This isn't going to be a very original post. I really have little to say ... because it's all too glaringly obvious. No insight needed to understand this one ...
Usually this quote is used to promote the conspiracy theory that "The government is run by Big Business". They want you to live in fear that "big oil" companies and mcdonalds are lurking in the shadows, whispering orders to the army, the IRS, the police, or whomever.
The truth is actually more benign in some ways, and more frightening in others.
We are protected by numerous laws from most intereference with our laws by "big companies". A company cannot, for example, donate any money to a campaign or political party. When you see politicians (like Hillary Clinton in 2007) having to give back money that was "donated illegally", it's usually related to some company trying to sneak money to a politician through a third party, and then they got caught. When you hear political ads warning that "so-n-so got most of his campaign donations from 'big oil'", it's usually a flat-out lie, or it's based on the thin fiber of truth that an employee or cousin of someone somehow tied to the company (a janitor, the 2nd cousin of the receptionist, etc) having contributed money. There is even a maximum amount that any person may donate.
This isn't to say there aren't ties between businesses and politics. Obama himself was tied to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae long ago, and appeared at banquets they put on in his honor because of some low-level political wrangling he'd done for them in Chicago. His current administration is made up largely of people who were in his "line of business", working with low-income housing and minorities - though it would be an assumption to say he worked personally with all of them. In the early 1900's, infamously corrupt Tammany Hall was a den of democratic politicians "in bed with" business owners. On the lighter side (sort of), the government officials are (mostly) elected by "the people", and when "the people" demand cleaner air, safer working conditions, equality between genders/ages/races in employment, more accessible healthcare, etc ... the government is the tool in which those changes are enacted - on businesses - and to be just, those businesses should be permitted some measure of presence in the debate to decide their own fate. When we elect any politician, we also have to remember that no matter how environmentally-friendly, 'down to earth' or 'progressive' the man, a lot of money was spent bringing his face to your television. Obama, for example, was elected on a magical pedestal that cost $195 Million for the television spots alone. His chief rival, John McCain spent $11 million. Obama had a lot of additional help from "non-profit" organizations who "independently" (on paper, anyway) promoted him and his party. MoveOn.org, DemocracyNow!, and others, supported by the Annenberg Foundation and Global opportunist millionaire George Soros. Politics will always have some sort of tie with businesses.
As ugly as some of that sounded, that was the harmless part.
The Real ties between government and business that we need to be aware of are the numerous Government-Corporations. Some were created by the federal government to serve some sort of purpose that benefitted the government, a sort of "shell entity". Some are "private" companies that the government has purchased shares in. Others, were "purchased" by the government when they went bankrupt. Some even started off as a government project, went independent, failed, and the government took over again. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are of that variety.
It is actually difficult to track down a comprehensive list of these organizations and their ties with the government. Off the top of my head i would suggest NASA is one. The Airlines are too, sort of. Railroads. Power Companies.
A search online yielded the following list:
GOVERNMENT OWNED:
Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation dba "Amtrak")
Consolidated Rail Corporation
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation
Holdings of American International Group
Legal Services Corporation
United States Government Sponsored Enterprise
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Reconstruction Finance Corporation
Tennessee Valley Authority
GOVERNMENT SPONSORED:
Farm Credit System
Federal Home Loan Banks
Sallie Mae
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
American International Group (AIG)
General Motors
United States Postal Service
North Dakota Mill and Elevator
I want to be honest about this list: I don't believe it includes everything, and I don't know the history or depth of connection between what is on the list and the government. I haven't checked my "facts" yet, and this will be an area of further study, hopefully producing a well-documented and detailed list at some future date.
These companies seem pretty harmless. What danger is posed by North Dakota Mill and Elevator, for example? Or those loveable cuddly names, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?
While it is true that some have more weight in their potential effect on the nation than others, the primary danger is that a close mix of government and business cannot be fruitful for either.
