The Obama Watch
Barack Obama: Socialist or Nouveau Fascist?
Which “-ism” is America under his rule?
“Barack Obama is a socialist.”
Heard that one before? Of course you have. In fact if polling is to be believed, it’s more likely than not that you have accepted this premise at some point in the not too distant past.
Two summers ago a poll conducted by Democratic strategists James Carville and Stan Greenberg found that 55 percent of registered voters nationwide believed the term socialist accurately applied to Obama. In fact 33 percent of respondents — a third of all registered voters in the nation — believed the term applied to Obama “very well.”
More recently a Pew Center survey on some of our nation’s most commonly used ideological labels revealed that 60 percent of Americans have a negative impression of the word “socialism.”
But is Obama a socialist? And if he’s not — what is he?
Certainly there is a compelling case to be made that Obama is a socialist in the contemporary sense — much like the French Socialists, who are proposing massive tax hikes on the wealthy after securing the presidency and majorities in France’s Sénat and Assemblée Nationale.
Europe is littered with such tax-and-spend parties — including Germany’s Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands and Spain’s Partido Socialista Obrero Español (both of which ruled coalition governments in their countries until 2009 and 2011, respectively).
But is 21st century European socialism — which has led to a full-blown recession and pushed the world to the brink of a second global financial crisis — really socialism in the way that Karl Marx envisioned it?
Obama has never advocated doctrinaire socialism (which is based on government ownership of private property and the means of production). Certainly he has made good on his promise to “spread the wealth around” via unprecedented government intervention in the free market, but he cannot be called a socialist in the mold of Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro or Kim Jong-Il.
“What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands,” columnist Thomas Sowell wrote recently. “That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.”
Sound familiar? This is precisely what happened during the recent recession. For example, government-mandated loans aimed at boosting homeownership were clearly among the root causes of the economic downturn - but when the sub-prime bubble burst blame was placed exclusively on “corporate greed.” Of course at the same time politicians were absolving themselves of any responsibility, they were forcing taxpayers to subsidize massive bailouts of these “greedy” financial institutions.
So if Obama isn’t a socialist, what is he? Economically speaking it’s far more accurate to say that he is a fascist — a supporter of dirigisme, in which government manages the economy through central planning, not collective ownership. Fascism did not seek to stamp out the innovative, wealth-creating potential of profit-seeking investment and entrepreneurship - instead it sought to channel those innovations (and funnel that wealth) to the good of the state.
“In fascist Italy the state pays for the blunders of private enterprise,” Italian social critic Gaetano Salvemini wrote in the mid-1930s.
When business was good, “profit remained to private initiative.” However when downturns came (as they inevitably do), “the government added the loss to the taxpayer’s burden.”
“Profit is private and individual,” Salvemini wrote. “Loss is public and social.”
Letter to the Editor View all comments (205) | Leave a comment
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/28/barack-obama-socialist-or-nouv
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Virtue| 6.28.12 @ 6:47AM
Communist. He's a communist. When he talks - in an unscripted moment - about the redistribution of wealth he's quoting Marx (...though this was probably routine dinner conversation in the young Obama household). And last I checked Marx has something to do with defining what it means to be a communist....
Brooksifier | 6.28.12 @ 1:26PM
The Sermon on the Mount is more socialist than Marx ever was!
Jesus was a long haired, bearded socialist who overturned the moneychangers tables in the temple.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 1:34PM
Has any American liberal ever acknowledge the argument that giving of yourself and forcing others to give are different things? I get that you disagree with it, but can you even acknowledge that others make that argument?
Ryan| 7.2.12 @ 11:11AM
I have yet to see an answer for this in the several forums I frequent. It's as if the left blots it out....
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 3:53PM
What is it about the Sermon on the Mount that discusses central control of the means of production, or even "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?
aware| 6.28.12 @ 4:48PM
Nonsense, Brooksifier. Just because somebody you admired said that one time doesn't make it true.
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 7:05AM
A Socialist?
Oh my, no. He's way beyond that. The P.M. Of England is a Socialist. The Socialist President of France, is a Socialist. The Idiot from Vermont is a Socialist, and his buddy - Leahy - is a Scumbag.
This boy is none of them.
Our Boy's a Commie, like his Mommy, and his Mommy's Mommy. He's a Marxist, like his Whore Chasing, Drunk, of a Daddy. He is everyone he surrounds himself with.
Davis. Wright. Ayers. Dohrn. Farrakhan. Gates. Jones. Rashidi? (Why is the LA TIMES still refusing to release that Tape? What are they hiding?)
These people are all Marxists. Rashidi's a Terrorist. (same thing)
He "Sought out the Marxist Professors" when he got to College, if you've read any of his Make Believe, Made Up full a Sh*t "Biographies".
This one has decided that "The Rules" don't apply to HIM. The "Laws on the Books" and The "Laws of the Land" will only be Enforced, if HE deems them Worthy of Enforcement, and don't conflict with HIS Plans.
He has shipped Arms to Mexican Muderers, without the knowledge of that Nation's Government, ala Chavez, Amedinajad, and Hamas. He has put his Thugs in the Streets, and his Aparatchiks are scouring the Countryside, SHUTTING DOWN Businesses, that have "Fallen out of favour".
He Sh*ts on the Constitution, and Wipes his Ass with his Oath of Office, preferring to go with "So, let it be written. So, let it be done."
Unless Socialist's definition has changed?
I'm thinking he's something else.
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 8:05AM
...Yawn...
Any other profound insights, today?
No?
...back to sleep.
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 9:04AM
No.
I was gonna mention what Pathetic waste of Air, you are. And how you have filled in, nicely, for the absence of Clint. What with all of your Insights, and your pithy remarks.
I was gonna mention how I can't seem to Wipe my @ss, around here, without hitting your nose. And, how, if you didn't have Me (to Copy, and supply a Shadow for you to stand in) and that poor, pathetic specimen, calling himself Purp (to tease like a dumb animal) you wouldn't have Jack Sh*t to write about. In fact. Even with us, you ain't got Jack Sh*t
That's what I would've written, but you're right. These aren't profound, at all.
They've become Common Knowledge, and so I won't bore anybody with Yesterday's News.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.28.12 @ 9:50AM
We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 4:47PM
Go Fck Yourself, Douche Bag.
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 5:52PM
Checkmate!
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 7:43PM
Go Fck Yourself, Douche Bag.
Checkmate.
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 11:10AM
...zzzzzZZZZZZzzzzz....
Sorry, did you say something?
RCV| 6.29.12 @ 6:32PM
Such a classy guy, TLP (is that short for "ToiLet Paper?)...
Mimi | 6.28.12 @ 8:44AM
Tim .....Right on the money and funny! GOP should steal it and use it as an election ad!
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 11:55AM
One wonders what sort of lens it is through which TLP views the world. The Tory PM of the UK (not England) is a "socialist"?? I guess under that definition, Obama just might be a "communist", but in the real world, Cameron is a conservative and Obama is a moderate Democrat. ... and TLP is a lunatic.
Brooksifier | 6.28.12 @ 1:29PM
"and TLP is a lunatic."
A wingnut.
A Right-wingnut.
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 4:50PM
And Karl Marx was a Moderate Socialist.
Do you even READ the Stupid Sh*t that you write?
chuck| 6.28.12 @ 7:20AM
I'll just say he's an arrogant, narcissistic, white-hating,Jew-hating, Muslim, anti-American POS.
chuck| 6.28.12 @ 7:23AM
And a war criminal. Fast and Furious was an act of war, that led to the death of hundreds or thousands of Mexican citizens, and a US Border Patrol Agent.
Purp| 6.28.12 @ 7:44AM
Fast and Furious is a pile of trash, concocted and promoted by the same people that brought you GW Bush and the Clinton Impeachment. Issa's an idiot.
Read Fortune Magazine's Expose:
http://features.blogs.fortune......ous-truth/
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 8:12AM
Riiiiight...
And that's why they're hiding documents...and obstructing the investigation...and claiming "Executive Privelige"...
'Cuz it's nothing.
You're a joke.
Purp| 6.28.12 @ 8:51AM
Don't argue with me, read the article. Issa has nothing on Obama, and the documents he wants were created after the program was terminated and have nothing to do with the program. Issa has been given over 7000 documents produced during the program.
It's a fishing expedition, just like Whitewater was, and he's spending millions of tax payer dollars on a wild goose chase - and you think these guys are fiscally responsible? Puhlease.
JP| 6.28.12 @ 9:02AM
It doesn't matter. Congress is now investigating obstruction by Holder. That is what has Holder and Obama so worried. F&F was an illegal operation, and it can be traced back to the DOJ. Holder lied at least twice, and now the President is obstructing Congress.
canuckistani| 6.28.12 @ 10:32AM
This started when Gonzalez was defended by Junior and executive privilege not so long ago.
