It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Originally posted by ExPostFacto

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.


The problem is, where and when does he draw the line? Where do you draw the line?

After all the non-government-supported competition is gone? When we've committed another $1,000,000,000,000? $5,000,000,000,000?

Which private enterprises deserve "not to fail?" Obama gets to make that decision? Who else?

This is a "slippery slope" that we are already on. It is time to get off it now before it picks up greater momentum.

Why not?

jw




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Okay I'll do this one more time for you...

Benito Mussolini himself noted that fascism is a merger between state and corporate power .

It is my opinion that the USA has for decades been a fascist state as corporations through the application of $$ via lobbyists have seized control of the representatives of the people and now control them for the well being of the corporations.

A perfect example of how this works in toady's news is this:


A review of lobbying reports filed indicates that finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) interests paid over $42 million to lobbyists who worked to defeat mortgage write-down in bankruptcy (cramdown) in the first quarter of 2009, as well as other anti-consumer legislation such as capping credit card interest rates.
link

I know this is not exactly what Mussolini had in mind, but as is commonly stated when reading about fascism, there is no SINGLE or TRUE form of fascism as the many paths that lead a nation down the path towards adopting it as a functional order are of course incredibly diverse.

In one of your last responses to me you asked, 'why would corporations ever need help from the government if they were in fact in control?'

The answer is simple, in a fascist state there are few classes of people. There are those in power (corporate elite) and the subjugated working class who are oppressed by the corporate elite.

The Elite, as we watched over the last decade have forced deregulation of the markets and raided the coffers of both the corporations themselves and the state for the economic gain of the few individuals at the top.

Also beyond this raiding of the coffers, the merger of the state and the corporation does not protect this conglomerate from the whims of the market, and as we have seen they are still subject to its ups and downs.

Trying to critique Obama for his choice of actions to rebuild the economic viability of the USA is all well and good, but trying to cast him as a 'economic fascist' is extreme. While he is responsible for forcing out the heads of various institutions, that was a price those institutions agreed to pay for the economic backing of the government.

The argument you are making I believe wold be more accuracy cast as an argument for 'free markets' and 'regulated markets' disguised in the guise of a critique on fascism.

You accuse me of trying to present my argument along party lines and only selectively siting sources that do just this, when in fact I see LITTLE proof of this in anything I have presented.

Comparatively your primary source for your point of view on 'economic fascism' is the product of the site: Human Events . Com : The headquarters of the Conservative Underground, written by Jerry Doyle the former Republican Candidate and now right wing radio talker, hardly an unbiased source.

You may not like my statement and belief that fascism in the USA is clearly seen in the power that corporations wield over our representatives, but that is fine with me.

Just because Jerry Doyle states:

Economic fascism can be defined as government control over the four P’s: Product, Price, Profit Margin, and People. When the government controls the product created by the market, when it controls the price structure for product and company securities, when it controls how much profit particular companies can make, and when it controls the people who are hired and fired, economic freedom has been banished, and economic fascism reigns supreme.
your link

does not mean that he is correct. In fact the idea of 'economic fascism' is generally none existent, you can talk about the economics OF fascism but economic fascism is actually refereed to as 'corporatism'. Even talking about the economics of fascism I find little or no references to Jerry's "4 Ps". Can you find other sources beyond Jerry that show any support for this idea?

Talking about Fascism in general I like the break down done by author Laurence W. Britt who provides the " fourteen common threads" which link the various popular fascist regimes. These are:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
link

These 14 points point more towards what is already happening in the USA rather than to the actions of Obama.

Personally if you want to show that Obama is in fact a Corporatist you are going to have to do more than merely citing a quote from Jerry on Human Events . Com.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by Animal]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


No, no, no...don't pop the bubble.

The budget and debt weren't running rampant before Obama.
Signs of the economy slowing weren't visible as far back as 2005, if you were listening to the right economists.
No one knew we were headed into a recession, as far back as 2007.
Consistent deregulation of the financial market could never lead to corporate corruption, subprime lending, and all of the plethora of reasons that the economy was, apparently on the brink of global collapse.
No-Bid contracts never happened.
All those tax-returns...there should have been more.

The past is the past, leave it be...we're in the present now...when a Democrat is in office and the economy goes bad, its their fault and their fault only...but when a Democrat is in office and the economy is good, its because of the noble actions of the previous Republican Administration...no, its because of Reagan....



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Its not only becoming obvious, Team Obama's plans are slowly being exposed for what they are. I mean gee, Rahm Emanual unwittingly revealed such when he uttered those famous words "Never want a serious crisis to go to waste."


Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
reply to post by jdub297
 


Its not only becoming obvious, Team Obama's plans are slowly being exposed for what they are. I mean gee, Rahm Emanual unwittingly revealed such when he uttered those famous words "Never want a serious crisis to go to waste."


Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis


Sorry to be contrarian, but Rahm Emanual uttering such words is utterly and completely meaningless. Said maxim is and has been a standard in political theory for centuries, Bush employed the same maxim after 9/11, Clinton employed it, HW. Bush employed it with Gulf War 1, every president seated in during the Cold War employed it.....they all do...in every seat of high office, in every country, in every era of history...

So, Rahm Emanual said so in public earshot....our illusion is so shattered...



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Hey, if you don't want to consider Human Events, I can understand.

