What is corporate fascisim

Point being, there is no difference between the two parties that is significant enough to matter! I think there is a little difference, like health care, and social security, people oriented stuff. the Dems are much more likely to promote legislation that would help the working class, your class (30,000) class. Whereas the Reps. are more inclined to promote business oriented legislation. I know there are bad ones on both sides, and the Dems probably steal as much as the Reps., but overall, History has proven the Dems. to be better fot the working class, example: the bush tax cuts, how much did you get, enough to buy a new Carrera, I think not, but the upper brackets got that much and a hell of a lot more. You'll find people on this site that'll try and justify giving the rich huge tax breaks while cutting every entitlement known to man. Those are greedy fucks! The rich already have a very sufficient supply of money. They don't need a huge bonus, on the other hand the poor need help and the Dems are more likely to help them! The Dems are for such things as the environment, fair labor laws, safety nets for the poor, restrictions on pollution, etc. while the reps. are for big business and themselves!
 
Those differences are not significant enough to me to inspire either love OR hatred for either party. I vote third party, and I do it consistently.

I don't want help from the government, and I don't think altruism should be legislated. I support all tax cuts, icluding cuts for the rich, because I support anything that reduces the amount of money in government coffers (not to mention the fact that you can't cut taxes without giving the "rich" tax cuts, as they are paying the bulk of the taxes.)

I think the crux of the argument was mentioned way early in this particular thread, when you said the government needed to provide for the welfare of its citizens, and Vi disagreed. The thing we disagree on the most is the ROLE of the government. As a Libertarian and old-school constitutionalist, I do not think wealth redistribution is a legitimate function of government. With rare exception, about the only thing I want the government to do is stop other people from harming my physically or taking my property. I don't resent rich people, because I know that I could become one of them if I wanted to chase the carrots they have chased. Believe it or not, I personally know three different people who have become millionaires during the time I have known them. None of them were born with money, and two were born "poor." One is a lawyer, one is a land developer, and one (believe it or not) works for Head Start. All three have worked their asses off to a point that I deem foolish. I'm way too in touch with death to work 80 hours a week. I would rather be "poor" and go fishing. I'm in touch with that. My "poor" status is on me. With rare exception, I don't believe in victimhood. And I certainly don't believe in economic victimhood; this country may not be perfect, and our markets may have been tampered with to a degree I object to, but we are still free enough as individuals to advance our station in life to a livable one as long as we are not drug addicted or crazy. Poor people are not poor because others have made them so.

And one more thing... I think it is ironic that the left accuses the right of being materialistic, and at the same time seems to determine our worth as human beings based on what we possess or have access to. I don't feel that only making 30,000 a year makes me any less of a human being that any of the millionaires I know.
 
And dank says:And one more thing... I think it is ironic that the left accuses the right of being materialistic, and at the same time seems to determine our worth as human beings based on what we possess or have access to. I don't feel that only making 30,000 a year makes me any less of a human being that any of the millionaires I know. I've never contended that it does, in fact I pretty much profess equality for all income levels in the humanity department, with the obvious exception of those with the I've got mine fuck you class. Let me get this straight, you think that the rich will take care of all the social problems if left to their own endeavors. That my friend is where I greatly differ with you. History has proven otherwise. In a "democracy" or any form of social governence that seeks "justice for all", I believe a greator responsibility falls on the wealthy to sustain their less fortunate compatriots. The facts support that this is not a voluntary program by the rich. Therefore, to support a viable society, you must have a system of wealth distribution, known in this case, as taxes. The part that disturbs you is unknown to me. Would you support a flat tax with a minimum starting point (as in those under X amount af dollars income paid none) or would you support a no limit flat tac? Or as I think I understand your position, you'd support no taxes at all. That'd be a fine mess, I agree I'd surely like to cut some pork and congressional salaries, but would you prefer anarchy, with no governmental control, break out the whips and chains, law of the jungle, only the strong survive. I think you have thoroughly confused me as to your position on governence. Less is more needs more explanation!
 
Med, there is a lot in your post to respond to, and they are all fair questions.

About the idea that I might think that "the rich will take care of all social problems"- the term "social problems" is pretty broad, but if I understand what you are saying, I think you are concerned about the willingness of human beings to help others without coercion (i.e., government intervention.) It's certainly an arguable issue- but i think that most people, even the rich, are basically good people who are completely willing to help DESERVING have-nots. I think it should be up to the individual, not a beauracracy, to decide who is deserving. Example: I see a guy downtown who says he has no food, and wants some money. I decide I want to help out, and I buy the guy lunch. So far so good. But then I decide to drive into the next town, knock on doors, and explain to those who answer.. "Hey, I know this guy in the next town, he needs your money worse than you do. You might not think so, but me and my friends talked about it, and we decided that's the way it is. Now cough up or go to jail." I think that's bullshit.

