Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations

Listen, the US can either accept this or give in to democracy. I think we all know what the founding fathers would have wanted.

A disaster of unimaginable proportions.

Agreed, haven't we already gone down this road already?

Oh my god,were going to go even further down now.

OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING.

I'm worried about this:

Obama has said he will mount an opposition to this. If he finds a way to pass campaign restrictions in lieu of a court ruling against them, he has forever undermined the power of the Supreme Court. Not that I'm particularly fond of the ruling, but if he is able to, defacto, ignore the ruling, Roe v Wade, evolution, and lots of other issues just become whims of the current administration.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm worried about this:

Obama has said he will mount an opposition to this. If he finds a way to pass campaign restrictions in lieu of a court ruling against them, he has forever undermined the power of the Supreme Court. Not that I'm particularly fond of the ruling, but if he is able to, defacto, ignore the ruling, Roe v Wade, evolution, and lots of other issues just become whims of the current administration.

I very much agree. The fact of the matter is that not democracy is what has us living so nicely in the western world (like most people would have us blindly believe) but rather the separation of power and and the constitutional basis.

Everybody knows that this is more or less the dictionary definition of fascism and that if anyone tried pulling this shit in europe the streets would be piled with the mutilated corpses of politicians, CEOs, and their families right now, right?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Everybody knows that this is more or less the dictionary definition of fascism and that if anyone tried pulling this shit in europe the streets would be piled with the mutilated corpses of politicians, CEOs, and their families right now, right?

I think you might overrate the readiness of Europeans to revolt.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you might overrate the readiness of Europeans to revolt. The reason why europeans have it so good is because governments and the rich consider a good dose of socialism to be "radical insurance". They don't want to end up like Mussolini

BECAUSE UNIONS HAVE NO POWER AMIRITE

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
BECAUSE UNIONS HAVE NO POWER AMIRITE

What, compared to a multinational corporation?

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm worried about this:

Obama has said he will mount an opposition to this. If he finds a way to pass campaign restrictions in lieu of a court ruling against them, he has forever undermined the power of the Supreme Court. Not that I'm particularly fond of the ruling, but if he is able to, defacto, ignore the ruling, Roe v Wade, evolution, and lots of other issues just become whims of the current administration.

The Supreme Court doesn't get fiat power, though. I believe Obama can legitimately force the decision to be overturned if he gets enough Congressional support.

Great! Socialist are running to the hills.

Please stay there.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Great! Socialist are running to the hills.

Please stay there. So you're a fascist then?

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Great! Socialist are running to the hills.

Please stay there.

How silly.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
So you're a fascist then?

How silly.

Corporatism=Fascism

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Corporatism=Fascism

I stand by what I said.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I stand by what I said. And I stand by how Benito Mussolini defined the political system he invented.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
And I stand by how Benito Mussolini defined the political system he invented.

Like I said before you misinterpreted that, and even then that was not my point, the point was how you apply it to this situation is wrong.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations

great thread Dark Cloud.the title of this thread is so true.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Listen, the US can either accept this or give in to democracy. I think we all know what the founding fathers would have wanted.

our founding fathers would be horrified if they could get into a time machine and live in our country now to see how the american people have allowed this to happen and be ashamed of them.

Here's where I'm a bit weird, compared to others.


I think this is the way it should have been, from the begining.

However, there should have also existed caps or ceilings on how much money can be used for each type of national office campaign.

What limit should it be? No idea, but I think $785 million is waaaaaaaaaaaay too much to be spending on a presidential race. That's just American retardedness, right there.

Just to pull some numbers out of my ass: $30 million for Senate. $100 Million for Presidential elections.

$10 Million for House.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How silly.



How silly.

lol!

And behold the wonders of freedom, democracy and the American way.

Oh well, every system has a lifespan.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Corporatism=Fascism

There truely is no hope...

Everyone is just a hyperbolic idiot.

Originally posted by Ordo
There truely is no hope...

Everyone is just a hyperbolic idiot.

On behalf of everyone..."**** you, too!"

Originally posted by Ordo
Everyone is just a hyperbolic idiot.

Originally posted by Ordo
Everyone

hmm

Skynet, Umbrella.

