More Evidence Obama's a Socialst -- Shrinking Government!

Jump to Last Post 1-22 of 22 discussions (172 posts)

77
Mighty Momposted 12 years ago
There he goes again (with a nod to my buddy Ronnie Reagan)!
Cutting government agencies, shrinking the government payroll and decreasing the deficit.
Barack Obama is showing his true socialist colors again.

President Obama asked Congress on Friday for the power to consolidate parts of the federal government, proposing a first step of merging several trade- and commerce-related agencies under a plan that the White House said could eliminate more than 1,000 jobs and save $3 billion over 10 years.

Read the story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … al_comboNP
reply report
1. 0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If gets the power and actually consolidates, thus cutting spending, I'll applaud him doing so. I won't vote for him but I will applaud his actions.
  
  Now, please excuse me while I step across the hall and beat the hell out of an IT guy.
  reply report
  61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Please no violence Longhunter! I don't want to hear that you have been charged with some kind of battery!
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It was a joke, of course, Hollie. I merely kicked him out of office. He's alive and kicking since I'm such a nice guy.
  reply report
  61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ok.
  reply report
2. 60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  THREE BILLION DOLLARS?! OVER TEN YEARS!!!
  
  WHY, THAT'S $$300 MILLION EACH YEAR!!! --- AND THIS YEAR ALONE THE GOVERNMENT BUDGET EXPANDED SOME $4 TRILLION!!
  
  OH MY GOD!!
  
  EVERYTHING I'VE EVER SAID ABOUT THE MAN IS WRONG!!! HE'S A SAINT!! HE'S A SPEND-THRIFT!!! HE LOVES CAPITALISM!!!
  
  ... Give me a @#&@&#%@#$%@&*#ing break.
  
  Just... seriously? Mighty Mom? REALLY?
  
  Wow. We spent some $4 trillion+ this year, and you're advertising for $300 million.
  
  Which one is bigger?
  $4,000,000,000,000
  $300,000,000
  
  Just stop.
  
  This is clearly more "i can point to a drop of water in an ocean during my next campaign" Bullsh*t, and YOU, mighty mom, are falling for it.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Even if he cuts 100 jobs and $1,000 from the federal budget, it's still reducing the size of government.
  And that is simply intolerable to his detractors.
  
  Evan, look at yourself. You're shouting IN ALL CAPS.
  
  This is not a big piece of news.
  It's a little, symbolic thing.
  I'm not the one who fell for it.
  I put it out here just to see what kind of kneejerk "I know you are but what about the DEFICIT!!???" responses I would get.
  Honestly, I was not trolling for you, specifically.
  But YOU are the one who fell for it.
  Get a grip, man.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I just lost SO much respect for liberals.
  
  I mean this with no malice: either you are actually getting paid to post this nonsense (I've been accused of this, and I know it probably isn't true), or you need to further your understanding of logic.
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Calm down, calm down
  
  I've long thought that people need to understand the difference between "reducing spending" and "reducing debt".
  
  If I cut back my personal spending, it wouldn't be any good unless I could cut it back enough to ensure that the size of my overdraft started to go down, month by month. If I reduced it by only a tiny amount, so that my overdraft continued to increase (albeit less steeply than before), you can just imagine the reaction I'd get if I went to my bank manager and said "Look Mr Banky, my overdraft is still increasing every month but because I'm spending a tiny bit less, the rate at which it's increasing is going down! Aren't I doing well?!"
  reply report
3. 0
  lenzposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Aren't the conservative Republicans the ones who want to shrink government? They certainly aren't in favor of helping people with social programs. Isn't it the Tea Party members and Ron Paul anti-government types who want Obama out? He's giving them what they want. Socialism depends on big government to administer the welfare, health and education programs that would make life better for the poor and the middle classes. If the Tea Party people were better educated, thy would know that.
  reply report
  59
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You should read more before you post.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Man, Lenz is SO right - Obama spent some $4 trillion, and now that he's cutting $300,000,000, fiscal conservatism is restored.
  
  Everyone knows that
  $4t
  is much smaller than
  $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
  
  I mean, come on! Just look at them!!! The bottom one is MUCH bigger!!!
  reply report
4. 87
  justmesuzanneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When Bush lumped a whole bunch of unrelated services together under the BS Department of Homeland Security so that he could sneak his private sector buddies such as Blackwater and Haliburton onto the federal payroll, nobody called him a socialist!
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I did. So did Ron Paul.
  
  But we were both wrong, it was actually Fascism (which is really the same thing, but liberals always think they're different).
  reply report
  87
  justmesuzanneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The difference between Fascism and Socialism (and more) can be found here:
  
  http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TwoCowPolitics
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They misrepresented socialism.
  
