“We are all Thatcherites now”

Fareed Zakaria gives an overview of how the recently-deceased Margaret Thatcher changed the world’s economies:

Consider the world in 1979, when Thatcher came to power. The average Briton’s life was a series of interactions with government: Telephone, gas, electricity and water service, ports, trains and airlines were all owned and run by the state, as were steel companies and even Jaguar and Rolls-Royce. In almost all cases, this led to inefficiency and sclerosis. It took months to get a home telephone line installed. Marginal tax rates were ferociously high, reaching up to 83 percent. [Read more...]

General Motors wants its freedom

Our little experiment in industrial socialism didn’t work quite as well as the Democrats are saying.  General Motors did not pay back the bailout, and the American auto industry is not exactly “roaring back,” as the President said.  The government still owns over a quarter of all GM stock.  The company wants the government to sell out, but if it does, such is the low stock price, taxpayers would lose billions.  From Market Watch:

The Treasury Department is resisting General Motors’ push for the government to sell off its stake in the auto maker, The Wall Street Journal reports. Following a $50 billion bailout in 2009, the U.S. taxpayers now own almost 27% of the company. But the newspaper said GM executives are now chafing at that, saying it hurts the company’s reputation and its ability to attract top talent due to pay restrictions. Earlier this year, GM GM -1.41% presented a plan to repurchase 200 million of the 500 million shares the U.S. holds with the balance being sold via a public offering. But officials at the Treasury Department were not interested as selling now would lead to a multibillion dollar loss for the government, the newspaper noted.

via General Motors pushing U.S. to sell stake: report – MarketWatch.

Forcing a company to give away a product for free

Charles Krauthammer points out yet another problem with President Obama’s contraceptive mandate compromise:

The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.

On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select beneficiaries? . . . .

To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services — all of which must be without charge. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington’s takeover of the private system of medical care — a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining.

Under Obamacare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a middleman, subject to state control — and presidential whim. . . .

This constitutional trifecta — the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen — should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.

via Charles Krauthammer: Overreach — Obamacare vs. the Constitution – The Washington Post.

What would Jesus do about nationalizing the means of production?

Anthony Sacramone says, uh, no, taking on a claim in the Huffington Post:

This is what passes for deep thinking at the Huffington Post: an assistant professor of history insists that evangelicals must “hate” Jesus because they’re not socialists. Because Jesus was a socialist, you see.

Really? Jesus ran concentration camps? He murdered people who wore glasses because they were perceived to be intellectuals? He shot dissidents? He confiscated money he didn’t earn in order to fund a massive slave state? He denied the existence of God and claimed that religion was the opiate of the masses? He declaimed against those who wouldn’t arm totalitarian guerrillas? He insisted that personal responsibility for helping the poor should be pawned off on bureaucrats, who, of course, really really care about the poor? Because all that too is socialism, as even an assistant professor should know. . . .

In short: Jesus came to set men free. Socialism came to enslave them to Caesar.

You should read the rest of the rant, the point being that socialism has no right to the moral high ground that many people are giving it.

via Strange Herring | And other signs that the end is near.

Why “socialist” gets spam filtered

tODD has solved the mystery of why comments on this blog that mention “socialism” or its variants get treated like spam, exiled into a spam world until they are “released” whenever I think to check it.   Look closely at that word.  Specifically its third through sixth letters.  Do you notice the brand name of a “male enhancement product”?  One that is marketed on obnoxious TV commercials and is sold through shady internet sites?  The word is ubiquitous in spam, and any good spam filter is going to filter it out.

So WordPress–or rather, the spam filter Akismet–is NOT a Republican who does not want that anti-free-enterprise economic system brought up, and it is NOT a Democrat who does not want the current president to be accused of subscribing to that theory.  It is just rightfully squeamish and suspicious of male enhancement peddlers.

I would think this would be an issue with virtually all blogs, though.  This is a genuine inhibitor of political speech, one that should be very frustrating for leftists conspiring to bring on the great proletarian revolution.

P.S.:  My brother’s first big comment the other day got caught in the spam filter because he used the word “socialist.”  Yesterday he got another comment blocked because he used the word “specialist,” which has the same problem!  Do see what he has to say on the Medicare post, along with my rejoinder.  I think we found the solution.

Over half of Democrats like socialism

When Democrats are accused of being socialists, they get indignant and complain about conservative name-calling.  But, according to a new Gallup poll, over half of Democrats DO like socialism:

A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism, compared to 17% of Republicans.

Sixty-one percent of liberals say their image of socialism is positive, compared to 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives.

via Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans.

HT: Joe Carter

All together, 36% of Americans are favorably inclined towards socialism, which of course means that 64% do not. This suggests, though, that the ideological divisions in this country are not just violations of civility or political exaggerations, but real and deep.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X