Have you ever considered why we choose the systems of government we have? Im not sure if this questions belongs in politics, but from my viewpoint our system of choice is chosen by the least amount of greed. Democracy gives the people A LOT of freedom, and places laws and whatnot to keep its citizens safe (we also have the power to take someone out of power if they aren't serving properly I think). Then it gets broken down into parties and what not (governmental power in conservatism, power revolves more around people in liberlism). Then we get systems like communism in which the government has complete control over everything, creating a giant gap between the wealthy and the working class, the gov. keeping tons of money, food, supplies and whatnot. Very greedy. Or a system like dictatorship where all power is in the hands of ONE person, free to take all he or she wants for their family, free to kill whoever he or she wants to with the flick of the wrist. No care for the people and their living conditions as long as he or she is happy (other systems, feel free to expand :)). Is it kind of sad that we have to determine how our country is run based on the extremity of greed?

I believe our fore- fathers began a democratic government to escape the old ideas of dictatorship, communism and the like to create a system for equality of all people to share in their governments processes and provide oppurtunity to everyone in their pursuit of happiness. One in which the people of all income levels and stature would have to abide by the same rules. A system in which all people had a say in their governments dealings. All of the systems broken down from the judicial, executive and legislative branches all have their place in keeping fair order and protection of this countries libertys. It may not always be a perfect one, but by far the greatest invention of mankind unlike the world has ever seen in it's past and still succeeds those other of our present.

I agree! I majored in government and politics in college and can tell you that one of the main reasons we chose our form of government was in reaction to the types of governments in Europe and England at the time, and in the past.

One major example of this is our desire to keep religion and government separate. You can see all kinds of horrors resulting from the old European practice of people being penalized by their government for something that was considered a sin, or such things as burning women for being witches.

Another thing we made sure was not in our form of government was the old practice of having "titles of nobility" wherein certain people were automatically better than others if they were born into certain families.

In short, earlier forms of government were often cruel, ever barbaric, in their operation and did not offer rights to their citizens such as we have today. Our forefathers recognized this as evil and patterned our form of government to grant the people the right to govern themselves rather than basing it on some monarch's or "royal" family's claim to rule.

In short, our form of government was established mainly to avoid the evils of past forms of government. By the way, Communism was not in existence when our nation was founded.

[QUOTE=JimGunther;1497143]I agree! I majored in government and politics in college and can tell you that one of the main reasons we chose our form of government was in reaction to the types of governments in Europe and England at the time, and in the past.

If you agree sir, you can always rate my answer as such!

But thanks for the further insight. I did not know that communism was not in effect at that time. Can you explain some other forms of government in existence in those days?

Around here they don't really like it when you ask a new question in response to someone else's question. However I will briefly state that most governments at that time were monarchies or other related forms of government where the king/ruler had pretty much absolute power based on a concept known as the divine right of kings, or simply the fact that the ruler had the strongest army.

Also in England for example the government was controlled by the state church. But in our form of government separation of church and state does not mean what the ACLU has twisted it into today. It only meant that the state (government) could not dictate which or what religion was the official religion of the realm. In other words, you are free to worship in any church that you feel is correct for you.

Have you ever considered why we choose the systems of government we have? Im not sure if this questions belongs in politics, but from my viewpoint our system of choice is chosen by the least amount of greed. Democracy gives the people A LOT of freedom, and places laws and whatnot to keep its citizens safe (we also have the power to take someone out of power if they arent serving properly i think). Then it gets broken down into parties and what not (governmental power in conservatism, power revolves more around people in liberlism). Then we get systems like communism in which the government has complete control over everything, creating a giant gap between the wealthy and the working class, the gov. keeping tons of money, food, supplies and whatnot. Very greedy. Or a system like dictatorship where all power is in the hands of ONE person, free to take all he or she wants for their family, free to kill whoever he or she wants to with the flick of the wrist. No care for the people and their living conditions as long as he or she is happy (other systems, feel free to expand :)). Is it kind of sad that we have to determine how our country is run based on the extremity of greed?