The F&F case is completely different in that people's lives were at stake and the DOJ has a responsibility to ensure their initiatives do less harm than more.
Issa has botched it by politicizing the inquiry, throwing things out like "trashing the constitution", "police state" etc etc. If he truly wanted to get to the bottom of it, hold in camera sessions and work with the DOJ to determine what the program was about and the remedies to it.
The NRA has now entered the fray and their participation clouds everything. BHO should reaffirm executive privilege in this case and not budge one inch.
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 11:12AM
I read the article, dumbass.
It's about a pissing contest between Voth and Dodson.
The article flatly admits that gun-walking WAS a policy.
It carefully admits saying much about Holder's involvement.
It also quotes a gun control organization's comment about Arizona.
FYI, dim-wit, the 2nd Amendment is not intended to prevent crime.
Can you read, idiot-boy?
Joellen| 6.28.12 @ 11:43AM
Purp's "dont argue with me" is so GORE-ISH. Dont argue the progressives with facts; first of all they arent listening and second of all, for them it's irrelevant (if it applies to the commie/democrats).
Anthony| 6.28.12 @ 10:00AM
Holder has already lied to Congress on at least two occasions, and all of America saw it in real time, except the trolls who were too busy scratching thier asses as the posted on conservative web sites.
For those too stupid to comprehend, here are the coming attractions.
Obozo will soon be exposed as the force behind the concept of undermining the 2nd Amendment by allowing weapons to enter into Mexico and get into the hands of the drug cartels.
Obozo and Holder will be found to be accessories to the murder of two American agents, Terry and Zapata, as well as hundreds of Mexican civilians.
Then the entire criminal enterprise known as the Democrat Party will be destroyed, as the left is wont to say, by any means necessary.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 8:29PM
I'm sure that's how it will play out, Anthony. You just keep telling yourself that,
Anthony| 6.28.12 @ 8:59PM
It is an uphill fight with trolls like you in the way, but we've defeated stronger, more determined, and more intelligent foes.
You and your ilk are garbage that will be swept away in the morning like dirt on the stoop.
RCV| 6.30.12 @ 12:29PM
Yeh, sure, just like the Health Care Act was going to be swatted down by the Supreme Court.
Ryan| 6.28.12 @ 8:31AM
Fortune doesn't cover the whole issue. While there is plenty which it brings to light, there is still the issues of what Holder knew and when he knew it; why there are still documents being withheld from the committee (which can be shown JUST to the committee and to no one else); why Obama gave cover with no constitutional precedent; and the reason why the prosecutors were NOT doing their job.
Purp| 6.28.12 @ 8:52AM
And we will never know. Get over it.
JP| 6.28.12 @ 9:00AM
I don't think so. And when the President is impeached for Obstruction you may sing another tune.
canuckistani| 6.28.12 @ 10:34AM
It will never happen. When the Rupublicants used their only trump card for lying about a BJ, the American people lost interest.
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 11:14AM
Wanna' bet?
Holder will be held in contempt today.
Your jackass Democrat Reps are already running for cover from the Dem Convention, and Obama, generally.
After today's Supreme Court ruling, Obama and the Dems are now solely responsible for passing the biggest TAX HIKE in US history.
The Dems who voted for it will be in deep doo-doo with their constituencies, and will be looking for political cover. Voting "Contempt" for Holder is a good strategy.
You are really stupid.
Anthony| 6.28.12 @ 3:37PM
DR is right. It's game on to November, and then, perhaps America's 2nd Civil War. The statists against the people.
I hope Obozo sends out his trolls to take away our guns, Please Obozo, please, send out the trolls, send in Purp first.
Don't shoot until you see the whites of their government I.D. cards.
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 5:56PM
"We're from the government, and we're here to...
BLAM!!!!!!!!!!!
RCV| 6.29.12 @ 6:22PM
It will turn out even worse for you anti-American secessionists than it did last time. Can you imagine what the US military can accomplish this time around? One drone right to the Texas statehouse!
jozywales| 6.30.12 @ 3:58PM
The US military will side with the people . I was in the US Army up to 20 months ago. You can't imagine how much they despise the The Fascist Muslim Beast in the White House.
jozywales| 6.30.12 @ 4:00PM
To clarify; My use of the word "people" is not the left-wing fascist definition of "the people" which mainly is synonymous with parasites.
Lullabys Legends and Lies| 6.28.12 @ 8:38AM
Hey Purp: At any minute, somewhere in America, the next victim of Fast and Furious might be found dead, because most of those guns are still out there, because unlike operation Wide Receiver, the Fast and Furious weapons were "never" tracked, nor was the Mexican Government even aware of F&F (unlike Wide Receiver, where they were involved)!! So once another American turns up dead, how will you defend Eric Holder, and the Obama Administration, and somehow blame it all on Darrell "pile of trash" Issa? Just because you don't want a Republican as President, doesn't mean you have to cover up for murder, to defend President Obama!! You Lefties made such a big friggin' deal about Nixon and Watergate, but Fast and Furious is Watergate on crack, and you act like nothing happened, it's just politics!! Nobody died in Watergate, it was a break-in, and a coverup of that break-in, but nobody's died, but when you listen to Democrats, they make it sound like it was the crime of the Century!! F&F has many dead and wounded surrounding it, and you write it off as just political posturing on the Republicans part, who cares about dead Mexicans anyway? I guess this was just Obama's way to cut down on illegal immigration, by killing the future illegal immigrant Mexicans off in Mexico, before they could get here, huh? Only a Democrat could come up with, and defend this operation!! Oh yeah by the way, I think Obama's a Socialist, a Socialist who likes to kill Mexicans and Border Agents!!
Purp| 6.28.12 @ 8:55AM
It's a fallacy, and you all wanted to believe it, so you do.
This is nothing like Tricky Dicky Nixon. It's trumped up crap like the Acorn hoodwink.
I am not defending any secret operation, certainly not anything started by GW Bush, I am just defending the administration's right to say no on internal communications being handed over to Congress.
JP| 6.28.12 @ 8:58AM
You've got it wrong, Purp. The DOJ was created by Congress. And therefore, Congress not only has oversight but also jurisdiction. Nixon's tapes were White House tapes he created. The DOJ communications cannot enjoy Executive Privlege during a potential criminal investigation. EP stops at the Oval Office. But even then the SCOTUS in 1974 says that Congress can supeona even Oval Office communications if they believe the President broke the law.
canuckistani| 6.28.12 @ 10:36AM
Take it to court. Forget the impeachment route. The Republicants have zero to stand on here.
Oh, and Roberts sided with BHO today.
Let the handwringing begin.
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 3:57PM
No, Fast and Furious is nothing like "Tricky Dicky Nixon." Watergate was a series of "dirty tricks," like laundering campaign money and underhanded tactics in order to help Nixon get re-elected, while Fast and Furious was deliberately fostering the distribution of deadly firearms to some of the world's most murderous criminals so they could use them against other people for a reason that is still unknown.
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 4:27PM
President Bush did not start Fast and Furious or anything like it. His administration allowed the sale of several hundred firearms with GPS monitors attached to them so they could be traced, for the purpose of aiding Mexican police in catching them committing crimes. That program was terminated when Mexican police showed no interest in the proposed program. We still don't know why Fast and Furious, with its thousands of untraceable firearms being distributed to Mexican drug lords, got underway.
CJW| 6.28.12 @ 8:47AM
Obamaboy,
Purpie believes that the death of Brian Terry and hundreds of poor Mexicans caused by the Obama regime sending guns to Mexico is "trash."
Explain Purpie how the Republicans sent the guns to Mexico?
You sink to a new level of stupidity and hate every day.
Is this the Soros line on Fast and Furious, that it is trash caused by the Republicans?
Purp| 6.28.12 @ 8:57AM
Check in with the NRA and let me know when they are comfortable with regulating AK47's, then we'll talk. You do know that there are 853 gun shops in Phoenix alone? And that an 18 year old can buy 1 AK47 per day, forever? Why?
Louis Jenkins| 6.28.12 @ 9:16AM
Because that's the law Purp. If you gun grabbers want to change it, then go ahead. Oh wait, you're trying very hard aren't you. The gun buyers from Mexico took advantage of that regulation, bought up as many weapons as they had cash, and ran them into Mexico. And the gun watching BATF members were told to stop watching. "We don't care what they do with them." Strange that a government agency would do that, isn't it? Everyone was a victim here, including the gun runners, only they got away. American citizens Zapato and Terry are dead, and several hundred Mexican citizens most likely. But I guess, according to you, we don't need to worry about that, do we? Afterall, there's only two dead, and that doesn't compare to the Watergate Scandal. You are a panty waist (being polite) Purp, a falsehood teller, and the absolute truth will never be in you.
canuckistani| 6.28.12 @ 10:39AM
It is the law. But what about responsibility?