In order for a business to truly be successful, it needs to be able to stand on its own, and produce for the demand. If the business is a failure ... mismanaged or unfruitful ... it needs to crumble so better businesses can rise in its place and fulfill the need better.
Often our country experiences devastating wildfires. Wildfires, a "natural disaster", have existed since trees and lightning. Some trees actually thrive on the fires - the heat being required to open their cones and ripen their seeds.
These fires also serve a purpose: they remove the failed and diseased trees, and open the forest for new vegetation. With too much of a forest canopy in this kind of climate, the trees which occur here naturally cannot get the sunlight they need to grow. With all of the new growth being sickly, the entire forest would soon die.
Darwinists might cause this "natural selection" ... "survival of the fittest".
As we have infringed upon the wildreness, building expensive homes deep in the forest, we have enacted laws and created agencies to protect our homes from this natural menace. Men die, money is spent, and crews are flown across the nation to fight these fires ...
In stopping the fires, we are preventing nature from 'cleaning house'. We're creating more disease in the forests, with more dead underbrush. We're preventing certain trees from reproducing.
Our well-intentioned laws, designed to protect a few wealthy individuals who want to live in luxury in "rough" surroundings, are actually increasing the danger by preventing the natural balance from happening. Every now and then, a small fire erupts, exploding into a gigantic monster of devastation.
Businesses are like those trees, and failure is like the fire. When government steps in to "help" the sick and failed businesses, the stronger businesses have little room to grow. When enough of these dried and withered businesses are propped up by the government, all it takes is a small spark to send the whole "forest" into flames, and the few strong who had managed to survive on their own are not enough to hold the structure on their own. With each new wildfire, fewer and fewer of the strong "trees" will be left standing.
Government aiding broken businesses is a bad deal for the country. But that is not in the least bit the worst of it.
When the government owns a business ... say ... a power company ... competition quickly vanishes. I don't for a moment suspect secret agents sneaking around making threats and having the competitors "disappear" ... the competition disappears on its own. This harms capitalism, which might seem like a great thing (if you're poor and jealous), but is actually quite bad. Without capitalism, we wouldn't have as many choices in the goods and products that we can currently choose from. Organic foods would not be available unless the government decided they actually made a difference (and likely would not). You also probably wouldn't have a job. Without capitalism, liberals wouldn't have access to pornography and 'adult items', their favorite brand of cigarettes, bars, nightclubs, Che shirts, Save Tibet bumper stickers, Beastie Boys and Bob Marley albums, cable television (including non-profit channels), and our cars would all be pretty much the same and likely be gas-guzzling black-smokers, at least until someone in the government was pressed to change the laws.
Capitalism creates jobs, and even more, creates choices. Choices create competition. Capitalism is a merit-based system ... as much as you want to complain about "the rich getting richer" ... in a capitalist system you have the opportunity to quit working for 'the man' and go into business for yourself.
When governments own companies, they run business like they run politics. The products become worse ... being mass-produced, not "environmentally sound" (until enough people in government push for changes that EVERYONE can agree on), and the workers making them become more miserable.
When governments run companies, scientific progress is hindered. Political choices determine what science to funnel money into or not. This usually means billions of dollars spent on ways to kill people, not on cures for cancer, alzheimers, or new energy sources with a better 'carbon footprint'. Remember how angry you were that Bush stopped stem-cell research? It is incredibly foolish to build a government that gives this kind of power to the president (or to congress, etc) ... because there will never be a president or ruling party that will satisfy everyone's needs ... and that naturally means that no single political dogma will remain in power forever. You saw Obama's "first hundred days" ... he spent them exclusively un-doing things his predecessor had implemented, pointing fingers as he went. It's not much of a stretch to imagine some post-Obama president could undo what Obama has done.
You cannot give government too much power without risking your future. When you enact laws giving the government more power, you do not in any way prevent the power from being abused at some point in the future ... but you do make it incredibly difficult to remove that power when 'the bad guy' is abusing it.
