Name calling again, already in your newly minted amabo identity?
Explain to me, again, why I am a hypocrite for posting an interesting article with an unusual point of view, which was not written by me?
I am going to ask you, nicely this one time, to back up your allegation or to take it back.
I'll wait........................
The Huffington Post? They are part of the wacko left and are attempting to hide the fact that the marxist/socialist/fascists have co-opted the liberal/progressive meaning and have used the government to force their moronic ideals on us, which has caused our government to become Totalitarian Government, that have constantly tried to take away the rights that our Constitution confirmed. Their horrible ideas have destroyed our economy and corrupted our government's purpose.
marxist/socialist/fascists"
Can someone explain to me how those three are interchangeable?
Let me just point out that I did not write the article. I did not stamp it with the Official Gramps Seal of Approval (nor is there such a thing). The Huffington Post connection to the article is plainly visible, not hidden in any way. No one, not even marxist/socialist/fascists (if there even is such a thing) is forcing you to agree with, or even read, the article.
There is not even a faint whiff of the hypocrisy that "amabo" is accusing me of.
And while we are on the subject, the excessive deregulation, and even NON-regulation of the economy is the principle reason for the near collapse of it in 2008, according to any lucid explanation I have seen to date. I don't think your imaginary wacko left marxist/socialist/fascists are the ones who pushed this idiotic concept on us. If I remember correctly, Reagan began the practice, and it was continued with varying degrees of extremism by GHW Bush, Bill Clinton, and GW Bush. Those guys gave us, respectively the S&L crisis(Reagan and Bush 41), the various bubbles (Clinton), and the Enron & banking collapse(Bush 43).
And I still don't see how any of this makes me a hypocrite for posting a professionally written article that you don't have to read.
imaginary? they have created this wasteful programs and departments have put our government into overspending as an art form. Now Obama, their chosen one, have spiked spending hikes into a new level of insanity. The Bushes were a great disappointment and Carter/Bill helped created the housing bubble that exploded and took out the world economy. S&L crisis was a drop in the bucket compared to Bush/Obama's tag team.
I guessed you missed my point so here it is in simplified form; the concept of deregulation is a conservative one. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush presidents embraced it to one degree or another, but it is a conservative policy. Every single time anyone of either party enacts excessive deregulation, we end up with a crisis.
I saw a program the other day on the early days of Clinton's presidency. Greenspan, and a couple of like minded guys, who were working for Clinton at the time, decided to not pursue fraud in the financial markets, even though it is a big part of their function to do so. They concluded that it wasn't necessary for the government to even investigate fraud, because "the market will sort things out." This was the perfect breeding ground for Bernie Madoff and other crooks to do their dirty work.
Even a half hearted glance in Madoff's direction would reveal that the top investor in Nasdaq wasn't buying any stock for years at a time. No one noticed because no one was looking, and the guys were right, the market did sort it out $50 Billion in unnecessary fraud later.
See, the imaginary marxist/socialists/fascists aren't the problem, conservative ideology is the problem.
See, the imaginary marxist/socialists/fascists aren't the problem, conservative ideology is the problem.
Phpt !! ... only conservatives are thieving crooks .. man get some new glasses. Greed does not know political, geographic or age boundaries.
Not disagreeing with you, Big T.
The problem isn't with the people, it is with the policy. Deregulation is bad policy. Not because conservatives are bad people, but because deregulation leads to bad consequences no matter who does it. Remember that Bill Clinton gave us the biggest bank/investment company deregulation law, the one that led directly to the recent banking crisis.
That didn't happen because Clinton is a conservative, or even a marxist/socialist/fascist (whatever that is) but because the policy is a bad one.
I thought I made that clear.
There were safe guards to catch cheating .. but in typical fashion - not enough people from the feds watching, and if they did see it they were paid off or not as smart as the crooks stealing.
The guy who spotted Madoff found it in a heartbeat .. and they say folks on Wall street knew what was going on -s o why couldn't the regulations in place catch this guya nd many others years ago?
Big T, I just explained that to you. The regulators in the Fed decided not to investigate fraud back in 1993. The safeguards were ignored. The Market will figure it out, and it did. So a small fraud grew into a very big one. Heck of a job there, regulators!
Again, forget the individuals and what their stated political philosophy is.
Ignoring the safeguards and letting the foxes guard the henhouses through excessive deregulation is a bad idea and a bad policy. Period.
This 'conservative' idea is bad when Democrats use it and bad when Republicans use it, bad for liberals, bad for conservatives, bad for RINOs, bad for Tea Partiers, bad for Independents, get the idea?
You posted the Bill Moyers video. Isn't that the essence of of what was said on it?
Sorry, The opposite of Totalitarianism is Anarchy, with pluralist Governments (Democracies) in the the middle. At least that is what my Liberal University teaches.
That is what I learned too, calhob, when I went to school in the previous century. I posted this article because I thought it was interesting, not necessarily because I was putting a stamp of approval on it.
raz-00
good article.