Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Conservatism = Fascism

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
reply to post by dizzie56
 





When has any government program/regulation/whatever turned out well for the collective and if so, how?


The old cry of "the government never does anything right" isn't entirely accurate. The military, the FDA, the CDC, the USPS, the police, the fire departments, the highway system and the FAA all come to mind. As does France's healthcare system. (rated number 1 in the world by the WHO) This doesn't mean the U.S. government could necessarily do healthcare right, but I think we could get pretty close if we attempted to emulate their system. Denmark seems to be doing just fine with their socialized higher education. In fact, they were previously rated the happiest country in the world. Also you could argue that some welfare programs, at least food stamps, do what they are meant to do. Sure it's not perfect, but nobody in America is unwillingly starving to death and that's a pretty good thing.


But there are many, many, many mistakes that the gov has made with the above said programs. Yes, they make mistakes just as all men do, but because they get voted into office does that mean that they are allowed to make decisions for other people at the heads of industry? I could probably point out alot more mistakes that the gov has made in the above programs than the amount of good that they have done to them. Im not saying that all of them should be run solely by the private industries, the military is a prime example of that not being the case. But its also a case of where the gov has screwed up. They send off people to fight our battles but then they ill equip them. They have play politics and chess with our soldiers lives with no regards other than getting that big dinner/fundraiser at the end of the day. Obama not making a decision of whether to pull out or send the requested troops for what, at least a month now, is a prime example of the lack of vested interest that politicians actually have in what they regulate. They dont care, plain and simple. Their only worry is how much face time they get as well as some change in their pocket.

I do realize that we cant let companies become to big to fail. But how is that achieved? Where is the line drawn? If we make over $100k or $100m? Eventually, like all things in gov, the bottom line gets closer and closer. You mention Denmark as an example. They have not even a close amount of people living in their country as we do. Im willing to bet that if we gave the states the right to create their own public health OPTION (thats the key word the dems are forgetting these days), some states would bite. Those that do would be a better comparison to Denmark. If and when that happens, we can revisit that argument.

Im not for somebody just going in there and deregulating the whole country at their will and just lettin loose. As someone stated above, that is called anarchy and it wouldnt be a good thing. It does need to be done in a sliding scale so to speek in order for the little guys to get in. But if the little guy ends up making it big because the people like his product more than the competions, then do we go and regulate him back to the stone age? What about Microsoft? Gates started as a nobody and his product is now used everywhere. Its easy and pretty user friendly. He suceeded at what he did and the people like his product. What if his company would cease to make software, updates, or install anything on new comps. They go out of business. Do we look back and say, gee, maybe we shoulda regulated him more so not so many people used his product?

Lets be honest, this is what it comes down to. The people like a product, they buy it, the owner makes money, and then the company gets bigger. How do we regulate him to where he is not to big to fail if the people like his product so much that it is the only one that they buy or if he even has a majority share in the market? Do we tell people, no, you cant buy that because he is to big? Do we stop him from selling the product? Or, if and when the company starts to fail due to bad investment decisions, do we let it fail and learn from the mistakes and start over. Maybe piece the company out in bankruptcy court. Maybe we the people have to deal with a couple years of hardship, but we dont have to bailout the company and we can still go about our business.

Whenever I hear "government regulation", my immediate thought is, "Oh great, what now?" From lightbulbs to just the hiring of the government workers themselves, I dont see where government has done to much good. To me the gov is there really for one major thing and one major thing only, to use the military to defend the country. Not tell me I can no longer use and incodecent lightbulb; not tell me that I now have to start paying for somebody elses health insurance when I can barely afford mine; not tell me that the guy that just molested the girl in the next county over is gonna get a light sentence but the father who caught him and beat him up is goin to jail for longer; not tell me that I am a nazi becauuse I believe that the politicians are going about things the wrong way; not tell me that I cant own a gun. Im tired of being told what I cant do. How about allowing me to figure it out on my own? If I make a mistake, I make a mistake. After I fall, hopefully I can get back up but if not, its just part of the game and everybody knows the risk before they take that first step.




posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   


Lets be honest, this is what it comes down to. The people like a product, they buy it, the owner makes money, and then the company gets bigger. How do we regulate him to where he is not to big to fail if the people like his product so much that it is the only one that they buy or if he even has a majority share in the market? Do we tell people, no, you cant buy that because he is to big?


