Isn't It Becoming Obvious That Obama Is an Economic Fascist?

Fascism has been described as “the merger of the corporation and the government.” Benito Mussolini

Economic fascism is sometimes described as government control over "the four P’s": Product, Price, Profit, and People.

(see: www.humanevents.com...)

When government controls the product created by the market, the prices of the product and company securities, the profit companies earn, and the people who work for them, free enterprise (capitalism) loses, and economic fascism take charge.

Economic fascism has risen up in Barack Obama’s America; revealed in the government takeover of the TARP banks, AIG, GM and now, Chrysler.

Recent proof:

Obama stated that the banks’, GM’s and Chrysler’s products had to be revamped --and that he knew how best to do it.

Then, Obama announced that he would be setting prices.

As for Chrysler’s bond debt, Obama demanded paying secured debtholders $0.29 on the dollar for their loans. When they refused, Obama excluded them from negotiations, called them “speculators,” and blamed them for Chrysler’s downfall (supporting the interests of four large banks -- Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley -- that own 70 percent of Chryslers debt, each of which have taken government bailout cash).

Obama claims to be a populist, but decries the basis of American free enterprise: the right of investors to lend money at interest. Instead, he says he 'stands with employees, families, and communities' – all of whom would be bankrupt without the power of private investment.

Next, Obama stated that he would control the profit margins for major (TARP-funded) banks, GM and Chrysler. He did this by effectively taking ownership of the banks and GM and putting the unions in control of Chrysler.

Obama will set profit margins for auto executives in the same way he unilaterally set them for banks and Wall Street. Obama says he stands for the “employees,” not for the bosses. Where bosses used to employ the employees, the government will now do the job.

Finally, Obama decided that the government controls the people who are hired and fired at these companies. After firing the head of GM, Obama forced out the head of Chrysler. With Ken Lewis’ ouster at Bank of America, he has effectively begun revamping operations at the largest banks. He stacked Chrysler’s board of directors with government picks, Fiat picks, and union picks. Chrysler, like GM and the TARP banks, is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the federal government.

After urging us to “buy American,” Obama handed over control of Chrysler to an Italian company, Fiat! Fiat is now assembling a European auto conglomerate to run Chrysler AND GM operations!
(see: “Fiat eyes new company with GM Europe, Chrysler”
www.washingtonpost.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.washingtonpost.com...)

In these “Change” -ing times, many question whether American free enterprise will survive. It will not. It has not. We are already living under economic fascism.

It is dangerous today to use the word “fascism” lightly. Dems/Libs/Progressives use the term without regard to its meeting -- for them, “fascism” applies to everything from religious social perspectives to conservative tax cuts. But economic fascism has a precise, defined meaning. Barack Obama’s economic policy fulfills that meaning in every conceivable way.

Source: www.humanevents.com...

jw

Related stories:
www.freerepublic.com...

www.reuters.com...


Related thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 4-5-2009 by jdub297]

[edit on 4-5-2009 by jdub297]

As much as I don't like Obama I am happy about this new plan to stop the off shore accounts of corporations from hiding their tax shelters. I did watch the press conference and though I really don't trust this guy at all, it is past time that someone did something about the foreign outsourcing of American jobs.

I don't trust the man at all, but this might not be too bad.

Originally posted by redhead57
As much as I don't like Obama I am happy about this new plan to stop the off shore accounts of corporations from hiding their tax shelters. I did watch the press conference and though I really don't trust this guy at all, it is past time that someone did something about the foreign outsourcing of American jobs.

I don't trust the man at all, but this might not be too bad.

Agree 100%

And to add he should take a good hard look at the Crise Ship industry
who skirt federal tax laws by registering their ships in foreign countries and
pay crew the equivalent of "sweat shop salaries."

That seems like a good start in the right direction.





[edit on 4-5-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by redhead57


Obama has moved passed outsourcing jobs, he is outsourcing the whole darn company. How can you watch what he is doing to American business and then say oh he sucks but look he is doing this one thing good. Take a step back, look at the big picture, and imagine what this country looks like 3.75 years from now. Sorry I am not attacking anyone, I am just fired up about it.