Do you believe a bar can be held culpable if one of their patrons kills while driving drunk?
I don't, but the theory has merit.
Should not a gun store be held culpable if the gun purchaser kills and uses their AK for more than target practice and deer obliteration?
This may be the way around the archaic and badly interpreted 2nd Amendment. Responsibility.
Drunken Sailor| 6.28.12 @ 2:18PM
So can a bat or Kitchen Supply store be held liable when someone commits murder their product? How about, use a tire iron, hold the auto manufacturer liable. I guess if you use a rock, you will suggest holder the planet liable.
Here is a novel idea, hold the perpatrator responsible.
Drunken Sailor| 6.28.12 @ 2:19PM
Should read "when someone commits murder with their product"
Louis Jenkins| 6.28.12 @ 2:49PM
Canuckistani:
That's the problem. Responsibility. How about suing the gun manufactor? No. It is the person who is responsible. You cannot legislate responsibility. Outlaw guns? Bows and arrows, spears, knives will take their place. Outlaw those and clubs will be the next weapon of choice. A person intent on killing will kill, and those who aren't will not. And so on. Besides, you live in Canada. Why should you worry?
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 4:29PM
Dram laws, which exist in all countries that follow Anglo-Saxon law, permit a tavern-keeper to be held liable if he knowingly continues to serve liquor to a drunk person and that drunk then causes an injury while still drunk. That is a principle of vicarious liability that has several hundred years of legitimacy.
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 4:32PM
There's no analog to the dram law for guns because the two things -alcohol and guns- are quite different.
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 5:58PM
If a man strangles his wife with a pair of pants, is Jos. A. Banks responsible???
Seriously...go back to Craplakistan.
CJW| 6.28.12 @ 10:44AM
Obamaboy
You evaded the question. The NRA did not send the guns to Mexico nor cause the death of Brian Terry.
Can't answer the question or face the issue of Brian Terry's death?
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 11:16AM
You idiot Libs always fail to see the distinction between guns in the hands of people who don't break the law, and guns in the hands of criminals.
Personally, I think I might move to Arizona and start stocking-up for the coming civil war in this country.
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 12:08PM
Purp,
You are aware that an AK-47 is a popgun compared to your typical deer rifle.
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 3:47PM
The AK-47 fires a man-killing round, so I don't think it's entirely accurate to call it a popgun compared with a typical deer rifle, such as the 30-30 Winchester Model 94, a commonly-used deer rifle.
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 3:50PM
Now the guns that use the 5.56 (.223) cartridge, there's a bunch of popguns.
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 4:17PM
Bill84728,
A potato gun fires a man-killing round. 1/4 pound of fresh potato at 200 fps can be quite lethal. The kill range isn't very good and I wouldn't want to take into into battle ;)
I take your point that the AK-47 is designed to kill people. Still, you compare this with the 30-30. The rounds of each has a similar total energy. The 30-30 is, possibly, the least powerful of the common deer rifles.
Purp, like many, throws up the AK-47 as something special in the lethality department. It's typical liberal "talking point", as opposed to fact-based, argument.
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 4:35PM
Well, you must agree that there are some people who think that there are guns that "look evil" and therefore they must actually BE evil. Personally, I'm a fan of the 7.62 x 39 round.
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 3:45PM
Because they're cheap?
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 4:00PM
Actually, the NRA is OK with the regulation of AK-47s, since they're full-auto firearms and the NRA is willing to agree that the government can regulate the ownership and use of full-auto weapons. On the other hand, there are many replicas of AK-47, such as the Chinese-made AKS, semi-auto weapons, which are no different from any other semi-auto rifle.
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 4:35PM
Bill84728,
To own any full-auto rifle you will need to buy a pre-1986 weapon (the Gun Control Act of 1968 banned sales of automatic weapons manufactured after its enactment to civilians), find a dealer with a Class 3 FFL to handle the sale, get permission from your local sheriff or other law enforcement officer, prove citizenship, buy a $200 stamp and undergo some level of investigation. Plan on spending a LOT of money for the weapon.
The AK-47, or design copies thereof (or UZI's) you buy at the gun show or your local gun dealer is a semi-automatic.
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 4:51PM
I'm really not all that interested in full-auto firearms. It's so expensive to shoot them. I prefer the solely semi-autos. Less expensive to shoot and they're more accurate (just because you aren't spraying lead all over creation). I know I'm in the minority, but I think the AK is a pretty accurate firearm within 100 yards, and maybe even beyond that.
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 4:54PM
I like to shoot full-auto as long as I'm shooting somebody else's ammo. Someday I'll get the chance to fire the M2HB; I'm looking forward to that.
Von Mises Jr| 6.28.12 @ 7:46AM
Von Mises, Hayek and Rothbard would clearly agree with Mr. Rich in his depiction of Obama as a fascist. A main thread in "Road to Serfdom" is that once government institutes central planning, they MUST pick winners and losers since the capital markets no longer function. That is why oil, natural gas and coal are BAD, while solar panels, windmills and batteries are GOOD. Investment would go to the former, but Obama chooses Solyndra, Ener1 and wind farms.
Rothbard in "War collectivism" likens these policies to Mercantilism with a splash of the Industrial revolution. The war central planning goes back specifically to Wilson, Croly, Tugwell and Lippmann in WWI that is advanced by FDR and the same cast of characters in WWII. This message is also advanced by Hayek in "Socialism and War" where he cites the same ideology that seeks war to implement a planned economy to then argue that it worked so well that it should be continued in peacetime.
GM and Chrysler had a twist of syndicalism, but GS, BOA, GM, GE, Berkshire, Chamber of Commerce and many Fortune 500 companies new customer is government, not consumers. Barry, Chucky "Cheese" Schumer, Blankfein, Buffet and Immelt will decide what you get and how much it costs.
Look how swimmingly well fascism is working out?
Purp| 6.28.12 @ 8:03AM
There ya go, Mr. Ivory Tower Elitist trying to spread your theories around as if they are absolute fact. This country has engaged in "Central Planning" as you call it since Alexander Hamilton was the first Secretary of State - but that doesn't fit your neat little theory-based elitist philosophy, so you simply ignore it.
What progressive or liberal economic, political or social treatises have you read? You seem stuck on stupid.
Von Mises Jr| 6.28.12 @ 8:24AM
A dozen-and-a-half tomes by Austrian Economist, two-dozen Sowell, half-dozen Walter E. Williams, Friedman, Laffer, Locke, Burke, Tocqueville, half-dozen Founders Biographies, Buckley, Goldwater, half-dozen D'Souza, half-dozen books on revolution, and I am reading "The Origins of Totalitarianism" and Plato's "Early Socratic Dialogs" as we speak.....troll.
Tell me which of those you have read and we can discuss them. Otherwise, piss off.
Purp| 6.28.12 @ 9:00AM
Hmmmm, so which of those are Progressive, Liberal Thought? Hmmmm? Plato I'll give you. Maybe even Locke,too.
Moreover, if these theorists were so right, why don't we follow their teachings and implement everything they espouse without question? And, when we did follow any of their teachings, even for a short while - how'd it turn out? Hmmm?
Nick| 6.28.12 @ 10:07AM
"[...] since Alexander Hamilton was the first Secretary of State [...]" - Burp
Umm, Mr. Hamilton was the first Secretary of the TREASURY, moron.
Boy, you sure are some kind of expert on American history, aren't you Burp? Dope!
Hey, brainiac, why don't you leave the grown-ups alone, so that we can discuss adult topics in peace?
CJW| 6.28.12 @ 10:45AM
Is this Detroit Nick? Welcome back!
Nick| 6.28.12 @ 1:03PM
CJW,
Yes! It is I, the Great Nick from Detroit.
Thanks for the "welcome back." Have we conversed in the past?
CJW| 6.28.12 @ 5:38PM
Nick
This is W, now use three initials to try to sound smarter.
You ok, hope all is well with you.
Nick| 6.28.12 @ 6:23PM
Whew! I thought I was starting to forget people I had talked to, in the past.
And, yes, all is well. Thanks for asking, W.
Oops! Make that C.J.W. (Ha-ha!)
Hope all is well with you and your family.
As I told DRed, below, I was catching-up on my reading at my favorite Catholic blogs, and started commenting in the comboxes at those sites. There is only so much reading and bloviating I can accomplish in one day, ya' know?
And, I needed a break from this place.
Plus, the early heat has made the air conditioning business very busy the last couple months.
God Bless!
canuckistani| 6.28.12 @ 10:49AM
Show me adults on here and I'll pay attention.
Roberts sided with BHO. Tantrum or intelligent review of his judgment? I'm betting on tantrum will be the order of the day on here. "He's putting the constitution into the shredder", "Secession, now!"
