Who won the budget fight?

posted at 9:32 am on April 9, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

As everyone knows by now, the Great Government Shutdown of 2011 has been called off … or at least postponed.  Republicans finished what the Democrats wouldn’t by clinching a budget deal late last night, finishing up the FY2011 budget with a total reduction in spending of $49 billion:

Under the terms of the agreement, the six-month bill will slash $38.5 billion from current spending levels, which is $23 billion less than the reductions Republicans originally demanded but $30 billion more than what Democrats had initially offered to cut.

President Obama praised the budget compromise and the prevention of a shutdown. He warned the cuts would affect services and infrastructure work, even as he acknowledged the need for spending reductions. “I would not have made these cuts in better circumstances,” Obama said.

The bill does not include a Republican provision to de-fund Planned Parenthood, which provides health care services for women, including abortion. The Planned Parenthood provision was one of the main sticking points during the negotiations, with the GOP insisting it remain in the bill.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, agreed to remove the Planned Parenthood provision in exchange for an agreement that would allow Congress to take up the funding issue separately.The Republicans also won inclusion of a provision that will require the Senate to vote on a bill to de-fund the health care reform law.

Another provision won by Republicans would prohibit the District of Columbia from spending local or federal funds on abortion services.

This looks less like a victory for either side and more of a five-month truce.  The fight to cut just a tiny slice of the overall budget took months to resolve, and all of these issue will arise again in September when Congress has to pass the FY2012 budget.  Don’t expect the fight to get any easier, at least not on discretionary spending.

But that’s not the big problem anyway.  The big problem in the budget is entitlement spending, which will require months to review for reform.  The only proposal on the table for that at the moment is Ryan’s plan.  The other option would be to consider the Bowles-Simpson plan, but since Bowles and Simpson both gave at least praise for Ryan’s proposal, Ryan has the momentum.  Now, with FY2011 off the table, the House can move forward on serious entitlement reform that will give an actual opportunity to get significant reductions to the deficit and start us on the path of fiscal sanity.

We’ll see who won in September, but Republicans have achieved one major accomplishment.  Not only did they force the first actual reductions in government spending in ages, but they have changed the political paradigm from whether to cut to how much and where to cut.  That’s a pretty impressive victory for a party that only controls one chamber of Congress.

Update: One last point along these lines.  Democrats have spent the last four months arguing that Republicans were too radical to govern and wanted to destroy government.  Instead, Republicans fashioned a deal on their own terms and passed a budget deal — something Democrats couldn’t or wouldn’t do when they had all the power in DC.  This gives the GOP a lot of credibility on leadership and governance, and all of it at the expense of Harry Reid and Barack Obama.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Yes they were and Mussolini was a socialist who then created a variant called Fascism. They are all leftist movements. NOT right wing.

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Mussolini started out as a Leftist Socialist (and twice editor of Socialist newspapers), but was expelled from the Italian Socialist Party because he preferred to back Italy as a country than to go on embracing class warfare. After World War One (in which he served in the Italian Army), he became influenced by the Italian nationalist D’Annunzio over the incorporation of Fiume into Yugoslavia per the Treaty of Versailles. I doubt anyone knows for sure…suffice it to say that he switched from an international version of Socialism to a nationalist one.

Look at the Spanish Civil War…you had the Republicans supported by the Soviets on one side and the Nationalists supported by both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany on the other. Ask yourself the question; who were the volunteers of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade? They were Leftists. Who did they fight for? Franco? No. They traveled halfway around the world to fight (and die in many cases) for the Leftist Republicans. It would seem that young American Leftists of the 1930s had no problem discerning between National Socialists and Bolsheviks, so why should we now?

Also, Mussolini wanted to territorially reconstitute the Roman Empire…hardly the vision of a Marx or a Trotsky (though I will concede the inherent Muscovite belief that they are the third generation of Rome after the Byzantines).

Mussolini also maintained the Monarchy and close ties with the Roman Catholic Church…did the Bolsheviks retain their monarchy and the Russian Orthodox Church?

Similarities? Sure. Sprung from the same fountain? Sure. Shared beliefs? Sure. The same? No.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 9:50 PM

It would seem that young American Leftists of the 1930s had no problem discerning between National Socialists and Bolsheviks, so why should we now?

If you want to take your political learning at the foot of communists there isn’t much I can say to that.

They fought over Spain and allied themselves over Poland. The same communists stayed neutral until 1941 when Germany invaded the Soviet Union. Then they flooded into the resistance movements in France and elsewhere. It doesn’t mean what you are suggesting. Communist China and Communist Russia had several border conflicts but that alter the nature of their ideology.

Mussolini also maintained the Monarchy and close ties with the Roman Catholic Church…did the Bolsheviks retain their monarchy and the Russian Orthodox Church?

No because they were Marxists not Fascists.

Similarities? Sure. Sprung from the same fountain? Sure. Shared beliefs? Sure. The same? No.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 9:50 PM

That is what I said in the beginning. Both groups are leftist, NOT right wing.

