Agree. They had a chance to shrink our nanny state and instead went the complete opposite way. Free stuff is nice but ultimately someone has to pay for it. We can't afford all these giveaways. Plain and simple.

No, it's not, and that's not at all a simple definition of fascism.

A simple definition of fascism might be one that comes from a dictionary: "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

Or one drawn from political science, like this one:

"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004

The simple hallmarks of fascism are authoritarian and totalitarian-single party states with a nationalistic obsession. What you call the "marriage" between corporations and state isn't necessarily an end in itself but is a means to achieving complete control (authoritarianism/totalitarianism) for the nationalistic purposes. And interestingly with regard to the use of fascism in this instance, one other standard hallmark of fascism is anti-liberalism.

Even if I grant that "marriage between corporations and state" is the simple hallmark of fascism, by your definition all 50 states are already fascist to the extent they require anyone owning a vehicle to purchase auto insurance from the insurance industry. Ditto the federal government and FICA.

Whether you agree with the health care bill or not, this just doesn't come close to fascism.

This unfortunately has become standard political "discourse." If someone disagrees with you (the generic you) on something you feel really strongly about, it can't be because reasonable and well-meaning people can come to different conclusions about what is best. No, it has to be because they are socialists, Marxists, fascists, anti-american, elitists . . . .

As George Orwell said about fascism:

"It will be seen that, as used, the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else."

MysticCat is my nonsexual cybercrush. There, I said it! *sigh of relief*

I'll take what I can get. ;)

I had to add the disclaimer to prevent you from feeling like you will be stalked. :p

Feels good to get that off your chest, doesn't it. :p
Just so y'all know, I like the hijack better than the thread topic.

Wouldn't marriage between corporations and the state be closer to socialism then facism?

Yes

I often find myself thinking "See? Proof that the good ones are all married" when I read his posts. I concur Doc, I concur.

MC? Can we clone you??

But they don't require that you buy/own a car. Operating a car is a privilege and not a right. We are now for the first time requiring the public to buy a product from a vendor. FICA is, in reality, just another tax for a government service.

The problem as I see it is that there is a limit to what we as a nation can afford to do. Just where does this stop. We seem to be more than willing to have the government supply to us all the commodities/conveniences that our lives merit. At what point is it incumbent on us (the individual) to meet our own needs. There has to be a limit to entitlements. Why not housing, food and clothing? How about cars and transportation?

If we do not get our spending under control we will have to print money, as was done during the Weimar Republic. to meet our obligations. If so, inflation will hit us with a vengence and the poor will be disproportionaltely hurt.

At what point will working cease to be worthwhile and we all decide to go on the government dole? There are costs for everything and only so much of other peoples money that can be confiscated. I see no end to what many of us Americans will accept as an entitlement because the perception is that it doesn't cost us anything.

Sorry. :o

Yes and no.

You are quite right that driving is a privilege, not a right. But, as a condition of that privilege the state requires that we buy a product from a vendor, and that's what EW was describing as a mark of fascism.

Meanwhile, you say FICA is another tax for government service. Others could just as easily and reasonably characterize it as requiring that all employees purchase insurance (Medicare) and a pension vehicle (Social Security) from a vendor, which in this case happens to be the government.

My point was not that either of these is exactly comparable to the requirements of the health care reform bill. (Which does not actually mandate that everyone have insurance -- at least not to the extent of imposing criminal penalties. The "mandate" is that you have to pay a penalty if you don't have insurance. Perhaps a small distinction in the mind of some, but a distinction nonetheless. I can choose not to drive and thereby not have to have auto insurance; I can choose not to be insured and just pay the penalty instead.)

My point was directed specifically and only to EW's assertion that the health care bill is fascist because it "forces an individual to purchase a certain thing from a certain industry." I was simply making the point that it can be reasonably argued that has been happening for decades. Nothing more. No judgment pro or con.

Good points all but think how this can be played out. Say I decide to pay the penalty. It cost me yearly $75.00 to $1000.00 according to the current law. The insurer cannot disqualify me for preexisting conditions so I wait until I get sick to buy insurance and now the insurer will have to pay my medical bills. Ultimately I see the insurers either going out of business or raising premiums so high as to be a problem for many. Who will have to step into the void? I am guessing the "Feds".

We have our Government running huge segments of the auto, financial, insurance, health care, retirement, etc areas and while not Fascism it is most certainly a movement towards Socialism. This may all work out great and my fears may be unfounded but I do not see any long term good coming out of this "over reaching" by our Government.

^^^ All of which is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

^^^^ Understood.

Guess my point should have been that American Socialism has been infusing itself incrementally into our system for several decades. It has now taken firm root and I believe the ramifications will be dire.