Fascist Corporatism

Discussion in 'Politics' started by PoliticalChic, May 2, 2011.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,690
    Thanks Received:
    15,595
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,829
    As the view of the proper role of government is a regular topic on the board, I wonder if any who read this article in today's WSJ find this campaign by the Obama adminstration appropriate...

    ...and how it applies to the question of where, on the political spectrum, this government fits.

    1."Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ...latest attack, on the CEO of Forest Laboratories,...HHS this month sent a letter to 83-year-old Forest Labs CEO Howard Solomon, announcing it would henceforth refuse to do business with him. What earned Mr. Solomon the blackball? Well, nothing that he did—as admitted even by HHS.

    2. ... allegations were among a rash of government suits claiming that marketing to doctors common among drug companies amounted to fraud against Medicare and Medicaid. The charges were odd given their implication that major companies would be dumb enough to try to hoodwink their biggest customer. The charges also had a political flavor as an attempt to blame drug companies, rather than the fee-for-service design of the federal programs, for runaway costs.

    3. The feds have rarely invoked this awesome power, given the potential for coercive abuse. But Mrs. Sebelius seems bent on making it more common policy and says she can employ it even against executives who had no knowledge of an employee's misconduct. A year ago Mrs. Sebelius used it to dismiss the CEO of a small drugmaker in St. Louis.

    4. Losing the federal government as a customer is potentially crippling to a drug company.
    HHS says its action is about holding corporate CEOs accountable, but it looks more like the Administration's latest bid to intimidate the health-care industry into doing its bidding on prices, regulations and political support for ObamaCare. This is the same agency that has threatened insurers with exclusion from new state-run health exchanges if they raise their premiums more than Mrs. Sebelius wants, or if they spread what she deems to be "misinformation" about the President's health bill.

    5. The hammer on Forest Labs "reinforces everybody's worst fears—that this Administration won't do business with anybody that doesn't completely agree with its policy initiatives. Not only will it refuse to even have the argument, it will actively destroy these people," says Peter Pitts, a former Food and Drug Administration official who now runs the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. "
    Review & Outlook: Kathleen Spitzer - WSJ.com


    "Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
    Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Wait, you oppose fascism now? When did this happen?
     
  3. VaYank5150
    Offline

    VaYank5150 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,779
    Thanks Received:
    1,047
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,055
    Private companies depending on our Federal Government for money and/or contracts is viewed as "Socialism", right?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Soggy in NOLA
    Offline

    Soggy in NOLA Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Messages:
    32,679
    Thanks Received:
    4,316
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,415
    No.
     
  5. VaYank5150
    Offline

    VaYank5150 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,779
    Thanks Received:
    1,047
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,055
    So, private companies being propped up by our tax dollars is a GOOD thing?
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2011
  6. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    IMHO, if the gov't can prove illegal actions were taken by a company, then they should prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. I would be in favor of stiffer penalties if a conviction results, and I would hold the execs at the top accountable. BUT - no conviction means not proven guilty, and therefore no punitve action should be taken against the company or it's execs. I think the gov't has overstepped it's bounds here.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,619
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,214
    I know you're not actually this stupid in real life.
    Even you can understand that the Fed Gov must buy goods and services somewhere. As such there is a bidding process that usually takes place, with many providers competing for a sale. That is legitimate.
    Socialism occurs when there is one bidder and/or the bid is rigged not to deliver at the best price but to fulfill some other political or social agenda. Like when the U.S. government takes over an auto maker, dictating who the CEO is, how much they can spend on advertising, and what kinds of cars they can produce.
    Got it, chief?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  8. Vanquish
    Offline

    Vanquish Vanquisher of shills

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,659
    Thanks Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +358
    Exactly. What happened to the free (gag me) market? If you can't exist without one particular customer - then you better keep them happy or suffer the market consequences.

    A better argument would be that as a government representing the people, that it's unfair for the government to treat any particular company differently than another. Oh wait...that wouldnt work either. Parties should be able to freely contract.

    Oh well, bullshit debunked. Why does the right always try to get people to feel sorry for the rich?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  9. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,657
    Thanks Received:
    10,774
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,352
    I agree that any business that puts all its eggs into the government contract basket is taking a risk that their business will cease if funding is cut for a given program or project. That risk should be theirs and theirs alone.

    Ideology, however, should play no part in who gets government contracts that should always go to the lowest bidder who can guarantee to provide a product according to government specifications. The only criteria for refusing to allow a company to bid is:

    1. The business is not a U.S. business.
    2. The business is under indictment for illegal activities.
    3. The business has defaulted on other contracts and is not reliable.
     
  10. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,690
    Thanks Received:
    15,595
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,829
    You are an ignorant fellow, quishy...

    Let's begin your remediation, or as you put it, "gagging you' with this:

    1. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

    But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
    From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
    Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006


    2. Now, once you are able to provide proof that you comprehend and have incorpated the information in the above quote, we can proceed...

    ...and that means that the full weight of the federal government used to dictate "... the Administration's latest bid to intimidate the health-care industry into doing its bidding on prices, regulations and political support for ObamaCare," is straying a far piece from free-market capitalism, and has entered the realm of socialism.

    3. If you would be happier in a nation that lives via a command-and-control central economy, even though there are numerous examples that show that said economies produce shortages, poor quality and poverty, there are several current nations you might choose in which to reside....but most Americans like it right here.
    BTW, if you like kimchee, I know of one that may be just right for you!

    4. So, just to be sure I understand your preference vis-a-vis the article in the OP, quishy, you approve of governments that intimidate 'private' businesses to the tune of dictating who the management is, and censor any criticism of administration policies....
    ...did I correctly characterize your progressive views, quishy?

    ...and you stand foursquare behind crony capitalism and corporatism, as well?
    Good boy!

    I'll bet you look really, really sharp in that brown uniform!
     

Share This Page