These same "adults" on here refuse to examine clear data that shows the US has deviated badly from it's manifesto starting under Saint Ronny and perfected under Junior.
The same "adults" on here suggest an Umerica that never really existed is the chosen model for tomorrow.
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 11:18AM
I'm 1000% for a large-scale secession.
Why not?
The Left and Right in this country have irreconcilable differences.
Time for a divorce. It can be amicable, or we can slug it out.
Your choice, Libs...
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 11:19AM
And if it ever did happen, all the idiot Libs on this page would be trying to come to OUR side...
They know where the money is. And it ain't with the parade of slackers, non-hackers, malcontents, bums, weirdos, freaks, and fools on the left.
DRed| 6.28.12 @ 12:39PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L....._by_income
DRed| 6.28.12 @ 12:40PM
I just showed you the money.
Drunken Sailor| 6.28.12 @ 4:02PM
Yes, but interestingly enough that shows median household income, not neccessarily how much they are allowed to keep. Average out the top 10 blue states versus the top 10 Red states on state Income tax and the picture is different.
Blue Tax rate 6.94
Red Tax rate 3.86
I'll take the Red thanks
Nick| 6.28.12 @ 1:08PM
You are starting to sound like a cross between Toddard and 3/5 Bob, canuck.
What would you know about acting like an adult anyway? Putz.
Drunken Sailor| 6.28.12 @ 2:25PM
Nope, no tantrum here. I disagree with the ruling but I will take the silver lining in Roberts dissension pointing out that the goverment can not force us to purchase items using the commerce clause. That is a good thing to put to rest.
I will also take away that he said it is legal for them to do it through a tax. Finally someone calls a duck, a duck. Obama can't argue with George Stephanopulus about it not being a tax anymore.
How many politicians are going to think passing a huge new tax is going to be popular? How many voters will? Roberts just put the bell on the cat. Lets see how Obama's numbers move now as a majority of this country does not like the bill.
Claim the victory if you want, the skirmish is over, the war rages on. Just remember when Obamacare starts kicking in and everything turns to crap, you wanted it.
Drunken Sailor| 6.28.12 @ 2:27PM
Notice Roberts also said, it is not the Supreme Courts place to judge if a law is fair or smart. Just if it is Constitutional. Politicians can pass a Constitutional law but they can also have it hung around their neck and doom themselves.
anamvet68| 6.28.12 @ 12:12PM
Like I have said before most, not all, people here
that write are STUPID! Nick you are right about Mr. Hanilton you don't fall into the stupid line. Just purp. He does not read or investagate....he just writes...dumb a$$ things.
Ryan| 6.28.12 @ 8:32AM
We also had a Gold standard and no income tax under Hamilton. How does that fit in with YOUR neat little theory-based "central planning?"
Von Mises Jr| 6.28.12 @ 8:39AM
The redhead, Scot Hamilton also insisted that the new United States of America pay off its war debt, Ryan. He knew that economic stability could not occur in a country that did not pay its debts.
But Poop doesn't know jack about Hamilton. And his Obamao is doing the exact opposite of what Hamilton did to make this a great nation.
But hell, I guess $20 per hour as a communist agitator and a free EBT card is all some losers want out of life.
Purp| 6.28.12 @ 9:05AM
Maybe Von M doesn't argue so well all the time. Everything is communist this and communist that - it's like criticizing me for being a Whig - with just as little impact. But apparently, you think that the "Commie" label is somehow hurtful? It's not. It's a dead philosophy, and never really was implemented, per Marx's theories anyway.
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 3:49PM
Scot Hamilton? The skater?
Purp| 6.28.12 @ 9:02AM
Not my theory. Go read Alexander Hamilton's treatise on "Manufactures" describing Industrial Policy for the United States (oh, my "Central Planning") - he must have been a Communist, right? Idiot.
At least Von M can put out a real argument.
Ryan| 6.29.12 @ 9:15AM
I'm just making the point that if you are holding Hamilton as some sort of Central-planning standard, then you need to include other issues that were a part of his time.
I never said Hamilton was a Communist, and he was wrong about central planning. The founders were also pro-tariff, something inherently anti-free market.
JP| 6.28.12 @ 8:55AM
The Central Planning of Hamiliton did not include an income tax (that didn't come about until 1916); nor did it include a taxes on inheritence, an EPA, SEC, or a Federal Reserve Bank (that didn't occur until 1913). Not sure, what your point is.
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 4:03PM
I don't think it is quite accurate to describe things like raising and maintaining a national army and navy, regulating interstate commerce, building national post roads, establishing uniform laws for bankruptcy, coining a national currency, and a few other limited powers as "central planning."
CJW| 6.28.12 @ 8:51AM
Obama is a totalitarian. He wants to impose his vision and does not care for Court rulings or the legislative process. Witness his reaction to the Arizona case, his expected reaction to his expected health care law loss, his stopping of the pipeline and drilling, numerous executive orders, etc.
His vision is socialist state, but to achieve it he will impose it like any totalitarian, from top down, without the consent of the people.
Purp| 6.28.12 @ 9:05AM
So what?
CJW| 6.28.12 @ 10:47AM
That is the best and most honest comment you have made, Obamaboy.
Ryan| 6.29.12 @ 9:17AM
So what? You mean you're fine with someone opposed to the rule of law?
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.28.12 @ 10:00AM
In my reading of these men, I think they made one big mistake. They tried to argue directly from socialism to fascism. However, I think Jonah Goldberg has demonstrated that there is a half-way house between these two ideologies -- Progressivism. So it was socialism to Progressivism, from which some evolved into fascists, and from which some progressed into Nazism.
I think it was because Mises, Hayek, et al., were living during the Progressive era phase that they did not see Progressivism as a distinct stage between socialism and fascism/Nazism.
Obama is a Progressive, which is why he manages to look like both a socialist and a fascist without being either one.
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 4:06PM
Maybe, but I'd try to draw your attention to his apparent willingness to leave private industry in private hands while involving the government in their affairs sufficiently to channel their activities and would suggest that that approach is a fascistic one.
Hardcard| 6.28.12 @ 8:02AM
I'd say he's a fraud. And we are the rubes.
Ryan| 6.28.12 @ 8:33AM
I think that the hard leftists are just pushing a means to an end here. In the end, it's all still control by the few "enlightened," whether from the corporatist end or the socialist end. If the end results are the same, they don't care about the methodology or the "ism."
JP| 6.28.12 @ 8:52AM
King Barack is our Sun King: L'etat c'est moi. He is not Communist, but a post-modern version of a Monarch. In that sense, he is truly a Fascist.
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 9:05AM
I don't think he's communist, fascist, or socialist. Ideology requires some mental discipline.
He's a turn-over-the-applecart kind of guy, with a touch of that now well-known black attitude of hurray for anything that upsets the power structure (whatever that is).
Purp| 6.28.12 @ 9:06AM
Hmmmmm.
canuckistani| 6.28.12 @ 11:00AM
Really?
BHO has governed to the right of Saint Ronny. Deal with it.
Similarities: killed Bin Ladin and a boatload of his cronies, and exited an Arab country we had zero business being in. He also traded guns with terrorists.
Unlike Ronny: He's cut my taxes, cleaned up rather than fathered a banking mess and successfully got a GOP healthcare law passed by the SCOTUS - to the GOP's dismay.
Round two will be a crazy term, but history will look at this period as a necessary correction to the negligence and incompetence of Junior's regime.
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 3:48PM
Didn't "Ronny" do catastrophic health care?
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 6:01PM
"BHO has governed to the right of Saint Ronny. Deal with it."
You have NO idea how utterly stupid that comment is, do you?
Of course not.
C. S. P. Schofield| 6.28.12 @ 9:13AM
Obama is what the Hysterical Left believed Bush was; a fascist. That, indeed, is the key to understanding political discourse with the Left; they accuse their opponents of being and doing exactly what they would, given the chance.
Louis Jenkins| 6.28.12 @ 9:25AM
Regardless of what Obama's political allegiance would be, he is poison for this country. So are the last x-number of presidents since Roosevelt, only lesser so. It's taken seventy years, maybe longer, to arrive at the cliff. What are we going to do? Jump or struggle back to a sounder form of government?
Meanwhile Purp can only hummm because he doesn't know the words.
Anthony| 6.28.12 @ 9:34AM
Really, no government oweneship,eh? GM and Chrysler were hors d'oeuvres for Obozo in his first term as Emperor.
And who needs further ownership when regulations from his army of leftist bureaucrats will keep the "evil" industrial complex tied down in red tape and onerous, economic killing regulatory compliance?
Pecos Pete| 6.28.12 @ 9:55AM
It is easier to say what King O isn't. He ain't a Christian and he doesn't believe in the free enterprise system or freedom for you and me.
canuckistani| 6.28.12 @ 11:05AM
Willard is also not a Christian and does not believe in the free enterprise system. And I bet neither do you as it would put some of your sacred cows under duress if real risks to big business were allowed to trickle in.