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


Ask yourself this question:

If the situation were reversed, if Fiat was failing over in Italy and Chrysler was financially stable, and Chrysler bought out Fiat to expand their market, would you be complaining?

I’m willing to bet that no, you, nor anyone who is going on and on about how horrible this buy-out is, would say anything except “Bravissimo!”


On another note, I hope that Fiat starts producing its models in the US, because I’ll be quickly in line for either a Punto or a 500. From first-hand experience from my time in England…they’re great, fuel-efficient, peppy vehicles.

reply to post by jdub297


While I'm certainly not qualified to discuss economics at any great length, I find it illuminating that the OP selected as his primary source of 'outrage' the website 'humanevents', which touts itself as a 'Conservative Underground'. That has ominous overtones to me. I'd suggest a more balanced (and 'fair') response to these twisted allegations.

Interesting observation I have about Chrysler: Used to be Daimler-Benz-Chrysler, didn't it? Then, Daimler shed Chrysler to some Int'l consortium (this during the Bush Administration, if I'm not mistaken) and now, there exists a 'white knight' of sorts. Isn't it better to do SOMETHING to keep Chrysler from liquidation?!? AND, the reference to GM...I thought that was only an attempt to buy the Opel Division (which, as someone pointed out, only markets in Int'l regions anyway). GM is shedding the 'Pontiac' label, just part of their streamlining it would seem following the shedding of 'Oldsmobile' some time ago.

Remember that in the GM litany, there exist only a handful of basic chassis designs; the variety of 'models' come from the labelling and marketing of the various 'divisions' that engender brand loyalty (at least, that was the OLD marketing strategy).

Anyway, perhaps someone with better experience in World Economies can allay some of the OP's fears. Frankly, it seems to me that we are, whether you like it or not, already in a GLOBAL economy, and that is unlikely to ever change.

Feeble attempts to inhibit viable exchange using illogical and specious tariffs and taxes just complicates things and adds to the misery and inequality that we are seeing.

Originally posted by jdub297
Fascism has been described as “the merger of the corporation and the government.” Benito Mussolini

Economic fascism is sometimes described as government control over "the four P’s": Product, Price, Profit, and People.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If Benito said this and was right, the whole world would be fascist, so good luck with that description.
In one way or another corporations and government are merged everywhere.

The keyword is "sometimes". Sometimes people use bad descriptions. And Benito would be good source for those. What a way to start a thread. You don't need to read further people. This thread is based on words of a maniac. You could as well quote the ex prime minister of Italy Berlusconi to make your case.

Fascism has different characteriscs:
1. One person or party in total power (that is not the case in the US)
2 Fascism is anti-communist (lots of people call Obama a communist, so the people are at least confused on this point )
3 Fascism is anti-liberal. No eye for the individual. Fill this one in yourself
4. Fascism very into nationalism and protectionism. Obama is trying to get the US out of that box.

In short, it is a DATED description.
So no, Obama does not fit the description.
For outsiders like me, all these old fashioned descriptions and ideologies on ATS aren't going to help us or the US in this worldly mess. It wil just create frustration and misinterpretation, like any bad description or manual does.

reply to post by redhead57

Businesses that have overseas subsidiaries do nothing wrong if they bank locally. You don't bank across the country do you? You need your account close by. So do company overseas branches.

Otherwise, I doubt there'd be any need for offshore business banking if the tax code wasn't some byzantine puzzle and rates so high as to be confiscatory.

Personal offshore accounts are used for one purpose only: tax evasion.

I believe that the UBS and Credit Suisse matters relate to personal accounts, rather than business accounts.