What some people aren't taking into account is this goes much further than free speech...or even capitalism vs socialism.
This ruling will give large corporations complete control over nearly every facet of our society.

Politicians will no longer need to hold fundraisers, corporations will fully fund their campaigns, for a price. All legislation will be subject to corporate approval. Politicians that don't fall in line will see their funds dry up and an agressive campaign launched to unseat them.

Small business venture capitalists will find themselves at the mercy of big business far more than they are now.
This decision is going to have far reaching consequences for our country, and none of them good.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
hmm

Glorious isn't it!

At least I dont pretend like suddenly a corporation is going to be telling me when to hav children or that obama is the antichrist.

Americans wonder why their political system sucks. Unforatunately we live in a democracy, where retards elect people just like them. See? I just proved our democracy is healthy and vibrant. Our elected officials reflect the will of the people!

HELLO? BENITO MUSSOLINI DEFINED FASCISM AS THE MERGER OF STATE AND CORPORATE INTERESTS!!!!

....With the government having control over the corporations, not the corporation having control over the government. Corporatism =/= fascism.

Originally posted by Ordo
There truely is no hope...

Everyone is just a hyperbolic idiot.

Wait a minute...how did you know that....stop looking at my ass....ymptotes*.

*I know it's a parabola...but that lame pun only works THAT way...

Originally posted by Darth Jello
HELLO? BENITO MUSSOLINI DEFINED FASCISM AS THE MERGER OF STATE AND CORPORATE INTERESTS!!!!

Ah, just quit it, dude.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ah, just quit it, dude.

What's he doing that you don't like? Seriously.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What's he doing that you don't like? Seriously.

He keeps saying that corporates having full influence in the government (theoretically) and even sadder as much influence as they have now is fascism. And he does so with conviction, not tongue in cheek, which is silly. He also takes Mussolini's definition above all, forgetting that obviously words evolve and we don't generally accept the definition of their deluded inventors, who obviously have some personal interest involved, as absolute.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He keeps saying that corporates having full influence in the government (theoretically) and even sadder as much influence as they have now is fascism. And he does so with conviction, not tongue in cheek, which is silly. He also takes Mussolini's definition above all, forgetting that obviously words evolve and we don't generally accept the definition of their deluded inventors, who obviously have some personal interest involved, as absolute.

Oh, okay.

I thought he was joking: ergo, the caps-lock text.


And, the idea of fascism existed before Mussolini, if I'm reading what you're saying, correctly. Surely the idea existed as a political philosophy long before Mussolini?


Still, if Mussolini, et al. (lol) invented it, then his definition would be the most correct, imo. The most common concurrent use would be incorrect, if it contradicts the originator...especially with something as this. Just because it is used a different way (as you imply), does not mean it is correct.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, okay.

I thought he was joking: ergo, the caps-lock text.


And, the idea of fascism existed before Mussolini, if I'm reading what you're saying, correctly. Surely the idea existed as a political philosophy long before Mussolini?


Still, if Mussolini, et al. (lol) invented it, then his definition would be the most correct, imo. The most common concurrent use would be incorrect, if it contradicts the originator...especially with something as this. Just because it is used a different way (as you imply), does not mean it is correct.

That's not how language works (except French). The definition in use is the correct one, not the root meaning or the oldest definition. If you actually tried to speak to someone treating words as if they meant what they did originally even a short sentence would be gobbldeygook.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not how language works (except French). The definition in use is the correct one, not the root meaning or the oldest definition. If you actually tried to speak to someone treating words as if they meant what they did originally even a short sentence would be gobbldeygook.

That works for most words, especially older words.

But, that doesn't work at all for something such as a political philosophy that was invented in modern history. If people are using the term incorrectly, they need to be corrected. Incorrectly using a word enough DOES change the definition over time, but I am declaring, at this moment, that if Mussolini "invented" Fascism, his definition is the most correct and all other variances that do not agree with his definition, are incorrect in some way.

There, now that I took care of that...

That's not how any language works. The definition of the word has to be in accordance with the facts. The act is people can say one thing and do another, I am sure Stalin would give you a most delightful definition of Stalinism, but he actually defined it more through actions than words.

