Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
yes....ALEC is an organization fighting the socialism of BO......see alec.org
Not really.
While pending regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act (despite Congressional rejection of cap-and-trade) has received the lion's share of the attention, the Environmental Protection Agency has also begun developing and finalizing a slew of overreaching and inefficient air and water rules over the next several years that will dramatically increase energy costs, cause enormous negative impacts to jobs and the economy, irreparably damage the competitiveness of American business, and trample on state sovereignty in the process.
EPA's Regulatory Train Wreck: Strategies for State Legislators outlines the costs of these major EPA rules, tells the true story of America's modern clean air and water successes, and outlines best practices for state legislators (including following the many states that are considering resolutions in 2011 to call for Congress to slow and stop this regulatory onslaught).
ALEC | EPA's Regulatory Train Wreck
if anybody does not like legislation being "handed off" by lobbyists to our congressmen then they need to wake up and smell the coffee.....this is the practice on both sides of the aisle....and a good reason to downsize government. i.e. cut spending....and make our politicians more accountable...
Yep. Both sides.
This isn't about fighting socialism. It's about promoting corporatism, which is much worse.
Corporations control both major US political parties and SCOTUS.How many Socialists voted for the Patriot Act?freedom from want and fear...?
socialists will trade their freedom for security...security that always turns into bondage....
Conservatives are the ones running for the shelter of the nanny (Homeland Security) state today.
"Every year 18 million of the earth's six billion inhabitants die from lacking means of subsistence.
"We who live in developed nations typically blame this catastrophe on drought, overpopulation, resource mismanagement, corrupt government, and other local factors, thereby relieving ourselves of any responsibility for this crime.
"At the same time, we do not hesitate to invoke the language of human rights in condemning this state of affairs.
"Either we do so in the name of moral progress as when we say, following the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that the world has fallen short of achieving an aspiration essential to civilized humanity; or we do so in the name of moral offense, as when we condemn selected government officials for having committed acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the like.
"One might ponder whether either of these two senses of human rights... generates a moral discourse sufficient for coming to terms with globalization.
"In particular, one wonders whether they adequately respond to the fact that we are dealing with the imposition of impersonal social structures and institutions that prevent the poor from freely accessing their means of subsistence."
What do you see coming from globalization?
Freedom or security?
Habermas on the human right to subsistence — Site
Freedom will exist if countries pursue democratic processes along with free trade....
Security is only an empty promise made by international Socialists who want to control the world...even though history has proved that socialism is a big fat failure...
You bring up the problem of subsistence.....yet our socialist government is promoting ethanol subsidies which literally take food out of the mouths of babes....America can feed the world if only government regulations would get out of the way....instead BO and his avalanche of regulations are strangling our farmers...
Not really....? How so...? Let's take the EPA regulatory train wreck for example....
How is corporatism by itself worse than socialism....?
Do you think a corporation is a person?yes....ALEC is an organization fighting the socialism of BO......see alec.org
Not really.
Not really....? How so...? Let's take the EPA regulatory train wreck for example....
if anybody does not like legislation being "handed off" by lobbyists to our congressmen then they need to wake up and smell the coffee.....this is the practice on both sides of the aisle....and a good reason to downsize government. i.e. cut spending....and make our politicians more accountable...
Yep. Both sides.
This isn't about fighting socialism. It's about promoting corporatism, which is much worse.
How is corporatism by itself worse than socialism....?
I find corporatism "worse" when government and corporatism are in bed together.....that's when we get socialist corporatism....BO has given us many fine examples of how that works...
Companies operate in the public interest, benefactors of public taxes and government regulation. Sewage, roads, bridges, and clean water are but a few basic necessities provided by the public sector without which companies couldnt do business.Companies are not some sort of "entitlement" playground for its workers....workers are either profitable to the company or they get "downsized"...if you don't like that you have the right to quit a job and find better employment elsewhere or else start your own company...
Corporations control both major US political parties and SCOTUS.How many Socialists voted for the Patriot Act?
Conservatives are the ones running for the shelter of the nanny (Homeland Security) state today.
"Every year 18 million of the earth's six billion inhabitants die from lacking means of subsistence.
"We who live in developed nations typically blame this catastrophe on drought, overpopulation, resource mismanagement, corrupt government, and other local factors, thereby relieving ourselves of any responsibility for this crime.
"At the same time, we do not hesitate to invoke the language of human rights in condemning this state of affairs.