If we had a better tax system, much of these self-inflicted problems would disappear.

jw

funny i have been saying this for years...

how the CORPORATIONS have taken over our GOVERNMENT....

something that has been quite obvious for quite awhile...

funny that now fascism ='s OBAMA (government) taking over the CORPORATIONS....

also, how does the definition you provide compare to say, the wiki definition:

Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascism is also a corporatist economic ideology.[5] Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[6] Fascists believe that nations and races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in combat against the weak.[7] Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[8] Fascism opposes class conflict and blames capitalist liberal democracies for creating class conflict and in turn blames communists for exploiting class conflict.[9] No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists often disagree on what a concise definition would consist of.[10]

link

Or from, Roger D. Griffin, B.A., Ph.D. Professor, Department of History, Oxford Brookes University

Fascism, modern political ideology that seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic identity. Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence.

Marxist historians and political scientists (that is, those who base their approach on the writings of German political theorist Karl Marx) view fascism as a form of politics that is cynically adopted by governments to support capitalism and to prevent a socialist revolution.

link

interesting differences can be noted between these more general concepts of fascism and the definition you have provided.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I have no problems with U.S. maunfacturers competing globally and doing it with quality products and services. I have immense faith in American ingenuity and industriousness.

I have a problem when the government owns or controls (formerly) private enterprise.
I do not agree that Barack Obama should have the right to tell GM or Chrysler who its CEO should or shouldn't be.
I do not agree that Barack Obama or Congress should tell ANY company what it can or can not pay its employees.
I do not agree that BHO or Congress should dictate what products ANY manufacturer will offer its potential customers. Markets are for that.

I really don't mind if a foreign "white knight" steps in to keep floundering U.S. businesses afloat.

I find it hypocritical to admonish, even legislate, that everyone else should "Buy American" while orchestrating a foreign company's takeover of American production. (Your example of Daimler-Chrysler is telling; no government intervention FORCED that to happen, businessmen and entrepreneurs did!)

"Free" enterprise does not include government ownership of controlling interests in banks, insurance companies, and manufacturers. (Newspapers, magazines and broadcasters are next in line, but for other excuses than "too big to fail.")

The money devoted to "stimulus" and recapitalization of the TARP banks and AIG is far in excess of any potential losses/exposures that would have resulted from their failure.

Fascism is what it is, regardless of any attempt to justify or sugarcoat it.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297

Fascism is what it is, regardless of any attempt to justify or sugarcoat it.

Funny because you are talking about capitalism and NOT fascism.

Even more funny, I think it is much safer to assert that today's capitalism IS in fact creating a fascist state.

reply to post by jdub297


jdub, interesting perspective. It'd be illuminating to compare this Administration's ideas and behavior versus FDR's Administration, seeing how they were/are faced with serious economic crises.

And, it would be fascinating to speculate on how a McCain Administration may have dealt with our current economy. Also, am wondering just how much actual "hands on" a President has in the decisions and actions you've ascribed to President Obama in your OP? How does it compare to previous Presidents of late? (I think Bush 43 could be factored out of THAT discussion -- he had another focus, it seemed....)

Thanks for an intriguing post.

reply to post by madhatr137


No I wouldnt be complaining because I am not Italian, well I am but not born in Italy. If the Italian government handed us Fiat for no money and all the profits they will make over the next 40-50 years then I would be happy because they would be getting the crap end of the stick not us.

What they should have probably considered was loaning money to GM to buy Chrysler or just gave it to them like they did FIAT. Then GM could have put in its decent engines and transmissions and somebody might want to buy those pieces of crap.

Also, I cant wait until the next union contract. The UAW is going to screw itself by giving the workers everything they want or maybe since they can profit from it they will be a little more fair to themselves then they ever were to Chrysler.

Granted it was Chryslers fault for not throwing them out on their behinds years ago.


[edit on 4-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by Animal

... also, how does the definition you provide compare to say, the wiki definition

You are relying on Wikipedia as your authority? Essentially, a blog?

Do you get your news from cartoons?

Now, be vewwy vewwy quiet:

If you're going to selectively 'quote' Wikipedia, wouldn't it be more honest to include their disclaimer?

