USA Politics

bearfan said:
.. and in another government acting like fascist (or socialists .. take your pick)
Click to expand...

Here's a definition of fascism: "a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in mid-20th century Europe. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that promotes the mass mobilization of the national community, relying on a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation on fascist principles.Hostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, fascist movements share certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism, ethnocentrism, and militarism."

Here's a definition of socialism (as politics): "common elements of socialism include: general criticisms of the social effects of private ownership and control of capital - as being the cause of poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security; a general view that the solution to these problems is a form of collective control over the means of production, distribution and exchange (the degree and means of control vary amongst socialist movements); agreement that the outcome of this collective control should be a society based upon social justice, including social equality, economic protection of people, and should provide a more satisfying life for most people. Michael Freeden in his study Ideologies and Political Theory (1996) states that all socialists share five themes: the first is that socialism posits that society is more than a mere collection of individuals; second, that it considers human welfare a desirable objective; third, that it considers humans by nature to be active and productive; fourth, it holds the belief of human equality; and fifth, that history is progressive and will create positive change on the condition that humans work to achieve such change."

It is more or less impossible to hold these two as similar ideologies. I therefore cannot 'take my pick' between them in the context you provided. Perhaps I can take my pick between fascism and totalitarianism. Or between socialism and libertarianism. But not between fascism and socialism, they are completely different (if not opposite) ideologies.
 
Beyond a defenition, I was talking about the more pratical approach of government becoming more powerful and the inevitable abuses that leads to.
 
It's slipping further from the topic under discussion, but it's odd how Mussolini, for one, started out as a socialist and then became fascist. I suppose both ideologies can have an aim of unifying a population, but one seeks to do it based on social class - or elimination of social class - while the other seeks to do it by nationality. Pressing for a form of revolution is associated with both, too, and both may be seen as anti-modern.

Going back to a college seminar years ago, I remember fascism being associated with a collection of negatives, too, anti-socialist, anti-liberal, anti-modern, anti-foreign, even anti-its own more radical element. Because it involves both opposition and mobilisation, fascism then relies on having a common enemy to fight against, or several enemies. Where it eliminates one external opponent it needs to find another, or the movement will turn in on itself.
 
Point is, bearfan, you stand accused of wilfully conflating the two; the differences are obvious, as Natalie helpfully explains. America seems to have an utterly baffling attitude towards socialism.
 
bearfan said:
Differences in philosphy perhaps, difference in result .. not so much.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? Are you accusing socialist states of having concentration camps and waging huge unnecessary wars? Or are you confusing socialism with communism? Let me also remind you that the U.S. is guilty of doing both those things within the past 70 years.
 
Natalie said:
Excuse me? Are you accusing socialist states of having concentration camps and waging huge unnecessary wars? Or are you confusing socialism with communism? Let me also remind you that the U.S. is guilty of doing both those things within the past 70 years.
Click to expand...
No, not those things. I was referring to power concentrating in a central government that is prone to abuse, scandal, misappropriation of funds, inefficiency, and entrenched interests.
 
I'm glad you clarified. You make some valid points although I still get the feeling you're confusing Soviet communism for socialism. I know Sweden has too much bureaucracy but I like to think our government doesn't abuse its power, isn't more scandalous than any other, and isn't too corrupt.
 
I could have stated it much better ... as I was not referring to ideology but actions and I was trying to say that the concentration of power allowed for fascist-like actions on the part of these officials (making lists of people, what they read, treating them differently, etc) and I would imagine the people who did this probably thought they were "doing the right thing". Communism would have probably been a better word than socialism as it brings up the impression of dictatorship.
 
I do not care for any of them, but know they are different .. but all are systems of government I would prefer to not be involved with .. Communism, Socialism, or Fascism
 
Washington Post has the same story, this one was more concise. Some bad bad things coming out of the IRS, which is doubly scary with all the new powers they have just been given under ObamaCare. This is not a "few low level employees", it is a governmental organization totally out of control






The National Legal and Policy Center filed an official complaint with the IRS in May 2011 asking why the foundation was being allowed to solicit tax-deductible contributions when it had not even applied for an IRS determination. In a New York Post article dated May 8, 2011, an officer of the foundation admitted, “We haven’t been able to find someone with the expertise” to apply for tax-exempt status.

