Corporate taxes are regressive taxes paid by the poor

[crazyhorse1]

0ff to Canada, which more and more Americans are discovering is a viable way to stay alive.

Well, I have bad news for them: The line ups are so large and the time to be taken care of is so long, they might die before they are taken care of in Canada

This is what shows how full of hot air the American Left is. They don't care what the reality of socialized medicine is, they still want it. And obviously while they talk about going to socialist countries they aren't actually doing it.

We are a socialist country and will not go back to unregulated markets or tolerate a widening gap between the rich and poor and absurd wars and assorted lies to benefit corporations, so get used to it.

So- called conservatives in this country are strangling themselves with their own greed; they have already lost the House and the Senate and will now probably lose the Presidency for eight years, which will allow liberals and moderates to flip the Supreme Court.

Helping out in this regard will be real conservatives, like MacCain.

[KazooSkinsFan]

0ff to Canada, which more and more Americans are discovering is a viable way to stay alive.

Well, I have bad news for them: The line ups are so large and the time to be taken care of is so long, they might die before they are taken care of in Canada

This is what shows how full of hot air the American Left is. They don't care what the reality of socialized medicine is, they still want it. And obviously while they talk about going to socialist countries they aren't actually doing it.

We are a socialist country and will not go back to unregulated markets or tolerate a widening gap between the rich and absurd wars and assorted lies to benefit corporations, so get used to it.

So- called conservatives in this country are strangling themselves with their own greed; they have already lost the House and the Senate and will not probably lose the Presidency for eight years, which will allow liberals and moverates to flip the Supreme Court.

Helping out in this regard will be real conservatives, like MacCain.

It's Deja Vu all over again.

[crazyhorse1]

Guess what? I'm dead. Or off to Canada, which more and more Americans are discovering is a viable way to stay alive.

So, THAT is why we are paying exorbitant taxes in Canada! Paying for illegal US immigrants who come here ONLY for the benefit of taxpayers sponsored health care. Those leaches!!!

Well, I have bad news for them: The line ups are so large and the time to be taken care of is so long, they might die before they are taken care of in Canada. Some procedures take as little as six months others up to a year or more.

As a real life joke, one of my friends was given a date about a year ahead. He patiently waited all 12 months. But then, due to an emergency, missed the appointment. He was given another 12 months ahead. In frustration he asked: In the morning or the afternoon?

We were laughing our heads off but we shouldn't have.

Americans are going to Canada for medical treatment because lines are shorter, treatment is more immediate, the cost of medicines in Canada doesn't destoy them financially, and they don't have to die there because of lack of care or insurance.

Sorry, your lack of supporting data and second- hand shock stories are less than convincing. Such outrageous stories are a dime a dozen in the U.S. and even here are only randomly true. I come from a country that once elected a president on the basis of a reported welfare queen who didn't exist and another time went to war on concocted evidence of WMD, including photographs of pipes, old buses, and railroad cars. About every tenth person I meet has seen ghosts or talked to Jesus.

[Redskin in Canada]

Sorry, your lack of supporting data and second- hand shock stories are less than convincing...

I just told you about a first-hand story about a friend of mine. No second hand.

My next door neighbour is receiving cancer treatment and follow up and she waits SIX months for an appointment. I speak about this issue because I live it every day and with actual cases of friends and family around me.

And I talk to God but I do not think he has paid much attention because he has not spoken back ... ever.

[crazyhorse1]

Sorry, your lack of supporting data and second- hand shock stories are less than convincing...

I just told you about a first-hand story about a friend of mine. No second hand.

My next door neighbour is receiving cancer treatment and follow up and she waits SIX months for an appointment. I speak about this issue because I live it every day and with actual cases of friends and family around me.

And I talk to God but I do not think he has paid much attention because he has not spoken back ... ever.

I personally had to wait six months for an operation right here in the U.S. -- the only Mecca left in free market medicine. The operation itself took two hours and and the hospital stay was for a day and a half. The hospital and doctor's bill came to $22,000 and my insurance company, which had refused to sanction the operation at all until the need for it became critical, finally settled with the hospital for $8,000.

