While I totally disagree with a bailout and believe it actually goes against the principals by which Republicans are supposed to subscribe it isn't the same thing as an entitlement. It's actually not similar to an entitlement at all. It's no more an entitlement then a student loan is.
Annoyed, not at all. Aware that it is a big part of our economy not doing well? Absolutely.
Nah, I meant T dog and LT. And again, I don't mean to imply that they are just awful people. But if we are going to say that people who receive assistance are leeches, it's weird to me for someone to turn around argue that it is helpful to assist a company that was too crap to stand on its own merits.
Student loans are a way that the govt can directly affect the economy, and I'm for that, too.
I agree for the most part, but I do feel politics and political connections played too much of a part in the bailouts that happened with GM.
One is a handout to something that serves zero return to the economy, and one is a loan that will be repaid and is an investment into the betterment of our economy. But, keep in mind, I wasn't behind the bailouts when they happened, but there is a huge difference between them and the daily welfare handouts.
I'm down with returning more power to the states and even local govt's. I'm just not sure how we do that at this point.Kbrown said:
That's a valid point, and part of why I was against the bailouts. But, again, there is no comparison between those and welfare entitlements.
You're thinking in terms of the false dichotomy that you either bail out a business or it goes under completely. Corporations declare bankruptcy and are bought and reorganized by healthier, better run corporations if they have any assets. That's capitalism in action. The free market, which Republicans lie about believing in, is about letting the best businessmen succeed, not the best connected businessmen. Bush and Obama didn't bail out the automotive industry, they bailed out the executives and unions that caused their financial problems in the first place.
I guess you and I have different views on socialism, because I don't see that at all.
You really haven't studied it then. In a capitalist economy the corporations are privately owned and operated, the health of the economy is regulated by competition and free market forces. In a communist economy they are replaced entirely by government agencies.
Socialism is pretty fluid in terms of definitions. But the government stepping in, and, ignoring merit, deciding which failing companies deserve to be bailed out rather than have their assets naturally redistributed to more worthy companies via the market sounds pretty socialist to me.
Would you care to show me where i said welfare recipients were leaches. My remarks have always been in an econimic vane which illistrated that that system produces nothing toward a productive economy. That is just a simple fact of mathmatics. Any service organization or system funded by the government is non a productive system toward creating taxes to fund government spending. A great deal of them are necessary but still they are consumers of the tax dollar rather than producers. It's a basic tenant of capitalism not a judgement .
Not every business failure is bailed out or a candidate for same. There are a few structures that are critical to be pulljed through. One example i am extremely familiar with is the banking system. There has been thousands of bank and savings and loan failures over the last 35 years but a few were critical to prop up because of the domino effect to the banking system. There are a few institutions in the overall economic system that fit this same mold. You make it sound like it is an all or nothing philosophy which simply isnt the case.
So, you're telling me that a one-time loan (not a subsidy) is the same thing as being a state-supported institution? You're stretching the definition of socialism to fit your argument.
Prior to the founding of the federal reserve during the Wilson administration, recessions like the Panic of 1873 were short lived. Drop in price always brought in people eager to buy discounted securities to make a profit. As soon as a bureaucratic "lender of last resort" was established we managed to have America's first lasting depression. Instead of market forces we had fools in government in charge of the crisis. When the Bank of the United States was liquidated following the run that destroyed faith in American banks it delivered nearly 90 cents on the dollar. It would have been saved by the free market, it was crushed by government interference in banking.
Farmers get bailed out all the time. "Reality"
Talking down? If you understand what I said and responded how is that talking down?
No doubt. That is what is bothering me here as well. I consider myself conservative but not a republican. The most recent presidential example is Clinton and W. Clinton may well have been just and moderate as W in actual policy.
Farm subsidies are socialist too.