  It should say something to the effect of:
  
  "You can't own a cow because property doesn't exist."
  reply report
5. 60
  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  For everyone that thinks this cut if it even happens, it is nothing more than a campaign stunt. I will be pleased with any cuts made so please do not think I suddenly am againsts cuts, but lets do real cuts. A 300 million cut in a year when he raised the budget projections by 400 BILLION means nothing. despite his cut we will still be adding to the national debt.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  By the way, Obama is proposing a 3 1/2% pay raise for all federal emplyees. I have not done the breakdown myself but based on numbers I have heard that would be more than the 300 million he wants to cut. Wonder why you hear about the cut but not much on the pay raise. HMMMM
  reply report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do federal employees pay no tax then? Do they not spend anything either?
  reply report
  87
  justmesuzanneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Federal employees pay payroll tax just like all employees and people who receive social security benefits, welfare, and unemployment benefits. If their income is above a certain point, they also pay income tax.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The average Federal employyee makes a salary of around $82,000 per year. In addition their retirement and benefits package adds another $35,000 per year. There are almost 3 million federal employees not counting the military. Without a raise to the military, this will cost around 220 million dollars not counting the additional benefits they will recieve. So Obama's 300 million cut next year does very little to bring down the national debt.
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But a big tax hike on the wealthy would..
  
  But no, you don't want to do that, right?
  reply report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And how much is collected in taxes?
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It doesn't matter, John, just as long as we stick it to the rich for every last penny we can squeeze out of them.
  reply report
  60
  Roy Pattersonposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why don't we tax the rich 100% of their income and be done with it. Would even make a dent in the national debt if they did.
  Business people, who hire workers, create jobs. The more you tax them the less jobs they are going to provide.
  Try taxing companies like GE, who paid no corporate income taxes last year. We had to pay our taxes,Why didn't they?
  In my view, everyone should pay some income tax. The problem is over half the American public pay no federal income tax. Is that right? NO!
  reply report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So you think business people pay wages out of their own pocket do you?
  They don't, the people they employ pay their own taxes and the taxes of the people who employ them.
  reply report
  61
  KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Clearly, you have no idea of what it means to be an employer and write a paycheck. Whose pocket are those wages coming from - from which those taxes are paid? Hmmmm? Those they employ pay their employer's taxes? Now there is an awesome new spin..........
  
  Doesn't even seem pertinent or worthwhile to mention the 50% plus who don't pay a dime of taxes but live well enough to have McD when they choose - gotta keep that consumer economy 'stimulated' - right??
  reply report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So you do believe that eg Bill Gates pays everybody out of his own pocket!
  I wonder where he gets the money from to pay all these wages - perhaps he has a part-time job filling shelves at Wal-Mart!
  
  You are right about keeping the consumer economy stimulated though. Now that we don't make much of anything any more the only hope left is Macky Dee.
  reply report
  61
  KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ???? incomprehensible to me, your post makes no sense. None at all worth trying to even clarify.
  reply report
  59
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What's a Macky Dee?
  reply report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  MacDonalds
  report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Tut, it's quite simple, if eg Bill Gates pays people out of his own pocket where does he get the money from?
  reply report
6. 61
  KFlippinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Three billion dollars over TEN years in potential savings!!!!! Wow, I'm just so impressed, just wowed by this late breaking development.... oh? but is this really a 'new' proposal? or one resurrected to misdirect and wow the unwary and uninformed? And geez at this point we all have to speculate what the 'ulterior power grabbing motive' of this proposal actually is! How sad is that. That said, it would be nice to see even $3 Billion saved in waste from this admin.
  reply report
57
WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years ago
"under a plan that the White House said COULD eliminate"

It is all in the words.

he is simply looking to centralize the power in a more condensed structure, so as to have a more effective hold over them.

Yes, he is a Marxist Socialist... I would say he even qualifies as a Fascist...

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
reply report
1. 51
  joe scaliseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It amazes me how much fear exists out there about socialism and communism and now O bama is goin to be accused of fascism. My criticism of Obama is his inability to bull doze over politicians who purposely punish progress by dragging their feet so that they can regain power. Read this following quote about fascism and tell me if sounds more like the Obama administration or the Bush/Cheney regime.
  "The first step in a fascist movement is the combination under an energetic leader of a number of men who possess more than the average share of leisure, brutality, and stupidity. The next step is to fascinate fools and muzzle the intelligent, by emotional excitement on the one hand and terrorism on the other." Bertrand Russell Freedom, Harcourt Brace, 1940
  reply report
  64
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Great quote! Sounds more like Bush-Cheney to me.
  reply report
  87
  justmesuzanneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Me, too!
  reply report
2. 62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Make up your mind, he can't be a Marxist Socialist and a Fascist.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  He's really more of a fascist. I disagree with my earlier statements on these forums: Our government is slowly becoming fascist, not socialist.
  