On top of that the definition DJ keeps quoting is extremely limited, and doesn't encompass all aspects, but rather focusses on one that is a major talking point for his ideology.

If it helps, the average spectator probably thinks that he is joking. (I know I did/do.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not how any language works. The definition of the word has to be in accordance with the facts. The act is people can say one thing and do another, I am sure Stalin would give you a most delightful definition of Stalinism, but he actually defined it more through actions than words.

On top of that the definition DJ keeps quoting is extremely limited, and doesn't encompass all aspects, but rather focusses on one that is a major talking point for his ideology.

Cool.

But Mussolini literally wrote the "book" on it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Cool.

But Mussolini literally wrote the "book" on it.

And he practiced it. I understand your point, but I think it is more sensible to follow my logic. The definitions of these words come to be known associated with the actions performed. In that way the word fascism has an extreme emotional strength associated with it, if you now justify the usage of the word based on a somewhat unrelated definition, you can easily call something fascism with all the negative impact, and justify it with a different meaning, which is exactly what DJ is doing.

DJ: This legislation is fascist In a very narrow, almost soundbite-esque, definition that Mussolini once gave
Audience: Oh my God, this definition is associated with Hitler and the 60 million deaths he caused. Gasp.

You get my point, I believe. That is of course on top of all the other points, for example it being wrongly applied to begin with, disregarding the validity of the definition.

Originally posted by Bardock42
DJ: This legislation is fascist In a very narrow, almost soundbite-esque, definition that Mussolini once gave
Audience: Oh my God, this definition is associated with Hitler and the 60 million deaths he caused. Gasp.

You get my point, I believe. That is of course on top of all the other points, for example it being wrongly applied to begin with, disregarding the validity of the definition.

Yes, I understood your point. I was just playing devil's advocate.


To be honest, I still don't quite grasp Fascism. I don't feel comfortable with my understanding of it as well as ...say...capitalism, or socialism. I've probably studied Fascism more, on an academic level, than any other political philosophy, yet, I understand it the least. inimalist assured me that this is normal and recommended something to read, but I forgot what he said to read.


But, yes, what Rockastoll said jives well with my understanding of fascism, so I'm inclined to agree with his statement on the matter, even if Darthjello was joking.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm worried about this:

Obama has said he will mount an opposition to this. If he finds a way to pass campaign restrictions in lieu of a court ruling against them, he has forever undermined the power of the Supreme Court. Not that I'm particularly fond of the ruling, but if he is able to, defacto, ignore the ruling, Roe v Wade, evolution, and lots of other issues just become whims of the current administration.
Not really. There are things that are greater than any ruling. A constitutional amendment being one such way that is already a known tactic enshrined in the constitution.

Originally posted by dadudemon
To be honest, I still don't quite grasp Fascism. I don't feel comfortable with my understanding of it as well as ...say...capitalism, or socialism. I've probably studied Fascism more, on an academic level, than any other political philosophy, yet, I understand it the least. inimalist assured me that this is normal and recommended something to read, but I forgot what he said to read.

I've been told that fascism doesn't have any useful definition.

That whole Mussolini debate could have been easily avoided if DJ had actually checked what Mussoilini meant.

He was talking about corporatism the political philosophy (in which many branches of public and social life are joined together in one single body- the corpus, hence the name, though it may also be taken to refer to the meaning of 'corporate' to mean any group of people working together), and NOT corporatism as in... to do with financial corporations.

Utterly different things. So it does not even matter how the definition might have changed since then. The subject of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with either fascism or anything Mussolini ever said.

Meanwhile, why such worry about Obama? He's not going to pass a royal perogative saying that the Supreme Court must be ignored. The Supreme Court is there to define the law. As President, it is very much Obama's business to try and change laws he does not like. That's kinda what government is. He has to go through due process to do it etc.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
....With the government having control over the corporations, not the corporation having control over the government. Corporatism =/= fascism.

Wrong. In a democracy government is SUPPOSED to be answerable to the voters. Corporations are only answerable to a few select individuals....and not always the shareholders.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Wrong. In a democracy government is SUPPOSED to be answerable to the voters. Corporations are only answerable to a few select individuals....and not always the shareholders.