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2009)
...
Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists often disagree on what a concise definition would consist of.[10]

en.wikipedia.org...

And if you're going to relate a general discussion of fascism to economics, wouldn't it be more honest to use the Wikipedia section labelled "Economic Fascism?"

The central economic idea of all forms of fascism is corporatism. Corporatism is government control of the economy by cartelizing it, that is, by selecting favored firms in an industry. These favoured firms fix prices and create barriers to entry and obstacles for competitors, and by controlling which firms have corporate rights. The government thereby maintains a level of power over the economy.

In Italy, the Fascist period presided over the creation of the largest number of state-owned enterprises in Western Europe.

Fascists opposed laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the Great Depression.[145] After the Great Depression began, many people from across the political spectrum blamed laissez-faire capitalism for the Great Depression, and fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way."

Fascist governments nationalized some key industries, managed their currencies and made some massive state investments. Fascist governments introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of economic interventionist measures.[149] Benito Mussolini promised a "social revolution" that would "remake" the Italian people.[158] The people who primarily benefited from Italian fascist social policies were members of the middle and lower-middle classes, who filled jobs in the vastly expanding government workforce, which grew from about 500,000 to a million jobs in 1930.[159] Health and welfare spending grew dramatically under Italian fascism, rising from 7% of the budget in 1930 to 20% in 1940.

en.wikipedia.org...

And, when you selectively quote Roger Griffin, were you being intentionally deceptive or did you just "overlook" the most relevant part?

Roger Griffin argued, "Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good ground for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own "beyond left and right."[44]

(Id.)

When you chose to selectively quote Griffin, why did you exclude the adjacent references to two other "authorities?" Did you expect that most ATS readers would just accept your mischaracterizations and NOT read the entire article?

According to Paxton, fascism is
“a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”[20]

Benito Mussolini promoted ambiguity about fascism's positions in order to rally as many people to it as possible, saying fascists can be "aristocrats or democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists".[24] Mussolini claimed that Italian Fascism's economic system of corporatism could be identified as either state capitalism or state socialism, which in either case involved "the bureaucratisation of the economic activities of the nation."[25] Mussolini claimed that fascism could be both revolutionary and conservative.[26]

(Id.)

So, if you're counting on the generalizations, how about the Wikipedia 'general summary? Afraid because it doesn't support your agenda?

All fascist movements advocate the creation of an authoritarian government that is an autocratic single-party state led by a charismatic leader with the powers of a dictator. Many fascist movements support the creation of a totalitarian state. The Italian Doctrine of Fascism states: "The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people."[73]
A key element of fascism is its endorsement of a prime national leader, who is often known simply as the "Leader" or a similar title, such as: Duce in Italian, Führer in German, Caudillo in Spanish, or Conducător in Romanian. The fascist movement demands obedience to the leader, and may exhort people worship the leader as an infallible saviour of the people.
Fascist states have pursued policies of indoctrination of society to their fascist movements such as through propaganda deliberately spread through education and media through regulation of the production of education and media material.[89][90]

(Id.)

interesting differences can be noted between these more general concepts of fascism and the definition you have provided.

No, there are no 'interesting differences' about economic fascism, but it is interesting that you selectively choose only certain parts of Wikipedia's 2,000+ word article that suit your bias, instead of the specific sections dealing with economic fascism and the fascist ideology.

As you can see, a thorough and complete consideration of even such a poor source as the Wikipedia blogspot can show that Barack Obama is truly following a clear, undeniable fascist economic agenda.

Thanks for the tip. Glad to help you complete "the rest of the story."

Selective quotation is almost equal to ad hominem as a betrayal of the lack of substance in an argument and the bias of its author.

Deny ignorance!
jw

I had no trouble with GM or Chrysler going broke.

Someone else would have picked up the pieces. GM needs to go broke. Their business model is so far behind and so far removed from consumer preferences, that they should have gone under.

Now, Obama knows what's best for GM.

Hell, he knows what's best for everyone.

And you're going to get it, whether you want to or not.