Now of course there will be those who have a lot, and will not do the right thing on their own. But here is the deal- YOU CAN'T GRANT A "RIGHT" TO ONE PERSON WITHOUT TAKING AWAY THE "RIGHT" OF ANOTHER. In this case, if I grant the "poor" the right to services paid for by coercion of the "rich", the rich lose their right to freely choose how their money is spent. And my bottom line is that I personally value my own right to have discretion over my personal funds MORE than I value my right to have access to YOUR money. In other words, I am willing to allow selfish rich people to keep their earnings if it means I can also keep my mine.

In regards to class systems- they are inevitable and a part of human nature. I don't see how you can create a classless society without being completely fascist or communist. What's more, I don't even hold the idea in high regard as far as a personal value, as I don't think happiness lies in one's ability to acquire and consume. Our country is not perfect by a long shot. But as I noted in my earlier post, I sincerely believe that a person can move up the class system in the United States if they want to. I also think you have to put the situation in this country in some kind of historical perspective. Our poorest people can hardly be called "poor" by historical definition, they can only be called poor in relation to people like us, who in turn are ridiculously rich by historical standards.

Taxes- that's a real deep subject, but I will say this. I don't have a problem with taxes so much as I have a problem with government SPENDING. I also feel that the vast majority of taxes should be levied at a local level; and I don't believe in any sort of income tax.

On anarchy- I don't want that. I think that physical protection of its citizens is one of the only legitimate functions of government, and completely support a fully-funded bad-ass military. (And a citizens right to be armed to the teeth in case they get any funny ideas.)

Yer bud DankyDank
 
And dank says:And a citizens right to be armed to the teeth in case they get any funny ideas.) Thats a big ten-four. One of the biggest problems I have with the lefties is their gun control agenda. If the crooks knew no-one had guns, what would stop them from kicking in your front door and beating you and robbing you. Just the chance that you might have one keeps a lot of them out. I also think that people should be allowed to keep whats left after they pay a fair share of taxes! I am not totally a socialist, I don't want 25 people moving into my house to live with me (DR.Zivago), nor do I want communal anything unless it's totally voluntary. I am happy with my little existence and certainly don't want to shrink it any farther. Could I have planned for my retirement a little better, Hell yeah! I was one of those guys that thought I wouldn't live past 40, and now I'm 65! Thank God for my pitiful 500.00 a month teamster retirement, that has bought me a new truck. It will no doubt be the last new car I buy, and thats fine with me. I have it so much better than 95% of the world, so don't ever think I'm bitching about my status. I put me where I am and I'm willing to accept that. I am blessed with an angel for a wife and 2 beautiful granddaughters (which I'm basically raising as their mother is AOL most of the time, and my wife still works), she's 9 years younger than me! As we've aged and become less physically appealing, she has blossomed into a beautiful person on the inside, as far as me, I'm a lot more mellow than I used to be. So I am not as much of a socialist as you would think. How about you being a libertarian and giving Viredd shit on almost every post, whats up with that!

 
medicineman said:
How about you being a libertarian and giving Viredd shit on almost every post, whats up with that!
Click to expand...

Shit, I didn't know I was doing that! At least it hasn't been my intention. I actually tend to agree with damn near everything Vi posts- I think the biggest difference between us is that he APPEARS to defend the present administration quite a bit more than I would-

- and I have got to mention how completely fucking cool it is that both of you guys are 60+ and grow weed. The fact that you guys do that is way more impressive to me than anybody's politics. Politics is almost purely entertainment for me anyway, like sports is for some guys. I mean, I've voted in every election since I was 18 years old, and I've NEVER voted for a candidate that won any state or federal office. So I better not take it too seriously.
 
DankyDank said:
Shit, I didn't know I was doing that! At least it hasn't been my intention. I actually tend to agree with damn near everything Vi posts- I think the biggest difference between us is that he APPEARS to defend the present administration quite a bit more than I would-

- and I have got to mention how completely fucking cool it is that both of you guys are 60+ and grow weed. The fact that you guys do that is way more impressive to me than anybody's politics. Politics is almost purely entertainment for me anyway, like sports is for some guys. I mean, I've voted in every election since I was 18 years old, and I've NEVER voted for a candidate that won any state or federal office. So I better not take it too seriously.
Click to expand...
And here I thought I'd found a brother idealogue! As in the enemy of your enemy is your friend! Although I really don't consider anyone on this forum a real enemy, just in the Idea realm!
 
