Am I correct in believing that the same Republicans who attacked the Democrats for not pushing for regulation (claiming that suck regulation would have kept us out of this mess we're in) are the same ones who are attacking the Dems now for wanting to pass regulation?

Personally I think it's clear that many companies are beholden to their stock holders (and own self-interests) and will try to game the system where possible.

I think before the government passes any regulations they should look at the policies and procedures of “good” companies as a guideline in developing regulation that makes sense.

I fear the government will over-regulate (and strangulate) what they do not understand. The regulators know which companies are sounder than others and should be reflective of their policies.

I've already stated I don't want the U.S. to become a “democratic socialist European nation,” whatever that is supposed to mean, but I have noticed people (okay, the Right specifically) throw these labels around and more often than not they haven't the first clue what they actually mean in any context outside of, “Well I heard it on fill_in_the_blank_media_show and damned if it doesn't sound bad.”

So if you're going to play, then play. Answer my questions in a substantive way.

Do you view “democratic socialist European nations” as being particularly innovative? Leading with technology / new business ideas / creative problem solving?

YES!!!
YES!!!

Eurocopter is the largest helicopter company in the world, Airbus is either the largest or second largest commercial airplane company in the world, Renault, VW and Daimler are the 3rd , 4th or 5th largest car companies in the world, we won't mention trains, or cell-phones( The EU has set the global standard for cellular technology), some of the largest pharmaceutical (Merck, Zeneca-Astra) companies in the world are European, their weapons manufacturing is second to none, the word Exocet ring a bell, when it comes to Nuclear Power no one is as good as the French, and when it comes to Solar Power the Germans are global leaders, and the Danes are global leaders in wind power.

So let me boil it down for you, the EU is the largest economy in the world with one of the highest living standards in the world and you don't get there by sticking your thumb up your ass and sitting on it.

And somehow they manage to do all of this while having universal health care, free education, thirty hour workweeks and 5 weeks paid vacation.

And before you tell me that the reason they can do all of this is that they are totally dependent on the US military umbrella, let me point out that the five big EU countries combined spend about 30% of what we do on their military which is more than enough to kick the shit out of any conventional military other than ours and possibly the Russians.

Do you view “democratic socialist European nations” as being particularly innovative? Leading with technology / new business ideas / creative problem solving?

Not talking about individual personal qualities of the people themselves, here, but the overall political / business climate. What say ye?

what would be inherently bad about America becoming more similar to a “democratic socialist European nation”?

<sarcasm>My hard-earned tax dollars would end up supporting lazy n**gers & sp*cs driving…</sarcasm>

* a great increase in the extent of government interventionism

* left-politicization of the economy and of society”

Well once again I need to ask – what makes these points inherently bad? Simply listing them and '''calling''' them bad doesn't tell me anything. I realize the concepts bring up red flags for some of you, but I'm more interested in whether you can personally articulate these positions or if maybe you're just repeating common talking points with no idea of what they really mean.

Um, nothing as far as I am concerned. “Democratic socialism” is not a scary word to me. I don't have nightmares about stuff like universal access to health care regardless of ability to pay. We're not even going to get that much in this country, much less systemic democratic socialism.

I do hope for it to happen. I just know it won't.

Envision the future. Everything is regulated and all regulation is benign, wistful and sincerely seeks the common good. No more senseless greed, no more power hungry politicians, no more incompetent bureaucrats. A world order so benificent that even right and left will disappear into common agreement. Ah, that “Brave New World”.

So, stop your whining, those of you who cannot see the light. Humankind is good and fair and unselfish. No more hunger, no more sorrow. All team sports will be played to a tie so that no fan will be disappointed. The lion will down with the lamb….and Paris Hilton will lie down with everybody. Reality will no longer impede our progress.

Yes, America will be destroyed, but only as a necessary step to the great benevolence of the new world order. Brush up on your Esperanto, learn the words to Kumbaya. Pass the Soma; Utopia is around the corner.

(That is a suitable basis for comparison. We've even seen a lukewarm bit of this with the “new” GM.)

I actually described what it would mean, which would be harmful, and of course each earning its stigma:

* power even much more centralized in Washington

* a great increase in the extent of government interventionism

* left-politicization of the economy and of society

Don't forget that we don't have decades we can look forward to of living off the protection of some other, more powerful nation militarily (and economically) while we fritter our money on vote-buying in the name of “social solidarity” instead (while making it popular to denigrate that nation, burn its flag, protest its leadership when it's not liberal or Democratic), either.

Now DLS' point is something I can grasp. And I also have to ask the same question Ethos asked:

“Not that I hope for it to happen, but out of curiosity – what would be inherently bad about America becoming more similar to a “democratic socialist European nation”?

Aside from the generic stigma attached to each term of course.

A lot of the President's new powers have been wrapped up in the idea that he is somehow a Commander-in-Chief over us all in times of war. And of course that state of affairs has been made permanent since we're always involved in some war somewhere.