Greece? Poland? That’s what conservatives wanted us to do.
Having said that, I disagree with the concept that socialism requires true ownership anymore. “Regulatory ownership” is just as socialist.
I also disagree with most of the pooling of resources at the federal level and by force.
Since dems really aren’t pushing true socialism, ideas like ‘‘Regulatory ownership’’ will become the new false prophet of the 18th century constitutionalist. When you look around and see no one is really advocating the social ownership of the means of production and workers’ self-management. All they have left is the creation of ‘‘Regulatory ownership’’ straw men.
Necessary evil like taxes. With capitalism and monetary gain at stake, some businesses will take advantage of their customers, to the point of causing injury to them. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need government regulation.
Again, in a perfect world everyone would have the means to provide for themselves. We need a means of insurance.
There has to be balance.
The commerce clause has been abused probably more than any other part of the Constitution.
Is it my responsibility to provide for you or you for me?
Which do you prefer, mediocrity or excellence?
Responsibility? I guess not. However, if you want to live in society, you could consider it a duty. There were always be sick, unlucky or disabled people. There will always be rich and poor. The more of a gap you place between the have and have nots, and the more desperate the have nots become, the more instability, crime and discontent there is.
If you want to live as a hermit, go live on a remote island. If you want to live in society, it’s in everyone’s best interest for people to be clothed, fed and healthy.
I don’t want to live in a garbage society. Sick or disabled, I’ll help. You need luck to get rich, not make a living. It’s just work, no magic to it.
You give a man a crutch, you turn him into a cripple.
Hand up, not hand out.
Ask, don’t tell.
None of these social programs should be “free” to the recipient, with the exception of the severely disabled. All of these programs are under the auspice that society will get more out of the individual that it helped than it would had if it did not help.
And yet they do and yet it doesn’t. The way we’re doing it has created a class dependent on it and growing.
The crash was largely, if not mostly caused by government interference to begin with. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both crashed early in 2008 and everything went downhill from there. The collapse of the two was due to banks being forced to loan money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back…
What shouldn’t be done is massive tax hikes and new, multi-trillion dollar entitlement programs that bog down the economy further. When companies and tax payers have less money in their pockets, they spend less. Consumer spending drives our economy, not government redistribution.
Historical facts don’t lie. Obama was the first president who never hit a 3% GDP rate, at least since 1929. True, he inherited an economy hurt badly by the 2008 crash, but it wasn’t the worst economy any president had inherited since then. EVERY president since then managed to have years that hit, or exceeded 3%, We had 8 years of his policies and his response was that 2% is the new normal. Either he was inept, or evil in deliberately holding back our economic growth. Which is it?
Stagnant wages, increasing CPI and greater income inequality have led to a population dependent on social programs. The social programs didn’t make them dependent.
The big problem is the belief that takes hold in societies that there is an endless supply of other peoples money. When a nation of people discover they can vote themselves “free” stuff, they inevitably do, and politicians are all too happy to oblige because it gets them elected and re-elected. Companies realize that they can gouge the government because of this endless money supply. Prices go up, taxes go up to pay the rising costs to companies and the tax payers get screwed coming and going. However, once a program is in place, it is impossible to bring it under control and no politician will vote to abolish it. The larger the population and economy, the larger the problem. We have HUGE problems in every government run program which is why I am against them.
Politicians have no incentive to genuinely fix the problems inherent in big government entitlements because they aren’t going to bite the corporate hands that feed them or stop the donations from voters who believe they will. For politicians, doing nothing is in their best interest and that is what they do the most, except for thinking up new entitlements to “help” some new group of needy tax payers- and it goes on and on…
I firmly believe that this is not what the founding fathers wanted because they didn’t envision full time career politicians feeding for decades and getting rich on the tax payers money. They didn’t envision an income tax either, ( which itself was a secret scheme of theft) which has become the largest portion of revenue for the government. They couldn’t have intended what they didn’t foresee. The only reason that any entitlement hasn’t been ruled outright unconstitutional is because every current justice has lived their lives in a country with a social security system in place from their childhood. BTW, FDR never intended for Social Security to continue permanently. It’s the perfect example of unintended consequences and corruption of our politicians. The “trust fund” was looted long ago and now SS is funded by an outright Ponzi scheme.
National Healthcare? What could POSSIBLY go wrong??
You are categorically wrong on the cause of the crash.
The vast majority of the bad loans made was outside of the Fannie/Freddie system.
When you have an actual understanding of what caused the crash, then maybe we could talk about the missteps made in the reaction to it.
The 2008 crash erased nearly $34 trillion globally.
What other US centric financial crises since the Great Depression has been worse?
Either one, now answer mine.
I disagree. Those are the results of the policies, not the cause.
The Gaussian Copula caused the crash.
That was two of the things.
I would add Greenspan’s artificially low interest rates over an extended period to that mix.