  Socialist governments own everything -- You can't own anything because everyone owns everything.
  Fascist governments regulate everything -- you can own your stuff, but we're going to tell you how to use it.
  
  (Honestly, they're the almost the same. But everyone demands that they're different)
  reply report
  57
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  exactly... Fascism is Socialism with a capitolist veneer.
  
  Private ownership on paper, Govt ownership through massive regulations and oversite.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I wanted to change those last sentences: they ARE the same (how can you own something if someone else tells you how to use it?). I don't know why everyone makes the distinction.
  reply report
  57
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly... Fascists are Socialist.
  
  Hitler, Musollinni, etc... Socialists.
  
  It is the natural result of all the demented off-spring of Marx.
  
  And I agree, Ludwig von Mises and Hayek are top notch, and the Austrian School of Economics is the way we ought to be going.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  word.
  reply report
  51
  joe scaliseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Here is the defintion put forth buy an imfamous fascist. Argue with that.
  Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." Benito Mussolini
  Now even though I agree with Mussinlini description of fascism I believe we are becoming a Plutocracy.
  Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. The combination of both plutocracy and oligarchy is called plutarchy.[citation needed] (Wkipedia)
  reply report
  57
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  He can be a Marxist who undertakes a Socialist path, who ends up a Fascist, as did Hitler and Musollinni.
  
  Must I post the definition of Fascism again?
  
  And I do not care to hear your Hitler wasn't a Socialist BS.
  
  I have already destroyed that BS.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, you haven't 'destroyed' anything. You've just decided certain words don't mean what they actually mean, and using your made-up BS definition you're pretending you've made a valid conclusion.
  
  You go ahead and keep pretending, though. It's cute.
  reply report
  57
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The, Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, is made up?
  
  http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
  
  You all are funny. you disniss scientists you don't agree with as dumb, and Encyclopedias you do not agree with as "made up".
  
  What a joke that is.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Heh, yeah, actually, it is. I did a whois on econlib.org. It's run by Liberty Fund, Inc., a book-mill with an axe to grind. They publish their own books, full of stuff that agrees with their philosophy.
  
  Just because someone wrote something down doesn't make it true.
  
  Heck, I once read in a book that it took 3 hours for a revolutionary-era British soldier to get dressed. It's in a book, but it's as false as the silly assertion that the Nazis were socialists.
  
  So, go ahead, keep playing make-believe.
  It's kinda cute.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wikipedia:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
  "Fascists advocate: a state-directed, regulated economy that is dedicated to the nation; the use and primacy of regulated private property and private enterprise contingent upon service to the nation or state; the use of state enterprise where private enterprise is failing or is inefficient; and autarky."
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
  "An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme,[3] meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state."
  
  "Once in power, fascists usually adopted whatever economic program they believed to be most suitable for their political goals. Long-lasting fascist regimes (such as that of Benito Mussolini in Italy) made drastic changes to their economic policy from time to time. Stanley Payne argues that while fascist movements defended the principle of private property, which they held "inherent to the freedom and spontaneity of the individual personality", a common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism."
  
  ..... Sorry, Jeff. "Private property exists, but the government tells you how to use your property" is almost a perfect definition of fascist economics.
  reply report
  51
  joe scaliseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  whobeyoube you seemed to ignore this post...very conservative of you.
  Here is the defintion put forth buy an imfamous fascist. Argue with that.
  Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." Benito Mussolini
  Now even though I agree with Mussinlini description of fascism I believe we are becoming a Plutocracy.
  Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. The combination of both plutocracy and oligarchy is called plutarchy.[citation needed] (Wkipedia)
  reply report
  87
  justmesuzanneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  From: Adolf Hitler: Biography
  
  "Hitler saw socialism as part of a Jewish conspiracy. Many of the socialist leaders in Germany, including Kurt Eisner, Rosa Luxemburg, Ernst Toller and Eugen Levine were Jews. So also were many of the leaders of the October Revolution in Russia. This included Leon Trotsky, Gregory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Dimitri Bogrov, Karl Radek, Yakov Sverdlov, Maxim Litvinov, Adolf Joffe, and Moisei Uritsky. It had not escaped Hitler's notice that Karl Marx, the prophet of socialism, had also been a Jew.
  
  "It was no coincidence that Jews had joined socialist and communist parties in Europe. Jews had been persecuted for centuries and therefore were attracted to a movement that proclaimed that all men and women deserved to be treated as equals. This message was reinforced when on 10th July, 1918, the Bolshevik government in Russia passed a law that abolished all discrimination between Jews and non-Jews.
  
