The article is entitled "Who You Calling Socialist?", and is written by Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post.
This was the most entertaining article I have read in this class. First of all, the writer makes a very sarcastic reference to the health care situation:"Their signal success is to have kept the United States free from the taint of universal health care. The result: We have the world's highest health-care costs, borne by businesses and employees that cannot afford them; nearly 50 million Americans have no coverage; infant mortality rates are higher than those in 41 nations -- but at least (phew!) we don't have socialized medicine."
I thought that statement was very true and epitomizes what has been on the minds of certain individuals.
The writer goes on to make the point that not only did conservatives attack Obabma, but they also attacked Roosevelt. However, as the writer puts it, both men were simply "engaged not in creating socialism but in rebooting a crashed capitalist system." This makes sense as the investment of money into education and research can only lead to a more competitive private sector and the results thereof. The banking system needs to stay in check as well.
The part that really gets me is that all these different people take shots at Obama and his methods and so forth, however these same idiots don't have an answer for the economy themselves. They simply argue with those available; it would be different if they had some idea of how to successfully combat the economic crisis, but guess what? THEY DON'T! THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA.
The writer goes on to detail just how miserable the economy is - this is due in part to the policies of those who are actually spear-heading the criticism:
1) failures of the great Wall Street investment houses and the worldwide crisis of commercial banks
2) the collapse of East Asian, German and American exports
3) the death rattle of the U.S. auto industry
4) the plunge of stock markets everywhere
5) the sickening rise in global joblessness
6) the growing shakiness of governments in fledgling democracies that opened themselves to the world market
That is quite a list and given these parameters, the writer argues that a more social capitalism is necessary - and you know what? He is probably right.
