PDA

View Full Version : State Capitalism and Fascism - Ron Paul comments and more



Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 12:43 PM
I'd like to bring a few topics up for discussion:

State Capitalism is the first. Now, in America, we think of the "good" kind of capitalism as being the laissez faire version of free market capitalism. This is where the markets and the government are separate, this is what Reagan preached (although I submit it is not what he practiced) and it's the cause lifted up by the Tea Party and modern libertarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

State Capitalism is what they have in China. This is when the government aligns itself with Big Business, and becomes a tool for the wealthy. In this system, the government itself functions as one massive corporation, and actively works to support the interests of Big Business, at the expense of anyone else who may suffer.

In China, the entrepreneurial spirit is extremely strong, and business is exploding, despite their claims of being an officially "communist" country. In China, the government handles finances and actively works to secure consumer markets for protected industries.

What we call Fascists are usually those who support State Capitalism. From this perspective, the Soviet Union would have been more appropriately called a Red Fascist state, rather than a bottom-up communist state.


It seems the line goes like this: left to right.

Communism - Dictatorship of the Proletariat - Democratic Socialism - Laissez Faire Capitalism - State Capitalism - National Socialism - Fascism

Ironically enough, the far left and far right on the spectrum have, in history, often come around and touched, blending "official capitalist" states with authoritarian structures, or "official socialist" states with limited or no democracy.

Now, it is a given in Marxist ideology that Laissez Faire capitalism is impossible and unstable and necessarily moves. This is because the nature of capitalism is to accumulate wealth into the hands of the few. Once few people hold most of the wealth, they are able to secure their positions through power grabs like buying politicians or flooding the privately-owned airwaves with propaganda. Before you know it, the government is working first and foremost for Big Business, and any leftovers trickle down to the regular working people like you and me.


I suggest that we are on a very fast track towards State Capitalism. For many decades, part of the propaganda campaign to win the Cold War was to assert through a variety of direct and subliminal means that Capitalism and Democracy were married. It was assumed that if Capitalism could be supported, Democracy would follow, and if Democracy could be supported, Capitalism will follow.

Now, this isn't always the case. For example: the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, where the guatemalan people democratically elected a socialist leader, and the CIA went in and destabilized the government in order to protect capitalist business interests at the expense of the people. However, despite the actions of our government, they've always preached the the same thing, that Capitalism and Democracy go together. This marriage is part of how we won the cold war. However, China is proving more and more than their system of State Capitalism with limited Democracy is actually a far more stable system for the people in power. Slowly but surely, as big business aligns itself with big government, we will find ourselves living in a Fascist State.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Finally I present one of the most honest men working in government today, Congressman Ron Paul: He argues that Corporatism is Soft Fascism and I agree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy-w6y6DTxw

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 12:50 PM
Socialism is when the Government works as an active agent to protect the interests of working people and the community at large. Because of the inherent adversarial nature of the workplace, a Socialist governement generally fights against the interests of Big Business and for the interests of Labor. The goal is the reduce or minimize the effects of exploitation caused by the natural flow of privately owned capital.

The inverse of this, is State Capitalism, which I think many people often confuse with Socialism. Both State Capitalism and Socialism involve a Big Government, something that libertarians are generally against, but the difference is the role of that government. Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini described State Capitalism as "Socialism turned on it's head."

This is because in State Capitalism, exploitation is expected, but it's guided by the state to benefit big business, with the idea that whatever is good for Big Business is also good for the State and the People. In State Capitalism, big government is providing safety nets, bailouts, permanent buying markets and low labor costs for Big Business. It's upside down socialism.

I think it's very legitimate to disagree with socialism, but I also think it's important to clarify the different between State Capitalism and socialism.

All too often, people throw around the term "socialist" to mean anything that "increases the size of government". This is an extremely loose, vague, and unhelpful definition.

Molon Labe
12-08-2010, 01:08 PM
I'm a free market type of guy. I'm for less collectivisation and I think private is superior to public in all facets.

I disagree that corporatism is 'soft fascism'. It is pushing hard fascism. It's just easily disguised because of modern society. A corporation is not a free market entity. It cannot exist in a free market system of pure competition because it needs a government mandate to exist. Thus there is coercion of other businesses through the states hands.