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 10:12 PM

The Big Losers:
1-Tea Partiers who went all out for the GOP.
2- GOP in 2012. See 1 above

james23 on April 9, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Thanks to you two for the interesting debate on 20th century European totalitarian movements. As a side note, if either of you have not yet read Richard J. Evans’ trilogy on the Nazis, do check it out. He starts with Germany after WWI and the ideological/historical roots of the movement and follows things through to the bunker in May 1945.

And since someone else here, way upthread, made extended reference/analogy to early battles in the Pacific War, including comparing the Battle of the Coral Sea to this week’s appropriations battle, one more tidbit. While I don’t see this week as similar to the Coral Sea in results or longer term significance, the commenter actually left out one of the more fascinating chain of consequences flowing from that carrier battle (the first true carrier tussle).

USS Lexington sailed directly from North Island in San Diego to its demise in the battle; but the damage to one Japanese carrier, and to the air wing of another (Zuikaku and Shokaku), meant that Nagumo steamed to Midway with 4 instead of 6 flattops. Japan unlike the US used its carriers and air wings as a team, never separating them, so one carrier was scratched from the Midway line-up even though the ship was fine.

And to improve his analogy, and use it against my own contention regarding the appropriations situation, the Doolittle Raid (anniversary next week) actually had tremendous unintentional impact – the shock and humiliation of the Japanese military at an attack that could have harmed the Emperor gave Adm. Yamamoto the leverage he needed to get approval for one last decisive naval operation to lure out and sink the US carriers – which resulted in the Battle of Midway, and the gigantic debacle for Japan ….. so maybe the disappointing skirmish yesterday, somehow, will unexpectedly set events in motion that later prove decisive.

IceCold on April 9, 2011 at 10:28 PM

IceCold on April 9, 2011 at 10:28 PM

You should repost your comment on the events of today on the main QOTD as I think more people should get a chance to read it.

I will look into the Richard Evans books. Always glad to add something to my library.

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 10:42 PM

If you want to take your political learning at the foot of communists there isn’t much I can say to that.

LOL…really? So the fact that American Leftists knew who to fight for and against is me taking my learning from them? Pleeeeeez.

They fought over Spain and allied themselves over Poland. The same communists stayed neutral until 1941 when Germany invaded the Soviet Union. Then they flooded into the resistance movements in France and elsewhere. It doesn’t mean what you are suggesting.

The Communists over here and Europe took their marching orders from Moscow, so of course they laid low until the breaking of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Is that what you mean? I do think that the Communists coming out of the woodwork in Europe (especially Vichy France, Italy, and Greece) do point to the fact that the Nazis and the Italian Fascists had no desire to eliminate them, as long as they kept their mouths shut and didn’t take up arms against them. They knew there were too many of them to round up. They didn’t expect those in occupied countries to be down with the Fascist program.

On the other hand, I think you’re ignoring a major difference between the two, and that was the exportability of their ideologies. You had Communists running Mussolini out of power later in the war and taking pot shots and kidnapping officers of the Das Reich Division in Vichy France, but how many NSDAP cells operated in Russia against Stalin? Zero. You don’t export Nationalism-that makes no sense. You do however, export Communism. They are NOT the same!

I could make the argument that the Communists’ best friends during World War II was the United States and Great Britain…the Greatest Generation couldn’t tell the difference either?

OK, so who exactly is considered Right? There can’t be a Left portion of the ideological scale without a Right.

————
The trilogy sounds interesting…thanks for the info on the Pacific Campaign. Didn’t know that bit about the difference in Japanese vs. American naval air power.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 11:29 PM

OK, so who exactly is considered Right? There can’t be a Left portion of the ideological scale without a Right.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Collectivism vs Individualism
Progressivism/radicals vs Traditionalism
Social justice emphasized vs private property and capitalism

The Fascists were collectivists, radicals, transformative, and seekers of social justice. They were hostile to capitalism, individuality, traditionalism, and no great respecters of private property.

The Marxists were collectivists, radicals, transformative, and seekers of social justice. They were hostile to capitalism, individuality, traditionalism, and no great respecters of private property.

I mean seriously what was right wing about the Fascists?

The Marxists exterminated the church and monarchists when in power and the fascists tended to adopt the more mainline European socialist approach of tolerating them. Thats a pretty minor variation. The approach to private property was the biggest difference they had with the fascists allowing private property, channeling it towards service to the state and the Marxists nationalizing private property, though later through programs such as the NEP, private lots were allowed.

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 11:49 PM

Collectivism vs Individualism
Progressivism/radicals vs Traditionalism
Social justice emphasized vs private property and capitalism

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 11:49 PM

Ooooh, OK, I get you now.

I wouldn’t agree that that’s “Left” vs. “Right” but that’s an interesting way of looking at things, and from that perspective I agree.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 1:16 AM

I wouldn’t agree that that’s “Left” vs. “Right” but that’s an interesting way of looking at things, and from that perspective I agree.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 1:16 AM

Well I honestly can’t see the use of a political spectrum that has the exact same thing on the left that is also on the right. That just sounds like self-justification for those who are ‘coincidentally’ in the middle. I realize that may be exactly what they are teaching in the educational system these days, but it seems less than useful.