Some of your assumptions are a bit off. Communism attempted to narrow the gap between the wealthy and the working class. In a communist state the goal is for everyone to make the same amount of money and have the same lifestyle and simply be happy that they are serving the collective good. The system in theory is the least 'greedy' of them all. However, people will be people and those in power in a communist system wanted special privileges for themselves; it becomes corrupt. But the system itself is not greedy in terms of distribution of wealth, quite the opposite. Is that system good, by most accounts, no.

Capitalism on the otherhand uses greed quite well. It is the drive for more that drives capitalism, which creates economic expansion; hence more more products, inventiveness, and then jobs as people with capital (money) will try to make more of it.

So capitalism is the greedist of all systems, and it has a large disparity between wealthy and the working class; but as the rich get richer, the argument is that the working class will be pulled along with them to a higher standard of living.

Most democracies have capitalism because democracies (the people) will not stand for the government control that communism requires to make sure greed doesn't get out of hand and that all people are making the same or similar amounts of money, etc.

So I don't really understand your point, or you have it backwards. In my opinion, greed is good, greed is capitalism, democracies are capitalistic and greed as a system (provided that the greed is legal and people aren't defrauded of their hard earned money) is what fuels the economies of the world.

I disagree that greed is good with respects to capitalism and besides greed is NOT a system. Greed is a human characteristic used to divide people whether you label it legal or not. With "greed" comes displaced power.

To quote the words of John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, or Baron Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

Therefore any political system will always be "greedy" due to imperfect man.

Capitalism is an economic system not a mode of governing people.

Is it really greed or self interest that drives the consumer to get the best value for their money? Is that a bad thing? Is it greedy to pay $3 dollars for a gallon of milk instead of $6for that same gallon of milk.



Most democracies have capitalism because democracies (the people) will not stand for the government control that communism requires to make sure greed doesn't get out of hand and that all people are making the same or similar amounts of money, etc.



Was Stalin's and Mao's killing tens of millions an attempt to make sure that "greed does not get out of hand?"







G&P

Sorry, keep in mind that I am by no means highly educated on government and politics, this was simply an observation I made when I was considering I theory I have. Again sorry, I didn't mean to impose that when our nation started we sat around asking which system to use lol, I just gave examples of some governments more greed oriented.

I disagree that greed is good with respects to capitalism and besides greed is NOT a system. Greed is a human characteristic used to divide people whether you label it legal or not. With "greed" comes displaced power.

To quote the words of John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, or Baron Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

Therefore any political system will always be "greedy" due to imperfect man.

Aha you touch down on some of my theory. I don't know if others have already explored it, by my starting point was the fact that greed seems to be a sort of human condition. I spread from there by relating it to every person on the planet, creating global greed. It all took off from there lol. However, I disagree about the fact that anyone who comes to power will have be greedy. I don't think its been seen in government, but I believe that sooner or later someone with come to power who WILL be able to possess the will power to resist such temptations of power, and make one of the greatest to lead a country. Perhaps on that day, a new system will be born. (p.s that's just off the top of my head, I just want opposing viewpoints.)

[QUOTE=JimGunther;1497143]I agree!! I majored in government and politics in college and can tell you that one of the main reasons we chose our form of government was in reaction to the types of governments in Europe and England at the time, and in the past.

If you agree sir, you can always rate my answer as such!

But thanks for the further insight. I did not know that communism was not in effect at that time. Can you explain some other forms of government in existence in those days?

Yep, I'm pretty sure the kick start of communism (more so as what we know it today) was Karl Marx writings during the Russian Revolution. They thought it was going to take off in England or some other big country, instead it turned into more of a socialist party in russia.

ALSO! Would anyone care to share their thoughts on this: Consider the economic crisis the world is in right now, I live in Canada and this is what I'm witnessing. I see people losing jobs, not able to pay rent, no groceries. Im sitting here thinking, everyone's turing to the government for bailouts, loans, and just plain help, and realizing that it could have a domino effect. Once the people become so dependent on the government, they begin to set stricter regulations, they jack taxes, enforce tighter laws, and aggressive law enforcement. They have to lock us into a narrower path, and this government is starting to remind me of Socialism of the milder type. But like what was stated earlier, man is not perfect, the one in charge can take the power and run with it.