And that's what's best.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Ordinarily, as Executive, the President has little effect on Legislation except to set his/her preferred policy.

However, Obama has taken the executive and its agencies and cabinet-level posts to conduct an "end around" Congress by establishing rules and regulations without legislative oversight. Congress is then put in a position of "catching up" to enact legislation matching or accomodating the executive actions.

Thus, Energy (and its EPA) can adopt carbon restrictions to which Congress must respond with corresponding laws. Treasury (and the Federal Reserve and SEC) can adopt "conditions" for use of the TARP funds with which banks and other financial institutions must comply. Even private enterprise, such as GM and Chrysler, are forced to alter their operations to accomodate federal funding sources, even to the extent of setting corporate compensation and executive officers as determined by the government.

FDR used feferal resources to create work, but never went so far as to take control of private enterprise and banking. Many banking regualtions came about because of FDR's policies and the de[ressed financial system, but it did not approach the extent of BHO's efforts thus far. And, we've only just begun. FDR had 4 terms!

McCain may have been more liberal on social issues than conservatives wanted, but he was much more economically conservative than BHO. I doubt he would've nationalized banking, insurance and manufacturing.

jw
jw
I haven't seen anything like this in the United States before, and I've been here a while.

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


reply to post by dooper


s4u(X2)
I have no problem with companies living or dying by their own hands and decisions.

Free enterprise accepts profits as well as losses. It also depends on sanctity of contract and security for debt. Obama has taken away these basic tenets, pure and simple.

What has been spent or committed by the U.S. and the Federal reserve, or under TARP and "stimulus," to prop up failed corporations would be more than sufficient to compensate everyone who might have suffered a loss due to their failure.

There is no such thing as "too big to fail."

jw

If you're going to selectively 'quote' Wikipedia, wouldn't it be more honest to include their disclaimer?

"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2009)" -wiki

The above disclaimer was ONLY displayed in the section entitled "Economic Policies" which is why I did not quote that section, but I see you felt like it was worth quoting, so be it...

And if you're going to relate a general discussion of fascism to economics, wouldn't it be more honest to use the Wikipedia section labelled "Economic Fascism?"

There is not a section in wiki called 'Economic Fascism" as I noted above. There is a section entitled "Economic Policies" but I chose not to include it because of the disclaimer you pointed out clearly stating the questionable nature of the content, the content YOU quoted, not me.

And, when you selectively quote Roger Griffin, were you being intentionally deceptive or did you just "overlook" the most relevant part?

Roger Griffin argued, "Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good ground for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own "beyond left and right."[44]

(Id.)

Pray tell, how is this the most relevant part? Is it because it dismisses party lines? If so I did not include it because nothing in what I am saying is party oriented...

When you chose to selectively quote Griffin, why did you exclude the adjacent references to two other "authorities?" Did you expect that most ATS readers would just accept your mischaracterizations and NOT read the entire article?

No I did not quote the entire article I quoted the introduction and I think that was suitable and honestly I cant even find the content you quoted from it....

No, there are no 'interesting differences' about economic fascism, but it is interesting that you selectively choose only certain parts of Wikipedia's 2,000+ word article that suit your bias, instead of the specific sections dealing with economic fascism and the fascist ideology.

Again a section whose validity has been questioned, as you your self pointed out, poorly pointed out I should say because you used the disclaimer as if it called into question the entire article when in fact it was ONLY posted for the section on 'economic policies'....

As you can see, a thorough and complete consideration of even such a poor source as the Wikipedia blogspot can show that Barack Obama is truly following a clear, undeniable fascist economic agenda.

Thanks for the tip. Glad to help you complete "the rest of the story."

Selective quotation is almost equal to ad hominem as a betrayal of the lack of substance in an argument and the bias of its author.

Deny ignorance!
jw

I was pointing out, something you have completely ignored, and danced around my point rather rudely, that fascism is not necessarily the take over of corporations by the government, but in the case of the USA the take over of the government by the corporations. A very easily decipherable reality that has been taking place for decades.