  "It was not until May, 1919 that the German Army entered Munich and overthrew the Bavarian Socialist Republic. Hitler was arrested with other soldiers in Munich and was accused of being a socialist. Hundreds of socialists were executed without trial but Hitler was able to convince them that he had been an opponent of the regime. To prove this he volunteered to help to identify soldiers who had supported the Socialist Republic. The authorities agreed to this proposal and Hitler was transferred to the commission investigating the revolution.
  
  "Information supplied by Hitler helped to track down several soldiers involved in the uprising. His officers were impressed by his hostility to left-wing ideas and he was recruited as a political officer. Hitler's new job was to lecture soldiers on politics. The main aim was to promote his political philosophy favoured by the army and help to combat the influence of the Russian Revolution on the German soldiers...."
  
  (Later within the same document..)
  
  " One change suggested by Hitler concerned adding "Socialist" to the name of the party. Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.
  
  "Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.
  
  "In February 1920, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) published its first programme which became known as the "25 Points". In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. "Foreigners" and "aliens" would be denied these rights.
  
  "To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education."
  
  So clearly, Hitler was a "socialist" in name only and only when it applied to the "Aryan race" and only when it suited him!
  
  SOURCE: Adolf Hitler: Biography ~ http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They have no idea what any of these words mean, so why not just pile them on? If it sounds bad, he must be one!
  reply report
  57
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Fascism is Socialism, PC.
  
  Please learn the definitions of the words you use before you cast stones.
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Op. cit.
  reply report
  57
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Fact cited...
  
  (from the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.)
  
  As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
  
  Man learn what you speak of before you sling the BS.
  
  Now go study up.
  http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sure. Like I said, you have no idea what words mean. Try Wikipedia for a far more complete and infinitely more intelligent exploration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
  
  Fascism has some roots in socialism. So does our system. But you don't understand any of that - you just like stringing bad sounding words together.
  reply report
  57
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wiki... what a joke.
  
  As I said.. you all do not like the scientists beliefs, you dismiss them. you all do not like a definition, you dismiss and Encyclopedia.
  
  Speaks volumes to all who are watching.
  
  it is amazing... I post direct quotes from Marx, Hitler, and Engals, and I am told I am making them up, I give the links and nothing. I post a definition of Fascism from a well regarded Encyclopedia, and essays on NAZIs being Socialists by the likes of Mises, Heyak, and many others, and you all claim there are not valid. I post work by scientists credentialed in many many fields each, many of who are the top of thier fields, Luvtrop, Vieth, Gitts, etc, and you all say I am making it up... I post lnks... and nothin.
  
  Then the next day you all spout about making up shit and invalid sources.
  
  What a bunch of bull-shit you all sling.
  
  And the definition in the Concise is very good... but I imagine you have not read it at all.
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed - you DO speak volumes.
  
  Not much that makes sense to us, but quite voluminous. And predictable.
  reply report
  57
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You all can play at your game all you want.
  
  Your lies and BS have been smacked down and crushed.
  
  have a good nite, PC... go read your Wiki... maybe I will go add some things to it.
  
  Wiki...
  reply report
  61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wiki, although not perfect, is regularly fact checked. Unlike some media outlets I can think of...
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I was really impressed with that fascism article - rather well done, I thought.
  reply report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But it doesn't agree with whobeyou's spin so it must be wrong.
  report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh. I forget. Dumb Wikipedia.
  
  I'm still going to vote for the fascist socialist one-worlder who hates America because he wasn't born here, though. Better than the crazy ones who want to pray away our troubles or the flip-flopper who says whatever the polls tell him to say.
  report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Right on. Although I can't vote for a position that holds so much influence on my life, if I could I would vote for him too even though he isn't a socialist.
  report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  He's a fascist socialist, remember?. That's why the poor guy is so stressed - he's being torn apart by his own ideology!
  report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And a Marxist. . . poor guy!
  report
  61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @PCunix anf JH,
  
  I really have learnt something. Facism is socialism is Naziism...Wow, and apparently, there are many Marxists ideologies?? Not, schools of thought within communism. I clearly need to go back to school!
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think that econlib place might be able to provide you with a decent reeducation. Maybe they'll start a college?
  report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Many Marxist ideologies . . . Harpo, Groucho, Zeppo, Chico, Gummo, have I forgotten any ideologies?
  report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is nonsense. We're talking about economics - the budget cuts - and people are accurately stating that Obomba's policies have been fascist in nature.
  
  So have Bush's, Clinton's and Bush Sr's.
  report
  60
  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wiki is not fact checked. All you have to do is sign up and you too can alter any subject page. Of course someone who disagrees with you will come behind you and change it.
  reply report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is actually. Try posting rubbish on it and see how long it lasts.
  It is open to peer review which none on the press is.
  And try posting something without a reference.
  report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  WIki's pretty good. But it's always good to double check.
  report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  did you bother to read the wikipedia article? it pretty much agrees with us:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
  
  The sore point is just that liberals see volumes of difference between:
  
  1) The state owns everything
  and
  2) You own what you own, but the State tells you what to do with it.
  