Some of your assumptions are a bit off. Communism attempted to narrow the gap between the wealthy and the working class. In a communist state the goal is for everyone to make the same amount of money and have the same lifestyle and simply be happy that they are serving the collective good. The system in theory is the least 'greedy' of them all. However, people will be people and those in power in a communist system wanted special privileges for themselves; it becomes corrupt. But the system itself is not greedy in terms of distribution of wealth, quite the opposite. Is that system good, by most accounts, no.

Capitalism on the otherhand uses greed quite well. It is the drive for more that drives capitalism, which creates economic expansion; hence more more products, inventiveness, and then jobs as people with capital (money) will try to make more of it.

So capitalism is the greedist of all systems, and it has a large disparity between wealthy and the working class; but as the rich get richer, the argument is that the working class will be pulled along with them to a higher standard of living.

Most democracies have capitalism because democracies (the people) will not stand for the government control that communism requires to make sure greed doesn't get out of hand and that all people are making the same or similar amounts of money, etc.

So I don't really understand your point, or you have it backwards. In my opinion, greed is good, greed is capitalism, democracies are capitalistic and greed as a system (provided that the greed is legal and people aren't defrauded of their hard earned money) is what fuels the economies of the world.

Sorry, when I stated the word "system" I assumed it would be realized that they are RUN by people, people will be people. And I'm pretty sure those in government in those systems are damn well off, but the people suffer. There is a huge gap between the higher-ups and the working class. Whaddaya think?

ALSO! Would anyone care to share their thoughts on this: Consider the economic crisis the world is in right now, i live in Canada and this is what im witnessing. I see people losing jobs, not able to pay rent, no groceries. Im sitting here thinking, everyones turing to the government for bailouts, loans, and just plain help, and realizing that it could have a domino effect. Once the people become so dependant on the government, they begin to set stricter regulations, they jack taxes, enforce tighter laws, and aggressive law enforcement. They have to lock us into a narrower path, and this government is starting to remind me of Socialism of the milder type. But like what was stated earlier, man is not perfect, the one in charge can take the power and run with it.

That's a very good point. Because of the fact that corporations and commerce ran things into the ground due to there ways of greed and selfish activities, big brother now has to step in and take charge, but it would be destructive to do so without enacting tighter stipulations upon further progression. Otherwise we are destined to repeat the collapse of our economy and fracture the oppurtunity originally given to everyone to venture a life they are deserving of. What then would the American dream be worth?

Congress' Financial Mess by Walter Williams -- Capitalism Magazine (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5397)




One-third of the $15 trillion of mortgages in existence in 2008 are owned, or securitized by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, the Federal Housing and the Veterans Administration. Wall Street buyers of repackaged loans didn't mind buying risky paper because they assumed that they would be guaranteed by the federal government: read bailout from the taxpayers. Today's housing mess can be laid directly at the feet of Congress and the White House.




Ask yourself: where has the first 350 billion in TARP gone? What good has it done?








G&P

ALSO! Would anyone care to share their thoughts on this: Consider the economic crisis the world is in right now, i live in Canada and this is what im witnessing. I see people losing jobs, not able to pay rent, no groceries. Im sitting here thinking, everyones turing to the government for bailouts, loans, and just plain help, and realizing that it could have a domino effect. Once the people become so dependant on the government, they begin to set stricter regulations, they jack taxes, enforce tighter laws, and aggressive law enforcement. They have to lock us into a narrower path, and this government is starting to remind me of Socialism of the milder type. But like what was stated earlier, man is not perfect, the one in charge can take the power and run with it.

When the free market fails; government steps in. When the free market fails and it affects the nation as a whole; government steps in. If the government didn't step in to rescue the banking system, then more people would be out of work, more retirement and other savings would be lost, pensions, etc. It's not socialist, it's the last resort.

The true test of the governments leanings will be when the banking system recovers. Right now it's unfair to label the government anything other than people trying to do what is best for the people of our countries in the face of this finanical crisis.

When the free market fails; government steps in. When the free market fails and it affects the nation as a whole; government steps in. If the government didn't step in to rescue the banking system, then more people would be out of work, more retirement and other savings would be lost, pensions, etc. It's not socialist, it's the last resort.