Yes I know you do not like Barack Obama and this is an attempt to refute your current attack on him and the democratic party. But my point stands.

You can pack your responses as full of what ever quotes you want the point I am making is simple and all it requires for validation is the fact that fascism can work wither direction, and in the USA it was the corporations taking over government. Trying to pass it off on Obama is IMHO a sham.


[edit on 4-5-2009 by Animal]

[edit on 4-5-2009 by Animal]

Originally posted by Animal

The above disclaimer was ONLY displayed in the section entitled "Economic Policies" which is why I did not quote that section, but I see you felt like it was worth quoting, so be it...

More selective reading? The disclaimer clearly refers to the article in its entirety, not any specific section. If you followed the "talk" link as suggested, you would know that the disclaimer referred to ongoing discussions about the entire article. Very little mention of economics compared to the rest of the article and its overall content, structure and organization.

Why make things up?

There is not a section in wiki called 'Economic Fascism" as I noted above. There is a section entitled "Economic Policies" but I chose not to include it because of the disclaimer you pointed out clearly stating the questionable nature of the content, the content YOU quoted, not me.

Given that my thread is about Economic Fascism, doesn't it seem like that may be relevant? Want the link to "Economics of Fascism?
en.wikipedia.org...

Pray tell, how is this the most relevant part? Is it because it dismisses party lines? If so I did not include it because nothing in what I am saying is party oriented...

If not, then why only quote the parts that discuss one party/ideology over another?

... you used the disclaimer as if it called into question the entire article when in fact it was ONLY posted for the section on 'economic policies'....

If you follow the suggested link, you'll see that the disclaimer clearly referes to the ENTIRE article, not any particular section.
Or, you could just learn the difference between "article" and "section."

I was pointing out, something you have completely ignored, and danced around my point rather rudely, that fascism is not necessarily the take over of corporations by the government, but in the case of the USA the take over of the government by the corporations.

No. Fascism is a form of political governance, not corporate finance and management. You are just completely and absolutely wrong on this. Did you even the article you selectively quoted from?

It discusses ONLY forms of government. It nowhere even so much as mentions corporate influence of government and politicians. Anywhere.

You have completely fabricated this "point."

This is your belief, and nothing more.

State whatever opinions you want, but don't try to couch them as fact or even as an accepted theory when it is your own construction.

Many people, myself included, believe that coporate influence on politics and politicians has gotten out of hand. That does not make a corporation "fascist." Re-read your blog definition, or maybe consult a real authority like a dictionary or textbook.

... my point stands

on nothing but your own prejudice, beliefs and fears. It does not stand on any fact or theory other than those you've dreamed up.

... the point I am making is simple and all it requires for validation is the fact that fascism can work either direction, and in the USA it was the corporations taking over government.

I understand your "point." You are wrong. There is no source or reliable authority anywhere that believes or even theorizes that a corporation can be "fascist." Fascism is a form of political ideology and government of people, business, and non-business organizations and associations.

As a side note, when and if you want to consider reality for a minute, ask yourself why a coporation that controls its government would need a "bailout." Or allow its government to force it into bankruptcy? Or dictate the structure and composition of its executive offices and board of directors. Or be dictated to on any level about any matter at all? Taxation? Regulation?

How can you ignore the fact the the corporation is a creature OF the government -- it is an "artificial person" allowed to exist independently of the PEOPLE who create and run it in a free- enterprise/capitalist society?
A "corporation" is a legal fiction, and depends on government for its very existence!

Why would any coporation that has taken over its government ever experience any kind of crisis whatsoever?

Barack Obama is an economic fascist.

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 5-5-2009 by jdub297]

I'm just going to say here that I would much rather have a Ron Paul in the office. However, I 100% get what Obama is doing...provided he gets out of the business as quickly as possible, in the long run I won't have a problem with it overall. It's too bad though our government is starting to run like a corporation. Hell they even have an online suggestion box now for government employees to give ideas on how to cut costs in their areas.