  This is because liberals have not yet acquired an understanding for property, and what "owning property" entails.
  
  I have yet to decipher what makes it so hard for someone to see that if someone tells you how to use your property; and then can throw you in jail for not doing so; and then can give the property to someone else; then you don't really own it.
  
  Alas. A lack of understanding regarding property can be the only explanation.
  reply report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's not a matter of believing what somebody else wrote. It is a matter of looking at the evidence and drawing your own conclusions.
  
  BTW, who's Engals? If you can't even get names right how can we believe any thing else you say?
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You've misspelled quite a bit of things on HubPages, Holden. So have I.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Fascism requires a dictator.
  
  A dictator IS the state.
  
  That dictator is then allowed to tell you what to own and how to use what you own.
  
  If you don't do what he wants, then you go to jail and your property is given to someone else who WILL do what he wants them to do.
  
  Thus, the dictator is the real owner of the property.
  
  Thus, the state owns your property.
  
  Thus, fascism is socialism.
  
  I don't think I left out a step...
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I checked out "Economics of Fascism" in wikipedia, Pcunix.
  
  It pretty much supports what WhoBeYouBe and I are saying.
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wow.
  
  You leave me with nothing I can say without being extraordinarily rude.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but your own sources don't back up your claim.
  
  ... sorry...
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your opinions on ANYTHING are so far out of step with anything I can make sense of..
  
  If fascism is socialism, why do we have two different words? Never mind - I can't take any more distorted logic today. I'm unfollowing this thread.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I, um... I ... I used your source to back up my claim...
  
  ...
  
  Economically, they are the same:
  
  Under fascism....
  ...a dictator is required. Dictators ARE the state;
  ...the dictator tells you how to use your property;
  ...if you don't use your property according to the whims of the dictator, then he throws you in jail and gives your property to someone else;
  
  Thus, the dictator owns your property; thus the state owns your property;
  
  Thus, Fascism is Socialism.
  
  They just like to hate different people than socialists do.
  
  I quoted wikipedia to back up my claims (94 minutes previous to this in a response to Jeff Berndt). Go check it out.
  
  I'm sorry that your own sources don't agree with you.
  reply report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But Evan, in all the sources you quote to back up your spurious claim that fascism is socialism, they all state that fascism believes in private ownership!
  
  " Their aim was to promote superior individuals and weed out the weak.[5] In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class.[6] Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."[7] Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest.[8]"
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
  report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You don't read, do you.
  
  I admitted this.
  
  I then pointed out that the state tells you how to use your property.
  
  Then I pointed out that this means the state owns the property.
  
  Then I pointed out how this is socialism.
  
  An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme, meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.
  
  read.
  report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No Evan, you read! The state telling you how to use your property does not equate to the state owning your property.
  
  In fact, to quote from your quote "fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative,"
  report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There's no point. Never try to teach.. Evan.
  report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know that really but just as Evan thinks if he repeats a thing often enough it becomes true, I think if you repeat a truth often enough some might actually see it.
  
  Yes I know there's little hope of that.
  report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Pcunix - you're trying to tell me that if someone tells you what to buy and how to use the thing you buy, then you own that thing.
  
  This is nonsense. I'm shocked you can even disagree with the statement.
  
  Evan: "Let's go to the store, Pcunix!"
  
  Pc: "Great idea, Evan!"
  
  E: "Oh wait, we can't go to the store unless we only buy corn. Then we have to use the corn for the purpose of feeding the military. And if we don't, we'll go to jail. Then the corn that we buy will be given to Jon!"
  
  Pc: "Quit complaining! At least you would own the corn! It's NOT socialism!!"
  
  E: "Ha ha ha! I guess you're right! I sure do own the corn, I just can't use it for any purpose that I want!"
  
  Really?
  report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're daft.
  
  This is unbelievable. No wonder liberals aren't taken seriously.
  
  Jon - if you buy a car, but someone tells you what car to buy, where to buy it, and tells you that you can only use it for XYZ purposes, then you don't own the car. You're just being told how to use the car.
  
  And going even further: if you use the car for a purpose other than what is approved of, and the state can throw you in jail, then you REALLY don't own the car.
  
  And if that car, after you're thrown in jail, is given to someone else that WILL use it 'properly' then YOU DON'T OWN THE CAR.
  
  Property means that YOU own the car. You use it how you want.
  
  Fascism IS socialism in a strict economic sense.
  report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So nobody in the world owns a car then because just about every country in the world will throw you in jail if you use that car in a manner not approved of.
  
  Don't believe me! Then drink a bottle of whisky, drive on the wrong side of the road in excess of the speed limit, knock a few pedestrians down and see how long you stay out of jail for.
  