"Either we do so in the name of moral progress as when we say, following the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that the world has fallen short of achieving an aspiration essential to civilized humanity; or we do so in the name of moral offense, as when we condemn selected government officials for having committed acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the like.
"One might ponder whether either of these two senses of human rights... generates a moral discourse sufficient for coming to terms with globalization.
"In particular, one wonders whether they adequately respond to the fact that we are dealing with the imposition of impersonal social structures and institutions that prevent the poor from freely accessing their means of subsistence."
What do you see coming from globalization?
Freedom or security?
Habermas on the human right to subsistence — Site
Freedom will exist if countries pursue democratic processes along with free trade....
Security is only an empty promise made by international Socialists who want to control the world...even though history has proved that socialism is a big fat failure...
You bring up the problem of subsistence.....yet our socialist government is promoting ethanol subsidies which literally take food out of the mouths of babes....America can feed the world if only government regulations would get out of the way....instead BO and his avalanche of regulations are strangling our farmers...
Aside from Bernie Sanders, where are the socialists?
BO?
Why did Goldman Sachs give a socialist more money in 2008 than John McCain?
Why hasn't the socialist prosecuted an single Wall Street banker for wrecking the global economy?
The first question answers the second.
The reason America can't feed the world is American capitalists won't sacrifice a penny of profit to do so. Giant corporations use front groups like ALEC to write the regulations you're complaining about in order to stifle any new competitors. Centralize power is on the rise in this country, and it's elected Republicans AND Democrats and SCOTUS leading the charge.
Freedom has never existed on this planet, and it never will as long as ALL governments continue to socialize costs and privatize profts.
Are you kidding...? The EPA is a suffocating regulatory arm of the government that overreaches to control the actions of all kinds of private enterprise...not to mention it infringes upon the private property rights of Americans...Not really....? How so...? Let's take the EPA regulatory train wreck for example....
EPA regulation has nothing to do with socialism.
How is corporatism by itself worse than socialism....?
Corporatism is a form of fascism that uses government to divvy up power among organized power blocks. It's essentially 'influence peddling' turned up to eleven. Socialism, whatever it's downfalls is ideally democratic. I'm no fan of socialism (for a variety of reasons I'll not go into here) but it at least strives to respond to the needs of the people. Corporatism, on the other hand, is essentially a free for all where all the biggest bullies (corporations, industry groups, unions, religions etc..) vie for control over the rest of us. That's what's going on with ALEC - large organized interest groups pooling their resources to manipulate legislation.
Check these links out for more info:
Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Obama the Corporatist
Do you think a corporation is a person?Not really.
Not really....? How so...? Let's take the EPA regulatory train wreck for example....
Yep. Both sides.
This isn't about fighting socialism. It's about promoting corporatism, which is much worse.
How is corporatism by itself worse than socialism....?
I find corporatism "worse" when government and corporatism are in bed together.....that's when we get socialist corporatism....BO has given us many fine examples of how that works...
In the sense conveyed by the preamble to the US Constitution which starts with "We the People," not "We the Corporation?"
All governments serve their richest citizens first.
That hasn't changed in 5000 years.
The special benefits US governments bestows on its corporate citizens is only the latest incarnation.
And it could be the last.
If centralized power worries you as much as it worries me, I would suggest that elected Republicans AND Democrats, along with SCOTUS, are systematically dismembering common law torts, blocking class actions, displacing Jury verdicts and limiting natural citizens' "standing to sue" for one purpose only and it has nothing to do with bringing socialism to America.
The word is fascism.
That's what you get when the state gets into bed with corporations.
And that's already here.
Are you kidding...? The EPA is a suffocating regulatory arm of the government that overreaches to control the actions of all kinds of private enterprise...not to mention it infringes upon the private property rights of Americans...
...calling corporations fascist instead of socialist...
I'm not defending any lobby group representing corporations as being innocent of getting in bed with the government...but i will defend the right of them to petition....if you can show politicians illegally getting paid for their votes you got yourself a case...
....to me when government gets in bed with corporations you simply got socialist corporatism.
Is BO a puppet of corporatists....?
I hope you are also a supporter of the Tea Party which opposes all this...