I think that is exactly what we should do. Your right there is nothing we can to about companies that turn out a highly successful product that everyone wants to buy. But we can tax transnational corporations for starters. How is it that most transnational corporations pay 0% of taxes?

I was absolutely infuriated by the bailouts, but I realize they were, at best a necessary evil. We were after all on the brink of collapse. I don't think letting those companies fail was really an option, tho I am no economist and I am guessing none of you are either.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -FDR


I'm sorry, but private power has nothing to do with Fascism. On the contrary, Fascism is basically two things:

1) State power subjecting private enterprise to the needs of society, people and nation.

2) The merger of Socialism and Nationalism.

Considered his associates, advisers and policies, Franklin D. Roosevelt is not a trustworthy or objective source when it comes to defining or passing judgment on Fascism.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by Tussilago]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Tussilago
 


Actually since there is no concise definition of Fascism, you are technically no more correct than FDR.




1) State power subjecting private enterprise to the needs of society, people and nation.



That is actually called socialism.




2) The merger of Socialism and Nationalism.


I believe that would be called National Socialism or Nazism


[edit on 30-10-2009 by The Transhumanist]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by The Transhumanist
 


Still, I can be more empirically correct according to history and the history of ideas.


That is actually called socialism.


It is Socialism. Socialism without the universalist, world revolutionary and millenarian assumptions, and without the notion that if only one class takes over and exterminates another, utopia descends from the heavens.
Fascism is a kind of realistic Socialism.


I believe that would be called National Socialism or Nazism.


National Socialism and Fascism is the same in this regard.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by Tussilago]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Tussilago
 





National Socialism and Fascism is the same in this regard.


National Socialism is complete state control over corporations. Fascism is corporations gaining power by buying out the state.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Transhumanist



Lets be honest, this is what it comes down to. The people like a product, they buy it, the owner makes money, and then the company gets bigger. How do we regulate him to where he is not to big to fail if the people like his product so much that it is the only one that they buy or if he even has a majority share in the market? Do we tell people, no, you cant buy that because he is to big?


I think that is exactly what we should do. Your right there is nothing we can to about companies that turn out a highly successful product that everyone wants to buy. But we can tax transnational corporations for starters. How is it that most transnational corporations pay 0% of taxes?

I was absolutely infuriated by the bailouts, but I realize they were, at best a necessary evil. We were after all on the brink of collapse. I don't think letting those companies fail was really an option, tho I am no economist and I am guessing none of you are either.


What is it that we should do exactly, im confused to what you mean? Are you saying that the government should tell us what to buy and what not to buy based on the size of a company? Ill wait for a response before I delve more into that one.

Why exactly were the bailouts a necessary evil? I didnt see them as necessary at all. Certain banks got caught with their hand in the cookie jar due to poor over regulation of the market. If we prop up failure, do you ever get better? Does anybody learn by not failing? What did financial institutions and major industry learn from the bailouts? I put forth that they learned that they are now allowed to keep the company running as long as they cede control to the government...which, by definition is socialism.

What is going to stop major industries from coming with their hands out again if they fail? There are many markets in which companies are allready "too big to fail" and no amount of taxation or regulation will get them out of the spot they are supremely in. And how fair is it to tax the hell outa the big guy but not tax the little guy at all? Didnt the big guys start out as little guys? Also, would our only incentive in business be to stay just small enough to not get treated like the nasty big corps of the world but big enough that we make a decent profit and a living?

