Brian Williams Suspended From NBC News

[Cowboysrock55]

Republicans bitch about welfare on one side then turn around and hand out bailouts to companies that should have to file for bankruptcy and be reorganized.

They aren't really against entitlements, they just have different ideas about who should get them.

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.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Sometimes I suspect you guys are just annoyed by poor people getting assistance.

Annoyed, not at all. Aware that it is a big part of our economy not doing well? Absolutely.

I don't consider myself Democrat or Republican though so maybe you weren't referring to me when you said "you guys?"

 

[Kbrown]

Annoyed, not at all. Aware that it is a big part of our economy not doing well? Absolutely.

I don't consider myself Democrat or Republican though so maybe you weren't referring to me when you said "you guys?"

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.

Most of my views are conservative, but I like to think in terms of returning power to local communities and the traditional sources of charity (eg. churches), rather than a "people are only poor because they are lazy" mentality. Probably more a rhetoric thing than anything else.

 

[Cotton]

But the fact remains that, at least in your view, the government can actively influence the economy in a positive way, which is counter to conservatism (classical liberalism).

Sometimes I suspect you guys are just annoyed by poor people getting assistance. I don't mean that as a slam. It's just a product of the modern Republican party's counter-class-warfare. The left wing started the have v. have-nots thing.

Student loans are a way that the govt can directly affect the economy, and I'm for that, too.

Listen, I wasn't for the bailouts, but comparing them to welfare is careless and lazy.

 

[Cotton]

A bailout and a loan are essentially the same thing. One is a formal request for assistance and the other is deemed a neccessary action because of the implications. The too big to fail ideology is a theory that says the domino effect of the failure would jepordize the economic well being of the entire country.

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.

 

[Cotton]

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.

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.

Most of my views are conservative, but I like to think in terms of returning power to local communities and the traditional sources of charity (eg. churches), rather than a "people are only poor because they are lazy" mentality. Probably more a rhetoric thing than anything else.

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]

What are the repercussions to companies' squandering their loans and failing to return to profitablity? We can't let them fail, after all.

 

[Cotton]

What are the repercussions to companies' squandering their loans and failing to return to profitablity? We can't let them fail, after all.

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.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Corporate bailouts are almost without exception repaid and the program saves jobs that benefit the economy as opposed to welfare programs that contributes nothing to the economy. That is the difference in a conservative versus a liberal view of economics just to name one point.

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.

Trying to force state-supported institutions to succeed, despite their failures in management (and ruinous union contracts) is socialism, which Republicans complain about when the Democrats are doing it.

 

[Cotton]

Trying to force state-supported institutions to succeed, despite their failures in management (and ruinous union contracts) is socialism, which Republicans complain about when the Democrats are doing it.

I guess you and I have different views on socialism, because I don't see that at all.

 

[Clay_Allison]

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.

In a socialist economy you have "private" corporations but they are put in place, regulated, and subsidized by the government, like utility companies. More specifically, it's Keynesian socialism. I don't know how old you are, but it's the sort of thing that drove the British automotive industry out of business in the 70s. Their car companies kept failing due to regulations and unions (sound familiar?) and they kept being bailed out and nationalized/reorganized by the Labour Party's government to keep the unions that voted for them in place (sound familiar?).

 

[Kbrown]

I guess you and I have different views on socialism, because I don't see that at all.

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.

Why can't a small business expect a government loan to keep it afloat? Because government bureaucrats don't deem it worthy or big enough?

"Conservatism."

 

[L.T. Fan]

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.

Most of my views are conservative, but I like to think in terms of returning power to local communities and the traditional sources of charity (eg. churches), rather than a "people are only poor because they are lazy" mentality. Probably more a rhetoric thing than anything else.

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 .

 

[L.T. Fan]

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.

Trying to force state-supported institutions to succeed, despite their failures in management (and ruinous union contracts) is socialism, which Republicans complain about when the Democrats are doing it.

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.

 

[Cotton]

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.

In a socialist economy you have "private" corporations but they are put in place, regulated, and subsidized by the government, like utility companies. More specifically, it's Keynesian socialism. I don't know how old you are, but it's the sort of thing that drove the British automotive industry out of business in the 70s. Their car companies kept failing due to regulations and unions (sound familiar?) and they kept being bailed out and nationalized/reorganized by the Labour Party's government to keep the unions that voted for them in place (sound familiar?).

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.

 

[Clay_Allison]

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.

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.

I know that reading economic history is just newfangled booklearnin' to you but if you could stop talking down to people for a few minutes and understand history you'd realize that not everyone you are talking to is an idiot.

 

[Cotton]

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.

Why can't a small business expect a government loan to keep it afloat? Because government bureaucrats don't deem it worthy or big enough?

"Conservatism."

Farmers get bailed out all the time. "Reality"

 

[L.T. Fan]

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.

I know that reading economic history is just newfangled booklearnin' to you but if you could stop talking down to people for a few minutes and understand history you'd realize that not everyone you are talking to is an idiot.

Talking down? If you understand what I said and responded how is that talking down?

 

[skidadl]

I think anyone who describes democrats as liberal or republicans as conservative is greatly overreaching. Politicians all like to expand government and increase spending. Dems and Reps only disagree on how it should grow and where we should spend.

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.

 

[Kbrown]

Farmers get bailed out all the time. "Reality"

Farm subsidies are socialist too.