Any such measure of course is going to be simplified to a certain degree.

sharrukin on April 10, 2011 at 1:24 AM

Ed, there is a feature of being deeply in debt with short term loans. When it comes time to renew the loans the lenders have the leverage to call the shots, to tell you what you are going to do.

“Hey, dudes! Yeah, you there in the US. I hear you need some loans rolled over. Have I got a deal for you. I’ll skin the now normal interest rate of 10% down to a nice premium if you wish. Now, I hear you are reopening the Molycorp Mountain Pass rare earth mine. All you have to do is sell it all to me, at a discount.”

{^_^}

herself on April 10, 2011 at 2:24 AM

sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 11:49 PM

Good job! Great to get away from classic labels and get to the philosophies.

Fighton03 on April 10, 2011 at 3:52 AM

Vince on April 9, 2011 at 1:18 PM

And this is true.
Remember this battle was over the budget that was due Oct. 1 2010.

That was BEFORE the Nov. election.

If the Dems/Obama had actually done their job the Republicans would have had little to no effect on the budget, just like everything else Obama and the Dem’s rammed through.

Due to the inept, “leadership” of Obama’s, Nancy and Harry they literally gave their power to the Repb’s and the Tea Party!
This can’t be stressed enough!

Who won? It Wasn’t Even Close.

DSchoen on April 10, 2011 at 6:08 AM

Biggest losers, WE THE TAXPAYERS who had to settle for less than $38b in cuts (that figure is full of accounting gimmicks) instead of $61b. Why? Because the religious righteous managed to botch the works up to get their Planned Parenthood thing passed. Congratulations, preventing us from spending a few hundred million on PP has cost us over $22b!

MJBrutus on April 10, 2011 at 7:08 AM

Even Paul Ryan’s budget ain’t gonna happen before 2013. The best it’ll do is frame the debate for the 2012 election which will be great for highlighting the differences between the Republicans and Democrats. At that point, the ball will be in the American people’s court as far as which direction this country goes.

Doughboy on April 9, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Each election year we hear the nonsense that America is at a cross roads and this is the determining election for our future. I kind of agreed in 2000, but every claim before and since then has been nonsense. This next election blows them all away. In 2012, America decides if we’ll be free people like our founders envisioned or “one human family” responsible for each other’s actions.

elfman on April 10, 2011 at 7:26 AM

I wouldn’t agree that that’s “Left” vs. “Right” but that’s an interesting way of looking at things, and from that perspective I agree.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 1:16 AM

Well I honestly can’t see the use of a political spectrum that has the exact same thing on the left that is also on the right. That just sounds like self-justification for those who are ‘coincidentally’ in the middle. I realize that may be exactly what they are teaching in the educational system these days, but it seems less than useful.

Any such measure of course is going to be simplified to a certain degree.

sharrukin on April 10, 2011 at 1:24 AM

In the US, “Right” is basically set by the constitutional rights laid out in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the idea that government should be restrained to strictly defending those rights.
In Europe, the right has more to do with preserving traditional identities.
In either case, the left is defined by Communism.
As such, to Europe, the Nazis, who placed cultural identity above all else, were primarily on the right, and that the Nazis were socialist is seen as neutral or middle ground. To the US, everything the Nazis did was on the left, as they violated individual rights at every turn, and their fight with Communism was just a squabble on the left.

Count to 10 on April 10, 2011 at 7:39 AM

Doolittle’s Raid~~~Subsunk

Subsunk on April 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM

MOT –> SS!
Bravo Zulu
“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on April 10, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Does it matter? They all suck equally at this point. No. Inquiring minds want to know if Michelle got her Williamsberg getaway this weekend and what kind of bedspread or sofa covering she’ll be wearing after her shopping spree.

BrideOfRove on April 10, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Cancelled? Now that IS tragic news. This is actually the first time he has forgone his own personal pleasures for some work related issue. So the real news is: How pissed off is Obama to finally have some “skin in the game” where work is concerned and how long before Michelle goes off without him because she doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the country, expecially when it interferes with HER personal pleasure. The reall news last Friday wasn’t the government shutdown being averted, it was the Obama’s marital earthquake happening behind the scenes. He didn’t look tired Saturday early in the am because he’d been working, though. He looked exhausted because his wife is pissed.

Yeah. I have a muckrakers soul, but I’m right. Nations have fallen for far less than a powerful woman’s petulance and a weak man’s need to feed it. Having said that, I hope she keeps him off balance and distracted for another two years at least.

BrideOfRove on April 10, 2011 at 10:52 AM

The federal government, under the outstanding leadership of Barack Obama …

WASHINGTON (AP) — A top White House political and economic adviser says President Obama will lay out new plans this week to reduce the federal deficit. Obama adviser David Plouffe, speaking Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” says Obama plans to offer ideas for what Plouffe calls “long-term deficit reduction” as Congress begins to debate raising the nation’s debt ceiling.

Always a day late and a dollar short, but clearly this signals who won (hint: it wasn’t Obama).

J_Crater on April 10, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Captain Ed – this budget establishes for all time that Republicans are no more serious about debt reduction than Democrats. Argue about future plans, past plan, the necessity to compromise when you don’t have both houses or the executive office, but actions speak louder than words.

The deal establishes that neither party sees the debt as a problem.