Is subsistence a human right?It isn't about jobs, its about profit. The ideal business model would to have no human workers just robots. No unemployment taxes, no health insurance, no sick days, no injuries, no lackadaisical efforts no meal rooms, no wages or other human entitlements. Of course if no body works then nobody can afford to buy anything so it is a "Catch 22" and there has to be a point of equilibrium between the optimum production of product, (just robots) and the need for (jobs) consumers. The trend has been toward production and away from total employment. What is the point of equilibrium? There is no simplistic answer but it appears that in the US we are looking at high unemployment rates as the norm and extreme unemployment rates occasionally in economic downturns.
The future looks bleak for the average American. It is the average American who pays taxes, who are losing their jobs, whose living is started to become threatened by rising prices. The more industries rely on technology and the elimination of the average worker the more the average American is threatened. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the big business pay no taxes, get tax abatement's by local governments seeking to keep the few jobs they promise, and continue to put cash into their coffers. What is the answer? I do not know. The point of equilibrium between production and consumer has been crossed but how far will it go till the pendulum swings back?
FDR may have thought so, if you judge by his Four Freedoms:
"The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people 'everywhere in the world' ought to enjoy:
Freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of worship
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear
"His inclusion of the latter two freedoms went beyond the traditional US Constitutional values protected by its First Amendment, and endorsed a right to economic security and an internationalist view of foreign policy that have come to be central tenets of modern American liberalism[citation needed].
"They also anticipated what would become known decades later as the 'human security' paradigm in social science and economic development."
Maybe it's time national security was enhanced by human security?
Four Freedoms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
freedom from want and fear...?
socialists will trade their freedom for security...security that always turns into bondage....
.Are you kidding...? The EPA is a suffocating regulatory arm of the government that overreaches to control the actions of all kinds of private enterprise...not to mention it infringes upon the private property rights of Americans...
Nope. Not kidding. Socialism isn't just 'something bad'. It has a specific meaning.
not exactly....socialism has more meaning than just government owning the means of production....there are many variations of socialism....just as there are variations of corporatism
...calling corporations fascist instead of socialist...
I'm not calling corporations fascist. I claimed that corporatism* is a form of fascism. Read up on it. As for your claims equating socialism with fascism, they're just not accurate. Fascism can certainly thrive alongside corrupted socialism - just as it can thrive alongside corrupted capitalism. But pretending they're the same thing is just sloppy and promotes misunderstanding of what's going on.
Nevertheless State corporatism (socialist corporatism) is a form of socialism as well...
For example, look at the recent expansion of Medicare (socialism) along with Big Pharma (corporatism)...
Sure, but if you can show politicians taking legislation written wholesale by groups like ALEC and promoting as their own, are you ok with that? This isn't about free speech, and I'm certainly not suggesting outlawing lobbying or even organizations like ALEC. But I do think voters should be aware who is really writing our laws, don't you?
yeah i agree.....how about that 2,000 page Obamacare bill...?
You don't seem to have a clear understanding of what socialism really is. I'm right there with you in my opposition of overreaching, authoritarian government, but mis-applying labels like socialism (or even corporatism and fascism) is just demagoguery. It doesn't really get us anywhere.
you can nitpick all you want about labels but it all comes down to government control...
I think he IS a corporatist. His entire governing style seems to be about using government as the arbiter of power in society - and he's aggressively expanding the state's role in that regard.Is BO a puppet of corporatists....?
yes he isI hope you are also a supporter of the Tea Party which opposes all this...
I was hopeful about this movement at first, but near as I can tell it's been pretty much co-opted by Republicans at this point. Kinda sad, because I know there are still some good people involved (including Ron Paul), but mostly I think they're being duped.
they're the best hope out there today...they are actually affecting the House currently...
*also, for what it's worth, corporatism isn't the same thing as collusion between corporations and government. It can certainly include that, but it's a broader concept. The wiki article i linked to provides a pretty good overview.
yes it can be broader but for this political discussion socialist corporatism it is a fitting term
Companies operate in the public interest, benefactors of public taxes and government regulation. Sewage, roads, bridges, and clean water are but a few basic necessities provided by the public sector without which companies couldn’t do business.Companies are not some sort of "entitlement" playground for its workers....workers are either profitable to the company or they get "downsized"...if you don't like that you have the right to quit a job and find better employment elsewhere or else start your own company...
It is therefore incumbent upon business to give back to their communities by providing employment and economic security.
To argue otherwise is ignorant and naïve.
As to the OP: as noted, there is little that can be done except make citizens aware and hope they vote accordingly.