I'd say that in many ways companies have to answer more to the decisions of the masses than government does.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I very much agree. The fact of the matter is that not democracy is what has us living so nicely in the western world (like most people would have us blindly believe) but rather the separation of power and and the constitutional basis.

I agree, generally. Though then we get into the issue of constitutions, which have fallen out of favor with me.

I see them as having the same problems biblical literalism, among other things.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Supreme Court doesn't get fiat power, though. I believe Obama can legitimately force the decision to be overturned if he gets enough Congressional support.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Not really. There are things that are greater than any ruling. A constitutional amendment being one such way that is already a known tactic enshrined in the constitution.

forgive me, I'm not entirely versed on American law. This was just the issue I saw as I was reading the article. The "Liberals" are going to be so gung ho, they may inadvertantly undermine the power of the courts, allowing a more determined "conservative" the ability to do so in a much more problematic way. Politicians wont give up power they take. If Obama wouldn't need to do such, good, though the risk is still there.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Meanwhile, why such worry about Obama? He's not going to pass a royal perogative saying that the Supreme Court must be ignored. The Supreme Court is there to define the law. As President, it is very much Obama's business to try and change laws he does not like. That's kinda what government is. He has to go through due process to do it etc.

its not that he will outright destroy the power of the courts. Like I just mentioned, I don't know all the levers of power in America, but to outright work against the ruling of the Supreme Court does undermine its power. There are many interested "conservatives" who would be happy to do away with such judicial oversight, so it bothers me that they may be able to use the precidence or any mechanism installed by this issue to push that forward.

Sure, he can do what he wants and decide his own perogatives, that certainly doesn't mean there wont be unforseen consequences to his actions.

Originally posted by dadudemon
inimalist assured me that this is normal and recommended something to read, but I forgot what he said to read.

wow, no Idea what you are talking about

I'd tend to agree with Sym on the issue more than anything, that there is no really universal definition of facsim, but ya, I'm not an expert on these things

Originally posted by inimalist
forgive me, I'm not entirely versed on American law. This was just the issue I saw as I was reading the article. The "Liberals" are going to be so gung ho, they may inadvertantly undermine the power of the courts, allowing a more determined "conservative" the ability to do so in a much more problematic way. Politicians wont give up power they take. If Obama wouldn't need to do such, good, though the risk is still there.

He's not taking any power he doesn't already have, in fact it's part of his job. Not having the system of balances to provide Obama (or even Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Taft, Lincoln) with the power to oppose the courts would be a bad thing.

Anything that the SC does is subject to the President and Congress, anything that the President does is subject to the SC and Congress anything that Congress does is subject to the President and SC.

Originally posted by inimalist
I agree, generally. Though then we get into the issue of constitutions, which have fallen out of favor with me.

I see them as having the same problems biblical literalism, among other things.

Well, really my point was more about blind faith in democracy being somewhat misplaced.

I don't actually know whether I disagree with this legislation in the first place.

Originally posted by inimalist
its not that he will outright destroy the power of the courts. Like I just mentioned, I don't know all the levers of power in America, but to outright work against the ruling of the Supreme Court does undermine its power. There are many interested "conservatives" who would be happy to do away with such judicial oversight, so it bothers me that they may be able to use the precidence or any mechanism installed by this issue to push that forward.

No, this is completely wrong. I have no idea how you have reached that conclusion; it really makes no sense at all.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of how laws are applied. But Government is the final arbiter of what the laws are in te first place. The Courts say, the law means this. Obviously, a Government can then try to CHANGE those laws so they mean something else, so long as they can get it passed in the legislature.

That's not even vaguely undermining anything, and it is not doing away with any form of oversight- it is how Governments work, doing what they are meant to do. Governments rule by passing laws, which it is then up to the Courts to interpret. That is the only process being talked about here. Obama says that if the current law means something that he finds to be wrong, then he will fight for the law to ne changed so it is no longer wrong. Just another day in Government.