So you would prefer a lying Willard that talks big but actually has a record of doing the opposite, to a BHO that can be corraled by a serious congress and has governed neither as a fascist nor a socialist?
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 6:02PM
Would you prefer a guy with a dot on his head who worships a cow???
Marie| 6.28.12 @ 10:09AM
We have to look beyond what Obama has engineered during his time in the Oval Office. He didn't do much while he was in Congress. He got paid for doing very little. Some say that might be a good thing, but I say it was a con game. Look at the thoughts and concepts he has attributed to himself in books he wrote about him self. It's lies and half truths. Otherwise known as a con game. Obama is a con artist. His associates from the past have been telling us this. Many of them have figured out that he is a user. Can you imagine what a church pastor would think if someone interested in a political career came to his/her church for 20 years, cozied up to you, and then tells you he would like you to stop talking until the election is over?
canuckistani| 6.28.12 @ 11:13AM
Yeah, Saint Ronny went to church ONE TIME and had astrologers in the WH.
Junior flipped from Anglican to Fundy after his third falling off the wagon and fifth bankruptcy that even Daddy could not cover. Then he famously co-opted the fundies into believing his nonsense about an Umerica that NEVER existed, just as a useful tool to hoodwink you into giving up freedom, strength of nation and fiscal durability.
Can you imagine Junior's pastor evaluating his performance knowing Junior actually USED his fundy relationships to get elected and BHO has distanced himself from them?
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 4:12PM
Ronald Reagan it is true did not think regular church attendance was necessary. He was, however, a member of the Hollywood Christian Church and did pray regularly.
The astrologer was consulted by Nancy Reagan, not Ronald Reagan, and my understanding is that it was done once.
The Big E| 6.28.12 @ 11:17AM
How ironic (or is it) that this article appears on the same day that the President's means to totalitarian power has received the Supreme Court's stamp of approval.
June 28, 2012, the day we all ceased to be free in any meaningful sense.
June 28, 2012, the day the United States of America, as envisioned and implemented by its founders, ceased to exist.
Bear in mind, the legal precedent has now been set. A Republican Congress may repeal Obamacare, a President Romney may sign the repeal, but the precedent that the Federal Government can force you to engage in commerce as IT sees fit has been established.
I am still, and always will be, an American. But my country, the USA, is no more.
Into the darkness my friends.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 11:59AM
Oh, let the violins play! The nonsense spouting from the TAS right on the Health Care decision is escalating in its hyperbole. The end of the United States, indeed! The day "we all ceased to be free in any meaningful sense"!!! Take a good shot of whiskey, take a nap, and you just might wake up and come back to realize that you are fortunate to live in the best, freest society in the world.
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 12:12PM
RCV,
What will the liberals say when the conservative jam through a bill requiring everyone to purchase a hand-gun and take classes on how to use it or pay a tax, fine, mandate, fee or any other name for an expense they do no want to pay?
The argument is that the police can't be everywhere and a trained and armed citizenry is a vital component of deterring violent crime. Anyone who doesn't participate is consuming "law and order" without paying for it.
DRed| 6.28.12 @ 12:41PM
The mandate was ruled unconstitutional today, John.
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 1:09PM
DRed,
The mandate was declared unconstitutional under the commerce clause but resurrected as a tax - which is why I referred to it by some many names.
DRed| 6.28.12 @ 1:13PM
But why did Justice Roberts decide that it was a tax?
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 1:23PM
DRed,
I haven't read the decision yet. The commentary suggests that they didn't buy McCollum's assertion that this would be an unconstitutional direct tax and that the majority simply said "call it what it is - a tax".
We'll see how the $10/hr guys like being compelled to buy insurance, or how many shops with less than fifty people choose to divide their businesses rather than cross that rubicon. I know of one person who is doing just that.
RCV| 6.29.12 @ 6:23PM
The $10/hr guy would pay very little tax penalty
JmsA| 6.29.12 @ 6:29PM
From The American Heritage College Dictionary, Tax: 1. A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of the government; 2. A fee or dues levied on the members of an organization to meet its expenses; 3. A burdensome or excessive demand; a strain, etc., etc. It's the Obamatax.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 12:57PM
As a matter of fact, John, the first Congress did just that in passing The Militia Act of 1789. It required every able-bodied male citizen to purchase, at his own expense, a specified weapon for use in service as the militia. It was a valid law, as would be the law you describe. It would be a stupid law, but that's not the question the Courts are charged with addressing. That's what we have elected representatives for.
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 1:10PM
RCV,
Too true. And this law has lived the 9-lives of Lazarus the cat.
Nick| 6.28.12 @ 1:38PM
RCV,
I can't believe you fell for the ridiculous, lefty/democrat talking-points about the Second Militia Act of....1792.
It did not "require" the purchase of anything. It required "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 to "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball [...]."
If you already had these items, you didn't have to buy anything.
This law was passed under Congress' power to "regulate" the Militia. Not the Commerce Clause. That is why it was constitutional.
Over time, it was found to be an non-enforceable law, and was ignored. Just like it was under English common law, throughout the centuries.
Medical insurance, all insurance really, is a product/service contractually entered into freely by persons for their mutual benefit. As a lawyer, you should know this.
The federal government cannot force individuals to enter into contracts they do not wish to engage in.
What are you going use next? The lame auto insurance argument, which doesn't hold water either?
The Big E| 6.28.12 @ 3:27PM
"The federal government cannot force individuals to enter into contracts they do not wish to engage in."
They can now. They can force you to enter into a contract for goods or services you do not wish to engage in, and enforce it by requiring those who refuse to enter the contract to pay a "tax." That is exactly what Obamacare does, and that is exactly what the Supreme Court just upheld. So yes, now, you can be compelled to enter into a contract you do not wish to enter.
Nick| 6.28.12 @ 5:29PM
The Big E,
Good point. I should have written that the federal government cannot constitutionally force individuals to enter into contracts they do not wish to engage in.
Thanks.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 4:35PM
If you already have insurance, Nick, you don't have to buy it either. Pretty lame argument yourself.
Nick| 6.28.12 @ 5:25PM
Nice try, RCV, but not even close.
I have to purchase insurance. I can't self-insure.
I can't inherit insurance like I can a musket, bayonet, or knapsack, can I? I can't barter for insurance, or pay for it once and put it above the mantel, either.
Now, whose argument was lame?
You didn't even bother to try to address my other points, I see. Wise decision.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 7:10PM
Nick, the Federal Government CAN require you to buy insurance or pay a penalty to the taxing authorities if you choose not to. That what the SCOTUS just ruled. Your opinion of what Congress can and can't legally do is of interest, especially to people like me who know and love you, but it's of no great moment at this point.
The militia act fell into disuse because it the militia fell into disuse with the advent of standing armies and formal state national guard units.
The distinctions you try to draw between the two mandates, while clever, are of little significance. Who cares if you can't inherit or barter for insurance -- the constitutionality of the mandate hardly turns on those factors.
Nick| 6.28.12 @ 8:42PM
RCV,
"That [sic] what the SCOTUS just ruled."
No kidding. It doesn't make it right. Or, was Dred Scott v. Sandford constitutional, in your opinion? You were defending the constitutionality of the O'BamaCare "mandate" based on the Second Militia Act of 1792, were you not?
"The militia act fell into disuse because [...]."
Incorrect. It fell into disuse by the 1820s, I believe. Maybe the 1830s. Because hardly anyone showed up for monthly muster and drill, let alone with the equipment they were supposed to have. The same thing happened in England, in the 17th and 18th centuries. Try reading Joyce Lee Malcolm's To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Very informative.
"The distinctions you try to draw between the two mandates, while clever, are of little significance."
I didn't realize it was "clever" to actually cite the power that Congress has to regulate the Militia (Article 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 16, by the way) as opposed to the failed attempt to try to cram the "mandate" into the Commerce Clause, as President Downgrade tried (and failed!) to do.
"Who cares if you can't inherit or barter for insurance [...]."
You were the one who tried to use the Militia Act to prove your point, not me. I was only showing that your rebuttal, i.e., that I could already have insurance in the same way I could already have a musket, doesn't work, at all.
Nick| 6.28.12 @ 8:43PM
My point was that muskets, ammunition, and knapsacks are tangible goods, while insurance is a continuing expense that is non-transferable. So, your attempt to equate the two, in order to prove the "mandate" was constitutional, failed. You are comparing apples to oranges.
If you want to be analogous, auto insurance is a better comparison. I only need auto insurance if I own a vehicle and want to drive it on public roads. O'BamaCare is the equivalent of requiring everyone to purchase auto insurance, if they own a vehicle, or not. Doesn't everyone benefit from public roads and private transportation? Why shouldn't those without cars have to pay for auto insurance, too?