Free markets ≠ Corporatism

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 01:44 PM
I'm a free market type of guy. I'm for less collectivisation and I think private is superior to public in all facets.

I disagree that corporatism is 'soft fascism'. It is pushing hard fascism. It's just easily disguised because of modern society. A corporation is not a free market entity. It cannot exist in a free market system of pure competition because it needs a government mandate to exist. Thus there is coercion of other businesses through the states hands.

I think some of the theoretical frameworks given by pro-capitalist thinkers are very good, but unfortunately I do not think the ideal of Free Market capitalism is possible.

This is where I feel Marx was more correct in his analysis of capitalism. I agree that corporatism is NOT the same as free market capitalism, however I feel that it is an inevitable transition. As wealth accumulates, so does power, and as power accumulates, the people with wealth find ways to bend Government to their will so that they never lose that power.

The ideal of free market capitalism has the players coming and going, being replaced by new competitors, but the realities of American capitalism do not reflect this. Instead it shows the slow accumulation of more and more wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people. The tipping point of this was the bailouts, arguing that if we do not bailout failed institutions that the entire system would come down.

We are already at the point of Corporatism in the US. Free Market capitalism was choking out it's last bloody coughing breaths at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries.

Politicians gave up the idea of free market capitalism a long time ago. unfortunately, the rhetoric is still used. Just like the Soviet Union preached about communism and freedom while being a thinly veiled fascist society, our politicians love to espouse values of small government and free markets when the reality is a corporatist nightmare.



Free markets ≠ Corporatism

With this much, I agree totally. It's crucial that people are not fooled into supporting Corporatism because people in power are using Free Market rhetoric.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-08-2010, 02:00 PM
I see no problem with Corporatism if that's what we've been working under since 1900 or so.
I much like our system as it is and has been, and I do not want a return to Laissez-Faire capitalism.

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 02:10 PM
I see no problem with Corporatism if that's what we've been working under since 1900 or so.
I much like our system as it is and has been, and I do not want a return to Laissez-Faire capitalism.

Except it hasn't been working.

Our markets collapsed and a debatable combination of FDR's New Deal along with the war effort pulled us out of it. Massive government intervention was used during the largest expansion of the middle class in our nation's history. Large scale infrastructure projects were undertaken during the 40's and 50's, and during this time of unprecedented growth, tax rates for the wealthy were nearing 90%.

The second half of the century was the time when labor unions lost nearly all of their negotiating power, corporations grabbed near total control over our government, and policies put forth by both Republican and Democrat politicians were aimed at benefiting the wealthy people who lined their wallets and engaged in systematic quid pro quos.

I know you are young but even in your lifetime huge steps towards Corporatism have been made. Since 9/11, Verizon and other communications companies broke the law and violated people's constitutional rights by agreeing to hand over information to the government, and then lobbied congress to pass laws that would retroactively make their actions legal. This is a total perversion of our democratic republic.

CITM, what you are endorsing is Fascism.

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 02:14 PM
Tell me, by what measure, do you consider this Corporatism to be a success?

Today we have huge accumulations of wealth side by side with large unemployed workers. You over-produced goods being thrown away or burned because they couldn't be sold at a profit, while milllions of people don't know if they will eat today. You have pharmacutical companies getting bailouts and government-backed consumer markets while working class families have to bankrupt themselves if their child gets sick. We have more vast resources than any society in the history of the world and still millions of Americans might lose their home and go hungry if they miss 2 paychecks.

in what way is this "working"?

Molon Labe
12-08-2010, 02:40 PM
I see no problem with Corporatism if that's what we've been working under since 1900 or so.
I much like our system as it is and has been, and I do not want a return to Laissez-Faire capitalism.

CaughtintheMiddle....

I'd prefer to have dozens and dozens of Amazon.coms or Verizon Wireless or Direct TVs. Currently you have about 2-4 major companies that dominate their particular industries. And people call that competition.
People have a false illusion of choices. I don't think people realize how much better a truly free market would be.

If you are not for laissez faire capitalism, then you are for government intervention in the markets..........which is what caused the economic collapse. A question you asked about in another thread.