I think it is worth remembering that the Supreme Court does not try to RULE. It does not say how things should be. It does not make judgments on what is right and wrong. ALll it does is tell you what the current law IS, for good or bad. They have said that current laws allow this practice. That is not necessarily a moral endorsment of it. If laws are introduced to curb it, then the Court's opinion would then be that the practice is not allowed.

When Prohibition was in the Constituiton, the Supreme Court would have backed it. When it was taken off, they would not back it. That's all it comes down to- an interpretational tool. How you can construe that passing laws that might alter these interpretations is in some way wrong or abusive is beyind me. To suggest that just because the Supreme Court rules something that it is therefore wrong to ever try to create or amend laws that would change the situation is... extremely odd.

So as I say, I have absolutely no idea where you are coming from. I suspect you have read this one all wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd say that in many ways companies have to answer more to the decisions of the masses than government does.

You are referring to companies keeping their customers happy which is true for the most part. Often however their workforce is another matter.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That whole Mussolini debate could have been easily avoided if DJ had actually checked what Mussoilini meant.

He was talking about corporatism the political philosophy (in which many branches of public and social life are joined together in one single body- the corpus, hence the name, though it may also be taken to refer to the meaning of 'corporate' to mean any group of people working together), and NOT corporatism as in... to do with financial corporations.

Utterly different things. So it does not even matter how the definition might have changed since then. The subject of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with either fascism or anything Mussolini ever said.

Meanwhile, why such worry about Obama? He's not going to pass a royal perogative saying that the Supreme Court must be ignored. The Supreme Court is there to define the law. As President, it is very much Obama's business to try and change laws he does not like. That's kinda what government is. He has to go through due process to do it etc. Which is exactly why he defined the corporation as a large entity in which the financial elite control the means of production and spent most of the late 20's and early 30's courting American businessmen like Walt Disney and showing propaganda films in US movie theaters where he spoke in English about the wonders of what he called "third way" capitalism and fascism. What the **** else do you call it when you have a system where the financial elite, both foreign and domestic have better, faster, and more direct representation than the people. Even if you call it inverted totalitarianism (in which finance trumps government), it's still a form of fascism. I wish FDR had his way both with constitutional amendments so we had his second bill of rights and to allow 15 justices on the supreme court. Then none of this bullshit would've happened and we'd be in a far better place as a country.

Again DJ, you are confusing the meaning of what Mussolini meant by 'Corporatism'. Any tume he spoke of that, he was noit talking about financial corporations, CEOs or any such thing. Your claim that Mussolini defined fascism as corporatism in the sense you are using the word is incorrect. It's worth noting that there is not even any evidence that he ever said that line about merging with corporate interets, but as I say, the meaning of that line is NOTHING to do wuth finance.

Again, it has no bearing on the thread topic. Financial corporations contributing to campaigns- whether that be a good or bad thing- is irreelvant to Mussolini's words. Go check your facts properly (for heaven's sake, look upo what corporatism actually IS) and cease being off-topic.

I'd like to point out that the ideas of Corporatism are different nowadays than in the days of Mussolini. I believe Corporatism evolved pretty fast in the 80s by dropping old concepts and expanding into different venues. However, these are my views and don't represent the reality...so take my comments with a pinch of salt.

The silly thing is is how utterly wrong DJ has this. Under a Corproate state, all corporate members are meant to have the same amount of power; the various corporate bodies that form the state in this model work together and direct each other to a common goal.

But what he is fearing here is dominance by one group. That could not be less corporate.

In fact, no corporate version of fascism has ever been practised; in Italy and Germany the military and industrialists were disproportionately powerful.

If I'm not mistaken DJ is confusing the concept here with Oligarchy...I'm with him as far as worrying about a certain group dominance..however, this isn't the case here.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
I'd like to point out that the ideas of Corporatism are different nowadays than in the days of Mussolini. I believe Corporatism evolved pretty fast in the 80s by dropping old concepts and expanding into different venues. However, these are my views and don't represent the reality...so take my comments with a pinch of salt.
Actually, it was specifically redefined BY fascist regimes from the older definitions of corporate groups joining into a single body of equal power. Ushgarak, I actually had to read Mussolini and other fascist literature to pass classes so you might want to actually consider doing that before you confuse two different definitions of a single term. The topic of this thread has everything to do with the modern definition of corporatism as originally redefined by the fascists as in private industry and interests having more influence and receiving more benefit from the body politic than the public while itself becoming de facto involved in the legislative process and executive functions. The fascists called this "third way economics", we call it privatization and act like it's some brilliant new idea thought up by Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. This thread has everything to do with that exercise of corporate power defined as "free speech" by the court via what can only be called legalized bribery and truly is antiamerican.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
So as I say, I have absolutely no idea where you are coming from. I suspect you have read this one all wrong.