[SIZE=+0]"Although I really don't consider anyone on this forum a real enemy, just in the Idea realm!"[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+0]Based upon your vitriolic personal attacks, you'd never know it Med. [/SIZE]

Vi
 
Dank, does this mean you would abolish all taxes?Now of course there will be those who have a lot, and will not do the right thing on their own. But here is the deal- YOU CAN'T GRANT A "RIGHT" TO ONE PERSON WITHOUT TAKING AWAY THE "RIGHT" OF ANOTHER. In this case, if I grant the "poor" the right to services paid for by coercion of the "rich", the rich lose their right to freely choose how their money is spent. And my bottom line is that I personally value my own right to have discretion over my personal funds MORE than I value my right to have access to YOUR money. In other words, I am willing to allow selfish rich people to keep their earnings if it means I can also keep my mine. The way I see it, you put all the taxes into a pool with each as his ability to pay, and provide services, infrastructure, governence and social services with each according to his needs, Is this communistic? I know it has been targeted as such, but i'd rather see it as rational socialism with keeping the government out of the peoples business> I'm definently not for any form of government that limits personal freedoms besides a fair and balanced tax structure> My view of fair and balanced is probably 180 from yours or ViRedds. I say if you can afford to pay more, then pay up sucker. If the government reversed the tax cuts for the top 10%, and stopped the war, they could afford a comparable social structure, like other civilized nations have, only better, and pay off our great-grandchildrens debt! Remember, it's only an opinion and will never be instituted, as the rich whom run things will never let it! But I can dream, can't I!
 
ViRedd said:
[SIZE=+0]"Although I really don't consider anyone on this forum a real enemy, just in the Idea realm!"[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+0]Based upon your vitriolic personal attacks, you'd never know it Med. [/SIZE]

Vi
Click to expand...
It looks like I've stepped into a den of right wing leaning libertarians! How does that happen on a Pot site. I'm posting to the wall here. One would think there would be a voice of reason in the wilderness, but none cometh. I enjoy the banter, but it would be refreshing if someone with my point of view, just every once in a while, would step up with some back-up! I really don't think the libertarian view is the dominant view among working and low income people, so I must assume that this site is riddled with wealth. I am at a loss to explain Dank, as He is not wealthy, of course Vi appears to be or wants us to think that anyway! So I'll just continue to post my opinions!
 
Med ...

It has nothing to do with wealth and everything to do with liberty. You espouse communistic viewpoints in most (not all) of your posts. Communism is anti-liberty and is founded upon class warfare. Your rich vs poor dialoge isn't cutting it anymore. Not here in the forum, nor here in the country. Our nation was founded upon libertarian principles and has afforded us one of the highest living standards in the world. And you, through government regulations, wealth redistribution and a "pay up sucker" mentality would destroy it all. Its been said in this forum many times ... the only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the citizens. Turning over our entire medical system to the federal government to run is not protecting the rights of anyone. It is taking from one, by threat of force, in order to give to another. Many people are in prisons for doing the exact same thing.

Vi
 
ViRedd said:
Med ...

It has nothing to do with wealth and everything to do with liberty. You espouse communistic viewpoints in most (not all) of your posts. Communism is anti-liberty and is founded upon class warfare. Your rich vs poor dialoge isn't cutting it anymore. Not here in the forum, nor here in the country. Our nation was founded upon libertarian principles and has afforded us one of the highest living standards in the world. And you, through government regulations, wealth redistribution and a "pay up sucker" mentality would destroy it all. Its been said in this forum many times ... the only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the citizens. Turning over our entire medical system to the federal government to run is not protecting the rights of anyone. It is taking from one, by threat of force, in order to give to another. Many people are in prisons for doing the exact same thing.

Vi
Click to expand...
Yatta, Yatta, Yatta! Give the devil an inch. You live in dreamland! there are far more people that want single payer health care than there are greed mongers of your Ilk! I won't even grace this forum with a response to your dreamland assertions!
 
You "grace the forum?" Impossible!

"there are far more people that want single payer health care than there are greed mongers of your Ilk!"

Of COURSE there are far more people who want "free" goodies than those who don't. That's why we have a representative republic and NOT a democracy. Our form of government protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

And on the greed issue: Which is more greedy ... the person who works hard, applies his/her talents, invests wisely, foregoes instant gratification and saves ... then wants to hold on to what he/she has earned, OR the person who has not produced anything worthwhile, then demands the unearned through government force, coersion and violence?

