Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (471902)	4/24/2009 7:26:32 PM
From: TimF	7 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575797

Giving support to and then trying to control private corporations, rather than nationalizing them is exactly how the fasicst handled it. To the extent Obama has "bent over backwards to avoid nationalization" that's an argument that he's not a communist, not that he's not a fascist. Not that I'd say he is a fascist, that would go a bit too far, some of his policies, and not just minor incidental ones but important ones, have similarities, but he's not a hyper-nationalist, and he is a democrat not an autocrat. You have to somehow explain the Geithner/Paulson decisions to hand over trillions of taxpayer dollars to the rich bankers as the formal policy expression of progressive rage against the rich. It terms of fascism that fits in just fine as I explained above. In terms of anti-rich populism perhaps not so much, but other policies and statements do support such a charge to a certain extent. Sure those who don't like him are prone to exaggerate that extent, but he certainly has supported the idea of greater government control of the economy, and a certain amount of redistribution.