you pay us protection money, to protect you from us.
US on the socialist path.
- Thread starter zdreg
- Start date
you pay us protection money, to protect you from us.
US socialism is always associated with programs for the general populace -
health care, unemployment benefits, welfare, food stamps etc
but aren't there also a load of 'social programs' for industry/business such as
agricultural subsidies, biofuel, 'big oil', electricity production, nuclear power, paper
industry etc etc
what other businesses ?
and shouldn't 'tariffs' also be included as subsidy
health care, unemployment benefits, welfare, food stamps etc
but aren't there also a load of 'social programs' for industry/business such as
agricultural subsidies, biofuel, 'big oil', electricity production, nuclear power, paper
industry etc etc
what other businesses ?
and shouldn't 'tariffs' also be included as subsidy
Actually it is illegal, against federal law, to hire undocumented workers (i.e., those in the country illegally). However this is weakly enforced law. Recently, for example, Howard industries in Ellisville Mississippi was fined for having a large number of illegals working for them. This is the second time they have been caught and fined, however the fine, a few hundred thousand in the most recent case I believe, is apparently insufficient to make the practice of hiring illegals unprofitable.
Certainly, if there were well enforced, stiff penalties for hiring illegals, the problem of illegals entering the country would undoubtedly dissipate. At the same time, the price of produce, chicken, and other goods largely handled by illegals would rise.
You have highlighted a major inconsistency in the arguments of those who rail against what they perceive to be creeping socialism in the US. But oddly, they are fixated on government social welfare programs and entirely neglect to notice the vastly larger subsidies of privately owned industries, the two largest subsidies of all being that that supports the privately owned defense and medical industries.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, though it mostly falls on deaf ears, the US is still a very capitalist country in the sense that the Government is firmly in the hands of capitalists, as most politicians, of necessity, must depend on corporate welfare to acquire and retain their office. Much of the legislation eventually passed through congress had its origin on K Street.
And I ask you, what can be more capitalist than that?
It seems to me that what we could really benefit from in the US is more introspective thinking in political discourse. Especially among our politicians.
I disagree. The Government is firmly in the hands of Corporatists. As a brief and general example, how many current or former members of Congress, or members of Obama's Cabinet, or Secretaries of the various Government Offices, have been employed by, served on the board of, or been affiliated with the likes of Monsanto or Goldman Sachs?
Quote from piezoe:
As I have pointed out elsewhere, though it mostly falls on deaf ears, the US is still a very capitalist country in the sense that the Government is firmly in the hands of capitalists, as most politicians, of necessity, must depend on corporate welfare to acquire and retain their office. Much of the legislation eventually passed through congress had its origin on K Street.
And I ask you, what can be more capitalist than that?
You have used a specific example to try and disprove what is true in general. I am speaking particularly of the legislative process, not the executive. But what I have written is also valid for the executive branch of government in general, in so far as the chief executive is elected. You are referring to public servants not , elected politicians. Public servants do not make law, they are charged with carrying it out.
As I said above, we could all benefit from more introspective thinking.
Perhaps not as many as you suppose.
1. Data shows the Odumba Administration is rife with academicians... collectively with the LEAST amount of business experience since at least T. Roosevelt.
2. It's one thing to "allow capitalists to make money"... it's yet another for government to allow winners to keep most of what they've earned.