Covering Up the Fact America is a Fascist State
This story is going away and it shouldn’t.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – No one at the Federal Reserve advised Bank of America chief Kenneth Lewis on any disclosure issues, Fed spokeswoman Michelle Smith said on Thursday.
“No one at the Federal Reserve advised Ken Lewis or Bank of America on any questions of disclosure,” Smith said in an e-mail responding to a question. “It has long been the Federal Reserve’s view that questions of this nature are best addressed by individual institutions and their legal counsel, as they are in a position to understand clearly their obligations and responsibilities.”
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said on Thursday that Lewis was pressured by senior federal officials Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke to accept a merger with troubled Merrill Lynch & Co or lose his job.
The banks are of course in the pockets of the Fed and Treasury. They are nationalized. They didn’t want the money and were forced to take it. They wanted to pay it back and aren’t allowed. CEO’s can be fired at will (See AIG and GM).
The government now runs our banks, car manufacturing industry, health care, and energy industries. We live in a fascist state. This is fact. The people being oppressed are the successfully rich. Who is next?
I want no part in fascism.
You may say this was under Bush’s watch which is true but to think it’s not being ramped up under Obama’s is naive and stupid. Geithner and Obama are just if not more guilty according to CBS.
“When asked if he would leave open the option to pressure a bank CEO to resign, Geithner replied: “Of course.”
First, they come after somebody you don’t know. Maybe some fat cat in Wall Street. Then they oust a manufacturing CEO. Then they tell the banks what rates they can lend at and to whom they should lend. Then they come after your neighbor. Who is next?
People – It’s important that we let the world know what is happening. Fascism is not a road we want to head down. Obama may be a bigot towards the successful and rich, but it doesn’t mean we have to buy into the bigotry. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t oppose a fascist regime. Whether elected by the majority or not. Just because the majority says fascism and bigotry is ok doesn’t mean we can stand against them.
It’s only going to get harder for us from here on out. Even if we are able to change the power in D.C. in 2010 and 2012 power corrupts and D.C. now has almost absolute power.
Paul Krugman, a renound liberal economist, has been criticizing the Obama administraion for NOT nationalizing the banks… he is only taking half measures because true nationalization would mean taking over the banks completely, restructuring them, and owning all the assets. Instead, he’s allowing the banks to remain privately owned, keep their assets (whether toxic or not) and is only adding some regulations to them.. after the fact. Far from any nationalization.
As far as the auto makers, he’s allowed many of them to fail and has allowed pensions and health insurance among the unions to go to the wayside.
As far as universal healthcare, we are years and years from seeing anything like that. All Obama’s healthcare proposals hint at single-payer.. but profit is still held in the insurance companies and current health care policies will remain in place. Hardly socialist.
If anything, Obama is acting very Republican. True fascism is when corporations control the government. Not the other way around. Look it up.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for adding your views. Fascim is not very well defined. “A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism.” Is one of the more common definitions.
As for the nationalization issue. I am indeed incorrect. Nationalization is state ownership and communism. I was not intending to say that the banks, car businesses, energy industry and health care industry are owned by the government. They aren’t and nationlized was the wrong term for me to use.
As to your definition of a fascist economy I’d be interested to learn where you get your definintion of fascism being an economy run by corporations? I’ve always heard that an inherent aspect of fascism was dirigisme, which I though meant an economy that is under strong influence by the government although not directly owned. In other words a fascist economy is an economy that allows for private property and private initiative as long as these are run contingent upon the states motives and directives. Regardless of whether the government is running the corporations or the corporations are running the government (i.e. who’s running who) they’re all in bed together anyways.
As for Obama acting very Republican I wouldn’t completely disagree. I’d state it differently though, I’d say Republican’s have been trying to act like Obama is now acting, just less successfully. He’s just one uping them. I don’t see much difference between the Republicans and Democrats.
As for the health care issue, just last month I had the Department of Health and Human Services in my health care facility telling the CEO and me how to run our business. It’s not that far away.
Fascism is typically defined as a nationalist government that is very authoritarian in nature and follows a very corporatist economic philosophy. So whether the government controls the economy or not doesn’t matter because it’s set on the very idea that corporations should be completely free – free from any government intervention that may impose regulation or taxation onto them. Economically speaking, fascism is in direct conflict with socialist and/or communist philosophies. So I’m quite confused (not by you particularly) by the idea that Obama can be both a socialist and a fascist at the same time.