This is how ridiculous the O'BamaCare argument is.
Do you still love me, RCV? Aren't glad I showed up today? Ha-ha!
Take care.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 11:44PM
I am glad you showed up today, Nick! You're a good and decent guy who I enjoy discussing things with. Welcome back.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 1:38PM
Invalid, John. First, no conservative would pass such a law. Second, we do pay for law and order - through taxes. Which is ok, because law and order is actually a function of government. In fact, it's the only legitimate function!
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 2:25PM
JD,
Of course, no conservative would pass such a law. My question was to imagine how the libs would scream if they did. As to your second point - we pay for indigent medical care through taxes, as well. It seems that's not enough and Obamacare is required. Hence, my thought experiment.
The Big E| 6.28.12 @ 12:14PM
You do realize, RCV, that the day will come when people you like will no longer be in power, and then the power which just fell into your people's hands will be in the hands of those you despise. They will then have the power to direct the way you choose to spend your money. Think of all you nightmare fantasies about conservatives and now, with the new power acquired by Federal government in this ruling, they can now ALL come true. Every one of them. No aspect of your life is off limits.
In other words, vast power is great so long as you have the power. You won't have it forever, and then you may not find it so cool.
You have sewn the seeds of your own destruction, you're just not bright enough to realize it yet.
DRed| 6.28.12 @ 12:43PM
The taxes I pay go to pay for a number of things I don't agree with. That's the price you pay for living in a democracy-you don't get a government that does only what you think it should. If you don't like what the government is doing you're more than free to leave or to vote to change the government.
The Big E| 6.28.12 @ 2:13PM
True, but now, I must pay a tax to a private company - and insurance company - to provide specifically me a service I may not need or want.
What if the Feds decided that, in order to reinvigorate the energy industry, you were required to buy a new, fossil fuel consuming, car. You may not need a car because you live in a city and can avail yourself of public transport. You may not want a fossil fuel car because you think fossil fuels are bad for the environement, but you would HAVE to buy one, whether you wanted to or not, whether you NEEDED to or not. The reasonaing of the Obamacare decision day would uphold such a madate as a "tax." In fact, ANYTHING could now be a tax. You could be forced to spend your money to purchase a firearm you don't want, you could be forced to donate money to religious based charities you do not support. Bet you'd howling about laws requiring those things, crying about how they're unconsitutional, how they can't force you to do that. Well, here's clue. Now, they can. And the day will come, possibly as soon as this November, when your people won't be in power anymore, and people who might be inclined to force you to do such things will be.
DRed| 6.28.12 @ 2:28PM
That's not what the decision said.
The Big E| 6.28.12 @ 3:18PM
That's what the decision meant. You no longer have the right to make economic decisions of which the government disapproves. You spend your money (or refrain from spending it) as you are dirrected, or you will pay a "tax" which others who spent their as they were directed does not have to pay.
Nothing about this ruling limits it to the facts of this particular case. So yes, the govnerment can - for exqample - order you to purchase a firearm, or pay the "tax" that only those who do not purchase a firearm have to pay, or go to jail for not paying your taxes.
You no longer have economic freedom, and without economic freedom, all other freedoms, the freedom of speech, or religion, the press, assembly, etc., are meaningless.
We are now all slaves to the Feds. They own us, they everything we have, and can make us do whatever they wish - all they have to do is call it a "tax."
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 1:01PM
As DRed notes, there are many things Congress authorizes my tax dollars for that I think are foolish -- farm subsidies (including for tobacco farmers for many decades), expensive but unnecessary weapons systems, money propping up dictators around the world. If I don't like them, I have the option to work to elect representatives who will enact better policies, just as you do.
The Big E| 6.28.12 @ 2:34PM
There is a big difference between Congress authorizing expenditures with which I don't agree, and Congress forcing me to exercise particular economic decisions as a form of tax.
I don't know what if any faith you are, but let's assume for the sake of argument that you are an athiest, and the next Congress, recognizing the power afforded to them today, decides that everyone should be forced to tithe to the Catholic church. After all, the Catholic church does so much good charity work, they build hospitals, schools. And in hard economic times, donations are down, so now, everyone must tithe to the Catholic church. You just lost the right to worship, or not worship, as you see fit. Violate the Free Exercise clause you say? Why? It's a tax. There are many things Congress authorizes my tax dollars for that I think are foolish, right? If I don't like them, I have the option to work to elect representatives who will enact better policies, just as you do, right?
The next Congress may repeal Obamacare, but the legal precedent that the government can force you to make economic decisions as a form of tax will remain. You may wind up tithing to the Catholic church, or the Baptist church, or your local Synagogue, or your local Mosque, after all.
DRed| 6.28.12 @ 4:01PM
I am a non-believer and my tax dollars do go to the Catholic Church. Catholic Charities get hundreds of millions of dollars a year from the federal government.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 7:12PM
No, Congress couldn't make me tithe, because the First Amendment prohibits compulsory support of religious institutions.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 7:15PM
...and the government already forces all kinds of economic behavior through its taxing system. It encourage home ownership by making mortgage interest deductible, it encourages donations to charitable institutions the same way, it encourages investors to hold their stock investments for more than six months by taxing long-term gains at lower rates than short-term gains, it encourage oil drilling by depletion allowances, etc. etc.
Ryan| 6.29.12 @ 11:26AM
"Encourages" does not equal "forces."
RCV| 6.29.12 @ 12:36PM
Nor are you "forced" to buy health insurance. You just pay higher taxes if you don't, exactly as in the other scenarios.
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 1:17PM
The Big E,
The problem is the "party of leave me alone" doesn't want to be involved in fighting to be left alone. The "party of I know what's best for you" doesn't mind being activist. Their natures are different.
My opinion is that our path, including Obamacare, is not economically sustainable. We can fix it from within or without. Greece is fixing the problem from without and I don't believe the Dems will permit this to be fixed from within. The end result is collapse, or revolution.
Europe embarked on social democracy after World War II. We began in the 60's. We might be able to last another 15 or 20 years.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 1:34PM
In fact, the Health Care Act eschewed the European single-payer solution and opted for the Romney free-market approach: citizens, buy your own health insurance. That isn't a social welfare solution.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 1:36PM
Fascism is a dirty lie indeed. As the article says, it is an attempt to get the control of nationalization without the nominal ownership, so that the "free market" can be blamed for the government's failures.
Nick| 6.28.12 @ 1:49PM
RCV,
That isn't a social welfare solution.
You're right. It's a Crony-Capitalism/Fascistic solution, isn't it?
President Downgrade cut a deal with all the health insurance companies to get their support and allow them to write major portions of O'BamaCare, remember?
I thought you liberals hated corporations? Especially, when they bribe elected officials?
DRed| 6.28.12 @ 2:34PM
Nick, welcome back. Where you been hiding? I was worried.
You're sort of right. Obviously, this health care bill is a big win for private insurance companies. But that's not fascism. Look how it works-Obama sends a bill to congress. The health care industry, who give a lot of money to congress get to the bill and alter it. There's not even a vote on a public option. In a fascist country it's the party that imposes its will on business. Here in America it's the other way around. Business (and, to be fair, whoever else can spend money) interferes with the government.
The Big E| 6.28.12 @ 2:37PM
"Obviously, this health care bill is a big win for private insurance companies."
Oh really? They will now be forced to provide coverage for people they otherwise could not cover, at a price from which they cannot profit. This ruling spells the end of private insurance companies - at least as far as health insurance goes, and that was obviously part of its purpose. Force them out of business so there is no choice but to have single payer.
Nick| 6.28.12 @ 6:07PM
DRed,
Thanks for the greeting. I hope life finds you well.
No need to worry. I was just catching-up on my reading at my favorite Catholic blogs, and started engaging in the comment threads on those sites. I needed a break from this place anyway.
I believe the health insurance companies made the same deal that the fox made with the scorpion to cross the river. The democrats will still do everything they can to destroy private insurance. It's in their nature.
And, remember, fascists in the 1920s and '30s attained power by making deals with those in power: The uber-rich and military leaders. They only imposed their "will" on business after they became dictators.
As Mussolini made deals with bankers, and Hitler made deals with Krupp and other industrialists, so, too, has O'Bama made deals with Wall Street and health insurance companies. This is why fascism is apropos to describe what President Downgrade has been doing.
After all, European democratic socialism is basically fascism without the dictatorship. I don't claim that O'Bama exhibits all the facets of fascism, just as I don't assert that he embraces all the tenets of Marx.
The point is not what precise type of socialist O'Bama happens to be. The point is that he is some type of socialist.