Nevertheless, a month later, the Barack H. Obama Foundation had flown through the grueling application process. Lerner granted the organization a 501(c) determination and even gave it a retroactive tax exemption dating back to December 2008.

The group’s available paperwork suggests an extremely hurried application and approval process. For example, the group’s 990 filings for 2008 and 2009 were submitted to the IRS on May 30, 2011, and its 2010 filing was submitted on May 23, 2011.

Lerner signed the group’s approval [pdf] on June 26, 2011.

It is illegal to operate for longer than 27 months without an IRS determination and solicit tax-deductible contributions.

The ostensibly Arlington, Va.-based charity was not even registered in Virginia despite the foundation’s website including a donation button that claimed tax-exempt status.
Click to expand...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/ir...thers-charity/
 
In the "Be careful what you ask for " category


http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/300881-labor-unions-break-ranks-on-health-law

My response would be fuck them ... the asked for this mess without really knowing what it was, they should deal with the consequences along with the rest of us ... no special waivers as they are also requesting.

Months after the president’s reelection, a variety of unions are publicly balking at how the administration plans to implement the landmark law. They warn that unless there are changes, the results could be catastrophic.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) — a 1.3 million-member labor group that twice endorsed Obama for president — is very worried about how the reform law will affect its members’ healthcare plans.

Last month, the president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers released a statement calling “for repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act.”

UNITE HERE, a prominent hotel workers’ union, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters are also pushing for changes.

In a new op-ed published in The Hill, UFCW President Joe Hansen homed in on the president’s speech at the 2009 AFL-CIO convention. Obama at the time said union members could keep their insurance under the law, but Hansen writes “that the president’s statement to labor in 2009 is simply not true for millions of workers.
Click to expand...
 
I wouldn't expect everyone who calls for change to come up with a full plan of how that's going to be achieved, policy makers are chosen to do this job on behalf of the electorate, and anyone with a strong enough lobbying force can ask to have the law tweaked in their favour. Did most of the unions named actively campaign for the Act in its present form, or did they just generally support state healthcare and support Obama?
That said......does this mean they are asking for their private healthcare plans to be exempted from coming under state-run healthcare, as opposed to having the same level of care guaranteed by the state? Has anyone else been granted this?
There's still such a thing as private healthcare here, not all healthcare is NHS, although there's no opt-out of paying the taxes which fund the NHS.
 
The UFCW for one was actively campaigning for the passage of Obamacare as were most unions of any size .. but to paraphrase the Speaker of the House at the time ... they found out what was in it after it passed .. and it looks like the Teamsters is joining in the call. These unions in particular and unions in general aired commercials favoring it's passage, campaigned against anyone opposing the plan, etc.

What is at issue with them is how their current insurance plans will be affected ... which is how they are being affected for many non-Union Americans. According to The Hill (which is a pretty respected non-partisan political paper/website.

Republicans have long attacked Obama’s promise that “nothing in this plan will require you to change your coverage or your doctor.” But the fact that unions are now noting it as well is a clear sign that supporters of the law are growing anxious about the law’s implementation.

Many UFCW members have what are known as multi-employer or Taft-Hartley plans. According to the administration’s analysis of the Affordable Care Act, the law does not provide tax subsidies for the roughly 20 million people covered by the plans. Union officials argue that interpretation could force their members to change their insurance and accept more expensive and perhaps worse coverage in the state-run exchanges
Click to expand...


.

Read more: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/300881-labor-unions-break-ranks-on-health-law#ixzz2U2WzLrxF
 
From the IRS hearing today

Shulman: "Conservative groups were not the only ones targeted"

Lynch (D-MA): "So other groups were targeted?"

Shulman: "No."

WTF?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top