Speaking of socialism, is it fair to say rightwingers are socialists for the rich?

[Charles_Main]

Tax cuts, Tax breaks, supporting ta shelters and loopholes for the rich, wanting to turn Medicare into a voucher system to make private health insurance companies fat and rich, is that not socialism for the rich?

How is taking less of someone's money, that they earned. In any way resemble Socialism? What is it with you fucktards who seem to think all money belongs to the Government, and any of it they let us keep is welfare.

For Christs Sake people. This country was born in a war fought mainly over a TAX we didn't like. How have we come from that, to a society that thinks not taxing a rich person is the same as taking other peoples money and giving it to poor people.

Holy shit I am in the Twilight zone. Do DOOOO do DOOOOO!

 

[dblack]

The great difficulty in getting the government to stop meddling with corporations is that corporations are a creation of government. Without contract law, property law and the fictional "personhood" of corporations they cease to exist as we know it. Since government is the sole provider of the laws that allow corporations to exist, the massive mutual meddling that occurs is inevitable.

Which is why the notion that a stronger government, with ever more control over matters economic, would act as a bulwark against corporate dominance. Quite the opposite.

 

[snjmom]

The great difficulty in getting the government to stop meddling with corporations is that corporations are a creation of government. Without contract law, property law and the fictional "personhood" of corporations they cease to exist as we know it. Since government is the sole provider of the laws that allow corporations to exist, the massive mutual meddling that occurs is inevitable.

Which is why the notion that a stronger government, with ever more control over matters economic, would act as a bulwark against corporate dominance. Quite the opposite.

Would you posit the solution to the problem then being the elimination of the corporation? All owners as partners with full liability?

 

[dblack]

Would you posit the solution to the problem then being the elimination of the corporation? All owners as partners with full liability?

Something in that direction, definitely. I'm in a bit over my head to really make that kind of call in any specific way, but I do think the limited liability corporation has been a mistake. Our nation has benefited greatly from unleashing these monsters on the world, but we do need to reign them in. They've essential become nation-states without borders - with our military as their private security.

The frustrating thing, from my perspective, is that well-meaning attempts to address this with government end up merely amplifying the power of both government and corporations. We need leaders with the integrity and insight to modify the rules such that corporations are stripped of their unfair advantage. I don't see any of that going on.

 

[daveman]

It's fair to say he's right about the King of Stupid:

"Congress on Friday gave Wall Street the financial lifeline it was seeking and President Bush immediately signed it into law, as the House reversed course and approved a $700 billion bailout package in the wake of markets roiled by the failure of storied investment firms and major banks.

The House passed the measure 263-171..."

Bush signs Wall Street bailout - Washington Times

What is it with 'you people'? (And by you people, I mean the idiots on both left and right). You link to whatever backs up your own side's view... and fail completely to factor in any other pertinent information that points to your side's culpability. I find that breathtakingly stupid. Seriously.

I see links from the left, pointing to the GOP's fuck ups.

I see links from the right, pointing out the Dems fuck ups.

And none of you people seem capable of putting all that information together and coming up with the actual answer. Both fucking sides fucked up. That's the fact. You may not like it but that doesn't change it.

You were all responsible for this.

I wasn't. I don't vote for these fuckers.

Seems like we have an useful idiot who refuses to accept any source if its not what she wants to hear.

Look in a mirror, dim bulb.

 

[snjmom]

They've essential become nation-states without borders

Where have I heard that before?

The essential problem is that any move that reintroduces the risk to the market that the government has been backstopping will have an inevitable contraction effect. Unless we are willing to drastically reduce our population, that will be an awful thing.

 

[dblack]

They've essential become nation-states without borders

Where have I heard that before?

I'm not sure. I've probably 'borrowed' it from someone. If you recall, let me know.

The essential problem is that any move that reintroduces the risk to the market that the government has been backstopping will have an inevitable contraction effect. Unless we are willing to drastically reduce our population, that will be an awful thing.

I don't think it has to be all or nothing. But I fear if we don't throttle back, that's where we're headed. Our corporations, in combination with our military dominance, have allowed us to life the high life for a long while now. But not without a cost and the payments coming due.

 

[snjmom]

They've essential become nation-states without borders

Where have I heard that before?

I'm not sure. I've probably 'borrowed' it from someone. If you recall, let me know.

The essential problem is that any move that reintroduces the risk to the market that the government has been backstopping will have an inevitable contraction effect. Unless we are willing to drastically reduce our population, that will be an awful thing.

I don't think it has to be all or nothing. But I fear if we don't throttle back, that's where we're headed. Our corporations, in combination with our military dominance, have allowed us to life the high life for a long while now. But not without a cost and the payments coming due.

Which side do you think the payment will come due on? Our stated principles and ideals or our economic system?

I'm thinking our principles and ideals.

 

[dblack]

Which side do you think the payment will come due on? Our stated principles and ideals or our economic system?

I'm thinking our principles and ideals.

Not sure what you mean. I'm saying our multinational corporations, combined with a quasi-imperialist foreign policy, has allowed us to live 'beyond our means' for a long time. Getting that under control will cost us, but I think it will be worth it. And I think it will be necessary, because I see the whole thing collapsing if we don't.

 

[snjmom]

Which side do you think the payment will come due on? Our stated principles and ideals or our economic system?

I'm thinking our principles and ideals.

Not sure what you mean. I'm saying our multinational corporations, combined with a quasi-imperialist foreign policy, has allowed us to live 'beyond our means' for a long time. Getting that under control will cost us, but I think it will be worth it. And I think it will be necessary, because I see the whole thing collapsing if we don't.

By that I mean that more than likely we will instigate a world war that destroys the combatants industrial base allowing us to continue to dominate the globe.

I could be wrong, but I don't see America giving up living beyond it's means.