Paul Ryan – suck an egg.

Angry Dumbo on April 10, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Well I honestly can’t see the use of a political spectrum that has the exact same thing on the left that is also on the right. That just sounds like self-justification for those who are ‘coincidentally’ in the middle. I realize that may be exactly what they are teaching in the educational system these days, but it seems less than useful.

Any such measure of course is going to be simplified to a certain degree.

sharrukin on April 10, 2011 at 1:24 AM

The idea of “Left” (Liberals) vs. “Right” (Conservatives) goes back to Revolutionary France and their National Assembly. It was based upon which part of the room those delegates sat. It’s not some kind of thing taught “nowadays” but has been around a very long time.

I would see Democratic forms of government in the middle (ideally) where there would be only a mild tug of war between going slightly more conservative (less government, laissez faire attitude towards business) or slightly more liberal (more government programs, social responsibility, preventing business from being too large or exploitive).

But the alternate view you present seems to be totalitarianism (of any kind) vs. Liberty and Free Enterprise. Once again I get that-but it doesn’t really jive with the traditional view of Left/Right.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 2:11 PM

I would see Democratic forms of government in the middle (ideally) where there would be only a mild tug of war between going slightly more conservative (less government, laissez faire attitude towards business) or slightly more liberal (more government programs, social responsibility, preventing business from being too large or exploitive).

But the alternate view you present seems to be totalitarianism (of any kind) vs. Liberty and Free Enterprise. Once again I get that-but it doesn’t really jive with the traditional view of Left/Right.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 2:11 PM

How is Fascism ‘less government‘ in your view or a ‘laissez faire attitude towards business‘? That is I presume towards the right of the spectrum because that certainly doesn’t describe the left.

more government programs, social responsibility, preventing business from being too large or exploitive

That is precisely what Fascism does. It organizes industry into syndicates to serve the state, it massively expands government, and has a very clear social program (even if repellent) of responsibility incumbent on every citizen.

sharrukin on April 10, 2011 at 2:18 PM

The rich won.

Everyone else lost.

America, carry on with your hilarious/pathetic worship of rich people as they laugh at you each and every day.

Dave Rywall on April 10, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Dave Rywall on April 10, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Your jealousy of America is very evident.

kingsjester on April 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Dave Rywall on April 10, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Your jealousy of America is very evident.

kingsjester on April 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM
—-
shhh little girl don’t interrupt your idols while they’re busy laughing their as*es off at you and everybody else

Dave Rywall on April 10, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Dave Rywall on April 10, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Bwahahaha! Touched a nerve, did I? Hey, Dave! Guess what? Regardless of the Socialist in the White House that you so greatly admire, up there in the Great White North, America is still a free, capitalistic country.

kingsjester on April 10, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Bwahahaha! Touched a nerve, did I? Hey, Dave! Guess what? Regardless of the Socialist in the White House that you so greatly admire, up there in the Great White North, America is still a free, capitalistic country.

kingsjester on April 10, 2011 at 3:15 PM
——
Says the woman who doesn’t even know what socialist means. Bwaha indeed.

Dave Rywall on April 10, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Says the woman who doesn’t even know what socialist means. Bwaha indeed.

Dave Rywall on April 10, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Per merriam-webster.com -
socialism – any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

10/13/2008 – Obama tells Joe the Plumber that he wants to spread the wealth around.

4/29/2010 - Obama: “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

Try again, Dave. Pitiful.

kingsjester on April 10, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Per merriam-webster.com -
socialism – any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

10/13/2008 – Obama tells Joe the Plumber that he wants to spread the wealth around.

4/29/2010 – Obama: “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

Try again, Dave. Pitiful.

kingsjester on April 10, 2011 at 3:28 PM
—-

With every post you give rich people more to laugh at.

Run along now and cheer on all your government’s billions in subsidies and handouts.

Don’t forget to pop by Alaska, where wealth redistribution is particularly amazing.

Dave Rywall on April 10, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Not the taxpayers.

Dave Rywall on April 10, 2011 at 3:33 PM

With each post your obvious trolling becomes ever more inane and lame.

dogsoldier on April 10, 2011 at 3:55 PM

How is Fascism ‘less government‘ in your view or a ‘laissez faire attitude towards business‘? That is I presume towards the right of the spectrum because that certainly doesn’t describe the left.

more government programs, social responsibility, preventing business from being too large or exploitive

That is precisely what Fascism does. It organizes industry into syndicates to serve the state, it massively expands government, and has a very clear social program (even if repellent) of responsibility incumbent on every citizen.

sharrukin on April 10, 2011 at 2:18 PM

No, you’re mixing apples and oranges here.

I wasn’t talking about Fascism who is lumped in on the Left with the Communists in your view-I was talking about Conservatives within the framework of Democracy in the traditional view (on the right).

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 5:10 PM

No, you’re mixing apples and oranges here.

I wasn’t talking about Fascism who is lumped in on the Left with the Communists in your view-I was talking about Conservatives within the framework of Democracy in the traditional view (on the right).