I would also like to see where you found that transnational corps pay 0% on taxes. They might pay 0% on taxes here in the US for things made abroad. I can understand that actually. Why should they have to pay taxes here for products that are made in another country by foreign workers? Do you think taxing them is going to make the larger companies bring jobs back overseas? The only thing that is going to bring jobs back over here is if we make it cheaper for them to do business over here then over there. But taxing them into it is unethical and bully like and one of the main reasons why this country was formed in the first place.

Instead of adding more regulation, why dont we start with takeing away some first. Maybe we can ask them why they went overseas in the first place. I'm willing to bet that the min wage law is a key factor along with the fact that not many Americans (before the economy crisis) wanted to even do the work that is being done over there. Besides, if we just tax them into bringing the jobs back over here where the min wage law and unionized workers exist, all that will do is drive the price of the product up even more due to a larger overhead. And what happens when the price of a product goes up? Demand for it goes down and they fail cause the cant move the product. And what will happen then? Now that they employ oh so many American workers, they will be really to big to fail and will have to be bailedout again by us with our money. Simple elimental truth of economics.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
reply to post by Tussilago
National Socialism is complete state control over corporations.


More or less...


Fascism is corporations gaining power by buying out the state.


This is completely untrue. Where did you get this funny idea from? Don't tell me, US conspiracy videos misunderstanding European history, for example misrepresenting the Syndicalist idea of corporations, right?
OK.

Look, Fascism (and National Socialism) differ from classical Socialism/Communism in that whereas the latter will kill and slaughter the workhorse (capitalism), Fascism/National Socialism reins it in and puts it to work for them. However, the state always maintain absolute and final control. Fascism only allows capital, finance and private industry to remain in private hands as long as it serves state and nation. This primacy of state and political power over capital and private interest is in fact pivotal in defining Fascism.

You on the other hand is suggesting it's the other way around, that Big Business taking over the state is Fascism, but that is simply false. In fact, it would only amount to a plutocracy, a social dynamic antithetical to Fascism.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by Tussilago]



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Tussilago
 



www.counterpunch.org...



We are witnessing the corporate destruction of capitalism in favor of a corporate state. The law can't save it because the laws are controlled by politicians many of whom are controlled in turn by these same business interests and campaign cash.


This is an example of corporate statism. The original form of fascism.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dizzie56
 





What is it that we should do exactly, im confused to what you mean? Are you saying that the government should tell us what to buy and what not to buy based on the size of a company? Ill wait for a response before I delve more into that one.


No, I am saying to tax those corporations who reach a certain size to stifle their growth and promote competition and small businesses.

Studies show most corporations pay 0% income tax.
www.reuters.com...




I'm willing to bet that the min wage law is a key factor along with the fact that not many Americans (before the economy crisis) wanted to even do the work that is being done over there. Besides, if we just tax them into bringing the jobs back over here where the min wage law and unionized workers exist, all that will do is drive the price of the product up even more due to a larger overhead.


So what are you proposing exactly? Eliminating min wage and labour unions? Dismantle everything the working class has fought so hard for? Corporations should be forced to deal with minimum wage and labour unions and accept the lower profit margins that result from bringing jobs back to U.S. soil.

We have to make corporations accountable to the American workers and not the other way around. Why should the richest institutions in the world be tax exempt and protected with regulation that keep out small business while the tax payers are responsible to bail them out? If corporations pay more tax the too big to fail firms could pay into a bailout fund that would force them to be responsible for their own actions.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
reply to post by dizzie56
 





What is it that we should do exactly, im confused to what you mean? Are you saying that the government should tell us what to buy and what not to buy based on the size of a company? Ill wait for a response before I delve more into that one.


No, I am saying to tax those corporations who reach a certain size to stifle their growth and promote competition and small businesses.

Studies show most corporations pay 0% income tax.
www.reuters.com...