DRed| 6.28.12 @ 6:54PM
European democratic socialism is like fascism minus the dictator, the aggressive militarism, the exclusionary racist nationalism, the glorification of the traditional family, homophobia, criminalized abortion, sexism, a hatred of internationalism, government control of mass media and the arts, the feeling that the culture has become decadent, a glorification of extra legal violence, the existence of a party system that mirrors the normitive state, utter contempt for the rule of law, mass censorship, extra judicial killings, the destruction of organized labor and probably a number of other things I've forgotten. Which is a long winded way of saying it's nothing like fascism at all.
Regardless, good to hear that you're alright.
Nick| 6.28.12 @ 7:32PM
DRed,
Your definition of fascism is completely flawed. It reads like some screed by some academic hack like Bill Ayers.
I'll take them one at a time.
Aggressive militarism- Franco never invaded anyone.
Exclusionary racist nationalism- Neither Franco, nor Mussolini, had racist policies.
Glorification of the traditional family- Who did this?
Homophobia- Hitler's good friend and partner in crime was Ernst Rohm, a well-known homosexual by the party elite. The only reason Hitler killed Rohm was to placate the Army.
Criminalized abortion- Abortion was illegal in all the countries of the West at that time.
Sexism- This is a tenet of fascism?
Hatred of internationalism- Don't you mean hatred of international socialism, i.e., communism.
Government control of mass media and the arts- I believe the FCC and the FTP were part of the Polio Prince's Raw Deal, no?
The feeling that the culture has become decadent- Didn't Lenin and Stalin say the same thing?
Glorification of extra legal violence- You mean like union thuggery?
The existence of a party system that mirrors the normitive [sic] state- Lefty academic gobbledygook.
Utter contempt for the rule of law- Lenin, Stalin, Mao, e.g.
Mass censorship- See above.
Extra judicial killings- See above, again. See also O'Bama's drone strikes of American citizens.
Destruction of organized labor- Ever heard of Stalin? Lech Walesa?
When will you learn that fascism was a branch of socialism?
DRed| 6.28.12 @ 9:05PM
Franco wasn't a fascist.
If you don't think Mussolini was racist, you need to look at what the Italians did in Africa.
Hiter and Mussolini.
Yes, Ernst Rohm and some other brownshirts were homosexuals. But homosexuality was illegal in Nazi Germany. The key is that Erst Rohm was a high ranking party member, and the law didn't really apply to party members.
No, I mean hatred of any sorts of internationalism. The fascists were extreme nationalists-they didn't want much contact with other people, except when they were waging war on them.
Yes, the fascists were sexist, because they glorified the traditional family unit. Women were supposed to be at home pumping out good little fascists. (this changed during the war out of necessity) Contrast this with the soviet union.
I mean total control of cultural media.
No, I don't mean like some union guys getting into some fights. I mean a society that glorifies extralegal violence against its enemies and engages it on a wide scale.
Sorry-normative. You shouldn't be such a stickler about gobbledygook. I'll explain what I mean another time.
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 2:12PM
RCV,
It's neither fish nor fowl. It's not buy your own, it's a compulsion to buy what is offered by regulation at a defined level of coverage. What would you call that? The article suggests "fascist welfare" as a name.
When my wife an I were married 25 years ago, we bought $2,000 deductible, 20% co-pay to $10,000 major medical insurance. The premiums were $300-something a month. As a result 100% of our medical expense was fee-for-service. I can't buy that today.
I'm all for catastrophic coverage. Even as a conservative I can support, in principle, a means-tested premium support program. However, if we cannot get back to the point where 95+% of all medical transactions - by count, if not cost - are fee-for-service, we will forever be beholden to the third man in the room. That man does not work for free.
As evidence, look to the quality of Medicaid services and the fraud therein.
As further evidence let me say that I am recovering from a rather nasty fall resulting in a multiple, compound, pilon fracture. My insurance is billed $260 per physical therapy session and my co-pay is $31.60. It is capped at twenty session. I will be purchasing further sessions from the same provider for which my uninsured rate will be $74. I've noticed no indigent patients at this facility, no buses of Medicaid patients my insurance might arguably subsidize. The third man in the room has found a font of money.
The Big E| 6.28.12 @ 2:39PM
RCV,
BS. The Health Care Act is intended to force us into a single-payer solution by forcing private insurers out of the health care insurance business. It wasn't sold that way because few would have supported that. The crafters of this evil piece of work knew that, so they did what the left always does - they lied about their true intentions, knowing enough gullible morons would believe them to provide them cover.
DRed| 6.28.12 @ 2:49PM
The crafters of a large part of this act were almost surely the private insurers you think it's going to destroy.
The Big E| 6.28.12 @ 3:22PM
Bull. The crafters of this POS legislation were those who for years wanted single payer and were never able to achieve that goal. Now they have achieved it, just through fascist rather than socialist means. Within five years, if this law does take effect, there will be no private health insurers.
Beppo| 6.28.12 @ 3:34PM
You're completely wrong E. This has effectively ensured that insurers remain big players in the US healthcare system. It may even have been one of the reasons Roberts backed it.
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 4:16PM
Well, we not only need to vote out President Obama, but also to take the steps to vote in a conservative-dominated House and Senate, somehow change the makeup of the Supreme Court to one that will stay a bit closer to the text, repeal Obamacare, and pass a Constitutional amendment that will deprive Congress of the power to tax us for NOT engaging in commerce.
Kwan| 6.28.12 @ 12:31PM
In keeping with his anti-white/ Ghetto Leninist ideology I would think Obama would be seeking to replicate one of the African dictatorships within the borders of the United States. Perhaps Charles Taylor's Liberia or Idi Amin's Uganda.
Tanguera| 6.28.12 @ 12:55PM
$500 on Communist, Alex.
tdiinva| 6.28.12 @ 1:21PM
The fall of the Soviet Union validated Benito Mussolini's theory of collectivism that he (and we) call Fascism. Modern Fascism is a new rainbow coalition of colors -- red, brown, back and green -- that has melded into a seamless fabric.
Post Cold War Fascism incorporates something from all previous Fascist enterprises, Antisemitism from the Nazis, class warfare from the Communists, the corporate State from Mussolini and added it's own neo-paganism from the environmental movement. (You could claim this is also an attribute inherited from the Nazis.)
Georges Sorel, the theoretician of Fascism always saw Marxism as a sub species of his doctrine. His disciples, primarily Paul De Man, burrowed into the Progressive movement and subverted it toward these ends. When Marxism crumbled the former Marxist found themselves unknowingly transformed into Mussolini's disciples. That includes are less than brilliant Chief Executive.
Nick| 6.28.12 @ 2:00PM
tdiinva,
You forgot to mention the Pre/Post Cold War Marxist/Fascist/Democrat Socialist's complete hatred of Christians. Especially Catholics.
Thanks to the left-wing ideologies/organizations of the past, the 20th century saw more martyrs for Christ than the previous 19 centuries combined. Quite an accomplishment when you consider how sadistic some of the Roman emperors, and their underlings, could be.
JimH| 6.28.12 @ 2:07PM
tdiinva, I do not recall having seen earlier postings of yours. I just want to say that this one is spot on. It is pleasure when someone here can weigh in with facts and historical context. I think though, that arguing whether O is a Marxist or Fascist is only important in the way that is important for a doctor to know what sort of poison a patient took; in order to prescribe the correct antidote. Ultimately the battle is one of Liberty versus tyranny, regardless of the form it takes.
NoBlahBlah| 6.28.12 @ 1:40PM
Why he is both of course
Mimi | 6.28.12 @ 2:10PM
Well the " King O" just got a high sign from the top dog from SCOTUS. .....Fear not he gave the GOP a ticket to change the law that Pelosi LA LA LAND passed in 2009....in saying It's "Not our job to save you your bad choices"
ON TO REPEAL!!!
Drunken Sailor| 6.28.12 @ 2:32PM
Exactly. I think Roberts just belled the cat!
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 2:44PM
Drunken Sailor, Mimi,
Consider that while it is mathematically possible, the probability is indistinguishable from zero, that the Republicans will gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Republicans are, however, most likely to gain control as the Dems are defending 23 seats and the Reps, only 10.
What do you think the probability that the Democrats will filibuster a repeal bill. I give it 100%. Out of power, Reid may not be able to whip the Democrats as well as he has, but he will be able to suffer a few defections and still block any reform from the House.
As much as I support a total repeal of this abomination, I am not very sanguine about its success.
Drunken Sailor| 6.28.12 @ 4:12PM
John,
If the players remain where they currently are I agree 100%. But, and this is just a theory, what if this wakes up many of the public (read independents) and they start voting for the party that fought against the biggest tax hike in history? Possible then? No garuntee but it is something to think about.
Obama said he would not rasie middle class tax rates one single dime. What did labeling this act a tax just do? Put a label on the biggest tax increase in history. Last guy that said No new taxes and read my lips, then raised them didn't get his second term.