  You may own your car but you can not use it as you want.
  report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi John,
  Aren't you a UK-based hubber?
  Then you routinely drive on the wrong side of the road!
  
  Sorry, I just couldn't help making an extremely silly, pointless, borderline gratuitous remark only vaguely related to your post.
  (I feel so desperate to fit in, you see )
  report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Damn it, you're right MM. That must mean that I do own my car. I suppose that I'd better go out and buy one now
  report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, here the state tells you what you can't do.
  
  Fascist governments tell you what you can do.
  report
  51
  joe scaliseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You don't own property in America. You rent it by paying property tax. Stop paying property tax and see who owns the property. Try driving your car without a license plate and see who ends up with your car. You can own or enjoy very little in this country without a continuum of taxation or licensing.
  report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  " Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century."
  reply report
  57
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Right in Europe is not and has never been the Right in America.
  
  Stop obfuscating... you have lost the battle.
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  He, she or it will never understand that we don't pay a lot of attention to obvious sock puppets.
  
  But it should keep trying.
  reply report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But Hitler, for instance, was a European and therefore his political stance must be judged by European and not American standards.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  WhoBeYouBe: they're catching you in a trap. Don't use words like "the right" and "the left".
  
  You agree, thankfully, that "the right" in Europe is different than "The right" in the US.
  
  However, "the right" is a false nomer. Since we are using a 2 dimensional line to measure things:
  
  <---Left------------------------------------------Right-->
  
  We can only measure ONE variable.
  
  However, the list of variables between "the left" and "the right" are too many to count.
  
  If we were to use the terms "the left" and "the right", and appropriate people who share similar views, then you would find:
  
  Stalin, Mao, Mother Theresa, and Ghandi are all "the left";
  and
  Ron Paul, Bill O'Reilly, Mussolini, and Hitler are on the right.
  
  Obviously this is nonsense.
  
  You can only measure ONE variable per axis, and politics encompasses too many variables to be measured even in a 3-d world.
  
  Don't be tricked!
  
  I will point you to Walter Block for a greater understanding. It's a great presentation and well worth the half-hour: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 5187088847
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ah but Evan, you're taking their security blanket away from them! People don't want that. If they were forced to realise that "right versus left" is a false dichotomy, they would have to face up to some uncomfortable truths and that wouldn't do at all.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's not the Left vs. the Right, it's the state vs. you.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I HIGHLY recommend watching the video i linked to.
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What video? I couldn't find it in this thread?
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 5187088847
  report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. It's come up as "not currently available" but I will earmark it for future reference.
  report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do a google video search of "walter block economics of fascism"
  report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Have finally got round to watching this. Love the anti-trust joke at the end - very pertinent point he made, about large corporations being in *favour* of more regulation because they had an advantage of "economies of scale" over their smaller competitors when it came to doing the relevant paperwork.
  
  I also agree with Block's earlier comments about our demonisation of the Nazis - which is of course entirely justified, but why do we vilify people for wearing Nazi regalia yet make no adverse comment when someone sports a Chairman Mao or Stalin T-shirt, when these two jokers were responsible for even more deaths than Hitler?
  report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think that would be a very wise thing for you to do. It won't take you long, no more than five minutes to learn the difference between fascism and socialism.
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Naw. Saying that Obama is a fascist socialist is too much fun. For him and for us
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It isn't JUST fun, it's ACCURATE!!
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
  
  https://www.google.com/search?q=economi … mp;bih=956
  reply report
  87
  justmesuzanneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "They have no idea what any of these words mean, so why not just pile them on? If it sounds bad, he must be one!"
  
  Good point! ;D
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's a horrible argument.
  
  If you can't decide how to use your property, then you don't own it. If the person deciding how to use your property is the state, then the state owns your property.
  
  State ownership of all property is socialist.
  
  The only difference between fascism and socialism is "who does the state hate?"
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, so now there IS a difference?
  
  I thought you said they were the same?
  
  So if there is a difference, is Obama still a fascist socialist whatever in your .. umm .. seemingly very confused mind?
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Pcunix, we're talking economics.
  
  Remember the OP?
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, we were talking about your insistence that the person who used the "fascist socialist" phrase to refer to our POTUS did so with legitimate reason.
  
  How conveniently you have forgotten that.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Alright, let's do that.
  
  Economically speaking (which is implied to everyone who isn't a liberal when you're talking about government spending), Obomba has given trillions in welfare and warfare companies. He has also increased the number of regulations this country has regarding how one can use their property.
  
  This is fascist. He's stealing money from some people (through bonds, taxes and inflation) and deciding how to spend it. This is fascist.
  
  Economically speaking, there's no contest. Even you haven't denied this.
  
