posted from an ipod,please forgive typos.
Isnt it a sign of rational weakness that neo cons continue to reduce complex arguments to buzzwords? Socialist,communist,nationalize,terrorist and etc
The focus on extremes represents a strong reliance on the strawman argument of using irrelevant and extreme examples to slander more complicates resolutions. For instance, how do you feel about the idea of bailing out AIG with taxpayers money and then leaving AIG to their own devices? Doesn't it make sense that those who pay the bill ie taxpayers and government by extension then hold the rights to that company and reserve the
ownership temporarily until such time that essentially this investment matures and is prudent to resell to private markets?
the real outrage is that the bailout had to happen in the first place, not that the government should try to control these failures after the fact. In more regulated and more liberal Canada we have no failing banks and actually the most prudent and strong banks in the world right now. We simply werent reactive, we were proactive and regulated without some free market ideological zealotry. Use common sense America, stop focusing on buzzwords and bipolar ideologues.

*Hah at home now and not constrained to the thumb typings of an ipod touch*

I would like to say that I dont support Nationalizing things, private markets that are subject to good regulation run things the best. However the idea that unregulated free markets will act in the macro-economy's best interest is just foolish. Ill outline what the logic is of well regulated markets versus the republican platform:

GOP: Businesses deregulated->less restrictions on individuals->this leads to high risk-> either high return or high losses. If high return->individuals get huge bonuses, if high loss-> individuals might get a salary cap at 500,000 but the corporate entity will be bailed out by the government.

It makes sense why people act so ridiculously under the neo-con system of markets, people want to earn high bonuses and personal salary and not simply make the entity they work for wealthy and thus the shareholders. This is a situation of you being at a blackjack table and being able to gamble with other peoples money, of course you are going to play and play risky. When you lose you dont lose anything personally, when you win your able to take a large portion of the winnings.

In a well regulated moderate and ideologically unbiased society we try something different.

Businesses Regulated->this restricts amount of risk a business can take-> individuals still likely to act in self interest but it is their self interest to not go to jail->moderate risk taken-> Strong financial institutions amidst global credit crisis.
That sounds like something a terrorist-loving socialist would say.
Whoa, Nationalist Socialist is also what Nazi stood for.
Vexonater wrote:
Whoa, Nationalist Socialist is also what Nazi stood for.

funnily enough the Nazis hated socialists ;)
"moves to canada"