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 5:10 PM

Define the political beliefs in your opinion on the right and the political beliefs on the left.

sharrukin on April 10, 2011 at 5:17 PM

more government programs, social responsibility, preventing business from being too large or exploitive

That is precisely what Fascism does. It organizes industry into syndicates to serve the state, it massively expands government, and has a very clear social program (even if repellent) of responsibility incumbent on every citizen.

sharrukin on April 10, 2011 at 2:18 PM

That is a traditional Leftist/Liberal view of the Left. Again, your view would throw that out of whack. Liberalism wouldn’t espouse complete takeover (Socialists would) but rather regulation and taxation in order to achieve what they believe to be some kind of social equilibrium. Actual Capitalism/Free Enterprise would continue, but with limitations.

Doesn’t make any sense to me either, “Free enterprise with limitations” but I gather that’s how they think.

But I believe that Capitalism has diverged from our national interests. A pure international Corporate structure would be little different from what Mussolini was advocating for Italy…international Capitalism to me smacks of a New World Order, an international power elite, and oppression through collusion, monopolies and price-fixing.

Either we are loyal to the United States of America, or we are beholden to some kind of private profit endeavor involving someone somewhere, either here or abroad. We’re getting to the point where we can no longer serve two masters.

Pure Capitalism, international Capitalism, threatens to erase America (and other nations) from the map and along with them our Constitution.

On the other hand, bridled Capitalism doesn’t really help us now, does it?

So, I think that we’re headed into a new era of state Corporatism interfaced with international Corporatism. In other words, a kind of Socialism that is not what we commonly associate with Communists/Marxists. That old hippie stuff is misdirection.

Don’t like it personally, but I don’t see any alternative besides building a time machine and going back.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 5:47 PM

But I believe that Capitalism has diverged from our national interests. A pure international Corporate structure would be little different from what Mussolini was advocating for Italy…international Capitalism to me smacks of a New World Order, an international power elite, and oppression through collusion, monopolies and price-fixing.

Either we are loyal to the United States of America, or we are beholden to some kind of private profit endeavor involving someone somewhere, either here or abroad. We’re getting to the point where we can no longer serve two masters.

Pure Capitalism, international Capitalism, threatens to erase America (and other nations) from the map and along with them our Constitution.

On the other hand, bridled Capitalism doesn’t really help us now, does it?

So, I think that we’re headed into a new era of state Corporatism interfaced with international Corporatism. In other words, a kind of Socialism that is not what we commonly associate with Communists/Marxists. That old hippie stuff is misdirection.

Don’t like it personally, but I don’t see any alternative besides building a time machine and going back.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Well I think there is a big difference between corporatism and free enterprise. Corporations are not big on free enterprise. They prefer monopolies and in many ways are not that different than government particularly when the corporate officers do not suffer financially when they screw up. That is in fact very similar to Fascist syndicates and somewhat related Marxist Bureaucratic government.

Small business’ are much closer to what the founding fathers mean when they talked about free enterprise. Larger corporations such as the East India Company from the beginning attempted to create monopolies and to restrict any startups that might threaten them through market controls or government action. The Imperial Ostend Company is a case in point. The East India Company had them shut down through British pressure.

Large corporations are not advocates of capitalism or free enterprise. They never have been, but they do have deep pockets and can buy themselves some very willing politicians.

We have a leftward drift towards Fascism/Marxism is a very real danger but leftist policies aren’t going to halt that drift because they are part and parcel of what it is. Competition is being choked off by regulations and environmental policies that favor the large corporations because only they can afford to wade through the sea of bureaucratic ink. A small business owner is basically out of luck.

The leftist policies make larger corporation much more competitive with smaller upstarts who might challenge them by creating these sorts of hurdles.

sharrukin on April 10, 2011 at 6:08 PM

We have a leftward drift towards Fascism/Marxism is a very real danger but leftist policies aren’t going to halt that drift because they are part and parcel of what it is. Competition is being choked off by regulations and environmental policies that favor the large corporations because only they can afford to wade through the sea of bureaucratic ink. A small business owner is basically out of luck.

Agreed, but…

Small businesses (depending upon the business) depend upon items (to run the business and to sell) manufactured by large companies. Cottage industries will only take you so far.

The good thing about large companies is that they can accumulate the capital necessary to manufacture or exploit resources that small concerns cannot do efficiently or at all. The accumulation of capital is necessary to bring about modern Capitalism.

Unless I’m mistaken, large corporations started off as small private businesses. The very nature of profit motive is that they do indeed increase in size, if they can. That is OK as long as the system is allowed to adjust according to free market principles.

Yes, extremist influences actually foment the conglomerations their propaganda claim that they are against. It is all about control of resources, power, taking care of oneself while at the same time furthering their ideologies.

These extremists are at war. They will do whatever it takes to win.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Define the political beliefs in your opinion on the right and the political beliefs on the left.

sharrukin on April 10, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Even historians I’ve read have trouble doing that, especially with Fascism. Italian Fascism and the goals of NSDAP differed in some aspects, but I’ll give it a shot.

Nazism:

1. The State is supreme. The State is managed by a perpetual elite class made of the racially pure and those devoted entirely to traditional German virtues and the welfare of the Germanic (Aryan) volk.