Here's how it works.

No fannie freddie mac......no place to put the bad loans......no bubble in housing market.......no crash.

If there were more competition, then prices of housing would have been more affordable and people could use their earnings to put a down payment on a home of their choice instead of being beholden to bad credit agencies.

PoliCon
12-08-2010, 03:39 PM
state capitalism? :rolleyes: Paint it any way you like - what china has is a COMMAND ECONOMY. When the government controls what is made that's socialism. When the government controls what is made but allows the appearace of public sector involvement - that's fascism.

PoliCon
12-08-2010, 03:39 PM
Monopolies only exist with state intervention. They cannot exist in a free market.

jediab
12-08-2010, 03:56 PM
Monopolies only exist with state intervention. They cannot exist in a free market.

How so? I would think the end result of free market system would be 1 company owning everything as sooner or later 1 buys out the other, then another, and another, until you have this giant mega-company that does and sells nearly everything. And with no competition to speak of since they bought them all out, they would be alone to do anything they wanted.

I am asking since my economic skills = teh suck. ;)

Molon Labe
12-08-2010, 03:59 PM
state capitalism? :rolleyes: Paint it any way you like - what china has is a COMMAND ECONOMY. When the government controls what is made that's socialism. When the government controls what is made but allows the appearace of public sector involvement - that's fascism.

See...we can agree..

PoliCon
12-08-2010, 04:21 PM
How so? I would think the end result of free market system would be 1 company owning everything as sooner or later 1 buys out the other, then another, and another, until you have this giant mega-company that does and sells nearly everything. And with no competition to speak of since they bought them all out, they would be alone to do anything they wanted.

I am asking since my economic skills = teh suck. ;)

Because without the government to protect the monopoly a second company could come along at any time and undercut the monopoly either by giving a better product, selling at a lower price, or giving better service around the product. The best a company could hope for in a free market is a near monopoly. Plus at a certain point a monopoly becomes cumbersome and unable to respond to new competition. Without government intervention through regulations for example - a monopoly would not be able to stand under it's own weight.

PoliCon
12-08-2010, 04:21 PM
See...we can agree..

Once in a while you get something right. ;)

jediab
12-08-2010, 04:44 PM
Because without the government to protect the monopoly a second company could come along at any time and undercut the monopoly either by giving a better product, selling at a lower price, or giving better service around the product. The best a company could hope for in a free market is a near monopoly. Plus at a certain point a monopoly becomes cumbersome and unable to respond to new competition. Without government intervention through regulations for example - a monopoly would not be able to stand under it's own weight.

So what you are saying is that eventionally the mega business would colapse, or not be able to keep up due to it's own bureaucratic BS that all large companies have?

Where would the serious competition come from? Let's say Walmart owns all. How would a start up business be able to do any sort of dent to Walmart's marketshare? Also since Walmart has the funds, contracts, and connections to get it's goods for a low price, they could undercut the prices at the smaller competitor thus attracting more customers.

For the record I have nothing against Walmart. :D

Would you say a good example of what you talk of is the PC industry? They moved faster than the laws could keep up with, thus a lot of things happened that before the government could react. IBM and Apple to start with. Now they are the small players because of companies like HP and Dell. Not to mention the emergence of Microsoft.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-08-2010, 08:48 PM
CaughtintheMiddle....

I'd prefer to have dozens and dozens of Amazon.coms or Verizon Wireless or Direct TVs. Currently you have about 2-4 major companies that dominate their particular industries. And people call that competition.
People have a false illusion of choices. I don't think people realize how much better a truly free market would be.

If you are not for laissez faire capitalism, then you are for government intervention in the markets..........which is what caused the economic collapse. A question you asked about in another thread.

Here's how it works.

No fannie freddie mac......no place to put the bad loans......no bubble in housing market.......no crash.

If there were more competition, then prices of housing would have been more affordable and people could use their earnings to put a down payment on a home of their choice instead of being beholden to bad credit agencies.

Well shit like that yeah,
When I say "Laissez-Faire capitalism", I mean back when the days when there was no form of Social Social, no labor laws, job safety laws, workfare or environmental legislation--Those days. That kind of system.