"'ALEC allows a place for everyone at the table to come and debate and discuss,' another ALEC official, Michael Bowman, told NPR last year. 'You have legislators who will ask questions much more freely at our meetings because they are not under the eyes of the press, the eyes of the voters'"ALEC began in 1973 as a "non-profit" for creating "model" state legislation:I've heard about this. "Legislation" is created outside of the legislative process and then "handed off" like a football to politicians who are members to introduce at the state level.
"This week, both the Los Angeles Times and The Nation put the spotlight on a little-known but influential conservative nonprofit that creates 'model' state legislation that often make its way into law.
"The organization has helped craft some of the most controversial—and industry-friendly—legislation of recent years.
"The American Legislative Exchange Council, ALEC, crafted a model resolution for states calling the EPA's attempts to regulate greenhouse gasses a 'trainwreck' and asking Congress to slow or stop the regulations, the Times reported.
"A press release on ALEC's site says that at least 13 other states have passed resolutions based on their model language."
A Discreet Nonprofit Brings Together Politicians and Corporations to Write ‘Model Bills’ - ProPublica
yes....ALEC is an organization fighting the socialism of BO......see alec.org
if anybody does not like legislation being "handed off" by lobbyists to our congressmen then they need to wake up and smell the coffee.....this is the practice on both sides of the aisle....and a good reason to downsize government. i.e. cut spending....and make our politicians more accountable...
I'm a little surprised no one has challenged your assertion that "companies operate in the public interest." A British engineer named CH Douglas wrote a book in 1924, Social Credit, that argues much the same thing.Companies operate in the public interest, benefactors of public taxes and government regulation. Sewage, roads, bridges, and clean water are but a few basic necessities provided by the public sector without which companies couldnt do business.Companies are not some sort of "entitlement" playground for its workers....workers are either profitable to the company or they get "downsized"...if you don't like that you have the right to quit a job and find better employment elsewhere or else start your own company...
It is therefore incumbent upon business to give back to their communities by providing employment and economic security.
To argue otherwise is ignorant and naïve.
As to the OP: as noted, there is little that can be done except make citizens aware and hope they vote accordingly.
If BO is a Marxist why did he surround himself with leftovers from the Bush Administration like Tim Geithner or Larry Summers or Robert Gates?Corporations control both major US political parties and SCOTUS.Freedom will exist if countries pursue democratic processes along with free trade....
Security is only an empty promise made by international Socialists who want to control the world...even though history has proved that socialism is a big fat failure...
You bring up the problem of subsistence.....yet our socialist government is promoting ethanol subsidies which literally take food out of the mouths of babes....America can feed the world if only government regulations would get out of the way....instead BO and his avalanche of regulations are strangling our farmers...
Aside from Bernie Sanders, where are the socialists?
BO?
Why did Goldman Sachs give a socialist more money in 2008 than John McCain?
Why hasn't the socialist prosecuted an single Wall Street banker for wrecking the global economy?
The first question answers the second.
The reason America can't feed the world is American capitalists won't sacrifice a penny of profit to do so. Giant corporations use front groups like ALEC to write the regulations you're complaining about in order to stifle any new competitors. Centralize power is on the rise in this country, and it's elected Republicans AND Democrats and SCOTUS leading the charge.
Freedom has never existed on this planet, and it never will as long as ALL governments continue to socialize costs and privatize profts.
Your post is kind of all over the map....but yes, BO is definitely a socialist marxist pig....just look at his actions and the people he has surrounded himself with...
Regarding your assertion that American capitalists won't "sacrifice" a penny of profit to feed the world is leftist garbage....first of all Americans don't need to "sacrifice" any of their profit....profit is their goal...."sacrifice" is a word used by Socialists to take from people who work hard to earn their profits.....
What American farmers need is to get government out of their way and let the free market work to feed the world....the reason America can't feed the world is because of government subsidies to NOT FARM....or to farm only specific crops like "corn for oil"....plus a mass of other regulations....and many more coming from BO....
One of the goals of Marxism/Socialism is to control the food of a nation.....control the food, control the people...just as with health care...
BO is a marxist pig and he is pushing his socialist agenda very hard during his term...he's increased government spending by 25%. And how much of that big money did BO use to boost food production? He only used part of it to pass out food stamps to get people on the dole...dependent on government. Socialists never really care about the poor or starving unless they can use it somehow for propaganda or to garner votes. And now BO is pushing for even more spending depsite the fact that it could wreck America....his only goal is....like you said....to centralize government....
The Tea Party is aware of all this going on in both sides of the aisle and is out to downsize big government....i hope you support their candidates...
