Rocker Has Good Post
As is so often the case, RightWingRocker has a good post. It references an article in PRAVDA that is more than somewhat enlightening. The Russians see what is happening here. Check it out.
Just an observation.
posted by Ol' BC @ 10:16 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Yes, yes, yes. By now we have all bloody agreed that we are bailing out a bunch of thieves. The question is: what is your solution?
It is my understanding that the right wing has no solution beyond "let the banks fail". I am really not sure this is prudent. I would like to see a bail out followed by reinstatment of regulation, followed by the sacking of the thieves.
This tune is played. Do you have any ideas, is what I would ask...
First, stop taxing them--and us. Second, stop regulating them--and us. Third, stop doing anything that is not specifically mandated in the US Constitution. Fourth, observe and enforce each and every Amendment in the Bill of Rights--to the letter. I might think of more, but this would be a good start.
Then, if a bank or other business can't remain solvent and profitable, it deserves to fail.
Then, if a bank or other business can't remain solvent and profitable, it deserves to fail.
And let it.
Heads and shoulders above allowing the government in to screw it up even more.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
It's also time to rein in the thieves in Washington. Thanks for the link, Ol' BC!
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Okay, let's look at this rationally, since I have been accused of not looking at people's viewpoints critically.
Your first point: Stop taxing us.
Do you mean absolutely no taxes? If so, I would be interested to know what you really envision our country would look like after ten years of private ownership of the military, roads, fire departments, schools, and police departments would look like. This is not to mention what our environment would look like... please illuminate.
2. Stop regulation. It was precisely lack of regulation that has gotten us into the quagmires we are in. I have heard it from the lips of countless economists. If you are not speaking of this sort of regulation, what regulation are you referring to?
3 and 4 are alright on the surface, but they you do not take into account human interpretation. The fact is, words of any kind will be interpreted differently by different people. To the letter is in many ways unattainable due to human understanding.
Mark,
1. We can't know, because it hasn't been tried in our lifetime. It can't be worse than it is now. Well, it can--let's watch for the next 7-1/2 years.
The Roman Catholic Church has been living on voluntary contributions for quite a long time....and they seem to be doing ok, even in spite of many unChristian peccadilloes. A proper Constitutional government ought to be able to do it. In fact, we did for a century or so.
2. If you think that the banks, the auto companies and Wall Street have been unregulated all these years, you've been living in a bubble. What more do you want? Shall we require them to ask permission to go to the bathroom?
3 & 4. If we speak English and use the Webster's Unabridged, we will all be able to understand what "Congress shall make no law" means.
1. The Church relies on faith and the fear of death to promote people to contribute money. Comparing church and state is extremely fallacious reasoning, as the motivations for contribution are completely and utterly different. If you think people would voluntarily give money to the government, you are overlooking some fundamental aspects of human nature. To wit: If the government didn't hang the fear of jail over our heads for not paying taxes, do you think people would pay taxes?
If your answer is no, then you must conclude that the fear is the driving motivation. If you think people would pay taxes anyway, why then do we have the threat of jail? Precisely because people wouldn't pay their taxes. Your argument falls apart.
2. I didn't say these industries have not been regulated. I called for regulation, meaning the regulation should stay in place and be enforced. Enforcement apparently was lacking all these years.
3. Your reducing the constitution to something that can be argued using a dictionary is intensely simplistic. In some instances, this may be right, however, we have judges and arbiters in this society precisely because language is notoriously difficult to interpret and it is likewise difficult to get at the spirit of the meaning intended by the authors. To wit: Look up law here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/law
and you will find 27 different meanings and entries for the word "law". Thus, meaning is anything but concrete, isn't it?
Mark
The point here is that things are REALLY FUCKED UP in your country when the RUSSIANS point out hot horrifically stupid your socialism has become.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Yes, yes, yes. By now we have all bloody agreed that we are bailing out a bunch of thieves. The question is: what is your solution?
Stop bailing out thieves, starting with the ones in Washington, DC.
Simple and effective.
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com
Post a Comment
<< Home