That's one of the problems with labels - they mean different things to different people and cause confusion.

He is a big government statist who generally thinks that the government can do better at allocating resources than individuals or businesses can, and he thinks that he can execute the prerogatives and responsibilities of all branches of government.

Both of these have been defining characteristics of prominent communists, socialists and fascists over the past century and which, in turn, lead to the labeling difficulty.

Blur, you have a Pollyannish view of capitalism, and a falsely heroic view of business. An economic system based on unfettered greed leads us where we are today: increasing poverty, a dwindling middle class, and the emergence of a plutocracy.

The only way capitalism is successful is under heavy regulation, where the greed that fuels business is restrained from damaging the welfare of the general populace. The payment to workers of a living wage creates a strong middle class, which is the engine of both a strong economy and a stable democracy.

Unions, at their peak (over fifty years ago)', represented only 35% or so of the workforce. By the time manufacturing began to leave our shores, they had a 15 to 20% share. They did not destroy business - business"s greed destroyed this country. It continues to destroy it. When smart guys like you stop swallowing the capitalistic propaganda of wealthy men, we will all be better off.

Socialism? No. Regulation? Yes. And a lot of it.

I'm afraid you don't know what fascism is.

from Wikipedia:

"Roger Griffin describes fascism as "a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism".

Griffin describes the ideology as having three core components: "(i) the rebirth myth, (ii) populist ultra-nationalism and (iii) the myth of decadence".
Fascism is "a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism" built on a complex range of theoretical and cultural influences. He distinguishes an inter-war period in which it manifested itself in elite-led but populist "armed party" politics opposing socialism and liberalism and promising radical politics to rescue the nation from decadence.

Robert Paxton argues that fascism is "a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

Mussolini viewed these liberal ideas (in the European sense of the word “liberal”) as the antithesis of fascism: “The Fascist conception of life,” Mussolini wrote, “stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism which denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual.”

Mussolini thought it was unnatural for a government to protect individual rights: “The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans.” “If classical liberalism spells individualism,” Mussolini continued, “Fascism spells government.”

The essence of fascism, therefore, is that government should be the master, not the servant, of the people. Think about this. Does anyone in America really believe that this is not what we have now? Are Internal Revenue Service agents really our “servants”? Is compulsory “national service” for young people, which now exists in numerous states and is part of a federally funded program, not a classic example of coercing individuals to serve the state? Isn’t the whole idea behind the massive regulation and regimentation of American industry and society the notion that individuals should be forced to behave in ways defined by a small governmental elite? When the nation’s premier health-care reformer recently declared that heart bypass surgery on a 92-year-old man was “a waste of resources,” wasn’t that the epitome of the fascist ideal—that the state, not individuals, should decide whose life is worthwhile, and whose is a “waste”?

My only experience with unions was brief and as a member while in college and honestly I did not feel that they did anything on my behalf other than garnish my wages.

You and I aren't so different Gnslngr, we want the same things just have different ideologies in how that happens, you see business as an evil and I see government as an even greater evil, and no I am not saying that there should be no government but I am saying that once they go beyond what should be their charter that they overreach and involve themselves in areas that would be better left alone. Kinda like an overbearing parent who immerses themselves in each and every aspect of their children's lives, the American people are not children and can manage their own lives they do not need a government to do it for them... beyond that you and I both complain about the influence of the powerful and their money on government, somehow you think that will change and I don't think for a minute that will change, I have little faith in my own political party to do the right thing and even less faith in yours... So, my answer is to lessen their impact, return them to something more like the confines of our founding fathers outlined in the constitution, I know that that is as big a dream as a progressive's dream of a just and equal society, but to me that is a better answer than putting faith in a government that is run by crooks who live in some sort of alternate reality.

This is well said, as usual. You are correct about how I view things: but I see government as evil as well, mostly because of the pernicious influences on our elected officials. And I think the greed of men, unchecked, is worse than the excesses of a government that attempts to keep that greed under control. I have seen true evil in this world - a small government means to me that that evil can thrive.

I see your point, however. I take issue with one thing: I can see no difference between the republicans and dems. I am a lot of things, but I take offense when someone calls me a democrat. The last three democratic presidents have been a disaster, and the last three republican presidents weren't any better, and an argument can be made that they were worse. There is not a single elected official in Washington I'd give you a plug nickel for.

This is well said, as usual. You are correct about how I view things: but I see government as evil as well, mostly because of the pernicious influences on our elected officials. And I think the greed of men, unchecked, is worse than the excesses of a government that attempts to keep that greed under control. I have seen true evil in this world - a small government means to me that that evil can thrive.

I see your point, however. I take issue with one thing: I can see no difference between the republicans and dems. I am a lot of things, but I take offense when someone calls me a democrat. The last three democratic presidents have been a disaster, and the last three republican presidents weren't any better, and an argument can be made that they were worse. There is not a single elected official in Washington I'd give you a plug nickel for.