allegedly

A new CNN/Opinion Research survey finds that 63% of the public thinks that projects in the economic stimulus plan passed last year "were included for purely political reasons and will have no economic benefit," with 36% saying those projects will benefit the economy.

Nearly three out of four Americans think the money has simply been wasted.

Of course, of the $787 billion in the package, $288 billion was for tax cuts to 95% of all Americans and $275 billion was for states to prevent cuts in public services. Most of the remaining money dedicated for specific "shovel-ready projects" hasn't even been spent yet because the projects were not "shovel-ready."

Joe Klein: "It is very difficult to have a democracy without citizens. It is impossible to be a citizen if you don't make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government. It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you're a nation of dodos."

Want to know why the US is failing?

You people are dumb.

People are dumb. They don't even know that tax cut effectively equals wage cut because as I've said over and over again, taxes and wages are directly related.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
People are dumb. They don't even know that tax cut effectively equals wage cut because as I've said over and over again, taxes and wages are directly related.

Can you explain that a bit further?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Can you explain that a bit further? again? despite having explained it a billion times? Statistics show that despite what Americans have been taught, taxes are directly related to wages. As taxes go up, wages go up, as taxes go down, wages remain stagnant or drop with wages in America since the reagan and later the Bush II tax cuts being a prime example.
The typical mechanism works like this-people have to pay more taxes which increases their cost of living and how much they would be willing to work for. Those same taxes are used to improve infrastructure that businesses use which cut down on their costs and therefore the prices of their products and services. If there is a framework of social programs such as national health care or other services, that burden and liability is often taken off of businesses as well, providing additional savings which can be used to lower prices, attract more talent, reinvest in their businesses and improve and increase demand for their products while creating more demand in the work force. People have more disposable income so they can consume more without going into debt.

This is why countries like Germany have high taxes, relatively high wages, very low unemployment (all things considered), are still very powerful economies.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
People are dumb. They don't even know that tax cut effectively equals wage cut because as I've said over and over again, taxes and wages are directly related.

If that was true, then as my taxes have go up, my pay should have followed, and it did not.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm worried about this:

Obama has said he will mount an opposition to this. If he finds a way to pass campaign restrictions in lieu of a court ruling against them, he has forever undermined the power of the Supreme Court. Not that I'm particularly fond of the ruling, but if he is able to, defacto, ignore the ruling, Roe v Wade, evolution, and lots of other issues just become whims of the current administration.

Occasionally, some things should be voted on by citizens other than electing officials for office.

I highly doubt that a popular vote by U.S. citizens would have been in favor of this.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
again? despite having explained it a billion times? Statistics show that despite what Americans have been taught, taxes are directly related to wages. As taxes go up, wages go up, as taxes go down, wages remain stagnant or drop with wages in America since the reagan and later the Bush II tax cuts being a prime example.
The typical mechanism works like this-people have to pay more taxes which increases their cost of living and how much they would be willing to work for. Those same taxes are used to improve infrastructure that businesses use which cut down on their costs and therefore the prices of their products and services. If there is a framework of social programs such as national health care or other services, that burden and liability is often taken off of businesses as well, providing additional savings which can be used to lower prices, attract more talent, reinvest in their businesses and improve and increase demand for their products while creating more demand in the work force. People have more disposable income so they can consume more without going into debt.

This is why countries like Germany have high taxes, relatively high wages, very low unemployment (all things considered), are still very powerful economies.

