Where is the compassion in capitalism?
|
Where is the compassion in capitalism?
It was to avoid a worldwide depression - a drastic step, yes, but necessary. I assume you would have let the banks fail regardless of the result.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The Preamble to the US Constitution says to "promote the general welfare", not "promote individual rights".Quote:
Our system was designed to protect individual rights ;not group ,not the collective
In allowing anyone who is willing to work hard to be able to make a good living.
What's your definition of "work hard"?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
What's your definition of a "good living"?
If you don’t know what those two mean then I can’t help you.
Share your compassion out of your own pocket . Where is the virtue in forcing someone else to pay for your compassion ?Quote:
Where is the compassion in capitalism?
Thus, there is no compassion in capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Preambles do not confer either rights or powers . There is also a general welfare clause in Article 1 Sec 8 . Then the framers made it very clear after that what powers the Federal Government had to spend on the General welfare . They were specific as a matter of fact ...or as us conservatives like to say ;the powers of the government are enumerated . They did that for a reason . They did not want the states to lose their powers to decide spending priorities . The powers of the Federal Government being few and enumerated ;Everything else was left for the states to decide . They further strengthened that with the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights .'Quote:
The Preamble to the US Constitution says to "promote the general welfare", not "promote individual rights".
With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. (James Madison Federalist 45)
An economic system that leaves people free to pursue economic fulfillment is quite compassionate.
Developing new technology takes money and last I checked government has been PARTNERING with the private sector to do just that. I darn near fell off my chair at the notion of banks being compelled to take money against their will. LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What was I thinking? Of course you're right. Screw voting and just let the rich guys run the show. I'm sure their social engineering is better than the governments. Sure you ain't a Chinese sympathizer trying reverse psychology? Define socialism for gosh sakes.Quote:
All the government control comes at a cost of liberty . The more the welfare state is adopted the more intrusive and oppressive government becomes. Planning by means of command is not freedom. Our system was designed to protect individual rights ;not group ,not the collective . For that alone I the socialist agenda . You see it now with all the blacklist postings I make . A democracy that socialists create is NOT liberal in the classical sense. It is illiberal where the woke or the Jacobins or Maoist or Stalinists do essentially the same thing to varying degrees ....social engineering to make sure human free thought is purged .
It was a rhetorical question as anybody that knows you understands your racial bias is GREEN! I don't mean Martians either. Throwing out those meme labels without defining them doesn't help the case you're making and implies BIAS.Quote:
exactly the thought control I just spoke of . Smear anyone who opposes your agenda as a racist .You are better than that
I.e., An economic system that leaves ONLY A FEW people free to pursue economic fulfillment ISN'T VERY compassionate.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Give an example.
You are the first example that comes to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
your assumption is correct . I don't believe in too big to fail. If banks know there are no consequences for risky reckless behavior they act accordingly. Bank failures were not catastrophic before 2008 . Why was the prospect of CitiCorp going down a game changer ? Would you care if Amazon or Microsoft went belly up ? Would you want the Government to bail them out ? Both are much bigger than any of the big banks ever were . We have FDIC . So the only people who would've taken a hit was the investors . The government bailed out the investors at the expense of main street . Why would you favor that ? Because you believe the lie that the whole house of cards was going to tumble ? You were sold a bill of goods . The economy would've taken a temporary hit ..... not a decade long recession .Quote:
I assume you would have let the banks fail regardless of the result.
and who is to blame for this state of affairs, politicians and lobbyists
Very good!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The perfect squelch. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Then you would have no objection to the states redistributing income and, as you put it, coercing taxpayers to pay others?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
And millions of employees, tangential businesses and their employees, the whole structure of finance - domestic and international. GM was also saved plus all the subsidiary companies down to the local delis and McDonald's.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The bill of goods sold was the deregulation leading up to the Great Recession, and the criminal actions of Wall Street and the ratings agencies in the pocket of the banks selling toxic collaterilized bonds.Quote:
You were sold a bill of goods .
Rather unsurprisingly, you left out yourself. You also left out everyone on this board. You also left out the tens of millions of Americans who have worked hard and done well for themselves. Remember all of them?Quote:
You are the first example that comes to mind.
Or the government pushing sub prime mortgages like il duce did when he ran HUDQuote:
The bill of goods sold was the deregulation leading up to the Great Recession,
If you're referring to the CRA, that was passed in the 1970s and it's hard to see that as a major contributing factor. Most of the analyses of the Great Recession did not point a finger at the CRA (at least not that I could find). The chief culprits were the rating agencies and the investment banks especially Goldman who Taibbi called "a great vampire squid".Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The pushing of subprime mortgages was the work of the banks packaging these and reselling them as AAA securities even tho they were garbage and soon defaulted, leading to the recession.
Thanks for bringing up Taibbi in your recent post - I had forgotten about him and it's good to be back reading him.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:33 PM. |