It was lucky for me I've been able to carry insurance that requires monthly payments of $800 a month. Otherwise, I'd be dead.

If I had been a minimum wage, full-time worker, I'd be dead for the crime of being not too bright. As is, I make over $100,000 a year and because of two kids in college and chaos in the real estate market, I still would not have been able to pay for the operation without insurance.

Since this happened to me, this is a first-hand story. You were told of an experience by someone else had it. Your story was second hand.

Believing that a free market works in relation to medicine is the equivalent of talking to Jesus. If it weren't for medicine from Canada, a lot of old people in the U.S. would be talking to Jesus for real.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Believing that a free market works in relation to medicine is the equivalent of talking to Jesus. If it weren't for medicine from Canada, a lot of old people in the U.S. would be talking to Jesus for real.

The problem with medicine in this country is that the government already meddles in it far too much. This is the typical liberal solution to any problem. If government meddling is hosing something up, clearly government isn't meddling ENOUGH.

[crazyhorse1]

Believing that a free market works in relation to medicine is the equivalent of talking to Jesus. If it weren't for medicine from Canada, a lot of old people in the U.S. would be talking to Jesus for real.

The problem with medicine in this country is that the government already meddles in it far too much. This is the typical liberal solution to any problem. If government meddling is hosing something up, clearly government isn't meddling ENOUGH.

The problems of medicine in this country are the unregulated insurance companies keeping it that way with corporate payments, the AMA lobby in Washington influencing lawmakers with trips to golf courses in Scotland, the flat out payoffs and campaign contributions of the drug industry, the no bid contracts of Haliburton, the influence of arms manufacturers, contractors buying congressmen to build bridges to no where. In American we have a seamless and corrupt interaction of goernment and corporations. That is virtually the definition of fascism. There is no way you can blame anything on the government of the United States today without also blaming private interests.

Your belief that private interests do a better job than government is the product of a view of America that is no better than the innocent fantasy of a child-- no line can be drawn between government and private, corporate interests. You are praising the corruptors of government, the very folks who flourish by turning government projects into boondoggles. Take a look at the whole situation in Iraq-- from Blackwater to Cheney's checkbook.

You are railing away at people you don't like and who annoy you rather than forcus on the problem. So, you become a part of the problem and help create the very thing you abhor. Your curent real enemy is Bush and the corruption of government by the right-- its not the dems or left anymore. Times change. The left is no longer spend, spend, spent and aggressive war and disregard of traditional liberties and American values . They are the province of the right at present. Deal with it.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Your belief that private interests do a better job than government is the product of a view of America that is no better than the innocent fantasy of a child

It's also the principle this country was founded on.

We seem to have done pretty well so far. We have 1/20th the earth's population and one third the world's wealth. Much larger socialist Europe has roughly an equal economy. And the term most of the world would call what we call "poor" would be "wealthy." What possible measure could you use to justify this other then, "government, I want it." Flip of the Right, who say, "church, I want it."

[crazyhorse1]

Your belief that private interests do a better job than government is the product of a view of America that is no better than the innocent fantasy of a child

It's also the principle this country was founded on.

We seem to have done pretty well so far. We have 1/20th the earth's population and one third the world's wealth. Much larger socialist Europe has roughly an equal economy. And the term most of the world would call what we call "poor" would be "wealthy." What possible measure could you use to justify this other then, "government, I want it." Flip of the Right, who say, "church, I want it."

This country was not founded on the principle that corporations should own the government and write laws they need to stay in power. Further, we have not done pretty well so far; the eighteen and nineteen centuries were horror shows of indian massacres, slave economies, immigrant exploitation, death in the workplace and horrifying poverty.

Throughout the eighteen hundreds the poor died in tens of thousands from disease, fires, filth, economic games of the powerful. Whole towns of striking workers were beaten and killed by soldiers brought in by governments cooperating with big business.

Thousands were murdered by Astor and other captains of industry. The rise of the middle class reached its zenith in the 1950's as a direct result of government controls on industry. Like it or not, the feds busted up the slave trade, immigrant and other workder exploitation, developed controls over the economy, provided hospitals, education, protection from rackets and bad food and water, increased civil liberties, on and on.