2. As per #1 above, industrialism, agriculture and all means of production and resources are subjugated to State control. There is, however, no dissolution of classes, nor redistribution of wealth. Land titles would come from the Eastern European conquests, and those displaced untermenschen would be further subjugated to the needs of the volk both in the Greater Reich and those colonizing the Ostland.

3. “Each according to his needs” and so on does not exist. All the German volk would enjoy consumer goods and a good life. However, they would be expected to produce and to be rewarded with repayment for their labor in kind. Though there is a collective spirit amongst the volk (as they are all closely related kin), there is not actual collectivization of farmland.

4. The volk are expected to endure perpetual warfare from the enemies of the Reich. This is welcomed as it will weed out the unfit and strengthen the survivors. Also, the unending string of victories of the Reich would inform all others as to their racial superiority.

5. The Reich (nation) is first and foremost; the German volk are the most genetically elite race on the planet.

6. Traditional values include the role of German women as childbearers, mothers, and homemakers, though exceptional women can enjoy a limited amount of upward mobility.

7. Militarism and warfare are held in high regard. The Germanic heroes of the past are to be remembered and emulated.

8. The expansion of the Reich was limited in scope. There were no plans for international empire.

9. Nazism is not exportable. It is for the Reich and its volk exclusively. Other National Socialists countries may or may not exist, but they are made up of subhumans anyway, and may come into conflict with the Reich’s interests.

Fascism: Similar to above but:

1. Reconstitution of the Roman Empire and early Republican Roman virtue would serve as a foundation for the Italian Empire.

2. The Corporate System-Workers would be in state-managed trade unions in order to give workers a say as to how better efficiency could be achieved and to prevent unfair exploitation by the companies they work for. Ultimately, the corporations are subject to control of the State in order to achieve the goals of the State.

3. Italian royalty shall endure, but have little say in the running of the State unless members of the Party.

Communism:

Pretty much the opposite of above:

1. The State is only temporary and will “wither away” once the series of class struggles/warfare that have heretofore marked human history have ended (the goal of Anarchists, but they want it now and without even a temporary centralized State authority).

2. In the final stage of human history, the Age of Communism, all means of production will be communally owned and shared. There will be no more coveting of possessions. There will be no more exploitation of one human by another. There will be perpetual peace and harmony. They don’t promise an actual Utopia, but pretty darn near.

3. Communism is international and exportable. All mankind regardless of race or gender are equal. There is no goal of empire, but rather worldwide Communism is the goal. All states will be eventually be gone. All companies will be gone. No one person will be able to accumulate more wealth than any other.

4. The goal of Communism is to ensure all Mankind’s survival in the best manner possible, but luxuries are a waste of resources, and create that which can be accrued leading to coveting of that property, and fracturing of the stability of the Communal Society.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Define what is right, not what is fascist.

You are trying to force the facts to fit what you want the conclusion to be.

There is no sane definition of right and left that doesn’t end up with fascism and communism sharing the same bench.

Nazism:

1. The State is supreme. The State is managed by a perpetual elite class made of the racially pure and those devoted entirely to traditional German virtues and the welfare of the Germanic (Aryan) volk.

Almost identical to communism.

The state is supreme and managed by the elites in the communist party devoted to the welfare of the workers and the virtues of the proletariat.

2. As per #1 above, industrialism, agriculture and all means of production and resources are subjugated to State control. There is, however, no dissolution of classes, nor redistribution of wealth. Land titles would come from the Eastern European conquests, and those displaced untermenschen would be further subjugated to the needs of the volk both in the Greater Reich and those colonizing the Ostland.

As in communism state control of industry. There is very much a redistribution of wealth in fascism in exactly the same way that socialists redistribution wealth.

In place of the untermenschen, we have the Kulaks and wealthy who are liquidated in their place.

3. “Each according to his needs” and so on does not exist. All the German volk would enjoy consumer goods and a good life. However, they would be expected to produce and to be rewarded with repayment for their labor in kind. Though there is a collective spirit amongst the volk (as they are all closely related kin), there is not actual collectivization of farmland.

Correct.
Syndicates take the place of nationalization in fascism.
The collective is supreme as reflected in the race rather than class.

4. The volk are expected to endure perpetual warfare from the enemies of the Reich. This is welcomed as it will weed out the unfit and strengthen the survivors. Also, the unending string of victories of the Reich would inform all others as to their racial superiority.

The proletariat are expected to engage in eternal exporting of rebelution and overthrowing the capitalists.

“Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.”

5. The Reich (nation) is first and foremost; the German volk are the most genetically elite race on the planet.

The rebelution is first and foremost and the proletariat are morally superior as reflected in ‘The New Soviet Man’.

6. Traditional values include the role of German women as childbearers, mothers, and homemakers, though exceptional women can enjoy a limited amount of upward mobility.

The Nazi’s were not as traditional as you might think in this regard.

7. Militarism and warfare are held in high regard. The Germanic heroes of the past are to be remembered and emulated.

And communist states are not militaristic?

8. The expansion of the Reich was limited in scope. There were no plans for international empire.

Poland and Madagascar beg to differ.

9. Nazism is not exportable. It is for the Reich and its volk exclusively. Other National Socialists countries may or may not exist, but they are made up of subhumans anyway, and may come into conflict with the Reich’s interests.