Madisonian
12-08-2010, 08:52 PM
I see no problem with Corporatism if that's what we've been working under since 1900 or so.
I much like our system as it is and has been, and I do not want a return to Laissez-Faire capitalism.

If this is the case, then I would have to say that you have no idea what true Laissez-Faire capitalism is.
Before our current Corporatism, there where dozens or hundreds of competitors in almost every American industry and that competition kept prices honest, technological advances booming and wages increasing. It was when the corporatists started buying politicians and pressured them to make laws, rules and regulations that worked against their competitors that things started to change for the worse.
The larger companies could propose "changes" that they could absorb knowing that their competition could not and in that way create quasi monopolies by attrition.
True capitalism is not survival of the fittest or the weak being devoured by the strong. It is the government stepping out of the equation and allowing the marketplace to determine the winners and losers by virtue of consumers having an adequate and open market from which to purchase.

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 09:03 PM
It seems to me that this "true capitalism" you speak of was only one transitioning stage of wealth accumulation that inevitably leads to large scale megacorporations and politicians selling out. Can you have capitalism without huge mega corporation getting monopolies on markets and accumulating extreme amounts of wealth? Just look at the turn of the century, it was happening then too. With the growth of megacorporations you have extremely wealthy individuals who can buy political influence and more importantly they can own the instutions themselves such as the media or communication systems.

Once a company gets big enough, it's wealth-power can actually bend the rules of the game in it's own favor. This isn't some abnormality, it seems to be the nautral result of systems that exist solely to generate profits.

Madisonian
12-08-2010, 09:04 PM
Well shit like that yeah,
When I say "Laissez-Faire capitalism", I mean back when the days when there was no form of Social Social, no labor laws, job safety laws, workfare or environmental legislation--Those days. That kind of system.

"Back in the day", pre-corporatism, many of these "reforms" were not needed for various reasons.
There were ample opportunities to ply your trade and in company A was unsafe to work at, you quit and went to company B that was. Company A, now losing good employees, would have to make its workplace safer if it wanted to compete with company B.

It seems you like laws, laws, regulations and laws. As a responsible adult, I can look after myself without social security, labor laws and the majority of job safety laws, thank you very much. I do not need OSHA to protect me from myself and if you are not smart enough to not walk into a press or industrial automation without having millions of dollars of guards, light screens, 2 hand palm buttons and the rest, then I call that natural selection.

Madisonian
12-08-2010, 09:15 PM
It seems to me that this "true capitalism" you speak of was only one transitioning stage of wealth accumulation that inevitably leads to large scale megacorporations and politicians selling out. Can you have capitalism without huge mega corporation getting monopolies on markets and accumulating extreme amounts of wealth? Just look at the turn of the century, it was happening then too. With the growth of megacorporations you have extremely wealthy individuals who can buy political influence and more importantly they can own the instutions themselves such as the media or communication systems.

Once a company gets big enough, it's wealth-power can actually bend the rules of the game in it's own favor. This isn't some abnormality, it seems to be the nautral result of systems that exist solely to generate profits.

And that was supposed to be why the government (federal, state or local) was to remain hands off so politicians had no opportunity to be bought off. It is the government involvement that allowed it to get so fucked up.
If you look at the Constitution, it is only by bastardizing the commerce clause that the feds weaseled their way into the picture at the behest of megacorps and megawealthy.
It was the uber rich and powerful of the time that got the feds to pass the income tax amendment after they had protected their ass-ets in order to minimize competition.

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 09:39 PM
That's exactly the problem. Government officials gravitate toward the wealthy because of greed and the wealthy gravitate towards government for the same reason. It's a quid pro quo, and it shouldn't be a surprise.

It's not enough to say "government and big business shoudln't be in bed together", they already are and they have been for well over a century. Politicians stay in power by not challenging the wealthy elite who own institutions. The wealthy elite keep their profits and wealth growth by buying off politicians. We can say whatever we like but unless we elect politicians who are hell-bent on breaking up this sleazy hook-up between big business and government, then it will just keep happening.

Rockntractor
12-08-2010, 09:45 PM
That's exactly the problem. Government officials gravitate toward the wealthy because of greed and the wealthy gravitate towards government for the same reason. It's a quid pro quo, and it shouldn't be a surprise.