Unfortunately, certain special interests from the right (an unholy alliance of bigots, racists, religious numb skulls, the ignorant fooled into voting against their own interests, and the rich, who are typically fascists grabbing at the levers of government) have now for half a century been trying to take us back into darkness.

Sorry, we won't go. What you call a free market is actually a confederation of swindlers attempting to rule and profit by creating a corporate state. I'm sorry that you don't understand that. Maybe you're too focused or immigrants and minorities buying beer and chips with food stamps in grocery stores to bother thinking about the billions being stolen in Iraq and our grandchildren being sold down the river in the hope of that grand day you can make save so much on taxes that you can have economic slaves of our own.

[Irn-Bru]

crazyhorse, what you appear to be calling a free market:

* Laws that give special privileges to people, who are then backed by guns (and the government military, no less!)
* Laws creating the legal fiction of the "corporation" that makes no one liable for real fraud or aggression
* A legal system that allows people in power to make laws that would benefit them at the expense of the poor
* A legal system that allows the suppression of liberty

Is not part of the standard libertarian definition of the free market, nor is it what Kazoo is referring to. In fact, insofar as you are pointing out people who are being forced, punished, or killed by 'the powerful', you are actually agreeing and supporting your opponent's argument.

If you could frame a critique of the free market that first acknowledges the accepted definition of a free market, it would make more sense. But the way you are phrasing your critique makes it look more like a criticism of government (hmm. . .who allows such terrible, liberty-destructive laws to be written, with the backing of guns?) than of a free market.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Thousands were murdered by Astor and other captains of industry

Now you have me wondering if the Titanic was an iceberg, or an Indian conspiracy.

crazyhorse, I totally understand an American Indian would be negative on American history. You were screwed over and over. Though to portray all Europeans as conquering empire builders is as absurd as portraying all Indians as peaceful farmers. Many Indians would have gladly conquered the others had they only the manpower and weaponry to do so.

But none of this has to do with our economy today. I advocate free markets and clearly government has a role in keeping markets free. I consider the Sherman anti-Trust act to have been one of the most important pieces of legislation in our county's history specifically because it treats markets as it should, from the perspective of the "consumer."

In fact if you think of the industries that are abusive in reality, not through rose covered socialist eyes, you will find they are heavily correlated with direct government intervention.
Medicine - Endless government regulation over medical practices, the insurance industry, and worst of all our ludicrous tort system.
Oil - Government getting involved in dealing with foreign governments, maintaining the strategic petroleum reserve, endless regulation over gas mixes, preventing building refineries, severe limits on drilling
Cable TV - Government makes it a monopoly.
Food - Endless farm welfare paying farmers to grow certain crops, keep prices high to prevent automation and consolidation like other industries, even paying farmers "not' to grow crops.
Automobiles - Government prevents people from buying directly from car manufacturers keeping the absurd "dealer" system in place causing the stupid negotiation and increasing cost. It also prevents US companies which are inefficient and burdened with inefficient plants and poor labor contracts from going under as they should.
Ports - Heavy unionization again prevents automation or efficiency keeping productivity low and costs high.

The list goes on and on. It is as Irn-Bru said the government which has created the corporate problems, not free markets. In fact areas which are relatively free from regulation are cut throat and cheap. Look at electronics, clothing, furniture, etc... And when government deregulated things like long distance calling and airlines prices plummeted.

The fact is that you have power over companies because you can not buy their product. Except when government interferes if they don't do a good job they go under. Politicians and government bureaucracy as clearly proven over and over through history are unresponsive.

A test:
- Name a free and competitive market where companies behave as you say
- Name a company with heavy government integration that doesn't behave as you say
- Name a country that became great "after" going socialist

Now I know you're going to name a bunch of stuff through socialist revisionism that don't in reality meet the criteria. Prove me wrong.