Let's just go to your source, Wikipedia:

Trying to handle the crisis, the government nationalized the holdings of large banks which had accrued significant industrial securities. The government also issued new securities to provide a source of credit for the banks and began enlisting the help of various cartels….
The government offered recognition and support to these organizations in exchange for promises that they would manipulate prices in accordance with government priorities.

A number of mixed entities were formed… whose purpose it was to bring together representatives of the government and of the major businesses.… This economic model based on a partnership between government and business was soon extended to the political sphere, in what came to be known as corporatism.…

Various banking and industrial companies were financially supported by the state.… [The national leader] created the [New Governmental Entity]….[which soon] controlled 20% of [the nation's] industry through government-linked companies.… [The national leader] also adopted a Keynesian policy of government spending on public works to stimulate the economy.… Public works spending tripled to overtake defense spending as the largest item of government expenditure.

Wikipedia.org "Fascism"
www.en.wikipedia.org...

But, what about the "fact" that "economic fascism" doesn't exist (with or without the "of")?


A quick Google search produces plenty of similar summaries of "economic fascism."

spectator.org...
www.google.org..."economic fascism"

And just a short re-cap of recent developments:

Just as Mussolini did (in slightly different words), Obama repeatedly talks about using government to "leverage" private investment for the greater good. And now, he actually dared to force a private corporation, General Motors, to fire its CEO. Meanwhile, his close ally Barney Frank introduced a bill to give the Treasury Secretary the power to set all salary levels for all employees of any companies in which the government has a capital stake.

Congress has delegated so much economic authority to the Treasury, the Fed, and the president that the Constitution itself has almost certainly been shredded in the panic.

spectator.org...

I know; it's The American Spectator, but you don't really expect Time or The Nation or New Republic to print anything critical of Barack Obama did you? Time, alone, has featured Obama on the cover 13 times in less than a year! And not once, in a critical light!

How about a different perspective on "corporate control of government?"


“Obama's Economic Policy: Washington Knows Best”

President Obama's vision of the future is, apparently, an economy guided, steered and - when the occasion demands - commanded by the federal government. Some of the companies will remain private. Washington will take others over. But all will look to the White House as to how and when and where to proceed.
Companies will not look out for their shareholders or their employees or even their customers so much as watch the smoke signals from Washington to decide what to do. The markets won't control decisions. Washington will.
The same balance of government control and nominal private ownership is evident in the mortgage rescue plan and the efforts to rekindle consumer lending. It will be manifest in the cap-and-trade legislation and in the priority that the administration will accord to green lending and job creation.


“Obama's Economic Policy: Washington Knows Best”
www.realclearpolitics.com...
www.realclearpolitics.com...


jw


[edit on 6-5-2009 by jdub297]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Jdub. I commend you for nurturing this thread long in an objective fashion. Searching for erudite sources wherever possible.

Admitttedly, I know little on the topic of economics. So you got me thinking. In doing some initial research, I came across this article from Obama's peers at Harvard. A 100 day review. Granted it is his alma mater I would have expected kid gloves, but it is not all roses.
Thought it might be of use on this thread.

www.news.harvard.edu...

Regards...KK

[edit on 6-5-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Thanks for the heads up!

By coincidinece, the very first observation of the '100 Days' is on "Fiscal Policy." How appropriate.

What do Obama's brethren say?

The most worrisome developments are the creeping abandonment of some key pillars of sound policy: free trade, private ownership, and rule of law. The “Buy American” clause in the stimulus package was an embarrassing moment of neoprotectionism. Public management of General Motors is misguided. The punitive 90 percent bonus tax was egregious expropriation. The United States is going to leave this recession with a massive public debt, and it shouldn’t also lose the basic ingredients of economic success.

www.news.harvard.edu...

Good find! Even the Harvard elites see the problems with too much government interference with "free-enterprise." In fact, the author of this piece also refuses to buy into the "too big to fail" propaganda.


Not every bank needs to be saved. The Treasury Department is too afraid of bankruptcy and receivership, which means that too much taxpayer money is going to help bank owners and creditors.


Thanks again. s4u.

jw



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 

I've never endorsed the "kill the messenger" mentality. Regardless of the source, facts cannot be changed.

I have just barely heard of Gerald Celente and have perused his website infrequently.

He seems to be considered credible and responsible on ATS, though. He is referred to as a "trend spotter" and promotes himself and his organization as visionary consultants.

Mr. Celente was recently the subject of the 1st ATS Press Corps interview. A transcript of the interview is on ATS:

"Just say NO! Interview with Gerald Celente (Flagged 90+ times, and growing! )

Mr. Celente was asked about recent developments and the Obama presidency.

Perhaps his comments are worth considering:


We are turning closer and closer into a fascist state. I don't say that as hyperbole, as a merger of corporate and state powers, by definition according to Mussolini - who knew a thing or two about fascism --- is called fascism.


"Just say NO!" Interview with Gerald Celente"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, Mr. Celente sees the country becoming fascist, and as defined by Mussolini!"

jw



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Considering he current state the US economy, surely it's only going to make things better if things are controlled more by the govt? Great to see that Obama planning to target the city to clear up the mess they've created. So much for him working for the NWO!!

www.telegraph.co.uk... or.html

Maybe Obama has deceived the fat cats in the city!?!



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by JJM07
 
Given that it has largely been government that helped create the economic mess, it is unlikely that government will be the solution.

Obama's control over private enterprise is only step one of his plan to reshape American society and even our individual lives.

jw



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join