Hmm... Glitch, that's an interesting analysis.

I still fail to see how they differ though.

In both cases, you end up with a "nanny state", don't you?

And I mean, think about the "mechanism", that Hitler used, to bring about what you're talking about there, the "control of businesses by the State".

That's kinda the point I've tried to raise in several other threads, in relation to my view of "statism" - and the example, I think, was the IG Farben company (remember them? Zyklon B? Well, before all that, they were just a big chemical company, like maybe today's DuPont or Monsanto or something - but what happened was, they got into bed with the government, business-wise, and then it beacme so much of their business, that htey couldn't get out - and that's how Hitler gained control over the various businesses).

And I mean, look around..... what do you see Hillary doing? Hm? What do you think, for instance, this "universal healthcare" thing is going to do? Well, what'll happen, is probably, even more of what you're seeing in Medicare Part D, right? 'Cause now, if you look at the bottom lines of the pharmas and the health insurance companies, there's a line item in there, that says, "revenue from Medicare Part D", right? And, as with all entitlements, the number attached to that line item, will continue to grow, year after year after year, right? So, what you'll see, is that the gov will become a "bigger and bigger fraction" of the cpmanies' business, until eventually, it becomes so much of their business, that if the government suddenly went away, the company would collapse, and all the stockholdersa nd jobs and economy and investors with it. Right? "Inertia", that way? Hmm....

And I mean, Bushie is really no different, is he, in terms of his economic policies? This is kinda one of the "side effects" of the globalism bit, ain't it? Hmmm.....

So, I kinda hear what you're saying, in terms of the "differences", but do you also hear me, in terms of the "similarities"?