Is this true?

[Smarmie Doofus]

>>>The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting money from private industry or private sources is essentially a socialist argument.
Newt Gingrich>>>>>>>>

And if it's not a "socialist" argument.... what kind of argument would it be?

[Motown_Johnny]

1. a common sense argument

money is power

power corrupts

money corrupts


Hardly an argument, more like a statement of fact.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. If so, is he correct in ( inadvertently) pointing to "socialism"....

... as the solution to the problem? ( assuming it IS a problem. I sure think it is.)

Or is there some other remedy short of "socialism"? If so.... what?

[Motown_Johnny]

8. common sense supersedes political and economic systems

Making sense does not need to be socialist, capitalist, communist or any other -ist.

[Downwinder]

13. Isn't it socialistic to have others funding your campaign?

If it is capitalistic it means selling yourself to the contributors.

[SamKnause]

2. No it is not true.

It is definitely not a Socialist argument.

It is an argument devoid of facts.

Newt Gingrich and his ilk lie.

Facts do not.

Everything they disagree with is labeled Socialist.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. Well... yes. But...

to me it raises question about the possible rehabilitation of the word "socialist".

I mean... as a "good" thing.

If our premise is that under ( whatever you want to call the existing political/economic order; lets go w. "Status Quo&quot politicians are essentially bought and sold , and to recognize that as an objective evil.... then wouldn't "socialism" be the obvious antidote?

Can elected reps be funded w/o being "bought and sold" under the current system?

[SamKnause]

7. Not under the current system.

The current system is broken.

Those who hold office are not interested in fixing the system.

Many have become millionaires because of the system.

The definition of socialism does not need to be rehabilitated.

Most people in the U.S. do not know the definition of Socialism or the benefits of such a system.

Teaching people the benefits of Socialism would be a great start.

Those who are in control of our government fear Socialism and they have drummed this into their constituents.

They have attacked South American countries for decades to keep Socialism at bay.

They are still trying to sell the notion that the poor crashed the world economy.

They have yet to admit that greed, corruption, and illegal activities were the cause.

Socialism has never been given a chance without constant interference from capitalistic countries.

P.S. As long as this country let's the Supreme Court get away with telling us that corporations are people and money equals speech nothing will change.

[djean111]

12. Yup.

[sufrommich]

3. If it came out of Gingrich's mouth,it's not true.nt

[djean111]

5. It seems to me that it would be a Democratic argument. BUT - Newt is just - successfully -

rehabilitating and redefining the act of taking the money by associating the thought that it is wrong to do so with Socialism. He is just "un-tainting" the Congressman, or trying to. He is redefining taint and saying it is okay to take the money, and associating the thought that taking money is bad with the hated Socialism. Presumably because Socialism might require every Congressman getting the same amount of payola?
This makes me afraid SCOTUS is going to double down on corporations being people and taking the limits off of direct contributions.
Soon the candidates may show up for debates wearing Nascar jackets studded and embroidered with sponsors.

And I seriously cannot type "taint" any more, an old joke keeps popping up.

[Smarmie Doofus]

9. So, take the word "socialism" out; he's really saying there's no difference...

between "bribery" and ..... errr... "legitimate" campaign contributions?

And secondly....
>>>Presumably because Socialism might require every Congressman getting the same amount of payola? >>>>>

NYC has a partial public financing system which makes it easier for candidates to turn down "tainted" money... at least theoretically. Currently we're trying to expand it statewide. ( That'll be TOUGH.)

A kind of "socialism" , I guess. If you accept the Gingrich analysis. Will SCOTUS ban the NYC system at some point?

Thirdly... when is bribery... you know... "bribery"?

[djean111]

11. This is Newt talking to whatever is left of his choir. Not to be taken really seriously.

The only thing to take seriously is maybe the GOP is using Newt to float gaseous balloons.

[Scuba]

10. To paraphrase Jimmy Carter, I don't pay any attention to Newt. He's a lying asshole."

[randome]

14. Right up there with 'Greed is good.'

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]