I would agree with you that there are very few differences between Democrats and Republicans. Even HW Bush said that Bill Clinton was a true fiscal Conservative. I believe the pendulum has swung so far to the right, that any large jump to the left (i.e. a proposal for universal healthcare, public funding, etc.) are now seen has too drastic… so politicians have to appear middle of the road and they behave that way. If Obama was the true liberal that he campaigned on, then he would have immediately nationalized the banks. Instead, he’s trying to play the middle of the road guy (like Clinton) as to not upset the banks but at the same time resolve our economic crisis.
But, the idea that Obama wants to spend money on infrastructure, new technologies, and green energies at home as being a bad thing is beyond me. It creates jobs and creates a lasting stimulus… far longer than any tax cut will bring us. To me, that is a very capitalistic and very patriotic venture.
What we will probably see out of Obama is simply another Clinton era. Corporatist Democracy. And really….. things were NOT that bad then. Certainly not like the last 8 years.
Where do you get the definition that fascist economies have little intervention or regulation on the corporation? In Germany in the late 20′s (the greatest fascist state of all time to my knowledge) had great government intervention and regulation. Again can you support this claim in any way?
Also, where do you get that fascism and communism are opposite? Fascism was intended to be a middle way not fully capitalist and not fully communist. What disgusted the communists about fascism was that it eventually led to a “superior” class of people while socialism tries to make everybody equal little robots.
How was Bill Clinton a “true fiscal” conservative? He just signed bills passed by a Republican legislature! Legislature introduces bills the President signs them, same as Obama he is signing Nancy and Henry’s bills unfortunately.
Also, how do you get that we’ve swung to the right? Can you document this wild claim? The data that I’ve seen doesn’t seem to support what your saying.
Tax rates have consistently increased since 1928 as a percentage of GDP…
http://www.urban.org/publications/1000556.html
Government spending has increased as a percentage of GDP…
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
I would also wager that as a per capita percentage that government regulations have increased over the same time period as well just as dramtically. Although finding that data might be a little time consuming and still taxes and spending data match.
What about increasing regulations, taxes, and government spending is swinging to the right???
Several things about the above quote. Who’s money is Obama spending? I don’t have a problem with money being spent on those things. I just would like to be able to choose where to invest my own money. Obama surely isn’t spending his money or the governments as you imply. Your basically saying that stealing is ok. I myself do not thing stealing is ok.
Even if it wasn’t stealing, spending money on those things creates jobs, but it also kills jobs by artifically manipulating the marketplace. Just look at the results of Spain who did about the same thing Obama and his ilk are trying to do…
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0
and
http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=57640
What is “capitalist” about raising taxes and increasing government spending? I don’t understand that as being capitalist. I thought it was pretty broadly understood that capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of capital. Taxing is the taking of private capital to re-purpose. The more capital private parties are allowed to keep and utilize the more capitalist is that society.
[quote]Where do you get the definition that fascist economies have little intervention or regulation on the corporation? In Germany in the late 20’s (the greatest fascist state of all time to my knowledge) had great government intervention and regulation. Again can you support this claim in any way?[/quote]
Fascist governments are corportist and offer many benefits to large business. End of story. In fact, Mussolini said: “The [Fascist] government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy.”
[quote]Also, where do you get that fascism and communism are opposite? Fascism was intended to be a middle way not fully capitalist and not fully communist. What disgusted the communists about fascism was that it eventually led to a “superior” class of people while socialism tries to make everybody equal little robots.[/quote]
See above. Communist economies pool everyone’s money together and allocate it equally. Fascism has always encouraged private profit. That’s pretty opposite in my book.
[quote]How was Bill Clinton a “true fiscal” conservative? He just signed bills passed by a Republican legislature! Legislature introduces bills the President signs them, same as Obama he is signing Nancy and Henry’s bills unfortunately.[/quote]
Interesting how the blame can go to Clinton, but the praise, like fiscal conservativism, is directed toward the Republican Congress. Clinton did a lot of compromising during his years and never got the really leftist policies passed, such as healthcare. He compromised on NAFTA – then a great piece of legislation in the eyes of Republicans – even though they now chastise Clinton for it. Glass-Steagall was repealed on a veto proof bill that yeah, you can blame the Republicans for… But if you look at Clinton’s budgets he wanted.. they were still very fiscally conservative. He only raised the corporate tax rate by 3% and cut lots of social spending. And he balanced the budget. Gdub’s daddy said he was a fiscal conservative for christs sake.
[quote]What about increasing regulations, taxes, and government spending is swinging to the right???[/quote]
Huh?? You mean to say regulations and taxes under Bush have increased??? wtf? Spending has, yeah… in our military.. which is also fascist.