[crazyhorse1]

crazyhorse, what you appear to be calling a free market:

* Laws that give special privileges to people, who are then backed by guns (and the government military, no less!)
* Laws creating the legal fiction of the "corporation" that makes no one liable for real fraud or aggression
* A legal system that allows people in power to make laws that would benefit them at the expense of the poor
* A legal system that allows the suppression of liberty

Is not part of the standard libertarian definition of the free market, nor is it what Kazoo is referring to. In fact, insofar as you are pointing out people who are being forced, punished, or killed by 'the powerful', you are actually agreeing and supporting your opponent's argument.

If you could frame a critique of the free market that first acknowledges the accepted definition of a free market, it would make more sense. But the way you are phrasing your critique makes it look more like a criticism of government (hmm. . .who allows such terrible, liberty-destructive laws to be written, with the backing of guns?) than of a free market.

A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. This implies the absence of anti-trust laws, price controls, and restrictions on the political impact of corporations or other financially powerful private interests.

Abuse or even adroit use of a “free market” system by corporate and other financially powerful interests can easily lead to a “corporate” state or “fascism,” the seamless merging of corporations and government, usually accomplished by large sums of money buying government complicity in running the country for the good of corporations and/or the wealthy and poweful rather than the populace.

That is the trouble with a free market-- it tends to corrupt into a fascist state.

Under the Bush administration, the U.S. has become a fascist state, by definition. Our support of a government ceases when it is in a state of corruption such as this one is. It's a fascist junta that is running the country in complicity with the corporate class, exclusively for the benefit of that class.

[crazyhorse1]

Thousands were murdered by Astor and other captains of industry

Now you have me wondering if the Titanic was an iceberg, or an Indian conspiracy.

crazyhorse, I totally understand an American Indian would be negative on American history. You were screwed over and over. Though to portray all Europeans as conquering empire builders is as absurd as portraying all Indians as peaceful farmers. Many Indians would have gladly conquered the others had they only the manpower and weaponry to do so.

But none of this has to do with our economy today. I advocate free markets and clearly government has a role in keeping markets free. I consider the Sherman anti-Trust act to have been one of the most important pieces of legislation in our county's history specifically because it treats markets as it should, from the perspective of the "consumer."

In fact if you think of the industries that are abusive in reality, not through rose covered socialist eyes, you will find they are heavily correlated with direct government intervention.
Medicine - Endless government regulation over medical practices, the insurance industry, and worst of all our ludicrous tort system.
Oil - Government getting involved in dealing with foreign governments, maintaining the strategic petroleum reserve, endless regulation over gas mixes, preventing building refineries, severe limits on drilling
Cable TV - Government makes it a monopoly.
Food - Endless farm welfare paying farmers to grow certain crops, keep prices high to prevent automation and consolidation like other industries, even paying farmers "not' to grow crops.
Automobiles - Government prevents people from buying directly from car manufacturers keeping the absurd "dealer" system in place causing the stupid negotiation and increasing cost. It also prevents US companies which are inefficient and burdened with inefficient plants and poor labor contracts from going under as they should.
Ports - Heavy unionization again prevents automation or efficiency keeping productivity low and costs high.

The list goes on and on. It is as Irn-Bru said the government which has created the corporate problems, not free markets. In fact areas which are relatively free from regulation are cut throat and cheap. Look at electronics, clothing, furniture, etc... And when government deregulated things like long distance calling and airlines prices plummeted.

The fact is that you have power over companies because you can not buy their product. Except when government interferes if they don't do a good job they go under. Politicians and government bureaucracy as clearly proven over and over through history are unresponsive.

A test:
- Name a free and competitive market where companies behave as you say
- Name a company with heavy government integration that doesn't behave as you say
- Name a country that became great "after" going socialist

Now I know you're going to name a bunch of stuff through socialist revisionism that don't in reality meet the criteria. Prove me wrong.

Kindly read something on John Jacob Aster's crimes and murders in relation to the fur trade before implying that I don't know what I'm talking about. You might investigate the deeds of two other robber barons as well: Vanderbuilt and Kennedy.

