sagawizard ([info]sagawizard) wrote,
@ 2008-09-23 20:39:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Call me loony and paranoid but...

...economy going into the shitter to the point where the govt is essentially stepping into take over the system...

...two wars abroad...

...a constitution that we've already degraded by allowing the loss of privacy rights, rights to a trial, and ignoring all prohibitions against torture...

This seems like very, very fertile soil for fascism to take root.

Not a lot of people are really FEELING the crunch yet (it's all abstract, in hard-to-understand news bytes), but when it finally hits (and it will), people will be afraid and angry and looking to a man on horseback. Not a good recipe if the wrong man comes along.

- SW

(Post a new comment)


[info]tonysalieri
2008-09-24 01:28 am UTC (link)

Not a lot of people are really FEELING the crunch yet (it's all abstract, in hard-to-understand news bytes), but when it finally hits (and it will), people will be afraid and angry and looking to a man on horseback. Not a good recipe if the wrong man comes along.


That's why we absolutely, positively can NOT let McCain anywhere near the White House. Can you imagine what would happen if the country goes to hell, he dies, and then we have Sarah Palin at the forefront?

THAT might be what it would finally take for me to get the hell into Quebec or Toronto. That woman is very comfy cozy with Jews for Jesus...I don't want to imagine what she would do with control of a fascist state.

(Reply to this)


[info]rowanarha
2008-09-24 02:35 am UTC (link)
Ah yes, but are we at war with Eurasia or Eastasia? Heh.

(Reply to this)


[info]saveferrets
2008-09-24 10:03 pm UTC (link)
I've got news for you, that's already happening, fools are already lining up and looking to a man on horseback with a "D" next to his name, who's all talk and no action, or, when he is action, is destructive anti-liberty action.

Who the hell would ever think McCain is a savior?

...

I say no bailouts for Wall Street AND no bailouts for losers who took out loans they couldn't pay. Not with MY tax dollars. That is a transfer of income from a responsible party to an irresponsible one and is morally reprehensible in all its forms, no matter WHAT it is used to do.

This short term fix will have long term consequences and they will be MUCH worse. We can postpone the problems but they're only going to get bigger, $700 billion or not.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]sagawizard
2008-09-25 12:07 pm UTC (link)
I say no bailouts for Wall Street AND no bailouts for losers who took out loans they couldn't pay. Not with MY tax dollars. That is a transfer of income from a responsible party to an irresponsible one and is morally reprehensible in all its forms, no matter WHAT it is used to do.

This short term fix will have long term consequences and they will be MUCH worse. We can postpone the problems but they're only going to get bigger, $700 billion or not.

Let the record show, I agree with [info]saveferrets completely here. Hey, it happens ever now and then.

Of course, unlike him, I'm not against government spending. I'm just against the USES I've seen. $550 billion for a war and now $700 billion to bail out big corporations and fulfill CEOs multimillion dollar golden parachutes....obscene. That same $1.2 billion invested in health care, education, or infrastructure? Would have been, would still be, wonderful, in my book. Would be the government's JOB in my book...otherwise, why the hell HAVE a government?

- SW

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]saveferrets
2008-09-25 01:10 pm UTC (link)
The irony is that there's actually a pure capitalist reason for opposing CEO "golden parachutes" for when they drive their companies into the ground.

In true capitalism, the company exists to make the maximum profit for its shareholders. Rewarding a CEO or other executive who failed so completely and utterly in this duty, is, in fact, anti-capitalist.

I do not go so far as to believe that "limit CEO pay" is the correct argument, exactly. The true problem is that all the big-time CEO's are/were on each others' boards of directors, and don't dare vote against a huge payday for the others, lest they not get one for themselves. That is not free-market capitalism; that is closed-market cronyism, and even my great big fat libertarian butt would like to see a stop to that practice ... pretty much yesterday.

I just get mad when people call this mess a failure of capitalism, because it's a combined failure of cronyism and socialism. We haven't been true capitalists for almost 50 years.

Buying up worthless paper with no intrinsic easily-measurable value could be argued to be an anti-capitalist practice. For the government and Wall Street alike.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]academicblue
2008-09-26 03:42 pm UTC (link)

Ironically, in the case of the Bush administration the fascist/pseudo-fascist policies PRECEDED the total economic collapse.

But, yeah, it can always get worse.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…