Hi David,
On May 12, 2009, at 8:13 PM, David R. Block wrote:
Let Chrysler and GM go belly up.
I'm not seeing your point. Last I checked, Chrysler and GM _are_
going into bankruptcy, no?
http://www.mmorning.com/ArticleC.asp?Article=6830&CategoryID=7
Let AIG go belly up. Bust up Fannie and Freddie. This is hardly
thinking that they can do no wrong. We have bankruptcy law, use it.
Don't impose the settlement upon the participants without due
process from the Executive Branch (I think that's unconstitutional,
by the way).
Actually, the settlement is a condition of financial aid. I'm pretty
sure you make people agree to almost anything in exchange for money.
I believe it is called capitalism. :-)
If a Republican had done what Obama is doing with Chrysler, AIG, and
GM, there would be such shrieking, wailing and gnashing of teeth
that one could not hear themselves think.
Last I checked, Bush was the one who started bailing out AIG, no? The
only ones shrieking then was the Right -- who still are, aren't they?
So what's the difference again?
Suppose that it were Apple instead of Chrysler. The same thing
should happen, right?
Again, not sure I follow you. Say that Apple had a huge network of
suppliers and retirees dependent upon it, would I prefer:
a) total collapse
b) a managed bankruptcy that allows it to restructure its business, at
the price of restrictions on executive compensation
I'd gladly choose (b).
Government is evil when bond holders and executives get death
threats over LEGAL acts, largely because the President has used the
Bully Pulpit (emphasis on BULLY) to rouse the leftist rabble into a
nice little rage. Bus tours and protests at AIG Executives homes,
isn't that cute? Obama doesn't stand between them and the pitchforks
as he claims, but rather Obama ENCOURAGES the pitchforks via ACORN
and others. THAT is evil.
Oh, I fully agree there is lots of ridiculous rage vented at Wall
Street -- I just think of it as populist, not Leftist:
That is my larger point. There are certainly legitimate criticisms to
make -- but all the fault is hardly on one side.
Like it or not, and you must not, Conservatives and Libertarians are
people too. I know that we are supposed to have sprouted horns and a
tail, but damn.
Huh? You of all people should know that I always try to listen to you
respectfully; I apologize if my last terse exaggerated statement over-
simplified things.
I do believe that conservatives and libertarians are right about as
often (and wrong about as often) as the liberals and socialists on the
left. Both are human, both make mistakes, both are trying to do the
right thing as best as they see it. As am I.
What I am against is the desire to over-simplify the situation to put
all the horns and tail on the *other* side, without acknowledging our
own.
The fact of the matter is, both Wall Street *and* the Government
screwed up big time, in different ways, and are equally causes of the
crises. The painful truth is that while Wall Street may not deserve
the blame it is getting now, but they didn't really deserve all the
money and credit (literal and figurative) they were getting before.
Life is just, just not in the short term.
The flip side is that government intervention -- however hypocritical,
self-serving, and often misguided -- _does_ have a valid place.
Libertarians are so quick to say _nothing_ should or can be done by
the government, it makes it almost impossible to discuss the actual
_evidence about what government can and can't do.
A lot of libertarians and conservatives are comparing this
administration with Jimmy Carter. I no longer think that is correct.
The correct comparison would be with Richard Milhous Nixon. You
have the unwritten enemies list (capitalists and non-union members)
versus a written one, and using the tax code (proposed) to limit
charitable contributions (can't have the government competing with
private charity, government has to have a monopoly) versus audits of
political enemies (and that is probably coming).
I'm sorry, as someone who is likely to be impacted by the charitable
contribution limits, I can honestly say that it won't make a
noticeable difference in how much money I give to charity. I always
thought it was the Left that felt rich people were so mean they
primarily only give money away because of the tax deduction.
That is what I mean be "selective use of data." From the way you
talk, you make it sound like everything Obama does is part of a grand
conspiracy to subvert and destroy everything good about America.
Which is pretty much _exactly_ how the Left sounded about Bush during
his presidency?
Doesn't that give you even a little pause, to find yourself treading
that same path?
-- Ernie P.
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