You are a homer in relation to the U.S. The U.S, was poverty and disease wracked for its entire first century, as well as an enslaver of blacks, and exploiter of immigrants, a haven for pirates and other criminals, and an slaughter of Indians. The free market in the 19th century worked so well that a vast majority lived in poverty and died early (usually before thirty). Immigrants had a life expectancy of about five years after hitting our shores and the government was routinely used as a murderous force against workers on strike, Indians, Mexicans, slaves, etc.

Economic chaos, illiteracy, filth, drunkenness, etc. ruled. The place was a deadly hell hole-- no medicine, decent hospitals, clean water, sage foods, trash collection, building codes, treatment for the sane, etc.

A middle class waited for FDR before appearing, the rich ruled, and justice was a joke.

Check all this out.

Also, stop thinking of the present day U.S. as some sort of economic Mecca. Our standard of living among the counties of the world ranks only sixth and our human development index ranks only number 12.

Standard of Living

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Belgium
5. Australia
6. United States
7. Iceland
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10. Finland


The Human Development Index (HDI) is the normalized measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, standard of living, and GDP per capita for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to determine and indicate whether a country is a developed, developing, or underdeveloped country and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life.[1]


Top thirty countries (HDI range from 0.968 down to 0.894)
1. Iceland 0.968 (▲ 1)
2. Norway 0.968 (▼ 1)
3. Australia 0.962 (▬)
4. Canada 0.961 (▲ 2)
5. Ireland 0.959 (▼ 1)
6. Sweden 0.956 (▼ 1)
7. Switzerland 0.955 (▲ 2)
8. Japan 0.954 (▼ 1)
9. Netherlands 0.953 (▲ 1)
10. France 0.952 (▲ 6) 11. Finland 0.952 (▬)
12. United States 0.951 (▼ 4)
13. Spain 0.949 (▲ 6)
14. Denmark 0.949 (▲ 1)
15. Austria 0.948 (▼ 1)
16. United Kingdom 0.946 (▲ 2)
17. Belgium 0.946 (▼ 4)
18. Luxembourg 0.944 (▼ 6)
19. New Zealand 0.943 (▲ 1)
20. Italy 0.941 (▼ 3)
21. Hong Kong 0.937 (▲ 1)
22. Germany 0.935 (▼ 1)
23. Israel 0.932 (▬)
24. Greece 0.926 (▬)
25. Singapore 0.922 (▬)
26. South Korea 0.921 (▬)
27. Slovenia 0.917 (▲ 1)
28. Cyprus 0.903 (▲ 1)
29. Portugal 0.897 (▼ 1)
30. Brunei 0.894 (▲ 4)


Note that European countries are ahead of the U.S. in both rankings and that every country ahead of us in both rankings in considerably more socialist than we are, including Canada, whom our Canadian friend, RIC, finds deficient in relation to medicine.

It looks to me tha Canada is way the heck ahead of us in relation to the rankings, but I'm too much of a gentleman to point it out.

[crazyhorse1]

Guess what? I'm dead. Or off to Canada, which more and more Americans are discovering is a viable way to stay alive.

So, THAT is why we are paying exorbitant taxes in Canada! Paying for illegal US immigrants who come here ONLY for the benefit of taxpayers sponsored health care. Those leaches!!!

Well, I have bad news for them: The line ups are so large and the time to be taken care of is so long, they might die before they are taken care of in Canada. Some procedures take as little as six months others up to a year or more.

As a real life joke, one of my friends was given a date about a year ahead. He patiently waited all 12 months. But then, due to an emergency, missed the appointment. He was given another 12 months ahead. In frustration he asked: In the morning or the afternoon?

We were laughing our heads off but we shouldn't have.

Well, good heavens, RIC. I just found this little item on the new. How do you square it with your idea that Canada's health systen is worse than ours because it's. As a matter of fact, how do any of you extollers of free market medicine explain the U.S.'s Health ranking.

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland

[KazooSkinsFan]

A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. This implies the absence of anti-trust laws, price controls, and restrictions on the political impact of corporations or other financially powerful private interests.

OK, obviously a free market would I agree be absent of "price controls, and restrictions on the political impact of corporations or other financially powerful private interests."

