democrats pass health care and the media is already blaming the republicans for it

[TGregg]

So the democrats pass health care and it supposedly is an awesome triumph for The One and the rest of the socialists. Everybody knows what a disaster it will be, which only leaves one thing left to do - blame the republicans for it.

WASHINGTON – Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100327/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_requiring_insurance

Yep, now that it is nearly law and the train wreck is scheduled, it's time to blame the republicans for the health care bill.

 

[Index piker]

No informed conservative or libertarian believes the republicans have been defenders of the constitution and smaller govt but one would have to be mentally retarded to accept this as an excuse for the fascist takeover of the govt by democrats.

 

[Dave10110100]

Quote from Index piker:

No informed conservative or libertarian believes the republicans have been defenders of the constitution and smaller govt but one would have to be mentally retarded to accept this as an excuse for the fascist takeover of the govt by democrats.

we already have a facist gov, taken over by the rich. there are CEOs running whole departments.

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from Dave10110100:

we already have a facist gov, taken over by the rich. there are CEOs running whole departments.

Don't mind index piker, he's just a blithering fool who'll call Democrats fascist in one breath and socialist in the next, and he'll remain utterly oblivious to the contradiction. Not much on intellectual consistency, these tea party nihilists.

 

[Index piker]

Quote from Dave10110100:

1)we already have a facist gov,2) taken over by the rich. 3) there are CEOs running whole departments.

1) The huge increase in the rate of change is not lost anyone with a clue.

2) I fail to see where it's a class warfare issue.

3) Your post gives the impression you have no clue what constitutes economic fascism.



maybe you should educate yourself.

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.

Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

 

[unretired]

Quote from Index piker:
... maybe you should educate yourself.

A truly classic and noble statement of correction.

Unfortunately most libtards are under some spell or delusion.
They hate the truth ... nevertheless a little slam dunking is still needed.

 

[Dave10110100]

the evidence is right in front of you. the gov leaves communes alone because they are still in the economy and they dont have mineral rights. but a peasantry forms in Africa to get back their local wealth like oil and the gov asks their gov to crack down on them. and if a whole country thinks to become a commune and control all their own stuff, then our gov goes to war with them. or embargos, like Cuba.

 

[Index piker]

Quote from kut2k2:

Don't mind index piker, he's just a blithering fool who'll call Democrats fascist in one breath and socialist in the next, and he'll remain utterly oblivious to the contradiction. Not much on intellectual consistency, these tea party nihilists.

Both are authoritarian in nature and it only matters to the eggheads to try to draw absolute distinctions as if it mattered to those subjugated by such forms of govt.

If one contemplates the daily life of the avg citizen under fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia , North Korean dictatorship.

Please eggheads differentiate between the different political/economic systems effect upon the avg citizen.

Thanks , I'm sure your silence will be both deafening and instructive concerning the veracity of your arguments.

 

[Dave10110100]

Quote from Index piker:

Both are authoritarian in nature and it only matters to the eggheads to try to draw absolute distinctions as if it mattered to those subjugated by such forms of govt.

If one contemplates the daily life of the avg citizen under fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia , North Korean dictatorship.

Please eggheads differentiate between the different political/economic systems effect upon the avg citizen.

Thanks , I'm sure your silence will be both deafening and instructive concerning the veracity of your arguments.

you're right but you keep trying to blame the democrats. like that's the problem. to the extent they oppose the plutocrats I support them but I don't think they have a chance in hell. this country has been run by Rockellers and Duponts from long ago, they just hide their identity behind corps and shell corps and numbered corps now. as for the republicans they don't even pretend to oppose the rich much less do anything for the working man.

 

[Index piker]

Quote from Dave10110100:

the evidence is right in front of you. the gov leaves communes alone because they are still in the economy and they dont have mineral rights. but a peasantry forms in Africa to get back their local wealth like oil and the gov asks their gov to crack down on them. and if a whole country thinks to become a commune and control all their own stuff, then our gov goes to war with them. or embargos, like Cuba.

1) I thought we we talking about the US.

2) I have no problem with voluntary communism and have personally lived under such a structure. The key difference is individual consent from each member which is exceptionally rare.

3) Protection of property rights is the cornerstone of western civilization's success : get with the program or be left in the dust materially and morally.