We may not know the exact outcome ... the consequences of government control of the banks, the mortgage companies, the auto companies, the energy companies, the farming companies, the broadcast companies, and so forth ... but we can be certain that, eventually, those consequences will be evident, and at that point it will be too late.
- Wher'bouts:The Left Coast, USA
- Weather:
contemplative
During one particular "Pep Assembly", i vividly recall the rallying speech made by the jock-of-honor:
"if we have a good offense ... and ... uh ... if they have a bad defense ... we're gonna WIN! YEAH!"
I'm certain in the heat of the moment, the crowd (which exploded in standing applause) didn't realise how ridiculous the simplistic monologue that had moved them to a red-faced, tear spilling cheer really was. As words expressing an idea, they were wasted and laughable. As a metaphorical six-hundred fingered hand, however, it pressed the right buttons, and moved a mass to overwhelming emotion.
The other day i happened to glance at a news item on my way out the door. The headline read "Obama Leadership Rates High As Bush's After 9/11"1, and suggested that over 3/4 (75%) of the American public believes that Barack Obama is a "strong and decisive leader". Great! Amazing! Good for him!
I wondered, however, how that many American's could really be as grossly misinformed, blindly optimistic, or just plain stupid ... to really give a 'leadership rating' to a guy who has yet to show leadership. After all, he hasn't even been inaugurated yet, his biggest accomplishment since being elected was to offer to buy news reporters a beer, he rarely showed up for work during his first (and only) run as a junior senator from Illinois, and he was put into the candidacy by his own party as part of an 'anti-republican' tactic more than on his own merit as a suitable political leader.
Today, as further proof of the incoming presidency's shallow promises and empty plans, he released the following:
"Obama Outlines Plan For Spending, Tax Breaks"2
Obama sketches out recovery planPresident-elect says he wants to double renewable energy production, rebuild roads and schools and cut taxes.
1. double renewable energy production and make public buildings more energy efficient;
2. rebuild crumbling roads, bridges and schools;
3. computerize the health care system
4. modernize classrooms, labs and libraries;
5. provide tax breaks to American workers.
As usual, there are "plans" that sound good, but really aren't "detailed" or "sketched" out much further than words. With John Kerry, it was always fluff with no plan. With Obama, we're finding, it's usually a front to warm us up to dramatic and dangerous change.
So what substance is behind these 5 points?
1a- DOUBLE RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION
First off, what is renewable energy? It's energy generated by naturally replenished natural resources, like wind, solar power, geothermal energy, rain and tides. Secondly, what does he mean by 'double'? As of 2007, $4.5 Billion was being appropriated each year for 'renewable energy production'3, a drop from the nearly $5 billion appropriated in years prior. Does Obama want to set aside $10 Billion toward Renewable energy production? Where is that money going to come from? He's also promising 'the american worker' tax cuts, as well as tax breaks (in addition to the $10 Billion) to companies that pursue renewable energy options.
Maybe 'doubling' refers to the amount of physical land reserved for these energy converting facilities. Does this mean invading Federal land that has been set aside as national parks? Yellowstone has a bit of Geothermal energy, i hear ... and Hawaii, Florida and California all have beaches that would probably do well for tide-catching. We don't really need reef systems in those areas anyway. Wind energy has seemed promising, but in the land of windmills, i hear stories almost monthly about the high cost of maintaining the wind mills, not to mention the 'low wind' days, or the far-fetched (but legally pursued) stories about flocks of migrating birds being sliced in half by the turbines. The windmills are also an eyesore (a similar argument was raised by opponents of a tide-water power plant in Washington state a few years back).
1b- MAKE PUBLIC BUILDINGS MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT
At what cost? And how? do you mean 'turning off the lights when you leave' efficient (already in effect), or 'geothermally heated' (difficult in some areas with little or no geothermal heat)? Does this mean making them with no windows (saving on heating, costing on lighting)? I'd like to see the actual plan here, and a realistic cost.
And again, where is the money coming from?
