"It’s time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership, which gives the government authority to take over BP’s operations in the Gulf of Mexico until the gusher is stopped. This is the only way the public know what’s going on, be confident enough resources are being put to stopping the gusher, ensure BP’s strategy is correct, know the government has enough clout to force BP to use a different one if necessary, and be sure the President is ultimately in charge," Robert Reich, Obama economic advisor and former US President Bill Clinton's Sec. of Labor.


http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes...iref=allsearch

With these Socialists now in the helm of our Country; this was not unexpected. I really didn't expect it so soon though.

But as Rohm Emmanuel said "Never waste a good crisis"

Now this confuses me....but then again I am very, very close to the big 60.

The Repubs have be complaining that Obama isn't doing enough...now a former Clinton cabinet guy makes a comment about taking over BP to better manage the spill stuff and you call it socialist?

YA just can't win. Or even get close.

Originally Posted by cologal

Now this confuses me....but then again I am very, very close to the big 60.

The Repubs have be complaining that Obama isn't doing enough...now a former Clinton cabinet guy makes a comment about taking over BP to better manage the spill stuff and you call it socialist?

YA just can't win. Or even get close.

I hope you are not really that naive.

Yoda

Originally Posted by cologal

Now this confuses me....but then again I am very, very close to the big 60.

The Repubs have be complaining that Obama isn't doing enough...now a former Clinton cabinet guy makes a comment about taking over BP to better manage the spill stuff and you call it socialist?

YA just can't win. Or even get close.

I have a feeling you must be just having fun now, because I can't believe that anyone seriously does not see the government takeover of private industry as a move of a Socialist/Capitalist regime.

So the fact that the government is selling it's stake in Citicorp and GM is preparing for an IPO, which will allow the government to sell THAT stake means nothing to you?

Originally Posted by djplong

So the fact that the government is selling it's stake in Citicorp and GM is preparing for an IPO, which will allow the government to sell THAT stake means nothing to you?

Not really. The acquisition of these businesses were a travesty in the first place and the beginnings of the "slippery slope". Once the populace get used to the idea, when delivered in small palatable doses of the government takeover of private businesses, it will become easier and easier for the government to escalate this practice into outright seizure of private businesses.

Far-fetched? I bet there were a lot of people in Brazil who thought so once.

Except when the alternative is "nothing". That's exactly where GM would be. *All* those autoworkers would have had their jobs at risk. In the end, after it's all over, GM and Citicorp will be in the hands of private investors. That's not Socialism. Socialism says the government KEEPS ownership.

You can argue that it's Socialistic, just like Medicare is, just like the military is, etc. But there is no difference between what happened here and what happened with Penn Central which became Conrail back some 30 years ago. The government sold THAT enterprise at quite a profit.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I have a feeling you must be just having fun now, because I can't believe that anyone seriously does not see the government takeover of private industry as a move of a Socialist/Capitalist regime.

No...my point is one guy expressing an opinion doesn't make a Socialist takeover. So when the government actually takes over BP, which I hight doubt, then get back to me.

Originally Posted by djplong

Except when the alternative is "nothing". That's exactly where GM would be. *All* those autoworkers would have had their jobs at risk. In the end, after it's all over, GM and Citicorp will be in the hands of private investors. That's not Socialism. Socialism says the government KEEPS ownership.

You can argue that it's Socialistic, just like Medicare is, just like the military is, etc. But there is no difference between what happened here and what happened with Penn Central which became Conrail back some 30 years ago. The government sold THAT enterprise at quite a profit.

We'll see what happens when it all shakes out. Already GM has lied about paying back the Stimulus monies and we'll eventually find out what else is duplicitous in this government takeover.

If GM couldn't make it and failed; their business would have fallen to their competitors who are better equipped to handle the new marketplace as it has been since the beginning of free enterprise.
There are companies failing every day; why not take over their businesses and institute unfair government owned competition of their competitors?

My opinion which is pretty simple minded, I understand is that the worry for me, at least, is not so much the bailouts, although I opposed most of them, but underlying feeling of this President that he brings to each and every issue and that is of two things.....BIG government, and what he has called...I didnt make this up...the sharing of the wealth.

When you have that kind of attitude and you apply it to all decisions, and he does and always has (In his defense, if you read, he has no choice..this is the way he was trained and educated) then you will naturally lean toward any definition of socialism !