Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Definition of Fascism


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#16 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,550 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 09:58 AM

so let me get this straight...

you think over half the population is receiving government benefits... and you think that people will be voting based on who will keep or cut their benefits. if that was the case, how is this not some crazy landslide victory in Obama's favor? There are plenty of people not on government benefits that actually will be voting for him, so that would put him well over 50%.

either people aren't voting on who will keep or cut their benefits (which I think is partly the case), or more than half the population isn't benefiting from government assistance (kind of the case - depending on how you define assistance), or many people actually on government assistance are on a type of assistance that they don't feel would be impacted by a Romney presidency, which they may be right about.

#17 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,962 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 05:02 PM

How do you think these folks will vote?

Especially if the GOP starts talking government cuts?

#18 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,550 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 05:23 PM

err... the GOP hasn't been talking government cuts?

#19 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,501 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 08 August 2012 - 05:47 PM

How do you think these folks will vote?

Especially if the GOP starts talking government cuts?


GOP Presidential candidates have promised to reduce the size of government for at least the last 40 years.

Every GOP President in that time has increased the size of government to a greater extent than their Democratic counterparts.

If history is any indicator, a Romney Presidency would likely re-prioritize spending and provide further tax cuts for some Americans, but the Federal Government would continue to expand and the deficit would continue to grow.

It is not politically expedient for either party to implement meaningful reforms when they are both deeply beholden to powerful special interests that fund their political futures.

Most voters are just as short sighted as the politicians. They'll vote their pocket books as you said, having little concern for the long term implications to our national debt.

The majority of our politicians would have to agree to put the future of our nation ahead of their own careers to take the actions needed to avoid the next financial crisis. When in our history has that ever happened?

Even in the unlikely event that politicians put our country first, they would be ousted at the next election and those that replaced them would immediately reinstate the corporate and human welfare programs favored by their power bases.

The only way I see out of this mess is if the economy catches on fire for a sustained period of time, thus providing additional tax revenue to pay down the national debt as it did in the late 90s.

#20 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,962 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 06:17 PM

I am afraid the debt will keep the economy from catching fire, nothing more than a flicker I am afraid

#21 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,501 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 08 August 2012 - 06:24 PM

I am afraid the debt will keep the economy from catching fire, nothing more than a flicker I am afraid


I tend to agree. As David Stockman said in your post, we have painted ourselves into a corner.

#22 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,962 posts

Posted 08 August 2012 - 06:30 PM

GOP Presidential candidates have promised to reduce the size of government for at least the last 40 years.

Every GOP President in that time has increased the size of government to a greater extent than their Democratic counterparts.

If history is any indicator, a Romney Presidency would likely re-prioritize spending and provide further tax cuts for some Americans, but the Federal Government would continue to expand and the deficit would continue to grow.

It is not politically expedient for either party to implement meaningful reforms when they are both deeply beholden to powerful special interests that fund their political futures.

Most voters are just as short sighted as the politicians. They'll vote their pocket books as you said, having little concern for the long term implications to our national debt.

The majority of our politicians would have to agree to put the future of our nation ahead of their own careers to take the actions needed to avoid the next financial crisis. When in our history has that ever happened?

Even in the unlikely event that politicians put our country first, they would be ousted at the next election and those that replaced them would immediately reinstate the corporate and human welfare programs favored by their power bases.

The only way I see out of this mess is if the economy catches on fire for a sustained period of time, thus providing additional tax revenue to pay down the national debt as it did in the late 90s.


Sadly, I agree with most of your assessment. Reagan had a good first year, but after that, it seem to creep back up as far as spending.

The worst part is the fact that I think we are headed toward austerity measures.
With that, it will no longer be about getting money for your vote, but not losing money.

Politicians will cut and not cut based on their support. We either turn it around now, or we are screwed as far as freedoms and liberty. What will the government ask or demand from you so as not to be part of DEEP cuts? What if a Repub is in office? Who would they cut? Who will Dems cut? Who cares though, we are through once it gets to that point. Hind sight will worth squat

#23 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,501 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 08 August 2012 - 06:36 PM

Sadly, I agree with most of your assessment. Reagan had a good first year, but after that, it seem to creep back up as far as spending.

The worst part is the fact that I think we are headed toward austerity measures.
With that, it will no longer be about getting money for your vote, but not losing money.

Politicians will cut and not cut based on their support. We either turn it around now, or we are screwed as far as freedoms and liberty. What will the government ask or demand from you so as not to be part of DEEP cuts? What if a Repub is in office? Who would they cut? Who will Dems cut? Who cares though, we are through once it gets to that point. Hind sight will worth squat


This pretty much says it all...

Interviewer: What would be the first thing you would do as President?

David Stockman: Quit.

#24 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,962 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 06:31 AM

Ever wonder why Elizabeth Warren and Dems are now having voter registration forms sent out with all welfare checks in Mass.?

Hint: Not for democracy's sake

#25 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,528 posts

Posted 09 August 2012 - 07:20 AM

"We pay you people...vote!" - signed Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren

#26 bondra1216

bondra1216

    NEWB

  • NEWB
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 05 September 2012 - 07:56 PM

a

#27 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,443 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 05 September 2012 - 08:16 PM

That might just be the best bump ever in this forum.

#28 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,707 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 10:01 AM

Haven't read the thread but:

1) Fascism is a far-right position. It's hilarious that you're going after the leftist administration claiming fascism.
2) Actually, there is no 2. Obama's administration is by no means fascism. However, the GOP platform is damn close.

#29 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,670 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 06 September 2012 - 10:14 AM

Haven't read the thread but:

1) Fascism is a far-right position. It's hilarious that you're going after the leftist administration claiming fascism.
2) Actually, there is no 2. Obama's administration is by no means fascism. However, the GOP platform is damn close.

I don't think you understand fascism. Calling it a far-right position is outright false.

#30 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,707 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 10:19 AM

I don't think you understand fascism. Calling it a far-right position is outright false.



How? Nanuq posted a pretty good criteria for fascism. Now, you may be right here in a sense. I am a bit mistaken. Fascism isn't as far right as say, libertarianism (anarchy).


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com