With the Republican hit machine deciding that the term “socialism” should be the cornerstone of the attack on President Barack Obama new revelations about the Bank of America purchase of Merrill Lynch should provide some interesting discussion. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating the lack of full disclosure by BoA of the mounting losses at Merrill that they knew about before the purchase. From the Washington Post:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and former Treasury secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. threatened to remove the management and board of Bank of America if it backed out of its deal to acquire ailing investment house Merrill Lynch late last year, according to documents released yesterday by New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo.
Kenneth Lewis, Bank of America’s chief executive, told investigators he wanted to stop the merger because “devastating losses” at Merrill would be detrimental to his company, the documents show. But the threat from Paulson changed his mind, he told the attorney general’s office.
Paulson said he made the threat at the request of Bernanke, according to the documents, out of concern about the danger to the wider financial system.
So the Republican Administration of President George W. Bush not only threatened to remove the CEO of the biggest bank in the country and the entire board of directors, they ordered him to conceal the material facts surrounding the huge losses mounting at Merrill. Sounds suspiciously like “socialism” to me. Socialism for the financial class. And it more than likely violated many state and federal laws dealing with public disclosure of material facts in a merger of public companies. Some might even say that BoA shareholders were victimized by a conspiracy to defraud them by imposing the acquisition on to their balance sheet by fraud and intimidation.
Lest there be any doubt about the Paulson use of threats and intimidation to bend businesses to his will lets return to the Post:
In a series of interviews last year, Paulson acknowledged he often had to force firms to bend to his will to prevent the banking system from collapsing. Those actions required him to stretch the boundaries of his authority as Treasury secretary, he said.
“Even if you don’t have the authorities — and frankly I didn’t have the authorities for anything — if you take charge, people will follow,” Paulson said in the interviews. “Someone has to pull it all together.”
I am not sure what our Republican friends would call that? Do you think that socialism might be a term used?
Bill Manzi.com 
Mr. Mayor:
I think they’d be nothing but confused. I mean, this countries greatest socialist politician is enthusiastically supported by our right honorable friends. Maybe it’s different when it’s *your* socialists vs *their* socialists.
Either that, or they just don’t know the definition of the term. Who knows? Sometimes, you need a scorecard just to keep up.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/tundra-talk/1-talk-of-the-tundra/275-sarah-palin-is-the-nations-socialist-superstar-.html
-FM
LikeLike
Mayor,,
Now I know why you post verbose blogs about sing song Republicans; deflection….
Oh wait, Jules already said that…. 😉
LikeLike
Your Honor,
We are on our way to the greatest shift in American Constitutional principle in US history since the American revolution. Essentially, we seem to be retrograding to that which we threw off. Instead of King George we will have Barack Obama.
53% of the American people find no problem with this turn of events, the Democratic congress, long yearning to implement it’s Social policies and Obama with his Chicago internship as a social engineer and his successful election as president,is now directing the country toward his socialist Dream.
The Republican party has proved inept to counter this movement, and Conservatism is part of a shrinking population.
You miss what is right in front of you. You have won. What you have won will become evident as time goes by. Probably a giant version of what Massachusetts is.
Some evidence already exists;
Obama fires people he may not have the legal right to do.
The power of the contract has been negated.
Obama speaks, congress enacts and no one of consequence complains. There are still some conservative Democrats that can derail occasional extreme legislation, but the democrat machine will displace them.
All those things you wrote above are irrelevant in view of the overall picture.
Jules.
LikeLike
Jules:
This conservatism you speak of:
1) What exactly is it? How do you define it?
2) How far back in history do I have to go before I find examples?
Certainly had to be before Ronald Ray-gun, I think of him as the beginning of your end, where the “cut taxes and spend wildly” manta first took hold of your movement, and carry on to this day.
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
What’s the use. You wouldn’t buy anything I said anyway.
Jules (RWT)
LikeLike
Your Honor,
A Sound Off entry in last week’s Tribune sounded the joys of Socialism. Yesterday another caller supported the first.
I have never seen that before (except in this blog).
That is why I am worried that the drive toward Socialism is not a function of politics, but an expectation of the public.
Jules
LikeLike
Mr RWT:
Try me. You’re not trying to convince me, just to explain what your terms mean to you.
I’m not looking for a gotcha moment here.
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
Conservatism, by definition, is a resistance to change. That means for American conservatism self responsibility, low taxes, strong defense and free enterprise. By definition, conservatism is a philosophy of life not a political party. Conservatism in the United States conducts itself based on Constitution law.
Conservatism is not a religion, but attracts people of religion.
Conservatives are not Republicans but tends to vote republican as it more closely adheres to conservative principles.
Conservatives and Republicans are at a political disadvantage getting out their message as it makes no social engineering promises.
I feel, with substantial evidence,that the American population has shifted far to the left and are becoming more dependent on government.
A conservative future is bleak.
Your turn.
Jules (RWT)
LikeLike
Mr. RWT:
OK, you draw a distinction between conservatism and Republicanism (past maybe, certainly present). Let me prod you with some more questions, so that I can figure out some of the distinctions:
1) Given that the military is the very definition of a change agent, why is a strong military a part of conservatism?
2) In the same vein: conservatives of the past wanted no part of foreign wars, including WWII, which they saw as a European problem. By your definition of a resistance to change, I understand the position. But now, Republicans start pre-emptive wars. Is that a position that a conservative would reject (even if a Republican would accept)?
3) An observation: Either or both Republicans and conservatives are certainly into social engineering, all you need do is look at positions on abortion, gay marriage, gays in military, business deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. etc. Let’s pick an issue like abortion. How does a conservative square the notion of self responsibility with the seeming need to restrict self responsibility and define what should be right for that individual?
4) You say that conservatism conducts itself on Constitutional law. The Constitution defines the structure of government and the rights of citizens. Two questions:
a) In more than a few cases in our recent past, articles contained within the Constitution were most likely violated by a Republican led government. Is the conservative reaction different than the Republican reaction?
b) If the body of the Constitution defines government, why is it that conservatives seem to virulently object to government of any kind?
5) By its definition, is conservatism an all or nothing proposition? For instance, you can see that a selection of the population would like to pay higher taxes to enable a wider variety of services. This obviously impacts a conservative’s desire for low taxes (and a consequent lower level of service).
Must we all be conservatives for conservatism to succeed?
6) The preamble to the Constitution defines one of the goals is to “promote the general Welfare”. What does this mean to a conservative?
That’s a start …
-FM
LikeLike