It's not enough to say "government and big business shoudln't be in bed together", they already are and they have been for well over a century. Politicians stay in power by not challenging the wealthy elite who own institutions. The wealthy elite keep their profits and wealth growth by buying off politicians. We can say whatever we like but unless we elect politicians who are hell-bent on breaking up this sleazy hook-up between big business and government, then it will just keep happening.

Do you mean like George Soros?

Madisonian
12-08-2010, 09:56 PM
So what you are saying is that eventionally the mega business would colapse, or not be able to keep up due to it's own bureaucratic BS that all large companies have?

Where would the serious competition come from? Let's say Walmart owns all. How would a start up business be able to do any sort of dent to Walmart's marketshare? Also since Walmart has the funds, contracts, and connections to get it's goods for a low price, they could undercut the prices at the smaller competitor thus attracting more customers.

For the record I have nothing against Walmart. :D

Would you say a good example of what you talk of is the PC industry? They moved faster than the laws could keep up with, thus a lot of things happened that before the government could react. IBM and Apple to start with. Now they are the small players because of companies like HP and Dell. Not to mention the emergence of Microsoft.

The mega business does collapse. Just look at GM, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie and Freddie and the hundreds of others in just the last few years. Without their bailouts, they would be gone. Then some other person or entity could make use of the capital they consumed.

Walmart will at some point collapse unless the government deems it too big to fail. Look to Kmart as an example. As for competition, Walmart may have low prices, but they only carry commodities where product knowledge is not needed and variety within a product line is also not their strong point.
Also look at the infrastructure Walmart has to support to remain in business on a daily basis. It would not take much instability to rock their world, and not in a good way.
At some point, the economy will rebound and they will have problems finding low wage employees so they will either lose them or be forced to pay more in wages or benefits to retain them.

Even as the left of center crowd likes to condemn the "rich", there are studies that show that the 5 quintiles of the economic ladder are really quite fluid in their individual makeup. Look even to the Forbes 500 richest Americans and names come an go on a regular basis.

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 09:57 PM
Yes Soros is a wealthy capitalist. He does align himself with progressive causes, but that's hardly a reason to parade him around. I find that many conservatives LOVE to mention soros because he's an example of a wealthy man who isn't pushing far-right propaganda.

That's totally fine, and Soros, as well as many other wealthy individuals give a lot to charity. However, charity is not enough to solve our problems, just like the welfare state isn't.

He aligns himself with liberal social policies that are common amongst Democrats but he is no Socialist by any measure. Even if he was (he's not), there are a dozen right-wing Murdochs and Kochs for every liberal Soros who are actively and purposefully planning and executing large scale propaganda campaigns solely to influence public opinion and elections.

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 10:02 PM
The mega business does collapse. Just look at GM, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie and Freddie and the hundreds of others in just the last few years. Without their bailouts, they would be gone. Then some other person or entity could make use of the capital they consumed.

Walmart will at some point collapse unless the government deems it too big to fail. Look to Kmart as an example. As for competition, Walmart may have low prices, but they only carry commodities where product knowledge is not needed and variety within a product line is also not their strong point.
Also look at the infrastructure Walmart has to support to remain in business on a daily basis. It would not take much instability to rock their world, and not in a good way.
At some point, the economy will rebound and they will have problems finding low wage employees so they will either lose them or be forced to pay more in wages or benefits to retain them.

Even as the left of center crowd likes to condemn the "rich", there are studies that show that the 5 quintiles of the economic ladder are really quite fluid in their individual makeup. Look even to the Forbes 500 richest Americans and names come an go on a regular basis.

I was not a fan of the bailouts, not at all. However, I agree with the sentiment that these companies and institutions were indeed "too big to fail". If the government had not intervened on behalf of these companies there would have been catastrophic system failure and we'd be deep in Great Depression II. I think this just goes to show that there is no stable state of Correct Capitalism, given enough time, it begins to collapse, and while it may eventually restabilize, the size of modern day institutions and markets would make another Great Depression a global catastrophe.

People seem to like to look back at a time and say it should have always been like that but every system is in a constant state of change and the ups and downs of modern capitalism are simply too much to be left to the free market. we are slowly but surely moving towards State Capitalism as a means to "prevent systemic failures".