The true test of the governments leanings will be when the banking system recovers. Right now it's unfair to label the government anything other than people trying to do what is best for the people of our countries in the face of this finanical crisis.

Sorry, I haven't yet labeled the government anything. Im simply suggesting a course this crisis could run, and see if others agree with my fear.

Lets look at why we have this housing bubble that is at the root of this recession;

CRA and the likes of the past administration and the Dems like Frank and Dodds that were supppose to keeping an eye out for us.

Nice job by the politicians.

And it isn't the government that bails us out, it is the taxpayor that pays for these bailouts
.

Bush had it right the first time when the dotcom buble burst - lower taxes. Let the people and the businesses that produce things keep more of their hard earned money.

Bush screwed up this past 6 months, thinking that government and paulson, by spending more money, is going to get us out of this mess. Now Obama thinks government is the answer!







G&P

See, I see it a totally different way. Government has been unable to fix anything, EVER! So what makes a person believe that they can step in now and fix the mess that they created?
This whole mess was started back in about 1977 with the infamous jimmy carter, and his belief that everybody should own a house. It was further perpetrated in about 1998 with that foolish man in the oval office that took that doctrine and pushed it even further by threatening banks that failed to offer loans to people that had no hope of ever paying off the loans. Freddy and fannie are government run businesses that were/are overseen by congress. So who failed to do the oversight? Government again. So again what makes anyone believe that the biggest crooks the world has ever seen will do a good job of this mess?

Lets look at why we have this housing bubble that is at the root of this recession;

CRA and the likes of the past administration and the Dems like Frank and Dodds that were supppose to keeping an eye out for us.

Nice job by the politicians.

And it isn't the government that bails us out, it is the taxpayor that pays for these bailouts
.

Bush had it right the first time when the dotcom buble burst - lower taxes. Let the people and the businesses that produce things keep more of their hard earned money.

Bush screwed up this past 6 months, thinking that government and paulson, by spending more money, is going to get us out of this mess. Now Obama thinks government is the answer!!







G&P

So did Bush think that Government was the answer, if the Republican's couldn't find a free market solution what makes you think there is one? What is your answer, should nobody have been bailed out? On the surface I wouldn't mind letting all those who took a risk, fail. I mean that's the risk right, you invest to make money and have no problem cashing in, but when you lose money you should lose it.

However, the breadth and scope of the fraud (yes fraud, burying bad paper -worthless loans- with other investment vehicles so that you keep making money without telling the investor that they are getting sour milk is fraud) affects every aspect of our financial system. To do nothing would affect individuals and corporations in much worse ways despite the fact that I wouldn't not bailing them out.

There is no free market solution to the immediate crisis at hand, if you have one, please suggest it.

As I said previously, when the free market fails, Government steps in.

Circular:

Government played a huge role in this mess. Or do you deny that fannie and freddy were not GSEs?

Now government is trying to fix the mess they created? Lets start with a potential Treasury secretary that cannot even pay his own taxes. This is what you place your faith and hope on?



Better ways?

Neal Boortz : There is a better stimulus plan out there - Townhall.com (http://townhall.com/columnists/NealBoortz/2009/01/12/there_is_a_better_stimulus_plan_out_there)








Instead of bureaucrats and politicians deciding how all of this money is going to be spent, why not let the people who actually worked for this cash make their own independent spending decisions for this money. How would you do that? Simple: declare a five-month tax holiday. From February through June everybody keeps their paycheck. No income tax withholding … no payroll taxes. What will the people do with this money? What, are you crazy? They'll spend it, that's what. Talk about stimulating the economy!




Mary Fallin : A Stimulus That Works - Townhall.com (http://townhall.com/columnists/MaryFallin/2009/01/14/a_stimulus_that_works)






It is based on principles recognized by Republican and Democratic presidents alike: tax cuts work, growth begins with the middle class, and recovery comes fastest when we allow Americans to keep more of their own money.







G&P

Yeah, that reallyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy doesn't help me on my report ; you see it's about how our goerment is a good one!!