Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If our huge government would stay out of the way, failing corporations would indeed loose.
It's a two-way process. Corporations spend a lot of time and money donating to politicians, hiring former politicians, finance the political campaigns of ex-employees, and so on. "Government" and "big corporations" are quite closely entangled, the voters seem to like it that way. Think about it - when is the last time that voters rejected a candidate due to suspicious or inappropriate ties to corporations?
I don't see much in the way of traditional "socialism" - more like corporatism, which is not the same thing. For example, a socialistic healthcare bill would have cut private insurers out of the loop, gotten the government involved with manufacturing drugs, and so on. No such bill was ever passed, or seriously proposed.
Instead, the bill that passed had quite a lot of corporatist aspects to it, which is an important distinction that many people seem to have glossed over.
If Corporations take over, and rule, all Governments to the benefit of themselves and to the detriment of Individuals, what is that called?
I don't remember ever reading about this in history.
That would be something akin to fascism, but it's not only the corporations who rule. It's more of a co-rule between the politicians and corporations. The corporations donate massive amounts of $ to politicians in power in order to keep them in office. In turn, the corporations expect the politicians to do their bidding such as drafting "free trade" legislation that makes it easier for the corporations to export jobs to slave labor countries to increase their profits at the expense of the American worker and really the American economy as a whole. If a certain politician fails to do their bidding, they'll find their campaign funds cut off making it more difficult to stay in office.
While the middle class disappears and poverty increases the wealthiest people in our country are not only doing extremely well, they are using their wealth and political power to protect and expand their very privileged status at the expense of everyone else. This upper-crust of extremely wealthy families are hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle-class which has made the United States the envy of the world. In its place they are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economic and political life of our country.
Yeah, but don't the rich heads of such huge chain companies as Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and etc. need a strong middle class to keep their business empires in good health?
Consider the DREAM act and the legalization of 12 Million illegals voting for more entitlements. Stop the DREAM ACt, Harry Reid is going to push it through for vote during the mid-holiday session.
This $1.1 Trillion spending omnibus-palooza bill of Harry Reids' liberal Senate puts in place the funding for Obamacare, HHS budget required to implement it, and other federal agency budgets to clamp down further on Americans and their liberty.
We are there. The infrastructure is in place and if the $1-1 Trillion spending bill is passed, it is funded.
Solutions, de-fund it. Tear down the agency infra structure and rebuild it to conform within the limits of Constitutional power.
Chris Christie in 2012 for POTUS and we can get it done, not only stopping Socialism in its tracks but driving it backwards another decade or more.
We are not anywhere near socialism. We have a mixed economy as we have had since the founding of the Republic. No one is advocating common ownership of the means of production and how resources are used. From the nationalizion of the lighthouses and the establishment of a govt. bank under President Washington, to the Federal govt. paying for the Transcontinental Railroad, to the Federal govt devising the interstate highway system, the govt has always had a hand in those things which are essential to the welfare of the United States.
The "socialism boogyman" certainly has people distracted from reality, doesn't it.
It really does. And the way the "socialism boogyman" is being presented is also literally brainwashing people about what's going on (or not). I hear A LOT of angry people ranting about socialism and its unfortunate because the reality of a vast socialist system being introduced in the US should really be the last of their concerns. I can't help but think that many critics who are firing away about the "dangers" of a socialist state in the US are also not very well travelled and also very careless when it comes to interpreting history.
If this is socialist, then there will be a distribution of wealth, then everyone will get poor. However, what I see is everyone get poor except the mega corporations.
Or, according to some European models, there would be a relative distribution and a vast middle class.
Depends on who you ask. You ask an actual dyed in the wool Socialist and they will likely laugh at you. Ask someone from the far right and they are probably hiding under the bed sobbing that the commies are at the gate.
90% of America can't even give you the actual definition of Socialism, let alone understand the concept in broader abstracts.
Many Europeans appeared completely baffled at the apparent surge of American fear of Socialism as when they look to the States, the last thing they see is a socialist state, or even a wanna be socialist state. I live in one of the most politically conservative regions in Germany and even people here can't really comprehend why Americans are ranting about Socialism invading their world.
Your comment about how most Americans can't even give the actual definition of Socialism is worth highlighting. I don't claim to be an expert on the concept, but have seen it at work in a few different ways and try to view it with some neutrality. However, it is sometimes painful to see the talking heads in media, and many commentators online, trashing the very concept of it without any sign of having read up on it or even casually examining different models.
Yeah, but don't the rich heads of such huge chain companies as Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and etc. need a strong middle class to keep their business empires in good health?
Henry Ford was one of the first industrialists to help give rise to a new middle class. By paying his assembly workers a high enough wage to afford his cars, he stimulated the economy and gained more sales.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