But to say a free market would be absent of "anti-trust" laws is a great demonstration that you are twisting the use of the term "free." What this country means by free markets is competitive markets. Prices are set by competition. Government has a role in a free country in ensuring competitive markets and anti-trust laws, truth in advertising, disclosure of product risks and civil courts are vehicles to do that. You are twisting the use of the word free to mean "anarchy," a pattern, to serve your purpose. You are not addressing anyone's actual position.

And btw, you are also twisting the use of the term "fascism." Fascism is control of industry by government. Not control of government by industry. So you are misapplying the word fascism to a twisted use of the term free, thereby establishing NOTHING.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Kindly read something on John Jacob Aster's crimes and murders in relation to the fur trade before implying that I don't know what I'm talking about

I made a joke that the Titanic was an Indian conspiracy (with a wink). His grandson died on the Titanic and you indicated you hated him. I was initially surprised someone singled out him. But on second thought it makes sense that Indians would particularly dislike Astor. I have no interest in defending him. Other then to say his money build a heck of a hotel, I stay there whenever I'm in The City.

You are a homer in relation to the U.S. The U.S, was poverty and disease wracked for its entire first century, as well as an enslaver of blacks, and exploiter of immigrants, a haven for pirates and other criminals

We were on planet earth, yes.

A middle class waited for FDR before appearing, the rich ruled, and justice was a joke.

This statement is a joke. It is revisionist self serving rewriting of history.

Also, stop thinking of the present day U.S. as some sort of economic Mecca. Our standard of living among the counties of the world ranks only sixth and our human development index ranks only number 12.

Standard of Living

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Belgium...

Dominated by socialists. "Standard of Living" is such a subjective term. Again, we have 1/20th the world's population and 1/3 the wealth. Yet that disappears in the completely subjective term, "standard of living." Since you have no definition of standard of living explaining that it's a meaningless list.

Then you have another socialist list with the socialist countries dominating. Clearly this is unbiased: "It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare." Yeah, that's what I want government to measure as a sense of my quality of life, my "well being."

[KazooSkinsFan]

Well, good heavens, RIC. I just found this little item on the new. How do you square it with your idea that Canada's health systen is worse than ours because it's. As a matter of fact, how do any of you extollers of free market medicine explain the U.S.'s Health ranking.

Yeah, Chili, Morocco, countries with better health care then the US. This is explained by again the standards used to measure socialist healthcare objectives, not real access to health care. I saw a list before with 19th century Cuba ahead of the US in healthcare. At least this one didn't have that.

In Australia health care is so horrible they are looking to roll back socialized medicine because people can't go to the fricking doctor. And yet your list of countries created by obvious socialized standards with no reflection of reality has them ahead of us.

Are you really an academic? If you are, your endlessly trotting out subjective lists of with no criteria is how you post on message boards and not how you do your job because you would be laughed off campus. There are liars, dirty liars and statisticians. And guess who made these lists. You can make a list to show whatever you want by picking the right criteria.

So you'd rather have a heart attack in Morocco then the USA? I don't think so.

[crazyhorse1]

A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. This implies the absence of anti-trust laws, price controls, and restrictions on the political impact of corporations or other financially powerful private interests.

OK, obviously a free market would I agree be absent of "price controls, and restrictions on the political impact of corporations or other financially powerful private interests."

But to say a free market would be absent of "anti-trust" laws is a great demonstration that you are twisting the use of the term "free." What this country means by free markets is competitive markets. Prices are set by competition. Government has a role in a free country in ensuring competitive markets and anti-trust laws, truth in advertising, disclosure of product risks and civil courts are vehicles to do that. You are twisting the use of the word free to mean "anarchy," a pattern, to serve your purpose. You are not addressing anyone's actual position.

And btw, you are also twisting the use of the term "fascism." Fascism is control of industry by government. Not control of government by industry. So you are misapplying the word fascism to a twisted use of the term free, thereby establishing NOTHING.

You are correct in a way, of course. However, I believe I said that a free market can easily corrupt into fascism and that fascism is characterized by a "seamless" relationship between corporations and government.

Business and corporate leaders are often the ones who put government leaders into power in the first place by dint of their superior resources (contributions). Once that is done, a mutually beneficial relationship quickly developes.

