Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › For all of you so called “liberals” out there.
- This topic has 63 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
urbanrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 1, 2006 at 11:27 PM #733589November 29, 2011 at 12:43 PM #19325
aldante
ParticipantTo be a “liberal” today you have to have a big governement. Here is what our big governement has done to our economy,
The point of this article is that Hanky Panky Paulson let on to his insider friends what was coming in 2008, while telling the public something else. The free market system can not compete with corrupt politicians who have unlimited pockets. And yes between the taxing authority of our beloved corrupt government (I did not say country) and the corrupt Federal Reserve – they do have unlimited resources. And look at the list of the insiders. Not at all just Republicans.
In other words our own wealth and savings are being used against us. I write the “us” on the assumption that I am not the only one who is not privy to the inside information discussed in this article.
My point is that for all of you liberals this CAN NOT take place with a limited government, becasue its resourses would be limited. In the face of all this evidence that POWER CORRUPTS how anyone can claim that a big government is necessary is IDIOTIC…..IMHO.
November 29, 2011 at 1:02 PM #733535Arraya
ParticipantOMG! Shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
November 29, 2011 at 1:03 PM #733536Bob Lobbla
ParticipantIf your argument is that power corrupts, I don’t see how big or small government is relevant. Limiting government and deregulation would just shift the power structure to big business and the private sector, where corruption and greed still take place as well. Its more of a human nature issue than a political science debate, imho.
November 29, 2011 at 1:10 PM #733537ParticipantHere is the arguement. Business has limited scope of influence. Businesses compete with each other.
When you get a small group of regulators who control virtually unlimited resources the corruption is much greater and much more harmful. Look at Madoff. $60 billion ripped off – all the while a citizen was pointing his finger but the SEC turned their head.
I agree that there will always be corruption. That is why we need to limit the resources available. The scope of corruption can only encompass the resources available.
Look at Bell California. Only a few deca millions taken from the government becasue that is all they could steal.November 29, 2011 at 1:13 PM #733538ParticipantI think it has something to do with getting a government paycheck. It perverts morals. Whenever good banking and corporate folk (who rotate in and out of government agencies)work for the government they do things they would not normally do. The only solution to this state driven moral perversion, is to keep it as small as possible.
November 29, 2011 at 1:33 PM #733540pencilneck
Participant“The free market system can not compete with corrupt politicians who have unlimited pockets.”
The corrupt politicians have unlimited pockets because they are supported by corrupt corporations that have unlimited pockets because they are supported by corrupt politicians.
Damn liberals.
November 29, 2011 at 1:39 PM #733541ParticipantYou miss the most important point. The “unlimited” comes from you and I the tax payer. The corporations need the unlimited taxing authority to screw us over with out limit. You have to know the source of the issue to solve the issue. Remove the “unlimited” part by limiting the size of government and the deck is less stacked.
By the way the real source of the problem is GREED. And I have meet plenty of people who do not have a lot of money that are greedy.
To solve that problem is not the job of the government sir.November 29, 2011 at 1:49 PM #733544ParticipantI just feel bad for all the financial personal who enriched themselves through the government. They must feel awful. We need to have sympathy for them and understand they are just victims.
November 29, 2011 at 1:54 PM #733545ParticipantYou are right Arraya,
I the old days my reading of history tells me that very, very, ugly things would have already happened to this “upper-crust” and their families for that matter. But now that we are so much more civilized they will have to suffer with their conscious during their yacht ride to the Caymans.
November 29, 2011 at 2:01 PM #733546poorgradstudent
ParticipantThe linked article is about Henry Paulson. A Republican. Appointed by George W. Bush. A Republican. Who was President when this happened.
Obviously “conservative” and “Republican” are not freely interchangeable. Many intelligent people have argued that GW Bush wasn’t really fiscally conservative, considering how much he increased government spending. But he certainly was never called “liberal”.
Remember that it was de-regulation that allowed all the excesses of the bubble to occur. The free market largely created the bubble, just like free markets have done in past bubbles. Obviously power corrupts, but I’m not sure how the ills of the Bush government translate to “liberal = bad”? Even Ron Paul doesn’t advocate for the sort of small government that would limit federal power that much.
November 29, 2011 at 2:14 PM #733547zk
ParticipantAldante, you’re hilarious. You take republican corruption and somehow, with smoke and mirrors, turn it into a way to rail at “liberals.” There’s no talking common sense with someone who can be so ridiculously blind to his own biases.
You can’t run a country the size of the U.S.A. with a government small enough that there’s no chance for corruption. To say that what Paulson did couldn’t have been done with a smaller government is rubbish.
Is big government necessary? Depends on how you define big. Would a government small enough to avoid any chance of corruption be big enough to run our country? Only in the dreams of your typical, borderline-paranoid anti-government wingnut.
Most of the problems of the 2008 collapse could have, and probably would have, been avoided by more regulation (bigger government) not less. Especially closer regulation of the ratings agencies.
November 29, 2011 at 2:29 PM #733549Anonymous
Guest[quote]To be a “liberal” today you have to have a big governement.[/quote]
I’ll agree, since it’s hard to debate a statement that is so profound.
And there is so much historical evidence in your favor as well. I mean, there was never any concentration of power, corruption, or insider trading back in the good ol’ days of small government.
BTW, It’s supposed to get a bit chilly later this week. I’m off to the Standard Oil shop to buy some kerosene…
November 29, 2011 at 2:49 PM #733552ParticipantMost of the problems of the 2008 collapse could have, and probably would have, been avoided by more regulation (bigger government) not less. Especially closer regulation of the ratings agencies.
How?
Now you want the same government that allowed Madoff to happen (that was breaucrates not Republicans or Democrates agreed?) regulate the private rating agencies? Wow, that is a great one. Remember 2008 when the “smartest The free enterprise system does not guarentee anything. That is the difference. Yet the Government will guarentee the loans on toxic loans with our tax payer money? Get a grip.
As to the efficency of the Government takeovers- if there were not enough examples already, how is GM working out for you?
Sorry, big government makes big mistakes. The only reason trillions of dollars have been wasted is becasue the government is involved. Republican or Democrat.
November 29, 2011 at 2:55 PM #733553scaredyclassic
ParticipantWhy don’t people talk about shrinking govt to an appropriate size to drown in a bathtub anymore. I always found that kind if creepy in zn infanticide enraged father republican kind of way. Not saying small or big is better just saying the bathtub drowning slogan was creepy. We should be promoting better bathtub safety thru govt pamphlets and subsidized rubber footwear.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.