Nonsense.

Fascism was exported from Italy to Germany. What you mean is that it was nationalist in outlook rather than internationalist.

Communism:

Pretty much the opposite of above:

1. The State is only temporary and will “wither away” once the series of class struggles/warfare that have heretofore marked human history have ended (the goal of Anarchists, but they want it now and without even a temporary centralized State authority).

That was theory, not reality. There was to be the dictatorship of the proletariat until the day came when the state withered away.

2. In the final stage of human history, the Age of Communism, all means of production will be communally owned and shared. There will be no more coveting of possessions. There will be no more exploitation of one human by another. There will be perpetual peace and harmony. They don’t promise an actual Utopia, but pretty darn near.

Again theory and the Utopian imagery of the German Volk was rather similar in postulating an idyllic life once the rebelution was achieved and the lesser folks dealt with.

3. Communism is international and exportable. All mankind regardless of race or gender are equal. There is no goal of empire, but rather worldwide Communism is the goal. All states will be eventually be gone. All companies will be gone. No one person will be able to accumulate more wealth than any other.

Again theory, not reality and there was very much an underlying racist element to Marxism. What exactly is the difference between worldwide communist control and striving for empire?

Later communism adopted ‘Communism in one country’ when the workers didn’t do there bit and rise up as planned.

4. The goal of Communism is to ensure all Mankind’s survival in the best manner possible, but luxuries are a waste of resources, and create that which can be accrued leading to coveting of that property, and fracturing of the stability of the Communal Society.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Not all of mankind, just the proletariat. The extermination of certain undesirable elements was cooked into communism just as it was cooked into fascism.

sharrukin on April 10, 2011 at 8:11 PM

It would have been a better POLITICAL outcome for the GOP. If Obama vetoed the military funding the Democrats would pay a heavy political price.
sharrukin on April 9, 2011 at 3:34 PM

A better political outcome for the GOP? Perhaps. On the backs of the troops. We would have eventually come up with something to pay the troops. In the meantime, they would have missed paychecks so you could say you won. Awesome. I am sure my brother and the several thousand sailors and Marines in his deployed squadron appreciate it. Who cares if they are far away from home and their spouses have no means to pay the rent? At least you got a better political outcome. If actually giving a damn about our troops and their families makes us weak, I am fine with that. At least on our side of the aisle we are decent enough to put our troops first even if Democrats and the CinC is not!

The Opinionator on April 10, 2011 at 8:11 PM

The Opinionator on April 10, 2011 at 8:11 PM

+ 1..Very good post!..:)

Dire Straits on April 10, 2011 at 8:14 PM

The Opinionator on April 10, 2011 at 8:11 PM

So in addition to wanting to let 90,000 children die of disease, and letting six million old folks die in the streets of starvation, and coming to town to kill women, I also hate the troops and their families?

You and Nancy need to get some new material!

sharrukin on April 10, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Define what is right, not what is fascist.

You said, “fascist” and “communist”…not right and left in what I quoted and addressed.

Almost identical to communism.

The state is supreme and managed by the elites in the communist party devoted to the welfare of the workers and the virtues of the proletariat.

Only temporarily and not race-based.

As in communism state control of industry. There is very much a redistribution of wealth in fascism in exactly the same way that socialists redistribution wealth.

In place of the untermenschen, we have the Kulaks and wealthy who are liquidated in their place.

The upper classes are always done away with by the lower classes. Again, the ultimate goal is a classless society. Capitalists thrived under NSDAP. Don’t confuse Hitler’s populist blathering with what really came to pass.

The proletariat are expected to engage in eternal exporting of rebelution and overthrowing the capitalists.

“Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

Not around the world for NSDAP and the Fascists…they could care less about the workers in Brazil.

The Nazi’s were not as traditional as you might think in this regard.

Name one high-ranking Nazi state official, Party leader, gauleiter, general, etc. who was female?

And communist states are not militaristic?

Only until the goal of international Communism is achieved.

Poland and Madagascar beg to differ.

I already included Poland in the Ostland. By international I meant overseas. Even their occupation of France, the Balkans, the low countries, Denmark and Norway were temporary. Madagascar was proposed to be a new state for the Jews to emigrate to and settle.

Nonsense.

Fascism was exported from Italy to Germany. What you mean is that it was nationalist in outlook rather than internationalist.

NSDAP existed as DAP since 1919. Hitler joined that party, he didn’t create it, and it predates Mussolini’s turn to National Socialism. Mussolini served as an inspiration to Hitler. At some point in time, their interests would have collided.

As for the rest, you’re casting your own personal beliefs upon Communist ideology. I provided what I thought you asked for-my take on what the differences in their ideologies are…not whether they’re good or bad, or actually work in practice the way their theorists claim.

All in all, their goals were different.

But, if you insist on saying that they’re one in the same, then more power to you, but I maintain they’re different.

I don’t know how much more clear it can be that at an NSDAP meeting if some black guy walked in, he’d be shown the door (window most likely). In a Communist Party meeting he’d be welcomed with open arms as a member of an historically exploited and abused race.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Thanks Dire Straits!

