Big Business Loves Big Government: Both threaten liberty

[srmaher]

Imagine how the mainstream media would react if the Bush administration colluded with “Big Oil” to artificially lower the price in order to help the Republicans in an election year? According to the L.A. Times, this is exactly what the Obama administration is doing with the insurance industry. The popularity of the Affordable Care Act is going to hurt the Democrats this fall, and the administration knows it. To hold onto as many seats as possible the insurance companies have agreed to keep premiums artificially low, and in return they have received a guarantee from the Administration to be bailed out if they incur any financial loss.

 

Many have bought the false narrative that corruption in Washington stems from lobbyist and special interest groups influencing politicians. In reality, the L.A. Times provides a perfect example in how both big business and big government work together to further their agenda. This false narrative has resulted in the American people believing that removing money from politics will result in the politicians being free to serve the people. While this theory is quaint and sounds great on paper one significant detail seems to be consistently overlooked, politicians use big business as much as big business uses the State. In many instances, the politicians have more interest in companies than the companies have in Washington (i.e. Microsoft and Apple).

As the government gets bigger so does the opportunity to make money. As a result, instead of focusing their attention on innovation or creating products, they spend their time and resources lobbying members of Congress that can and do help their bottom line. This no doubt is true, but its only half of the story. The mainstream media and the left give the impression that lobbyist are trying to influence the government to remove regulations and obstacles that make doing business difficult. In fact, the message coming from the left is entirely wrong. In reality, big business is one of the biggest advocates of regulation. Why would they support regulations you ask? Well, it is simple; regulations quite often eliminate the smaller competitors of big business that simply cannot afford to comply with the steady influx of new regulations. Conservatives understand that regulations don’t hurt large corporations but small businesses.

For example, the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA)” which was signed into law in 2009. President Obama claimed that this law was a victory in the “war on tobacco.” In the most basic sense, this law created regulations in regard to the production of tobacco products. One of the main advocates of this law was Philip Morris, the largest Tobacco Company in the country. They had been lobbying for this when it was first introduced fifteen years ago. What an interesting dilemma…why in the world would Phillip Morris support a law that would only make doing business harder? To eliminate competition from smaller companies who can’t afford to comply with the new regulations. By taking advantage of government’s power, they create for themselves an economic environment where competition does not exist.

General Electric provides one of the best examples of big business merging with government to further its own agenda. Right before Obama took office in 2009, CEO Jeffrey Immelt sent a letter to stockholders that included the following. “The global economy and capitalism will be “reset” in several ways. The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner…Successful companies won’t just “hunker down”; they will seek out the new opportunities in a reset world.”

The kind of world Jeffrey Immelt is glorifying is the kind of world that kills innovation, limits economic development, and greatly reduces the freedom of the American people. It is the limited government that has made this country as prosperous as it has been. For a moment let’s reflect on the history of this nation. In 1893, the Federal Government turned to the private sector for what could be considered a bailout. What transpired was J.P. Morgan lending the government $100 million (3 billion today) in order to stabilize the financial crisis that was spiraling out of control. Ironically enough, a little over 100 years later the federal government has become so large that the private sector now turns to Washington to be bailed out.

Newt Gingrich made an insightful observation about the detrimental effect lobbyists can and typically do have on economic progress. “If we had today’s government in the 1800s, stage coach lobbyists would have fought for a law saying that trains couldn’t go faster than a horse because it’s unfair.” There is a lot of truth in this; in fact Germany has laws prohibiting businesses from being open past a certain hour because it is “unfair to their competitors.”

When it’s all said and done, what is the best way to reign in this kind of corruption? Without question, the only way to resolve this issue is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. This places Liberals in a tough situation because on one hand they believe in big government and at the same time they fear big business. In a very ironic way, Liberals end up creating the thing they fear the most by voting to give more power to the federal government. Is anyone shocked that under President Bush and Obama big business has grown in proportion to the size of government? This incident reported by the L.A Times is a perfect example as to why Conservatives advocate for smaller government.

Edited September 14, 2014 by srmaher

[Windseeker]

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

- Benito Mussolini.

 

As a former Teamster and member of the AFL-CIO the cry of "No Corporate Welfare" has been dropped by the unions and picked up by the Tea Party.

 

I think you might like this article as well.

 

"..being pro-business is about creating the conditions for free enterprise, not about direct support for business through the application of government force.
To be pro-business in the capitalist sense means to be pro-individual. It means to be for the people."

From the article Business isn't Capitalism

Edited September 15, 2014 by Windseeker

[pam]

Wasn't this same thing posted on the lds freedom forums?

[MarginOfError]

Wasn't this same thing posted on the lds freedom forums?

Political hackery cannot be restrained to a single forum, Pam.  Afterall, it's what the internet was created for.

[pam]

Political hackery cannot be restrained to a single forum, Pam.  Afterall, it's what the internet was created for.

 

Except when one is using this particular forum to promote ones ideas and blog posts as I've been noticing.

[MarginOfError]

Are you suggesting that I stop feeding the trolls?

[Windseeker]

...political hacks and trolls....marginalize much MOE?

