Comments on: An Increasingly Fascist America

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:27:10 +0000

Abby, I think “we common people” can do plenty. If you don’t like a certain policy, vote with your money. That’s what makes the most effect.

I pledge to do my best to not do business with any companies receiving bailout money. GM, Citibank, and the rest of them. Maybe that means my purchasing choices will be very limited, but saving my income would be a far better choice anyway…

By: JMB

JMB — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:17:04 +0000

Yea! And when, G.M gets out of federal custody, maybe all those other crooked car companies will understand, that surrender is the better part of valor. Lol

By: Abby

Abby — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:21:26 +0000

What Can we common Poeple do about the Bailout? Nothing.. we just have to wait and see if the company comes up and develops new cars and prototypes to please the americal consumer

By: Blake S.

Blake S. — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 02:41:13 +0000

Rather than labeling something as “facist”, which implies some sort of failed 20th Century political ideology, why not use a more objective term like “totalitarian” ?

But, seeing as we have already succumbed to Godwin’s Law with practically the first step, perhaps our surviving children’s children will eventually enjoy some form of farfegnugen.

Blake

By: JMB

JMB — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:44:03 +0000

Our republic must defend itself from these increasing acts of congressional extortion, judicial aversions, and these intensifying threats of executive force.

Many of our individual rights are intertwined, and would become instantly, and irrevocably unfastened, were we to be found without these precious protections of our republic, they could easily be dissolved by a force that has grown to become vengeful in its intent to be independent of it.

By: Hannibal Barca

Hannibal Barca — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:52:40 +0000

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the government takeover of GM, and the sanctioned theft from secured bondholders is upheld, it signals to everyone in the world that no private enterprise is safe in America. What bondholder would want to invest anywhere in America if their invested stake is constantly subject to the whims of the federal government?

If the Supreme Court fails to do the right thing, you can expect to see an exodus of investors, effecting a steady acceleration of failing businesses, and more bailouts that are de facto takeovers. It would be a self perpetuating death spiral of our economy.

One has to seriously ask if the fiscal policy of this current administration and Congress are not reckless but deliberate. I have a hard time trying to rationalize this behavior as just being merely actions of the galactically stupid.

It’s a crisis invented and they are the solution to their own problem.

By: Larry

Larry — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:24:38 +0000

Chris,
you really think Amtrak is a success?.. it’s been on the government ventilator for 40 yrs and still can’t seem to muster up enough passengers to support it’s self… Anyone else see Amtrak as a raving success? anyone having to wait at Railroad crossings for Amtrak?.. or are you waiting for privately owned railroads?.. I live next to a train station 200 miles from Seattle.. I see Amtrak roll through about once every three months..almost empty. Amtrak has no future unless the federal government keep putting the defibrillator on it.

By: Dale Caruso

Dale Caruso — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:55:35 +0000

might what to watch this little clip …. Newsweek Editor Evan Thomas on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37B_nOdRTAA

By: Antony Reed

Antony Reed — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:15:36 +0000

To Chris Robbins…
Getting a subsity after 40 years is the definition of failure. Needing subsidies means there is not a profit, but a loss, of which the subsities are meant to make up for that loss.

There are also reasons why the private sector does not invest in rail… Not enough people WANT it (in REAL numbers, not politicized numbers), and because the government has a monopoly on it.

Nough said.

As for fascism, the defining charicteristic is pseudo-private property, but government gets the final say on what is done with it. This is the opposite of freedom through property rights… That means government PRIVILAGES… not INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

Your principles are fuzzy, sir.

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:14:57 +0000

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”–Benito Mussolini