How am I not surprised? I could have written that response for you.

But what really puzzles me is that the first part of your definition of socialism describes Hitler's way of running Germany perfectly; as for the second part, if we go by that definition then there has never been a socialist state anywhere, ever. I suppose living in a self-constructed world of purely theoretical abstractions makes it easy to spout your hogwash about "right-wing" this and "left-wing" that.

And tangerine, the government does not penalize me for the mere fact of not buying car insurance. Do you understand? If I choose to buy a car, and want to drive it public roads, I am required to buy car insurance.

Not so with Hillary's health care idea (opposed by Obama during the campaign, now embraced by him.) As I understand it, "mandatory coverage" means the IRS will be penalizing people who do not buy private health insurance, and there is no way to "opt-out," such as there is with car insurance (by simply not driving.)

Of course it's all a big joke, though. The slow drip-drip of bureaucratic nightmare encircling our lives has nothing to do with any of those scary ancient words your sociology professor taught you, like "fascism." I'm sure to the modern American "liberal" student, it is absolutely impossible to have fascism unless you are literally rounding up millions of Jews (not Muslims! -because then Bush/Obama would be pretty close to the mark) and torturing and killing them.

The mere fact of absolute government control over every conceivable aspect of our lives does not fit the description; nor, apparently, does the unquestioned merger of state and private corporate power.

And torturing domestic "enemy combatants," government spying on citizens without due process, "pre-emptive" war and occupation of foreign lands, etc. all of which has been committed by both the Bush and Obama administrations? Well, just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Your PoliSci professor will surely tell you if it starts turning into "true" fascism.

...I need people to explain to me how the National Socialists failed to live up to their own self-description.

Did the government of Germany under Hitler control means of production which had formerly been under private control, yes or no?

Now, is government usurpation of private enterprise the first and most basic requirement of a "socialist" system, yes or no?

Let's start there and then, once we have an actual conversation going, we can start having link-wars to prove how right we are to each other.

Well, I'll be transferring to Columbia University this September, so don't worry about me...I'm sure I'll get my head on straight some day! Cheers

...laughing their asses off at Robert Reich the same way they correctly laughed directly in Tim Geithner's face when he gave them this same "everything-is-fine-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain" BS.

Peter Schiff's funds have nothing to do with the fact that he is documented as correctly predicting the exact nature of this financial crisis years before it happened, while sunny personalities like Robert Reich laughed at him from the comfort of their government pensions.

To beat the market takes precise timing-whether a particular stock tanks in one month or three months is a crucial distinction that can affect performance.

However, for the purpose of general economy, and how it affects the average citizen, such a precise distinction is almost meaningless.

The fact is that Schiff knew the general direction the economy was headed, he knew why it was headed that way, he stated his opinion, and he has turned out to be 100% correct. The fact that he didn't make a bucket of money off the situation is hardly relevant.

...Hitler's pathological megalomania aside, the Nazi party certainly did think they were providing a glorious future for the citizenry--the "true" German citizens. That was definitely their goal and that is why they were initially supported by a large majority of the country.

But a funny thing happened once the Nazis were elected to implement nationalist socialism: the exact same thing that happens every time a centralized national government takes control of the means of production. They began ignoring what the citizens wanted, re-wrote their stated "goals," and followed their own agenda with impunity, because the citizens had already given up their rights.

Your logic seems to be that if a system of government ends badly, it COULDN'T have been socialist. So you're essentially arguing as a dogmatic ideologue, and not with real facts.

Actually, avoiding many details, it is this simple:

GDP = C+I+G+(X-M). When consumption by the general populace is restrained (very low), Private Investment is virtually halted (how many trillions are waiting on the sidelines?), and net exports are negative, then the only remaining entity in this equation is G= government.

Well I guess that settles it. It's too bad that the brilliant Ivy-league social "scientists" who come up with these formulas apparently misplaced it when they were saying that the US would experience only a mild recession in the near future, if there was to be any economic contraction at all, three years ago.

If only they had remembered the formula! Surely it would have predicted the truth...real world truth is always in economic formulas.

Professional pontificators such as Reich have every interest in perpetuating whatever economic theories and actions keep people like Robert Reich at the top of the social/academic/government ladder, whether it is based on any semblance of truth and reality or not.

Obama is no threat at all to the powers that be.