I believe, as China is proving, that in our lifetimes we will see the loss of democracy as civil rights are eroded in order to protect Capitalism from failing.

Madisonian
12-08-2010, 10:05 PM
That's exactly the problem. Government officials gravitate toward the wealthy because of greed and the wealthy gravitate towards government for the same reason. It's a quid pro quo, and it shouldn't be a surprise.

It's not enough to say "government and big business shoudln't be in bed together", they already are and they have been for well over a century. Politicians stay in power by not challenging the wealthy elite who own institutions. The wealthy elite keep their profits and wealth growth by buying off politicians. We can say whatever we like but unless we elect politicians who are hell-bent on breaking up this sleazy hook-up between big business and government, then it will just keep happening.

Which is why we have to get the corporostatists on both sides of the aisle into the unemployment lines. I have never claimed this was either strictly the Dempublicans or Republicrats fault.
Hell even the current crop of phony conservatives took the recent tax cut extension carrot for the trade off of higher estate taxes, 13 months of extended don't need to find a job time and current tax rate extensions without even a hint of demanding corresponding cuts in federal outlays. Great eh? Now all I need is a Tee shirt that says "My grandpa got a tax break and all I got was another trillion in debt to pay"
Think that is not going to give the other side some ammo in the next election cycle?

Madisonian
12-08-2010, 10:11 PM
I was not a fan of the bailouts, not at all. However, I agree with the sentiment that these companies and institutions were indeed "too big to fail". If the government had not intervened on behalf of these companies there would have been catastrophic system failure and we'd be deep in Great Depression II. I think this just goes to show that there is no stable state of Correct Capitalism, given enough time, it begins to collapse, and while it may eventually restabilize, the size of modern day institutions and markets would make another Great Depression a global catastrophe.

People seem to like to look back at a time and say it should have always been like that but every system is in a constant state of change and the ups and downs of modern capitalism are simply too much to be left to the free market. we are slowly but surely moving towards State Capitalism as a means to "prevent systemic failures".

I believe, as China is proving, that in our lifetimes we will see the loss of democracy as civil rights are eroded in order to protect Capitalism from failing.

It is well past bed time and I actually look forward to picking up this debate sometime tomorrow.
I complement the thread and participants for the civility displayed. Well so far, anyway.:D

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 10:11 PM
Which is why we have to get the corporostatists on both sides of the aisle into the unemployment lines. I have never claimed this was either strictly the Dempublicans or Republicrats fault.
Hell even the current crop of phony conservatives took the recent tax cut extension carrot for the trade off of higher estate taxes, 13 months of extended don't need to find a job time and current tax rate extensions without even a hint of demanding corresponding cuts in federal outlays. Great eh? Now all I need is a Tee shirt that says "My grandpa got a tax break and all I got was another trillion in debt to pay"
Think that is not going to give the other side some ammo in the next election cycle?

About the tax cuts and estate taxes, Congressman Bernie Sanders says it better than I can, explaining exactly who benefits from this recent bill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcLWDGb0RqA


As for the parties, they are both terrible but it is not their fault, it's ours. I am encouraging as many Republicans and Democrats to not vote for these two parties this election. Vote Libertarian, vote Socialist, vote Green or vote Conservative, hell it doesn't matter who you vote for but we need to stop giving our votes to the major parties because "we dont want the other team to win". This is GARBAGE.

This is how they stay in power. We need to stop voting against "the other team" and start voting FOR principles, whatever they may be. I know many people here disagree with me on a lot of things, but I think we can all agree that our two major parties have totally failed the American people and do not deserve to be in power.

Wei Wu Wei
12-08-2010, 10:15 PM
It is well past bed time and I actually look forward to picking up this debate sometime tomorrow.
I complement the thread and participants for the civility displayed. Well so far, anyway.:D

ah-thank you
http://i.imgur.com/Bp1Yz.gif

I must say this forum seems far more civil and hospitable since I was last here a couple of weeks ago. I like it.