Mind showing some research cause I don't agree with this at all, not simply because I don't want it to be true, but it's not reflected in the people I know or even in the factual #s for unemployment.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
again? despite having explained it a billion times? Statistics show that despite what Americans have been taught, taxes are directly related to wages. As taxes go up, wages go up, as taxes go down, wages remain stagnant or drop with wages in America since the reagan and later the Bush II tax cuts being a prime example.
The typical mechanism works like this-people have to pay more taxes which increases their cost of living and how much they would be willing to work for. Those same taxes are used to improve infrastructure that businesses use which cut down on their costs and therefore the prices of their products and services. If there is a framework of social programs such as national health care or other services, that burden and liability is often taken off of businesses as well, providing additional savings which can be used to lower prices, attract more talent, reinvest in their businesses and improve and increase demand for their products while creating more demand in the work force. People have more disposable income so they can consume more without going into debt.

This is why countries like Germany have high taxes, relatively high wages, very low unemployment (all things considered), are still very powerful economies.


It's way more complicated than that.

There is a maximum tolerable limits.

There is market stability.

There is current credit availability.

There is market trust.

There is the "how the other countries" are doing.

There is stock market status/confidence.

There is consumer confidence.

There is the "at war" and "not at war" state.

There are other smaller/larger factors such disasters or disease.

And I'm probaby missing a bunch.

It's not as simple as just straight taxes.

Raising taxes at one particular time could cause major problems whereas, raising it at another time could have great short term benefit. Then, there's everything inbetween a large negative or positive impact.

Here's a great article-
http://www.thomhartmann.com/2009/07/21/the-great-tax-con-job/

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's way more complicated than that.

There is a maximum tolerable limits.

There is market stability.

There is current credit availability.

There is market trust.

There is the "how the other countries" are doing.

There is stock market status/confidence.

There is consumer confidence.

There is the "at war" and "not at war" state.

There are other smaller/larger factors such disasters or disease.

And I'm probaby missing a bunch.

It's not as simple as just straight taxes.

Raising taxes at one particular time could cause major problems whereas, raising it at another time could have great short term benefit. Then, there's everything inbetween a large negative or positive impact.

It's not that complex. We are one more step from making it all go away: just make our next president a black woman and it'll magically all go back to normal .

You believes in hexes, right? This will make it all the good karma come flowing back. America will show what she's really about!

I read a great article on tax cuts today, too

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100022697/why-tax-cuts-are-bound-to-favour-the-rich/#

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Here's a great article-
http://www.thomhartmann.com/2009/07/21/the-great-tax-con-job/

I do not disagree with the main point of the article that taxing the more wealthy ends up benefiting the nation as a whole, but some of the stats are skewed.

Regardless, I do not agree with the way your earlier comments:

Originally posted by Darth Jello
again? despite having explained it a billion times? Statistics show that despite what Americans have been taught, taxes are directly related to wages. As taxes go up, wages go up, as taxes go down, wages remain stagnant or drop with wages in America since the reagan and later the Bush II tax cuts being a prime example.
The typical mechanism works like this-people have to pay more taxes which increases their cost of living and how much they would be willing to work for. Those same taxes are used to improve infrastructure that businesses use which cut down on their costs and therefore the prices of their products and services. If there is a framework of social programs such as national health care or other services, that burden and liability is often taken off of businesses as well, providing additional savings which can be used to lower prices, attract more talent, reinvest in their businesses and improve and increase demand for their products while creating more demand in the work force. People have more disposable income so they can consume more without going into debt.

This is why countries like Germany have high taxes, relatively high wages, very low unemployment (all things considered), are still very powerful economies.

Each of those points are oversimplified and need more explaination in context. People have more disposable income actually doesn't mean much since hardly anyone uses their money wisely in the first place, and history has shown over and over that the average joe will blow money on Margaritavilles just to do it even if it means paying the light bill a little late.

Originally posted by chithappens
It's not that complex. We are one more step from making it all go away: just make our next president a black woman and it'll magically all go back to normal .

You believes in hexes, right? This will make it all the good karma come flowing back. America will show what she's really about!