In exchange for financial backing, the government cuts taxes for corporations, writes no-bid contracts, prevents investigations into government/corporate relations, suppresses unions, helps keep workers
wages low, allows the destruction of the environment, starts wars for oil companies, arms manufacturers, etc.

Classically speaking, the greatest threat to fascism is the organizing power of labor unions. Rising wages can destroy a fascist government by draining profits of corporations to the point they can't arrange the elections of the properly corrupt dictatorial class.

Note: I am not trying to define "fascism" here. I am trying to show how a free market can develop into a fascist government. As for definitions of fascism, any one liners anyone comes up with is sure to be wrong. Fascism has, as most scholars thinks, fourteen characteristics, some of which may be absent in any particular case.

In relation to our discussion, I am describing a few of the defining characterists of fascism that are present in the Bush version.

Your notion that fascism "is" control of industry by government, not the other way around, is both simplistic and wrong, especially in America, a place in which corporations and certain businesses put Bush in power and he has proceeded to run the country for his benefactor's benefit. If Bush had simply used corporations and industry to seize power and had then taken over corporations and industry itself, I would have called him a dictator, not a fascist.

Anyway, I'm tired of arguing definitions with you. If you think the right supports anti-trust laws when it yowls for a "free market" you are lost in some wierd stretch of Southern woods devoid of yahoos. What those old boys really want is the absence of taxes and the return of slavery.

[crazyhorse1]

A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. This implies the absence of anti-trust laws, price controls, and restrictions on the political impact of corporations or other financially powerful private interests.

OK, obviously a free market would I agree be absent of "price controls, and restrictions on the political impact of corporations or other financially powerful private interests."

But to say a free market would be absent of "anti-trust" laws is a great demonstration that you are twisting the use of the term "free." What this country means by free markets is competitive markets. Prices are set by competition. Government has a role in a free country in ensuring competitive markets and anti-trust laws, truth in advertising, disclosure of product risks and civil courts are vehicles to do that. You are twisting the use of the word free to mean "anarchy," a pattern, to serve your purpose. You are not addressing anyone's actual position.

And btw, you are also twisting the use of the term "fascism." Fascism is control of industry by government. Not control of government by industry. So you are misapplying the word fascism to a twisted use of the term free, thereby establishing NOTHING.

You are correct in a way, of course. However, I believe I said that a free market can easily corrupt into fascism and that fascism is characterized by a "seamless" relationship between corporations and government.

Business and corporate leaders are often the ones who put government leaders into power in the first place by dint of their superior resources (contributions). Once that is done, a mutually beneficial relationship quickly developes.

In exchange for financial backing, the government cuts taxes for corporations, writes no-bid contracts, prevents investigations into government/corporate relations, suppresses unions, helps keep workers
wages low, allows the destruction of the environment, starts wars for oil companies, arms manufacturers, etc.

Classically speaking, the greatest threat to fascism is the organizing power of labor unions. Rising wages can destroy a fascist government by draining profits of corporations to the point they can't arrange the elections of the properly corrupt dictatorial class.

Note: I am not trying to define "fascism" here. I am trying to show how a free market can develop into a fascist government. As for definitions of fascism, any one liners anyone comes up with is sure to be wrong. Fascism has, as most scholars thinks, fourteen characteristics, some of which may be absent in any particular case.

In relation to our discussion, I am describing a few of the defining characterists of fascism that are present in the Bush version.

Your notion that fascism "is" control of industry by government, not the other way around, is both simplistic and wrong, especially in America, a place in which corporations and certain businesses put Bush in power and he has proceeded to run the country for his benefactor's benefit. If Bush had simply used corporations and industry to seize power and had then taken over corporations and industry itself, I would have called him a dictator, not a fascist.

Anyway, I'm tired of arguing definitions with you. If you think the right supports anti-trust laws when it yowls for a "free market" you are lost in some wierd stretch of Southern woods devoid of yahoos. What those old boys really want is the absence of taxes and the return of slavery.