Bleda
12-08-2010, 10:17 PM
I don't really view it as a vote for the Party; it's for the individual. I would gladly vote for a Democrat who is 90% 'good' over a Republican who is 10% good. It's just that, 99% of the time, the better candidate happens to be a Republican. In my case, at least.

Rockntractor
12-08-2010, 10:19 PM
I don't really view it as a vote for the Party; it's for the individual. I would gladly vote for a Democrat who is 90% 'good' over a Republican who is 10% good. It's just that, 99% of the time, the better candidate happens to be a Republican. In my case, at least.

Voting for 90% good Democrats creates Pelosi's and Reeds.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-08-2010, 10:20 PM
I want Bill Clinton and the GOP Congress back. They're the only ones of the last 20 years who actually spent less and cut programs and truly reduced the size of government. Reagan tried, but Congress played him by making promises on their end (Spending cuts to accompany the tax cuts) which they had no intention to keep. Also, I do not like the whole "Moral Majority" bull crap he brought along with him into the Oval Office, so that's another point for Clinton.

PoliCon
12-08-2010, 11:22 PM
So what you are saying is that eventionally the mega business would colapse, or not be able to keep up due to it's own bureaucratic BS that all large companies have?

Where would the serious competition come from? Let's say Walmart owns all. How would a start up business be able to do any sort of dent to Walmart's marketshare? Also since Walmart has the funds, contracts, and connections to get it's goods for a low price, they could undercut the prices at the smaller competitor thus attracting more customers.

For the record I have nothing against Walmart. :D

Would you say a good example of what you talk of is the PC industry? They moved faster than the laws could keep up with, thus a lot of things happened that before the government could react. IBM and Apple to start with. Now they are the small players because of companies like HP and Dell. Not to mention the emergence of Microsoft.

Milton does a great job explaining this -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU

Bleda
12-08-2010, 11:29 PM
Voting for 90% good Democrats creates Pelosi's and Reeds.

How?

PoliCon
12-08-2010, 11:31 PM
How?

how many of the Dem majority were 'blue dogs?' And electing blue dogs got Nancy and Harry into power.

Bleda
12-08-2010, 11:40 PM
how many of the Dem majority were 'blue dogs?' And electing blue dogs got Nancy and Harry into power.

I'm not talking about those people. I said 90% good, didn't I? That's better than most Republicans, probably.

PoliCon
12-08-2010, 11:51 PM
I'm not talking about those people. I said 90% good, didn't I? That's better than most Republicans, probably.

Then why aren't they republicans? Voting for a good democrat is also a vote for the democrat party power structure and their leadership in the chamber to which that person is elected.

Rockntractor
12-08-2010, 11:55 PM
Then why aren't they republicans? Voting for a good democrat is also a vote for the democrat party power structure and their leadership in the chamber to which that person is elected.

There are lots of good Democrat politicians, they are the ones that were voted out of office and are working at legitimate jobs, not lobbying.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-09-2010, 12:00 AM
There are lots of good Democrat politicians, they are the ones that were voted out of office and are working at legitimate jobs, not lobbying.

I think the Tea Party movement wasn't ''about parties.''
But is it not about parties? Or is it about the destruction of one party and the uplifting of another?

Rockntractor
12-09-2010, 12:02 AM
I think the Tea Party movement wasn't ''about parties.''
But is it not about parties? Or is it about the destruction of one party and the uplifting of another?

It's about that which chooses to destroy the constitution, all Democrats and some Republicans have chosen this path.

Bleda
12-09-2010, 12:07 AM
Then why aren't they republicans? Voting for a good democrat is also a vote for the democrat party power structure and their leadership in the chamber to which that person is elected.

It's a hypothetical scenario. If by some chance, the Democratic candidate was Ronald Reagan and the Republican candidate was Barack Obama, who would you pick?

Rockntractor
12-09-2010, 12:12 AM
It's a hypothetical scenario. If by some chance, the Democratic candidate was Ronald Reagan and the Republican candidate was Barack Obama, who would you pick?