I'm not sure how much of that was serious or a joke.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Actually, it was specifically redefined BY fascist regimes from the older definitions of corporate groups joining into a single body of equal power. Ushgarak, I actually had to read Mussolini and other fascist literature to pass classes so you might want to actually consider doing that before you confuse two different definitions of a single term. The topic of this thread has everything to do with the modern definition of corporatism as originally redefined by the fascists as in private industry and interests having more influence and receiving more benefit from the body politic than the public while itself becoming de facto involved in the legislative process and executive functions. The fascists called this "third way economics", we call it privatization and act like it's some brilliant new idea thought up by Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. This thread has everything to do with that exercise of corporate power defined as "free speech" by the court via what can only be called legalized bribery and truly is antiamerican.

Claiming to have read well on such an area and then giving a quote from Mussolini that is entirely false somewhat contradict. Sorry, your general behavior in this threa has been one of showing ignorance of the term 'corporatism' and as a result bringing a false subject into the thread. And Mussolini's idea of Corporatism is in fact very much in line with the definiton I gave (at least in theory), so there is a. no point in trying to wriggle out that way and b. you were clearly yourself confusing 'corporatism' with 'to do have financial corporations' earlier in the thread (as that is the only possible link that the subject of this thread has to the word 'corporate', so pretending otherwise is trying my patiernce.

If you want to argue that this law is fascist, go ahead. It makes no sense but you are free to make a fool of yourself. But don't claim that this has anything to do wth historical fascism, the term 'corporatism' or Mussolini, as all these things are outright untrue.

That's an end to that matter. Take it to PM if you want to discuss that area further.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If that was true, then as my taxes have go up, my pay should have followed, and it did not.
And I know people who's wages DID go up when their taxes increase. It's a matter of averages, not anecdotes.

Originally posted by King Kandy
And I know people who's wages DID go up when their taxes increase. It's a matter of averages, not anecdotes.

Also correlation is not causation.

I would like, however, to see some of that correlation in official stats.

Originally posted by King Kandy
And I know people who's wages DID go up when their taxes increase. It's a matter of averages, not anecdotes.

Well, I don't know any of those people. There is a possibility that none of them are in this part of the country.

Are you talking about people who work for the government? I wouldn't count them.

I wouldn't count them either, because government wages are shit (I know a lot of school teachers for instance)...

It looks like people are already mobilizing against this

Sadly, I think it stands very little chance. A constitutional amendment is a very difficult thing to push through, especially when all the corporate money will be against it.

The only other option would be for a future supreme court to overturn this, something that definitly isn't going to happen for at least a generation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not sure how much of that was serious or a joke.

Not at all serious but I'm sure someone will soon PM me about how we are kindred spirits if they fail to read this particular post.

Originally posted by King Kandy
And I know people who's wages DID go up when their taxes increase. It's a matter of averages, not anecdotes.

Wages going up during periods of inflation is also highly misleading. A lot of things are taken out of context with stuff like this.

My point was that just because your wages personally didn't go up really has no bearing on the statistics of the situation. I don't know what the statistics actually are here.

All I can say is look around you, look at taxes and wages around the world and when I say wages, I also mean purchasing power. Who cares if you pay half your income in taxes if you can afford to live comfortably and still have spending money? Ushgarak, I'll drop the talk about corporatism and fascism but I still think you're completely full of shit on this and basing everything you say on wikipedia.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
basing everything you say on wikipedia.

The 20 minute Wiki-degree, a staple of internet debating.

What the hell? America isn't finished. I don't know what all of you ass hats are talking about. Merica just started where da frack it goin? NO where. If it does decide to move, i'll go with it, along with my shotgun and my 69 mustang gto.Don't worry, we good. JEsse Ventura is on the god damn case. And hell we even gots steven seagulls patrolling the damn streets as a police officer. I think this is the safest time to be living in America. If all else goes to shit we always got Govenator as an ace up our sleeve. Watch, there's going to be a true lies 2. Ahnold gonna go covert on some bitches in foreign lands to put the wrong things right and it'll probably become the next top gorssessts movie of all time and it will set new records of breaking the barrier between film and docudrama. Ahonold breaks down the fourth wall at the end of the movie by sayin, on record. " I'm really a CIA agent. This shit is for real.Merica fixed now. I'm your new president. Got to bed bitches...,it's alllll good.