A government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. - Page 7 - Political Fever

Birdzeye · #61 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael

It is called socialism when the Democrats are offering federal programs for childcare for all of those single moms in the inner city working at least two jobs to pay rent and put food on the table. But it is not called socialism when the Republislobs are paying off their corporate sponsors with billions of taxpayer money, that is a different hypocritical question for them.

DOUBLE STANDARD!

AND TAKE A WILD GUESS AT WHAT COSTS MORE!!!

You've hit the nail on the head. Conservatives seem to have a real aversion to helping individuals with tax dollars, but don't seem to have the same aversion to helping corporations with those same tax dollars. Go figure.

They rail against "redistribution of income" if the money goes to the poor, but not when that money goes to their rich corporate buddies.

TheStripey1 · #62 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael

Simple concept here: if someone is wining, dining and bribing a legislator, that lobbyist gets arrested and that legislator faces ethics violation and impeachment.

Here is a case in point. A conservative Republican visits the North Mariana Islands in 2004. He was tipped off that clothes were being made under the "made in the USA" tag in sweatshops utilizing forced child labor there. He sponsored a bill that passed by a large majority in the Senate. Then the bill went on to the House of Representatives and Tom Delay. Then Jack Abramoff shows up after being hired by the sweatshop owners. He wines and dines and bribes Bush Republicans to NOT pass this legislation. The Bill did not pass, despite the fact that Tom (sociopath that he was) said he was a Christian, and for the right price, he turned his back on children being held in prison camps to work 6/7 days a week at below minimum wage under armed guard.

John Doolittle of my Congressional District said that he didn't see any sweatshops when he was wined, dined and bribed by Jack Abramoff, but that was because he was at a luxury hotel on the golf course or on a special snorkle diving cruise.

I see no compelling reason why these types of lobbyists don't get busted down to the bone and sent to prison and all bribed legislators get impeached for corruption.

Another shining example of those family values the republican party is famous for TALKING about...

TheStripey1 · #63 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zephyr

Government of, by, and for the corporations is the definition of fascism.

Nice to know, good article, Michael.

Bingo!

Paws the gentle west wind a bubble gum cigar...

TheStripey1 · #64 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

Not really, fascism is about social control and different forms of fascism have varing economic plans regarding corporations. Some have large control by the central government, some have little control. The defining face of fascism is the control that it impliments upon it's people under the idea of "the people aren't smart enough to know what's best for them, they need the government to tell them what's best and to force what's best upon them, whether they like it or not."

Which is exactly how the republicans in power treat everyone else.

nerv14 · #65 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

Rights are inconstant with logic. There is no deity out in the stratosphere which grants you rights. However, the concept of liberty would be defended vehemently to the point that you wouldn't have to join any association - provided you don't affect another's liberty.

Communism does not wish to eliminate personal property, only exploitative property like the means of production. If there exists the ability to work without making yourself subservient to another individual, capitalism would drift into the ocean. Simply put: capitalism requires a state organization to defend existing property rights. If it was ever decided on that the same property taken through force would be up to vote, and that corporations would be turned over to the public (since they did enjoy public privileges), workers would be able to participate in a democratic setting that alloted more wealth to the "small guy." Capitalism would, ironically, become uncompetitive. And with no state most people would only associate with promise of direct democracy.

I completely agree with you on how property rights aren't rights, while I could consider civil liberties are rights. Property "rights" are just a way to make taxes seem morally wrong.

The only reason that property rights should, or should not exist is for the sole reasons of efficency. When something is privately owned it is normally more efficent, but there is some exceptions of course.

However, private individuals or coprorations need to own most companies so that way there is an incentive for them to prosper, and a reason to stop the buissines if it starts becoming inneficent. I just don't think democratically owned property would give the owners the incentive to allow their products to be as efficent as possible. That socialism would stall growth and adaptations to the company.

Anyway, your concept would require alot of specifics so this is hard to argue either way.

Zephyr · #66 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Then you aren't a Communist because in that system very little would be privately owned and you would have virtually no rights.

Actually, I would call for a system where the government gives you the basics you need to survive, and have everything else--commodities--be privately owned, with heavy controls on corporations to stop them from exploiting workers or being assholes. So actually, practically everything would be privately owned, with the government providing a few things to those who need them. The government would serve as an extension of the people's will, so of course the people would have rights.

I don't believe in the elimination of capitalism, just in shrinking it to the point where I can drown it in the bathtub if need be. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan.

Oregon Elephant · #67 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zephyr

Actually, I would call for a system where the government gives you the basics you need to survive, and have everything else--commodities--be privately owned, with heavy controls on corporations to stop them from exploiting workers or being assholes. So actually, practically everything would be privately owned, with the government providing a few things to those who need them. The government would serve as an extension of the people's will, so of course the people would have rights.

I don't believe in the elimination of capitalism, just in shrinking it to the point where I can drown it in the bathtub if need be. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan.

That's not really communism then. And how do you intend on enforcing "heavy controls" on corporations if the government is so small that it can be drowned in a bath tub. That just sounds ripe for the corporations to easily take over.

Zephyr · #68 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 09:33 PM

Quote:

That's not really communism then. And how do you intend on enforcing "heavy controls" on corporations if the government is so small that it can be drowned in a bath tub. That just sounds ripe for the corporations to easily take over.

The government isn't small, capitalism is. Read more carefully?

SamInTheSouth · #69 (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheStripey1

Which is exactly how the republicans in power treat everyone else.

I suggest you open your eyes. This is how BOTH of the two major parties treat everyone and you keep putting them back in power.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name		Remember Me?
Password