[crazyhorse1]

Kindly read something on John Jacob Aster's crimes and murders in relation to the fur trade before implying that I don't know what I'm talking about

I made a joke that the Titanic was an Indian conspiracy (with a wink). His grandson died on the Titanic and you indicated you hated him. I was initially surprised someone singled out him. But on second thought it makes sense that Indians would particularly dislike Astor. I have no interest in defending him. Other then to say his money build a heck of a hotel, I stay there whenever I'm in The City.

You are a homer in relation to the U.S. The U.S, was poverty and disease wracked for its entire first century, as well as an enslaver of blacks, and exploiter of immigrants, a haven for pirates and other criminals

We were on planet earth, yes.

A middle class waited for FDR before appearing, the rich ruled, and justice was a joke.

This statement is a joke. It is revisionist self serving rewriting of history.

Also, stop thinking of the present day U.S. as some sort of economic Mecca. Our standard of living among the counties of the world ranks only sixth and our human development index ranks only number 12.

Standard of Living

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Belgium...

Dominated by socialists. "Standard of Living" is such a subjective term. Again, we have 1/20th the world's population and 1/3 the wealth. Yet that disappears in the completely subjective term, "standard of living." Since you have no definition of standard of living explaining that it's a meaningless list.

Then you have another socialist list with the socialist countries dominating. Clearly this is unbiased: "It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare." Yeah, that's what I want government to measure as a sense of my quality of life, my "well being."

How do you know these lists were compiled by socialists? Sorry, the fact
that they don't reflect reality as you prefer it is not good enough.

How do you know that the elements considered are? I didn't include them in my post. Maybe you're blowing smoke.

[crazyhorse1]

Well, good heavens, RIC. I just found this little item on the new. How do you square it with your idea that Canada's health systen is worse than ours because it's. As a matter of fact, how do any of you extollers of free market medicine explain the U.S.'s Health ranking.

Yeah, Chili, Morocco, countries with better health care then the US. This is explained by again the standards used to measure socialist healthcare objectives, not real access to health care. I saw a list before with 19th century Cuba ahead of the US in healthcare. At least this one didn't have that.

In Australia health care is so horrible they are looking to roll back socialized medicine because people can't go to the fricking doctor. And yet your list of countries created by obvious socialized standards with no reflection of reality has them ahead of us.

Are you really an academic? If you are, your endlessly trotting out subjective lists of with no criteria is how you post on message boards and not how you do your job because you would be laughed off campus. There are liars, dirty liars and statisticians. And guess who made these lists. You can make a list to show whatever you want by picking the right criteria.

So you'd rather have a heart attack in Morocco then the USA? I don't think so.

Yes, I am not only an academic but a highly paid one at that.

Further, at my University, we sit on the heads of anti-socialists who think that university statisticians are paid to create misleading data.

Not everyone works for Bush.

In re. to heart attacks. I'd rather have one in Canada.

[Countertrey]

Yes, I am not only an academic but a highly paid one at that.

I'm sure this comment serves some purpose.

Further, at my University, we sit on the heads of anti-socialists who think that university statisticians are paid to create misleading data.

Yes... Universities are all about free speech, eh? (please note: sarcasm is in effect) That free speech is only for liberals and leftists on most campuses is really no surprize.

[crazyhorse1]

Yes, I am not only an academic but a highly paid one at that.

I'm sure this comment serves some purpose.

Further, at my University, we sit on the heads of anti-socialists who think that university statisticians are paid to create misleading data.

Yes... Universities are all about free speech, eh? (please note: sarcasm is in effect) That free speech is only for liberals and leftists on most campuses is really no surprize.

Yep. I guess you've got us nailed. Everyone who teaches at a college or a university is pretty much a free-loading hippy socialist who can't make a living in the real world so spends his excess time making up phony data to support left wing-nut schemes to give your hard-earned tax dollars to wetbacks and welfare queens. Oh yeah, we're also dedicated to stifling free speech, especially yours, and fail to support good old boy traditions--
like racism, the divinity of the rich, the banning of Darwin, the destruction of the environment, American invasions for profit, and torture.

[Irn-Bru]

Ooh, sign me up!

[Fios]

I AM GOD ... is the correct forum to finally admit that?