Exactly. Fascism is a politico-economic doctrine, the defining earmarks of which include a pretense at recognizing private property rights, but in actuality seizing the rights of use and disposal of property by government operatives, leaving only the "responsibility" and "liability" of the property in the hands of the purported "owners."
| Monday, December 8, 2008 WATCH THE LANGUAGE By Neal Boortz @ December 8, 2008 8:16 AM Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBacks (0) I know that things are rough out there, but this is when we need to be even more wary of this “spread the wealth” mentality. People are more likely to buy into the rhetoric when they are down. Just remember that it sounds good in principal (if you’re not all that fond of little inconveniences like property rights) but the realities are far, far worse. Here’s what I mean, folks. How many of your saw Barack Obama on Meet the Press this weekend? I’m going to give you a few quotes from Obama, and you tell me that this guy isn’t dangerous for our economic prosperity ... not to mention freedom: “I think the important principle, because sometimes when we start talking about taxes, and I say I want a more balanced tax code, people think, well, that’s class warfare. No. It turns out that our economy grows best when the benefits of the economy are most widely spread. And that has been true historically.” Here’s the clip or watch it here: http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2008/12/watch-the-language.html Know what? I would like a more balanced tax code myself. For one, I would like for more people to actually pay income taxes. How’s that for balance. Right now 43% of income earners pay no income taxes at all ... and what little bit the next seven percent pay (bringing us up to 50%) amounts to about three percent of all income taxes. In the meantime the top one percent pay about 39% of all income taxes while earning about 19% of all income. That’s not balanced ... so more balance sounds fine to me. Now another Obamamabit: ” ...part of what I’m hoping to introduce as the next president is a new ethic of responsibility where we say that if you’re laying off workers, the least you can do when you’re making $25 million a year is give up some of your compensation and some of your bonuses ... That kind of notion of shared benefits and burdens is something that I think has been lost for too long, and it’s something that I’d like to see restored.” Here’s the clip or watch it here: http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2008/12/watch-the-language.html Restored how? By government edict? What are we heading for here, government control over executive compensation? Maybe government control over ALL compensation. Yeah .. that’s the ticket, isn’t it? We’ll let the private sector continue to own and operate the businesses, but we’ll put the government in control of setting all salaries. >By the way ... do you know what you call an economic system where the means of production are privately owned but controlled by government? No, it’s not socialism. Under socialism the government owns the businesses. And it’s not capitalism. Under capitalism ownership and control is private. So ... what’s the word? A very few of you know ... and the rest of you are about to find out. It’s the “F” word. Fascism. So .. what does that make Obama?
|