Signs of Fascism on the Rise in America

[Tim Bonney]

ET, the argument sounds good because the rhetoric is that conservatives don't want "big government." But that's all it is is rhetoric. Conservative law makers want to spend billions of dollars just like liberal law makers do. The difference is that liberals tend to want to spend the money on social programs while the conservatives want to spend it on a big military and on tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.

In order to give those whopping big tax cuts you still have to tax the living heck out of the middle class. Republicans want the middle class and the poor to pay for the perks of their rich friends in business.

The Republicans as much as anyone want government control. When it comes to the military they don't want small government. When it comes to how to regulate your personal life they don't want small government. When it comes to gerrymandering congressional districts to make sure Republican controls congress they really don't want small government. "We want smaller government" is just code for "we want smaller government until we are in charge of it."

Then you toss in Donald Trump who wants to discriminate against people based on religion and ethnic origin, who believes its ok to kill civilians to get the bad guys, who'd be fine with more internment camps etc. And your've got full on fascism. By being a rich spoiled billionaire running for President he puts Republicans to the test.

Republicans have been sucking up to the Donald Trumps of the world for years spouting a message that rich folks are good people who deserve tax breaks and accolades, even though his morals are bad, even though he is a racist, even though he doesn't know how to govern. But Republicans have been telling the world that big business is just wonderful and big business people are great people. Well, you all are getting the "wonderful" you deserve with the hateful, rude, racist bigot as your front runner.

[William Thornton]

[William Thornton]

I take a base on balls because I know ET will step up to the plate and jack one out. So he does again.

I have a piece on Trump elsewhere, . I'm waiting for the first flaming lib here to make a similar declaration about the untrustworthy Hillary.

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Please identify the fascist-leaning candidates.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

[Tim Bonney]

Trump may or may or may not fit all the fascist definitions, but some of his actions like targeting a religious group for discrimination and calling for the bombing of civilians are products of fascist regimes of the past.

As Keith has said, we'd not know fully until the mistake of electing him had been made.

[William Thornton]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[William Thornton]

Timothy: As Keith has said, we'd not know fully until the mistake of electing him had been made.

William: Same for Obama?

Wm: Dang straight...we didn't know until he was elected and spent trillions, squandered our reputation, and generally screwed up everything.

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

[KeithE]

[ET]

Timothy, I was going to give a much longer response (and this one isn't short), but I'll spare everyone my philosophical ramblings as an early Christmas gift to you all and trim it down to "medium size". You are correct in some respects. You take issue with the rise of Trump, but his ascension is due primarily to - I believe - one primary issue: the failure of Republican leadership to lead in any substantive way toward reducing the scope and size of government and to be lead around by the nose by Obama even after having control of both the House and the Senate. I imagine there's a large number of folks out there who are tired of Republicans being nothing but "Big Government Lite" at best and who always come up with excuses for caving to the current president.

I have pretty much lessened my involvement in policy discussions on BL.com this year because after 6 or 7 years of being around here, I haven't found that those with a little more leftward lean on policy issues seem to be all that concerned about solving problems. You seem more interested that policy reflect well-meaning or ear-tickling rhetoric than with whether or not a particular policy works. As Rush Limbaugh would say, you prefer symbolism over substance.

For example, let's take your statement of "tax breaks for the ultra wealthy". The purpose of the tax code is to raise revenue. It is not to make one feel good about oneself. The inherent problem with tax policy discussion on this board for all the years I have been here is that folks are more concerned with how the tax code looks than with it does - whether or not it actually raises revenue or is the best way to do so.

Hop over to the "60 Minutes" web site and listen to Apple CEO Tim Cook's interview from last night. Whatever-his-name asked Cook about all the money that Apple has parked overseas. The green-eyed monster of American progressivism, liberalism and socialism are lusting after American corporate money sitting overseas. They decry it as "unAmerican" to keep them from pillaging such largess.

Why would a progressive, liberal-minded company like Apple do such a thing? Cook's response to the question, or my summary of his response? The American tax code is stupid and it's time for an overhaul. Cook at least realizes that he's running a business and Apple wasn't created as a charitable foundation to fund the the schemes of more-is-never-enough politicians. Since American liberalism regularly looks to Europe or other OECD countries to justify their proposed policies, why does the American left not support territorial taxation like almost all OECD countries? Money taxed in foreign countries would not be subject to income tax when brought back to America. Under the current system, Apple's money would be double taxed - taxed in the country of earnings and then taxed again in America on the difference between the two countries tax rate.

From all the evidence, you'd much rather collect $0 in additional tax revenue and have a tax rate of 40, 50 or 90% that suits the rhetoric than to have a lower tax rate that actually increases tax revenue or increases investments or job opportunities at home but doesn't fit your rhetoric. Symbolism over substance. So in order to not appear to be giving a "huge tax break to greedy CEOs" or "Big Business", you're willing to forgo the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars - maybe billions - in the American economy just because you might not get your hands of 9% or more of that money.

Meanwhile, you complain about jobs being "shipped overseas". Why shouldn't they be? Why shouldn't an American corporation invert and become based in Ireland or the U.K. and potentially gain 9% or more in monetary resources for expansion or R&D? Why would they want to set up shop in America and give themselves such a potential tax disadvantage?

But back to the primary point of my engagement in this thread: the fact still remains that fascism is more logically associated with the American political left than the right due to its inherent need for government power. You can't have both sides. You can't argue that (conservative) Republicans are FOR less government control on the economy one day and then claim they are part of a political philosophy that requires MORE government control of the economy the next.

And, yes, this is about as short as I can keep it. Merry Christmas!

[Tim Bonney]

[David Flick]

[Tim Bonney]

David,

You need to check a few more sources. Also note in reading of history fascism refers to ring wing governments such as Hitler, Mousilini etc. who, by the way, opposed liberalism.

Look up the Wikipedia article on fascism.

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated in Italy during World War I, in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism. Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]

Of course, never fully trust Wikipedia right? So note the [3][4] next to reference.

Also check out the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... sh/fascism. You will find that Oxford, which I think trumps (no pun intended) Funk and Wagnel, points to the right wing origins of fascism.

[David Flick]