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 4:39PM
Drunken Sailor,
I pray you are right. If we can wake them up enough to get that filibuster-proof majority, I'd feel much better.
November 6 can't come soon enough for me.
Drunken Sailor| 6.28.12 @ 4:56PM
I feel your pain. No way was this a clear cut victory but hopefully we can use it to get some good done.
The Big E| 6.28.12 @ 2:41PM
Repeal doesn't solve the problem, Mimi, because the precedent that the government can tax by compelling you to make particular private economic decisions will still stand. This decision must be overturned, or we will ultimately only be replacing one tyrant with another.
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 2:46PM
The Big E,
So do we wait another 50 years to overturn this "Dredd Scott" decision? We haven't got that long.
Beppo| 6.28.12 @ 3:32PM
As you yourself admit above the chances of this being reversed are next to non existent. Some states may try to block it but this isn't going to work in the long run because ultimately they're going to be disadvantaging their own residents.
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 3:47PM
Beppo,
Ultimately, it collapses. Either we get European or Canadian style rationing or the budget fails. It happens every time one spends someone else's money. That's the ultimate disadvantage.
We see it already in the Medicaid portion which was, fortunately, thrown out.
The tax, predominantly on the uninsured - read poor or young - will result in a backlash. Look to less, not more, employment. See a fix in the form of subsidies and tax incentives to the employers with concomitant deficit increases.
This downward spiral began in the 70's with HMO's and $5 co-pays. As long as medical care stays a "right" expect it to be consumed indiscriminately.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 5:59PM
This is not the Dred Scott decision. Indeed, 25 years from now, it will likely be taught in law schools in the section on "Limitations on the Commerce Clause."
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 6:03PM
RCV,
If I'm still around when I'm 81 and the IPAB's haven't struck me for being overweight and a drinker, we will see. As I've said elsewhere, this didn't limit the Commerce Clause, it mooted it.
CJW| 6.28.12 @ 6:52PM
If Congress and Obama wanted to pass a law taxing a person who did not purchase health insurance then it should have done so, and that could have been the debate. Roberts should not have re-writtent the law as Congress may have written it originally.
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 7:46PM
CJW,
Absolutely!
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 11:48PM
What would you call a financial assessment paid to the Internal Revenue Service?
Beppo| 6.28.12 @ 3:28PM
Mr Rich is showing signs of losing it. We do ourselves no favors with this sort completely OTT sort of comment about Obama .....Obama as Mussolini sounds stupid and it is stupid.
John Navratil| 6.28.12 @ 3:52PM
Beppo,
What's the complaint? Mussolini was widely revered until his regime collapsed - even Churchill acknowledged his early accomplishments. Obama as saviour of the planet is his meme. We just haven't seen the curtain come down on this farce, yet.
Cobalt| 6.28.12 @ 8:12PM
How about oligarchical collectivism?
OldmanRick| 6.28.12 @ 11:49PM
BO is a marxist.
soldiermom11| 6.29.12 @ 12:54PM
I agree he is a fascist. The land grabbing is already happening in the west. Problem is most Americans are not educated enough to distinquish the difference. Our liberal education system has been very successful at dumbing down our children. There are those out there that think socialism means "social". Taxmageddon is here!
John Galt | 6.29.12 @ 4:23PM
re: "Obama has never advocated doctrinaire socialism (which is based on government ownership of private property and the means of production)."
Hasn't he? General Motors? Chrysler? The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order? The banks (means of capital, not production, but still...)?
I would say it's quite clear he advocates it, and that he has fired "test shots" on his ability to execute it.
Jacobite| 6.29.12 @ 4:58PM
Leftism of all varieties is based on a common goal -- destroy normal human society. Rightists are united b y the common goal of preserving normal human society. Regardless of economic program, the difference between Left and Right is obvious in that Leftists will begin attacking the host society's religion, culture, morality, customs, language, and ethnic identity. Rightists will support and defend all the above. The Spanish Civil War is the species type -- Republicans (Leftists) executed priests, nuns, religious civilians, destroyed churches, defaced traditional art, mocked traditional culture, etc. The Falangists (Rightists) defended normal, traditional Spanish culture, art, and tradition. This isn't coincidence -- it's diagnostic. The nutshell conclusion is that Rightists are normal members of human society, while Leftists are chronic misfits, congenitally unable to function among normal people, e.g., Jews, criminals, lunatics, 'artistes', sexual perverts, bums, and ethnically-alien peoples.
RCV| 6.29.12 @ 6:24PM
IT's The Joooooos again!!!!!!
Firozali A.Mulla DBA | 6.30.12 @ 1:46AM
Before we embark to change any we have to change our thinking The Bank of England Governor says that the culture in the UK banking industry "must change". Speaking at a press conference, the Bank's Governor Sir Mervyn King said that the UK is a victim of a "vicious circle" of reduced bank lending, and that the culture in banks must change. He said that implementing Vickers reforms is the most important change needed to improve the UK banking industry, but insisted that banks do not need a "Leveson style" inquiry. When asked about the recent controversy over the Libor inter bank-lending rate, which has seen Barclays receive a £290m fine for rigging the rate, Sir Mervyn King said that manipulating Libor was "deceitful" and that it needed reform. But he added that financial regulation cannot stop bad behaviour in the City. The Bank of England also said that the UK's financial outlook has worsened due to the Eurozone crisis, as the economic problems in the EU are "deep-seated". Sir David Walker is one of the city grandees who has been approached to look into what went wrong at Barclays.
Firozali A.Mulla DBA | 6.30.12 @ 1:47AM
Before we embark to change any we have to change our thinking The Bank of England Governor says that the culture in the UK banking industry "must change". Speaking at a press conference, the Bank's Governor Sir Mervyn King said that the UK is a victim of a "vicious circle" of reduced bank lending, and that the culture in banks must change. He said that implementing Vickers reforms is the most important change needed to improve the UK banking industry, but insisted that banks do not need a "Leveson style" inquiry. When asked about the recent controversy over the Libor inter bank-lending rate, which has seen Barclays receive a £290m fine for rigging the rate, Sir Mervyn King said that manipulating Libor was "deceitful" and that it needed reform. But he added that financial regulation cannot stop bad behaviour in the City. The Bank of England also said that the UK's financial outlook has worsened due to the Eurozone crisis, as the economic problems in the EU are "deep-seated". Sir David Walker is one of the city grandees who has been approached to look into what went wrong at Barclays.
Firozali A.Mulla DBA | 6.30.12 @ 1:47AM
Before we embark to change any we have to change our thinking The Bank of England Governor says that the culture in the UK banking industry "must change". Speaking at a press conference, the Bank's Governor Sir Mervyn King said that the UK is a victim of a "vicious circle" of reduced bank lending, and that the culture in banks must change. He said that implementing Vickers reforms is the most important change needed to improve the UK banking industry, but insisted that banks do not need a "Leveson style" inquiry. When asked about the recent controversy over the Libor inter bank-lending rate, which has seen Barclays receive a £290m fine for rigging the rate, Sir Mervyn King said that manipulating Libor was "deceitful" and that it needed reform. But he added that financial regulation cannot stop bad behaviour in the City. The Bank of England also said that the UK's financial outlook has worsened due to the Eurozone crisis, as the economic problems in the EU are "deep-seated". Sir David Walker is one of the city grandees who has been approached to look into what went wrong at Barclays.
BackToBasics| 6.30.12 @ 1:50PM
It may be that what appears as fascism is just the next step towards a strong tyranny that may look more like communism once the leftist have greater numbers and they will. I think it is too early to say how it will play out given another 20 years even though thee will be other presidents, we hope, between now and then.
Freedomfighter_99| 7.10.12 @ 5:42AM
I still say he's nothing more than an old-fashioned, garden-variety communist. His goal isn't to run a joint "Public/Private" business sector, his goal to to break the American economy; break it's health care system & break as many societal mores as possible. In short, to effect the complete destruction of the republic so that the "Have-nots" (lead by he & Michelle) can swoop in with torches & wooden rakes to loot the pieces. It's the dream planted in his jug-eared-coconut-skull from his commie mentors all those years ago.
Payback for slavery. Nothing more. There's nothing very deep about it.
Bankrupt_R_Us| 7.10.12 @ 7:30PM
re: Also consider this: Is any property really "private" if the government can take it based on little more than a whim?
Yup. I am retired. I have no pension - moved a lot. But I have a 401K savings & investment account, which is extremely important as an adjunctt to social security.
One of my 401K holdings was GM secured bonds. I got 10 cents on the dollar during bankruptcy.
Lawyers for the politicians handled the bankruptcy instead of US Bankruptcy court. If the courts (and a lawful judge) had handled the case I would have received 80 cents on the dollar. Worked out good for the UAW - they were behind me in "rights" during bankruptcy, but now own 40% of the new GM.
Private property rights in the Constitution? Good luck, America.