Vi
 
ViRedd said:
You "grace the forum?" Impossible!

"there are far more people that want single payer health care than there are greed mongers of your Ilk!"

Of COURSE there are far more people who want "free" goodies than those who don't. That's why we have a representative republic and NOT a democracy. Our form of government protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

And on the greed issue: Which is more greedy ... the person who works hard, applies his/her talents, invests wisely, foregoes instant gratification and saves ... then wants to hold on to what he/she has earned, OR the person who has not produced anything worthwhile, then demands the unearned through government force, coersion and violence?

Vi
Click to expand...
No, what we have now is a plutocracy, with a trickle down economy RE: Ronald Ray-gun and the boys!
 
Its been said in this forum many times ... the only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the citizens. Turning over our entire medical system to the federal government to run is not protecting the rights of anyone. First I imagine that the many times it's been said, have been by you! second It would protect the rights of the citizen to have life saving health care, including, well care! The alternative as you see it would be no care unless you could afford it. Again I ask you to look an the merriam-Webster definition of Greed, not yours!
 
by the way, we as Americans are not facing anything like what other governments have forced upon and subjected their citizens with, all we have to do is change our minds and begin to act accordingly...)
The government in our system, if freedom is central, is not supposed to be anything like a corporation it is supposed to be a government! One of the worst actions our government can take is its ability to "acquire" from one entity and give to another entity The problem with your simple approach To changing the government is this: The media which is influenced By corporations, and in some instances (FOX) Direct talking points from the Bush regime, has the people so brainwashed with non-sensical news, OJ and other garbage, that the people really don't know what is going on. If the news organizations (mostly owned by huge conglomerates and Rupert fucking Murdock) only post what the owners of the plutocracy want, the people never get the straight scoop, so therefore how can they act when 90% of people get their news from network TV. I am so disgusted when I go into a Dr.s office and see FOX news on that I wonder If the DR. knows he is in essence, brainwashing his patients. Everywhere I go there is FOX news! If someone or something doesn't change the way we get our news, we are doomed to be slaves to the ruling class. So if you believe in power of the people, figure out a way to wake them up!
 
Fascism, hmmmm... like insurance Companies getting laws passed that say I need to buy their product/service/policy in order to legally drive a motor vehicle in California. I am still lobbying for laws that say you have to buy MY particular brand of bullshit as it really is superior.
 
medicineman said:
by the way, we as Americans are not facing anything like what other governments have forced upon and subjected their citizens with, all we have to do is change our minds and begin to act accordingly...)
The government in our system, if freedom is central, is not supposed to be anything like a corporation it is supposed to be a government! One of the worst actions our government can take is its ability to "acquire" from one entity and give to another entity The problem with your simple approach To changing the government is this: The media which is influenced By corporations, and in some instances (FOX) Direct talking points from the Bush regime, has the people so brainwashed with non-sensical news, OJ and other garbage, that the people really don't know what is going on. If the news organizations (mostly owned by huge conglomerates and Rupert fucking Murdock) only post what the owners of the plutocracy want, the people never get the straight scoop, so therefore how can they act when 90% of people get their news from network TV. I am so disgusted when I go into a Dr.s office and see FOX news on that I wonder If the DR. knows he is in essence, brainwashing his patients. Everywhere I go there is FOX news! If someone or something doesn't change the way we get our news, we are doomed to be slaves to the ruling class. So if you believe in power of the people, figure out a way to wake them up!
Click to expand...

Okay, I got a question for you Med, would you consider a 10% flat income tax with no deductions, and no credits fair?
 
TheBrutalTruth said:
Okay, I got a question for you Med, would you consider a 10% flat income tax with no deductions, and no credits fair?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. 10% of 30,000 is 3,000. Quite a sum to pay with that income. On the other hand, 10% of a million is 100K, that still leaves the person 900K, not to shabby, eh? A progressive tax is the only "fair" tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jack Fate
Obama's Fascist Economy
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Carne Seca
Carne Seca
TheBrutalTruth
Brainwashed
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
ViRedd
ViRedd
bsemaj
James E. Barber Sr. v. City of Vancouver et.al.
Replies
5
Views
2K
bsemaj
bsemaj
ViRedd
Socialists and Fascists in America
Replies
5
Views
599
ccodiane
ccodiane
ViRedd
Who is Fascist?
Replies
11
Views
1K
ViRedd
ViRedd
Back
Top