  We could even say that his foreign policy is a bit fascist: he sure does like to bomb brown people.
  reply report
  87
  justmesuzanneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Or there's the 2 cow explanation:
  
  http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TwoCowPolitics
  reply report
86
dungeonraiderposted 12 years ago
Sounds to me that the President plans to do a little house cleaning. If you have ten federal agencies all created to deal with, say, the economy, how does anything ever get done? I think this plan is long overdue, though it might not be popular in Washington.
reply report
1. 0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It would be nice if did a little house cleaning in his own office - getting rid of the Czars. That would be a great place to start.
  
  How about then eliminating the NEA and DHS then scaling back drastically the IRS. The First Lady has 18 staff members. Cut it back to say five. Nannies are extra.
  
  No, I'm not picking on Michelle as she has the same number of staff as past First Ladies.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Drug Czar would be my first choice.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  All the Czars need to go, cut Congress and the Prez salary by 25%. A good place to start.
  reply report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But you said that " A 300 million cut in a year when he raised the budget projections by 400 BILLION means nothing."
  
  Surely the Prez and congress don't earn in excess of 1200 million!
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Paul's proposal is to cut the Prez pay to $39k.
  
  That's a 90% cut.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Add up ALL federal employees.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Right-o. Just pointing out that Paul is on the same wavelength as you.
  reply report
  87
  justmesuzanneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Department of Homeland Security needs to go. It does nothing but persecute We the People and funnel tax dollars into corporate pockets.
  reply report
  0
  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree 100%.
  reply report
61
mljdgulley354posted 12 years ago
Really? Where is this truly going to lead? What do you suppose our military guys are going to be asked to do in the next few years? Maybe beginning this year.
reply report
59
Repairguy47posted 12 years ago
Its an interesting time to do this, he could have started doing this when he first took office. But he decided that a much disliked health care bill was way too important to ram down the throats of Americans than to actually do something we would like. Now with very little time left he decides a conservative stance is the way to go, convenient?
reply report
0
oldandwiseposted 12 years ago
Everything he does is a game of telephone. Conspiracy theories 101, for his every move. Maybe, just maybe, he has a good idea or two. But as soon as he tries something he's attacked. I hear, go back to the constitution. The pieces to the puzzle back when the constitution was written is quite different from todays events. Why set new ideas as bad because back when heck was a pup it worked then? Then we get into interpretation as what our founding fathers really meant. Then we have to ask ourselves did their vision of America today exist in the minds back then? I think some yes, and some no. Bottom line is simple, if we all can't get along and stop fighting each other along the way, nothing will change for the better!
reply report
1. 59
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Everything he does is a chess move, nothing he does is genuine. He is looking to extend his time as president and too many people like the OP fall for his BS. I disagree with Evan on Ron Paul but he has definitely pegged Obama.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I highly encourage Ron Paul's message of Austrian Economics. It allows you to immediately recognize BS and to point out exactly where the BS is, AND how the BS will create further BS down the road.
  
  Begin your mind with "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt -it's free online
  reply report
  59
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, but I can recognize BS without being taught how, I wish more people could.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Then how can we disagree on Ron Paul?
  reply report
  59
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Because I'm actually from Texas and know Ron Paul, he's insane. But feel free to support whomever you like.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You know him? How? Do you take bike rides with him?
  
  were you delivered by him?
  
  Or are you just using the word "Texas" to make me think that you know him?
  
  Texas is big, you know.
  
  .. I have my suspicions that you've never actually met him.
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Evan,
  
  I have said the same thing to you many times before. I do not know where you live, but I am sure you know your congressman better than I would. Well Paul is from Texas and we see his BS year round.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't even know who my senators are. They're just a bunch of status-quo turds.
  
  But, don't change the situation - You said that you know Ron Paul. And that he's insane.
  
  How so? Does he have Schizophrenia?
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you do not even know who your Senators are, you are far from qualified to speak on any political issue. Yet you can claim to be such an expert on a congressman from Texas. Unreal
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Can't answer my questions, eh?
  
  That's what I thought.
  
  Good day.
  reply report
59
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
Funny the town I live is socialist. It is a non-profit government. Nothing fascist about it. Fascism is government controlled for private and corporate interests as opposed to the whole. Go Forty-niners.
reply report
1. 57
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There are many differing degrees of Marxian ideology.
  