2 - REBUILD CRUMBLING ROADS, BRIDGES AND SCHOOLS
I hope this doesn't mean 'crumbling bridges' like Biden's own "Bridge To Nowhere", or like the Obama/Biden supported Alaskan "Bridge to nowhere"4? Given his past, it seems Biden is all for rebuilding bridges and doing other construction projects that don't need to be done. While this may be a part of the bigger "copy the failed FDR 'New Deal" scheme, I'd like to know - again, because of the documented history of Biden's projects - how much these projects will cost the taxpayer, and how badly they are needed.
As for schools, with all of the leftist propaganda and anti-religion public schools are forcing upon our children, I don't think (hope!) there isn't or won't be much need for public schools anymore, as parents are pulling their children and teaching them in the safety of their own homes. Regardless, hundreds of schools are being closed for reasons unrelated to the building structure itself, and that leaves me wondering why obama would want to pour taxpayer money into rebuilding perfectly good - but vacant - buildings.
3 - COMPUTERIZE THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM
Generally i support modernizing the U.S. healthcare system, and 'computerizing' it so patient records can be quickly accessed and shared between healthcare providers does, for the most part, seem like a good idea. After all, a patient whose last 5 years of scattered doc-in-a-box records are easily gathered in the hospital ER is more likely to receive the right kind of care than one whose medical past is a mystery.
There is, however, a danger. On the 'lite' side, having medical records available electronically increases the risk they might be accessed by persons who shouldn't have access ... blackmailing "hackers", disgruntled employees, pharm marketers, etc. This is the primary reason these records have not been as readily available so far. That said, check your mailbox a few days after your next drugstore prescription fill. Most drugstores aid marketers in sending you junk mail tailored to your general ailment(s). This indicates the main reason for not having such a system is really already a moot point.
On the darker side of the argument, our nation has already had a few 'Nazi-like' episodes involving forced sterilization and medical experimentation on various kinds of 'undesirables'. Along with my past arguments against Obama's plan to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, does the government really need a ready-made list to help a corrupt government's "national police force" locate undesirables or persons with the capability (not history!) of commiting a crime (or spreading a disease, or burdening the healthcare system, etc). Do you want your employer to know you have diabetes or a heart condition or HIV or treatable mental illness, so they can find a way to terminate you (or not hire you in the first place) so their insurance rates don't go up? (I actually had an employer in New England once call a meeting to yell at us because the janitor had a heart attack & the premiums were going to rise as a result).
My feelings on a 'computerized healthcare system' are mixed. there would need to be some strict controls built into any legislation requiring such compliance.
4 - MODERNIZE CLASSROOMS, LABS AND LIBRARIES
Obama has already been heralded as a 'savior to science' because he's helping do away with dirty old superstitious religion and the 'backward' steps of President Bush.5 Personally, there were a few things Bush did to science that I may have been a little hesitant to do had i been in his position, but i certainly wouldn't have leapt into such a "pro-science, anti-religion" stance like Obama.
As for 'Modernize', does that mean get rid of books and just have LCD screens with digitzed texts? does it mean cutting funding for Labs, classrooms or libraries that don't follow the president-elect's views? We've already seen the threats his campaign mailed out to broadcast media 6- are we looking forward to our libraries receiving the same kind of intimidation?
5 - PROVIDE TAX BREAKS TO AMERICAN WORKERS
This one already makes me angry. It used to be that the American dream was to 'work hard and succeed". More and more, the only way to succeed by working hard is to run your own business - being a mere cog in a bigger machine might get you some extra benefits here and there (especially with the 'lowest common denominator' of socialist 'Union' programs), but overall, working for someone else makes you dependent on their schedule, their benefits, their plans ... and if their business model is unsound, you are not going to be the one flying away in your private jet with a $16 million severance package.