[MarginOfError]

If you have a better term for someone that advocates strictly that liberals get it all wrong and 'true conservatives' get it all right (and I use 'true conservatives' because of srmaher's criticisms of the growth of government under both Presidents Bush and Obama), then I'm willing to hear it.

 

But the reality is that liberals get some things right, and conservatives get some things right.  Regardless, the conservatives and liberals in government are all raking in their fortunes off of the dynamics that srmaher is laying at the feet of liberals.  

[Windseeker]

Well I checked FF...and it's been a long time (can't stomach so much snuffer).. and it looks like he posts allot of the same topics on both posts.

 

I definitely get that the OP is conservative, I don't really get that he lays it all on at the feet of liberals though.

 

If it's wrong for a member to widen the discussion to other messageboards then perhaps we should state that. As a member of this forum I'm more interested in discussing the issue then name call.

 

...look at me all high and mighty and such  

Edited September 15, 2014 by Windseeker

[MarginOfError]

If it had been one post, sure.  In fact, I humored him on his first few posts.  But when every single topic you start is about how the liberal agenda is destroying our freedoms (panic, fear, alarmism!!!!!!!), it starts to lose credibility, because, well, at that point you stop coming off as human and look more like an agenda.

 

In light of what you've said, however, I'd be willing to back off of the "troll" tag and replace it with "one-trick-pony." :)

[Windseeker]

Well I like hearing different opinions perhaps so does OP. So tell me MOE what is your take this rise of corporatism and who has the answer and what do you think it is?

[srmaher]

Wasn't this same thing posted on the lds freedom forums?

 

Yes, and Approachingjustice.net 

 

I think these ideas are worth sharing and want to get them in front as many people as possible. 

[srmaher]

Except when one is using this particular forum to promote ones ideas and blog posts as I've been noticing.

 

Isn't that the reason for these forums, to share ideas? 

[srmaher]

Except when one is using this particular forum to promote ones ideas and blog posts as I've been noticing.

 

In what way have I promoted my blog? I don't include any links on my posts because i don't think it would be appropriate. 

[srmaher]

If it had been one post, sure.  In fact, I humored him on his first few posts.  But when every single topic you start is about how the liberal agenda is destroying our freedoms (panic, fear, alarmism!!!!!!!), it starts to lose credibility, because, well, at that point you stop coming off as human and look more like an agenda.

 

In light of what you've said, however, I'd be willing to back off of the "troll" tag and replace it with "one-trick-pony." :)

 

 

If you have a better term for someone that advocates strictly that liberals get it all wrong and 'true conservatives' get it all right (and I use 'true conservatives' because of srmaher's criticisms of the growth of government under both Presidents Bush and Obama), then I'm willing to hear it.

 

But the reality is that liberals get some things right, and conservatives get some things right.  Regardless, the conservatives and liberals in government are all raking in their fortunes off of the dynamics that srmaher is laying at the feet of liberals.  

 

MOE, if you go back and read the article, my point is that liberals hate big business the way conservatives hate big government. The difference is that the left, through their polices make the government more expansive and powerful, as a result it creates the very thing it hates. Both the left and the right agree that big business is an enemy to liberty, but the left is unable to see the connection between the size of government and the size of "big business." Tell me MOE, if President Bush had the oil companies artificial lower the price of oil during a midterm election, what would the media have done?

Edited September 16, 2014 by srmaher

[Guest Godless]

Tell me MOE, if President Bush had the oil companies artificial lower the price of oil during a midterm election, what would the media have done?

Interestingly, a lot of Republicans love to point out the fact that gas was under $2.50/gal in the months leading up to the '08 presidential election (nevermind that it rivaled today's prices the previous year). Some Democrats cried foul and actually embraced the very theory you're suggesting, when in reality the sharp drop in gas prices was a direct result and symptom of the recession.

I'm less familiar with the insurance situation, though it was always my impression that the insurance companies were prepared to fight tooth-and-nail to shoot down Obamacare. One company even tried to trick customers into buying a more expensive plan, erroneously claiming that it was required under the ACA. link

I couldn't find the LA Times article you're referencing, but I'd very much like to take a look at it if you could provide a link.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Godless

[srmaher]

Interestingly, a lot of Republicans love to point out the fact that gas was under $2.50/gal in the months leading up to the '08 presidential election (nevermind that it rivaled today's prices the previous year). Some Democrats cried foul and actually embraced the very theory you're suggesting, when in reality the sharp drop in gas prices was a direct result and symptom of the recession.

I'm less familiar with the insurance situation, though it was always my impression that the insurance companies were prepared to fight tooth-and-nail to shoot down Obamacare. One company even tried to trick customers into buying a more expensive plan, erroneously claiming that it was required under the ACA. link

I couldn't find the LA Times article you're referencing, but I'd very much like to take a look at it if you could provide a link.

 

Here is that link you asked for, also, Bush didn't collude with "big oil" to lower the prices. The price reduction came, as you said correctly, as the result of the recession.  FYI, the insurance companies were on board with the ACA, Caremark for one.  

 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1