Why don't you get more ridiculous and say one is a klingon and the other a cardasian if we are having a fantasy, cut back on the hallucinogenics!:rolleyes:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-09-2010, 12:15 AM
Why don't you get more ridiculous and say one is a klingon and the other a cardasian if we are having a fantasy, cut back on the hallucinogenics!:rolleyes:

Reagan was a Democrat until 1962 and had voted for FDR and actively campaigned for Harry Truman. It's not like he was born a Republican. He was over 50 when he became a Democrat, so obviously for the first almost 30 years of his life he felt they were doing something right.

Rockntractor
12-09-2010, 12:18 AM
Reagan was a Democrat until 1962 and had voted for FDR and actively campaigned for Harry Truman. It's not like he was born a Republican. He was over 50 when he became a Democrat, so obviously for the first almost 30 years of his life he felt they were doing something right.

Until he figured out how totally off base the democrat party was, what would he think today. This conversation has gone completely ridiculous .

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-09-2010, 12:21 AM
Until he figured out how totally off base the democrat party was, what would he think today. This conversation has gone completely ridiculous .

No, he said the Democratic Party left him...Which would seem to imply he felt somewhere around that time, they changed.
I don't think he was a stupid man, so I'm pretty sure he was rather confidant in his voting even up till then.

Lyndon Johnson changed a lot with regard to the Democratic Party. There were plenty of people, I'd imagine, who were happy with the New Deal but felt the Great Society was going too far. Notice in the very next election after LBJ passed all his stuff, a lot of people voted Republcan (Nixon), and then McGovern came along, who was endorsed by LBJ, and Nixon won again in a landslide....In many ways the Great Society did go too far, too fast. Basically shoved a bunch of crap down people's throats within 2 years which radically altered the country.

PoliCon
12-09-2010, 12:29 AM
Until he figured out how totally off base the democrat party was, what would he think today. This conversation has gone completely ridiculous .

QFT

Bleda
12-09-2010, 12:36 AM
Why don't you get more ridiculous and say one is a klingon and the other a cardasian if we are having a fantasy, cut back on the hallucinogenics!:rolleyes:

Hey, I'm just saying, vote for the individual, not the party.

Rockntractor
12-09-2010, 12:37 AM
No, he said the Democratic Party left him...Which would seem to imply he felt somewhere around that time, they changed.
I don't think he was a stupid man, so I'm pretty sure he was rather confidant in his voting even up till then.



This was just a figure of speech.
Son when a girl breaks up with you and says" oh it's not you, its me" trust me, its you, she is tired of your ass and she is gone.
Reagan changed, he matured, when confronted with logic he was not rigid he reacted to it. Learn from him he was a wise man.

Molon Labe
12-09-2010, 10:48 AM
I don't really view it as a vote for the Party; it's for the individual. I would gladly vote for a Democrat who is 90% 'good' over a Republican who is 10% good. It's just that, 99% of the time, the better candidate happens to be a Republican. In my case, at least.


Then why aren't they republicans? Voting for a good democrat is also a vote for the democrat party power structure and their leadership in the chamber to which that person is elected.


A good example of why you should look at voting records, history, and the man is this.

Several years ago during the Senate race in S.C., Lindsey Graham was the Republican and Bob Conley was the Democrat.

Graham defeated a much more conservative Bobby Witherspoon in the primary for the nomination and then went on to defeat the Democrat .....who again held much more conservative stances than Graham.

The AmericanSpecator called Graham "The worst Republican Senator" and he's the biggest RINO in the Senate....yet there are people on this board that think that someohow returning the R over the D to Washington limits the left wing power structure?

Oh...Conley's challenger even admitted that they had just nominated a Republican during a Democratic primary.

PoliCon
12-09-2010, 02:09 PM
A good example of why you should look at voting records, history, and the man is this.

Several years ago during the Senate race in S.C., Lindsey Graham was the Republican and Bob Conley was the Democrat.

Graham defeated a much more conservative Bobby Witherspoon in the primary for the nomination and then went on to defeat the Democrat .....who again held much more conservative stances than Graham.

The AmericanSpecator called Graham "The worst Republican Senator" and he's the biggest RINO in the Senate....yet there are people on this board that think that someohow returning the R over the D to Washington limits the left wing power structure?

Oh...Conley's challenger even admitted that they had just nominated a Republican during a Democratic primary.

Sometimes when you vote for a republican you get a democrat - but every time you vote for a democrat - you get a democrat.