Obama seems to have bought into that liberal-socialist mindset, however. The same drive that creates the 'welfare program' (which ensures its victims remain just poor enough and just under-educated enough to need the programs - much like an addiction) is pushing for more Americans to be dependent on something. Dependant on cellphones, on credit cards, on 'big business', on the government (for moral decisions), on the legal system, on corporate healthcare (for things that don't need it, like births). The socialists want you to need their programs and institutions, because the more you need them, the less information and position you will have to bring them down ... and as any former addict or dealer can tell you, the more dependance you create, the less resistance you have to deal with, and the more influence and control you have over your 'consumer'.
So now Obama is promising 'tax breaks for american workers' ... even though he has already promised to put extreme new taxes on business owners. he ... they ... distract you by directing your attention to 'big bad oil' and 'the auto industry' and the 'housing lenders'. When the 'bad guys' are iconic and adversarial, it's easy to forget some of the other victims of Obama's tax-assault: the mom & pop stores. The mechanic down the street. your grandma's thriving eBay business. the corner bookstore, coffee shop, furniture maker. The 'modest dress' store, the guy on the edge of town who makes bricks, and the farmers who sqeezed out the milk and gathered the eggs on your breakfast table.
We own a business. The harder we work, the more work we get from our clients, and the more money we make. Under Obama's plan, the more money we make, the more money is taken from us to help the 'little guy'. The more money we lose to excessive taxes, the less we can pay our employees. The less we can pay our employees, the more we have to make a decision: give worker A a raise and terminate worker B, or keep both their pay low?
If you were one of our workers, would you like to make a dollar more an hour or get a 5% tax break at the end of the year? (lets assume as an employee, you make $10/hr. at the end of the year, that's about $20,800, before the government takes social security to pay the poor, worker's comp to cover frivilous lawsuits, the 6% state's tax and the 15% fed tax.) You lose about $4500 a year off your pay to taxes & government stuff. If Obama gave you 5% back, that would be around $1,040 (depending on how it was credited back, what it was based on, etc. It is unlikely, however, that he would give you as much as 5% back). If instead, he left businesses alone and we were able to give you a $1 raise (minimal amount, much more if business not burdened by heavy taxation), you'd pocket an additional $1,643 ($2,080, less $437 in tax), AND we wouldn't have to fire employee B.
Hopefully you can see the error in the 'feel good' idea of robbing the 'rich' to feed the lazy. Under Obama's plan:
- the poor have less job security, jobless rate rises because businesses can't afford the employees
- Obama decides who is 'rich' and deserve to be taxed more harshly, and who is 'poor' and deserves to receive more from the government
- businesses have to send MORE jobs overseas
- those who retain their job don't make as much $ per year as they would if the employer wasn't burdened by unfair taxation
- taxes will continue to increase because of all the spending Obama is planning on doing (money has to come from somewhere, right?)
- more people have to rely on an already overburdened and mismanaged government 'welfare' system
- in the current political climate, affirmitive action programs and 'diversity' groups will claim a larger portion of the 'wealth' that is being fed to the 'downtrodden', meaning anyone with a non-minority status (White, Christian, Male, Straight, Married) is going to have to wait at the end of the line.
Obama's "tax breaks for the american workers" are going to further ruin our economy and our nation. The American people have a better chance at sustaining themselves and getting the nation back on its feet without government interference.
Sources:
1. "Obama Leadership Rates High As Bush's After 9/11", CNN, 12/31/08: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/o
2. "Obama Sketches Out recovery Plan", CNN Money, 01/03/09: http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/03/news/eco
3. "Renewable Energy Production Incentive: About the Program", U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE), 01/03/09: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/repi/about.c
4. "Obama-Biden Helped keep 'Bridge To Nowhere' Alive", CNN, 09/23/08: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/b
5. "Obama's Science team: Reshaping Our Long term Future", CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, 12/23/08: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/23/ob
6. PDF Of Obama campaign Threats to broadcasters airing NRA sponsored Ads, 01/03/09: http://www.thebitchgirls.us/wp-content/u
- Wher'bouts:fleeting America
- Weather: contemplative
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
inforodeo- inforodeo
- www.inforodeo.com
Syndicate