[quote]Several things about the above quote. Who’s money is Obama spending? I don’t have a problem with money being spent on those things. I just would like to be able to choose where to invest my own money.[/quote]
We’ve seen what happens when we depend on individuals and business to “invest” in our future. If we depended on the so called free market to take care of things like saving our environment, investing in roads, bridges, and public utilities, the fire department… then we would be all out of luck. Taxes are not completely bad. Try living in Bolivia where there is no tax collection and see how far your car will take you on some of those roads. Investing in infrastructure is not only smart and gives you a large return, but it’s necessary.
[quote]Even if it wasn’t stealing, spending money on those things creates jobs, but it also kills jobs by artifically manipulating the marketplace. Just look at the results of Spain who did about the same thing Obama and his ilk are trying to do…
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0/quote
You’re speaking the libertarian tongue – which in my opinion – is about as radical as you can get. Libertarians believe in practically zero taxation and believe the free market magically takes care of everything – which is insane. Show me ONE society that has practiced libertarianism and has succeeded.
No, that’s not the end of the story. Because you just can’t provide any support for what your saying. I don’t know why your making these things up, but your not supporting anything that your saying with factual evidence. I asked for proof of your “definition” of fasicst economics and you give me the qoute of a politician. Something that I’m hard pressed to trust. Also, a qoute contrary to the evidences of historical refrence.
In Italy at the time of Mussolini, businesses were grouped by the government into syndicates such as the National Fascist Confederation of Commerce, the National Fascist Confederation of Credit and Insurance, and so on. All of these “fascist confederations” were “coordinated” by a network of government planning agencies, one for each industry. One large “National Council of Corporations” served as a national overseer of the individual “corporations” and had the power to issue regulations of a compulsory character. There was virtually no such thing as private enterprise. Of course you believe Mussolini was a trustworthy character and what he said “trumps” historical reference. So, end of story right?
As for fascism and communisim being opposite you can’t provide any reference for your definintion of fascism. Fascism doesn’t call for private profit above everything else. It calls for private profit once the needs of the state are met. Again, it’s the a “middle road” between communism and capitalism. But end of story right? Like that is a good argument.
Now you state that spending on military is fascist…. Where do you get that? Nearly EVERY SINGLE NATION IN THE WORLD spends on military. So, now you conclude that every single nation is a fascist nation??? Look, debating is one thing but just making stuff up… Your starting to sound like a politician.
I see you agree with the liberal policies that we are to stupid to take care of ourselves. Well, my investing strategies have turned out wonderful. During this whole economic recession my investments made a profit. Now YOU may not be able to invest in your own future but I am. I don’t appreciate your calling me stupid. Especially when my portfolio tells me otherwise. If I’d had the tax dollars stolen from me this year I’m sure I’d have done alot better investing them then Geithner the tax cheat is doing. (Look at Obama today, Chyrsler is going bankrupt the taxpayer is out billions. YEAH, they did a wonderful job. You know, it’s not fair that because of your inability to take care of yourself. I’m required to pay more taxes to fund others. It’s one thing if you want to pay taxes and have them choose your investments but it’s another when you advocate robbery and theivery. I am a person with morals. I for one believe stealing is wrong.
I drive a sweet SUV and with the 10s of thousands I payed in taxes I could afford probably an even sweeter SUV.
As for the whole libertarian concept I do believe in VERY limited taxation that is equal and fairly distributed across classes. I have never said free market’s magically takes care of everything and neither have any libertarians I know. What libertarians believe is that the individual should be allowed to take care of themselves. If the individual is not smart enough to take care of themselves or is to lazy to take care of themselves then the individual suffers the consquences. I’m sure in a libertarian ran economy or country their would be bumps along the way.
I am glad you gave up on the whole “we’ve swung to the right” bit as the evidence is extemely overwhelming there. As for Clinton being a fiscal conservative, just because somebody doesn’t get thier non-fiscal conservative ideas into and through the legislature doesn’t make them “fiscally conservative”. It makes the legislature that held Clinton’s feet to the fire fiscally conservative. You can’t argue that because he “couldn’t pass his liberal policies” he wasn’t a liberal. That’s like saying I’m a liberal because my ideologies are old and non-progressive therefore they carry little weight in todays society… it’s just illogical. But I gues that’s the end of the story. You said so therefore it’s fact…. Guess what your not God and because YOU say so doesn’t mean it’s fact. Sorry to disappoint you…
But in the type of system you advocate one of stealing, theivery, where people are stupid, and the government takes care of everything you end up with a lot worse then what a libertarian country would give you. The founding fathers founded a libertarian country based on the principles of an INDIVIDUALS right to a pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. (Notice it’s not a guaranteed right but the right to the pursuit).