I'm willing to bet that the min wage law is a key factor along with the fact that not many Americans (before the economy crisis) wanted to even do the work that is being done over there. Besides, if we just tax them into bringing the jobs back over here where the min wage law and unionized workers exist, all that will do is drive the price of the product up even more due to a larger overhead.


So what are you proposing exactly? Eliminating min wage and labour unions? Dismantle everything the working class has fought so hard for? Corporations should be forced to deal with minimum wage and labour unions and accept the lower profit margins that result from bringing jobs back to U.S. soil.

We have to make corporations accountable to the American workers and not the other way around. Why should the richest institutions in the world be tax exempt and protected with regulation that keep out small business while the tax payers are responsible to bail them out? If corporations pay more tax the too big to fail firms could pay into a bailout fund that would force them to be responsible for their own actions.


Yes we should make corps responsible if they owe...if the owe. If there are loopholes in the system (put in by politicians on both sides of the fence) in the tax code then how can you really blame a company that is just using what they have in front of them? If i owned a comp, I would be damn sure to try and keep as much profit as I could, thats how business works. Who we should be going after are the people that make the laws, the politicians. If you had somebody in the gov that could actually have principles and stand up to lobbyists from both sides, the US would be a better place now. But as it is, the people that we prop up to rule us are crap and spineless and liars. If you had somebody with a backbone that would stand by their principles, you would be able to throw lobbyists at them and they wouldnt budge. Regulating lobbyists out of the game doesnt meant they will go away, there are always loopholes to everything. Its having people who wont take their bait is what makes them ineffective.

Im not saying we dismantle the unions or get rid of the min wage law. Im just showing the faults in how they have effected companies in our short history with them, thru regulations. The unions were necessary back in the day when there were people doing jobs solely by hand and were dangerous and they were gettin paid a penny a day. But its not really like that anymore.

Lets just look at the car companies. At first the unions were about just getting a safe work place and a decent wage. Im sure nobody today would argue against that. Hell, it is fair. But, what have they become today? Now they want health care and pensions that are so bloated it has driven up the cost of the product so much that the company cant even compete.

thinkprogress.org...

The above is an article in which it states that GM has to pretty much add $1525 to each car that it makes to just cover the health care costs of its employees. It didnt even go into how much the pensions are which include not only a nice check every month but also health insurance for life.

www.factcheck.org...

Here is another site which indicates how much the average auto worker makes at GM. With benefits, they make about $70/hr. Before benefits, its $29/hr. I make less than $20/hr and can still aford to pay for my own health insurance and my premium is almost $90/week. If i can do it, they can do it. Having such benefits has priced them out of the market and because they employee so many people, they are to big to fail. Now, the average American worker is paying for a companies mistake, due to regulations by the gov, and having to pay for pensions and health insurance to people who can most likely afford their own but choose not to.

How fair is it that they are perfectly capable of affording their own benefits, but since they are to big to fail we the people now have to pay for their benefits? Who are they? They are no more important than you or I but yet we have to pay for them because they as a people band together and pitch a fit if you try and take away their benefits.

Like I said before, Im not for taking the unions apart or getting rid of the min wage law. Im just for if you are going to have such things then they need to be fair. GM is a perfect example of how regulation has killed industries. Thru the min wage law, unions, and tech bills passed by the gov they have priced themselves right out of the market and because they employee so many people they have become "to big to fail". I say, let them fail. It would be a great lesson learned for the American people as a whole. If we continue to prop them up, as we do, we are just telling the American people to either A) Get a job at GM cause you will be taken care of for the rest of your life; or B) Because they are such a big group and know how to whine and dine politicians, they just made it so me and you have to pay their salaries, benefits, and pensions for life.

Dont get me wrong tho, Im not for giant companies taking advantage of the everyday worker. But to me, I can see how regulations have created such a mess to where the failed industry must now be proped up by the American people as a whole. What is worse? A couple thousand people having to pay their own way and learn a lesson in doing so or making the American people pay for a couple thousand peoples every want and whim? I go with the latter.






top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join