialist policies.  I merely think a lot of people are shooting themselves—and others—in the foot for no good reason.

I believe in personal responsibility, too, but anybody who thinks that all people have equal opportunity to exercise said responsibility severely lacks perspective.

loans that don’t depend upon your ability to pay it back, FICO scores, etc….only qualified by need?

Student loans have less wiggle room than conventional loans when it comes to payback, they can (and in some cases do) take money from SSI to repay the loans in some cases, in terms of enforcement and obligation they outdo even the dreaded ‘child support’.

If you demonstrated enough intelligence to use the preview button, you might actually have a point woth responding to, troll.