For those who are serious about politics, this is one of the most important issues facing the nation today.

This person has made a very valuable contribution to understanding this; he has 20 years experience in the field working for the US government and an academic background (he taught at Harvard at one point).

http://iisd1.iisd.ca/pcdf/About_PCDF/korten.htm 

For those who view themselves as patriotic (i.e. I am thinking about you "bomb, bomb, Saddam" right wingers), this should concern you. The current push for a unified Global Economy is a threat to national sovereignty.

The ironic thing is that Republicans push this harder than anybody; and the critiscm of Bush and Cheney for doing this is legitimate.

When I was in an economics course provided to me by my employer(Dow Chemical Co.) at that time, they gave the Economic definition of Fascism as the collusion of Government and Business. That is what we are moving toward.

Oh no, it's a New World Order! The Freemasons are taking over! Beware of the Black Helicopters! Someone call the NRA! The sky is falling! The humanity! The "Grey's" are coming! Yeti and Bigfoot had a child and he's the anti-christ! UFO's are everywhere! Just getting my opinion out there before it's too late!

PMoreno ... I don't think that most of us "right wingers" are in 100% lock-step support of every single thing that the President might suggest ... I, for one, remember and am cautioned by Eisenhower's parting remarks to "beware the military-industrial complex" and think that more than 40 years later, it is still sound and applicable advise ... BUT ...

although I can speak solely for myself, I'm confident that others would agree ... GWB has espoused an agenda that is FAR easier to identify with and support than that which one would imagine Gore would have done (had he been elected) ... particularly when one considers the positions Gore has adopted to date ...

"bomb, bomb, Saddam right winger".
original but base.

Collusion between Government and business. Are you kidding?! Like it is something recent? How about the Cavalry clearing the west of indians so the railroad could have clear going? Remember the leader of GM in the 40's saying: "What's good for GM IS what's good for the country". William Randolph Hearst seriously considered running for President because in many ways he already ran the country. Yes, Maybe the war on terrorism is necessary. But a side benefit is that Mideast governments are stabilised and US friendly leaders open things up for new US oil pipelines. The only time Government is really at odds with business, is when business threatens to become MORE pwerful than Government. Standard Oil, I think the railroads had some antitrust action and recently Microsoft. Not very many of those "bad" CEO's in jail yet.

The only thing wrong with collusion between government and business is.....government. I understand that it is unwise to let business' get monopolistic powers, but as a small business owner, the government has become my worst employee. Please remember when debating business vs. government, that the small business owner employs over 50% of the work force. Also remember that big business is owned by all people that own stock in the company. GM has over a million stock holders. Put that in your pipe and smoke it (to get a different perspective)

Tailgater: I did not come up with the "Bomb, Bomb, Saddam" comment, that was taken from a thread in the Picture-Post, where some right-wingers were making the joke. I just used it here, to continue the discussion with some levity. I am assuming that the term right-winger is not offensive, just factual.

X-dog: I am not sure what your position is, but I think you are making my point. Economics have changed since the 40s. While the statement about GM may have actually had some merit then, it does not now. I worked for General Electric the Corporate poster child (Jack Welch, the CEO poster child), and saw first hand the effect that Corporation had on it's environment and community. It is definitely not true, that what is good for GE is good for the country.

5augie: You hit on the heart of the matter. I would be greivously misunderstood if I you thought I was lumping small buisiness into the problem. In fact, the proliferation of (mostly localized) small business is one of the solutions to the problem. I agree, that the government should not hinder the small buisness from operating in a Truely free market (that is a key). As some of our more conservative posters have noted in other threads, one role of government is to protect. As long as the buisness is a responsible member of the community it should not be hindered. It is when buisiness becomes so large that it can unduley influence the market (Enron/California) and government (campain finance), that it becomes a problem.

I do not wish to waste all the ordinance it would take to wipe out Saddam (besides killing a lot of innocent civilians) and would favor a team going in and pulling his sorry ass out of there and somewhere along the line have his throat accidentally cut!

Charlie

PM, thanks for your clarification.

I have to agree with the "right winger's" on the roll of our federal government. If you look at the vision of our founding fathers, an overwelming federal government was what they tried to avoid. Their purpose of the federal government was to protect our borders and develope free trade among the states. I realize that this concept is very simplistic, but they hoped that individual states would take care of their own affairs without the intrusion of the fed's. Today the fed's are forcing policy on states, using extortion to exersize their power.

By the way, my best friend is a far left winger and he wants Saddam out, especially after 9-11. I agree with him on this subject, but few others. You can imagine our debates, its a beautiful thing!

PM, I read the picture post only after I commented.
So I take it back.
It is now simply base. No originality....

Tailgater: are you trying to insult me, or just being a wisea$$?

If the latter, then, LOL...

Me?
A wise ass?