The Opinionator on April 10, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Biggest losers, WE THE TAXPAYERS who had to settle for less than $38b in cuts (that figure is full of accounting gimmicks) instead of $61b. Why? Because the religious righteous managed to botch the works up to get their Planned Parenthood thing passed. Congratulations, preventing us from spending a few hundred million on PP has cost us over $22b!

I just wanted add that republicans really sold the American public down the river.
Repuplicans never even tried to honor their pledge to cut $100 billion from the budget this year. They never submitted a budget that was at least $100 billion.
By the logic that Boehner and other republicans offered, They should have began with a budget that cut $200 billion to negotiate where where they needed to be to honor thier pledge.
But we can see now, they never intended to honor that pledge.
Why should we expect they are going to do anything horably?
You want one of these guys/women to be your president?
Not me.

paulsur on April 10, 2011 at 10:42 PM

Why? Because the religious righteous managed to botch the works up to get their Planned Parenthood thing passed.

Pretty much what I’ve been saying. Focus on the fiscal stuff or we risk turning off independents and galvanizing the Dems and may lose the November gains next time around.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Similarities? Sure. Sprung from the same fountain? Sure. Shared beliefs? Sure. The same? No.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 9, 2011 at 9:50 PM

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck…

The core similarity between Soviet Communism, and European Fascism is the supremacy of the State over all else. That is the core of Socialism, and modern Progressivism. Given that they share the same core, I cannot help but think that they, whether it is their intent or not, will arrive at similar ends.

The means create the ends.

Voyager on April 11, 2011 at 12:22 AM

With every post you give rich people more to laugh at.
Run along now and cheer on all your government’s billions in subsidies and handouts.

Don’t forget to pop by Alaska, where wealth redistribution is particularly amazing.

Dave Rywall on April 10, 2011 at 3:33 PM

BP, the oil spill giants, gave Obowma a million dollars during his campaign in 2007. Obowma sold millions of the Ayers ghost written, autobiography of Obowma.

You support “rich people”, you hypocrite. The two richest American’s are democrats: Buffett and Gates. The richest senators in Washington are democrats. You have Hollywood money, GE, Ex-Goldman Sachs personnel are all though Obowma’s admistration.

dthorny on April 11, 2011 at 8:00 AM

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 10, 2011 at 8:55 PM

On the left, statists, communists, socialists, Nazis

On the right, anarchists.

Our constitutional republic is in the middle as we have always been. The issue is the democrats wish us to move more left and conservatives wish us to remain where we are.

dthorny on April 11, 2011 at 8:04 AM

The American people lost. And now, this Wednesday night, Obama will pile on.

kingsjester on April 11, 2011 at 8:11 AM

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck…

The core similarity between Soviet Communism, and European Fascism is the supremacy of the State over all else. That is the core of Socialism, and modern Progressivism. Given that they share the same core, I cannot help but think that they, whether it is their intent or not, will arrive at similar ends.

The means create the ends.

Voyager on April 11, 2011 at 12:22 AM

On the left, statists, communists, socialists, Nazis

On the right, anarchists.

Our constitutional republic is in the middle as we have always been. The issue is the democrats wish us to move more left and conservatives wish us to remain where we are.

dthorny on April 11, 2011 at 8:04 AM

So what is it…not wanting to confuse American nationalism and patriotism with that of the Nazi totalitarian regime? I saw the same Glen Beck shows on this. So since American conservatives are pro-military and are for kicking the snot out of all of our enemies rather than hugging them, you’re afraid of being lumped in with the Nazis? By whom-the Libs?

And since we despise the Communists simply lump them in with the Nazis as well? Convenient to put all of our enemies in one bag (along with the “Islamofascists”).

I can see the “us against them” mentality…but it’s just not that cut and dried, even though it is an interesting perspective. Our country has engaged in many of the behaviors of these regimes (Indians, strong military with a 240 year culture, multiple wars, slavery, crony Capitalism, internment/concentration camps, legislated racism, forced military service)…so we’re de facto Communist-Nazis as well?

It comes down to different visions and different values. In fact, our Revolution, the French Revolution, and Marxism were all born out of the same melting pot of ideals known as the Enlightenment. They’re all related-but NOT the same, regardless of similarities and shared ideological roots. There would have been no French Revolution without an American Revolution-there would have been no Marx and Engels philosophies without the French Revolution.

The views I’m seeing put forth here that we would have to include those despots who existed before the phrase “Communism” or the phrase “Fascism” were even uttered…Napoleon, Charlemagne, Caesar, Alexander the Great. How on God’s green earth could they have been Communists/Fascists as well? They certainly didn’t stand for the values we do as Americans.

Makes me think of the “Greatest Generation” and how they were convinced by the Liberal press and government propaganda that Uncle Joe and the Soviets were pro-Democracy just like us. We fought with the Communists both in Europe and Asia…are we, too, therefore Communists? And if WW II were a case of the American people being forced into a fight by FDR, then does that make FDR and the Federal government, and the American industrial base all Communists as well?

And if our country has been infiltrated by Communists and that’s the road we’re headed down, then the arguments above about intentions vs. outcomes would necessarily have to apply to us.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 11, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4