  Many.
  reply report
  61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No there aren't. There are some variations in communist thinking..
  reply report
56
Billjordanposted 12 years ago
Obama wanting down size government that's a miracle I don't believe my ears socialism is all about big government in control.
reply report
1. 61
  Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Obama's a SOCIALIST... My God man, do you know what this means? He's a social animal...which is better than being a ANTI-social animal. At least Obama can be released into a mixed crowd without mishap. The Anti-social animal is hiding in the coner, frothing at the mouth.
  reply report
59
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
Obama is a socialist like I am an atheist. He is cia.
reply report
61
Hollie Thomasposted 12 years ago
@ John Holden, Yes, Duh!! You've forgotten all those Marxists Ideologies from the Simpsons!! Honestly!
reply report
1. 90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Even Homer is often smarter than some of what we see here.
  reply report
  61
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Homer is some of what we see here. Where's TMMason of late?? Just asking, he'd normally enjoy a thread like this???
  reply report
  60
  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure who gets tossed more TMMason or Lovemychris. Then there are those that should get tossed and nothing happens.
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Anyone who uses a war criminal for an avatar should probably be tossed out.
  reply report
59
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
Heard he was banned again. Although I sometimes think he snuck back on.
reply report
1. 90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Whobewhatever does sound like him, doesn't he? Hmmm..
  reply report
  62
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A lil bit
  reply report
59
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
Yes amazingly so.
reply report
61
Hollie Thomasposted 12 years ago
Ah ha, was just wondering...
reply report
61
Hollie Thomasposted 12 years ago
Night all, I'm shattered and off to bed. 12.36am, here.
reply report
61
Eric Newlandposted 12 years ago
$300,000,000 a year down, $1,298,700,000,000 to go. Baby steps, I guess.
reply report
61
Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago
I'll take the force of truth over the power of propaganda anytime—especially if the truth has some humor attached to it . . .

http://youtu.be/N5Up-k4Lho8
reply report
57
dadibobsposted 12 years ago
Wrong side of the road! Madam i am deeply offended! I nearly dropped my cucumber saaaaarrrrndwich into my tea!! lolololol
reply report
0
The Writers Dogposted 12 years ago
Hmm. We have the opposite here in Australia.

The first act of every Liberal Government (Americans read "Republican" and Brits read "Tory") is to slash the public service.

The first act of every Labor Govt (Americans read "Democrats" and Brits read "Labour") is to increase the public service.

Under the Labor Government of Bob Hawke back in the 1980s, we even had a entire department set up to look into designing a surf board for women.

I kid you not!
reply report
0
PrettyPantherposted 12 years ago

Sorry, couldn't resist.
reply report
1. 60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Socialism is less important than voluntarism to a libertarian.
  
  It's just that socialism is enforced by the state, and thus is bad.
  reply report
2. 87
  justmesuzanneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! Love it!
  reply report
77
dragonflyflaposted 12 years ago
Knowing Obama it is just another power grab wrapped around pretty words. You have to watch what he does, not what he says.
reply report
64
Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago
The government may be shrinking, but the shrinking middle class is a more important issue.

Here is a Bill Moyers interview with the authors of "Winner Take All Politics":

http://www.commondreams.org/video/2012/01/14

Nearly everybody knows that inequality has increased but many don't realize that while middle incomes remained basically flat for the past 30 years, the top 1% increased 250%. And the top .1 percent went off the chart, thanks to what's been happening in Washington--tax cuts and loopholes benefiting the rich, business subsidies, globalization, skyrocketing health care costs and so forth. Big money politics is the single most important factor according to Hacker and Pierson.
reply report
1. 60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If rich people can buy politicians, then why do you want politicians deciding how to use the money you earn?
  
  Enforce the 10th amendment.
  reply report
  60
  steveamyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  as if state governments are not run by politicians?
  reply report
  60
  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're right, but it makes buying politicians more expensive.
  
  Each vote per state is much larger than each vote per country.
  
  Also, Buying off 50 states worth of legislative members is MUCH harder than buying off 200 people in Washington.
  
  Economies of scale.
  reply report
  90
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong.
  
  It's cheaper at the local level.
  
  Besides, much of the worse abuse comes from companies who would only need to buy up the State politicians to get the laws they want for their business in that State - if there was not Federal legislation to stop them.
  
  Federal corruption is visible everywhere and is much easier to stop.
  reply report
  64
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It sure is. Casino Jack Abramoff explains how he did it:
  
  Robert Frank in the February 2012 Harper's reviews Jack Abramoff's recently published unapologetic autobiography. Here is one of the most revealing passages from Frank's review of Abramoff's book.
  
  "The supremely interesting chapter of the superlobbyist's life goes conspicuously unmentioned in Capitol Punishment. Still, the episode appears to have left its traces. Abramoff's Washington is a place where everyone is a pawn of someone else: a bought man or even an 'asset' of some lobbyist or all-powerful interest. When he would dangle a lucrative lobbying job before a Capitol Hill staffer, Abramoff tells us, 'I would own him...His paycheck may have been signed by the Congress, but he was already working for me, influencing his office for my client's best interests.'"
  reply report
61
Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

More Evidence Obama's a Socialst -- Shrinking Government!

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

More Evidence Obama's a Socialst -- Shrinking Government!

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies