Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Wade Joseph

Help me understand

73 posts in this topic

Im gonna open my mind here for a short while and see if any of you can explain to me how I am supposed to swallow the pill that says that I should forget all my years of hard work, 20 years of service to this country, and let the gov't take care of me. That somehow, a politician can grow government to whatever size they deem neccessary to provide me with everything I need? That basic needs, a house, healthcare, food, clothing should all be provided to me because as an American its my "right" to have all these things? Does it end there? How about a car? Guns and ammo to hunt with, maybe a boat to go fishing in too?

Where is my incentive to succeed or excel? If I know I do not have to do anything and the Gov't will take care of me, where does my drive to work hard and get ahead come from?

Now if I let that government provide me with all these things, do they not also get to decide and control other aspects of my life? My religion, my family size, possibly even what morals I can teach my children?

Go ahead, Im listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wade, I knew I shouldn't have turned my computer on grineekeek . Incredibly good question, one that hopefully we all ask ourselves. I'm about to go fishing, I'll give a better answer ltr.

Instead of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need; we need something completely different. I personally like from each according to his need, for each according to their ingenuity. I'm not talking about people here either. I'm talking about from each resource according to the individuals need, for each resource according to the businesses ingenuity. Resources are all we have as citizens of earth. We don't want to waste them. Can you see my paper hat??!!

I believe if we implemented taxation based on resource extraction we would be on a better path. The free market with a bit of democracy injected could dictate the tax. Ingenuity could still reign supreme. Ultra free market is not the only way, just too many hands stuffed in everyones assspockets. The system is froze from all that friction.

Obviously it isn't just that simple, private/public and class forces will make anything difficult in a democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in the freedoms we still have and don't want to see them diminish any further. But after seeing what just happened in the financial part of the market, we need some basic rules to live by. I have been reading abit about the "Great Depression" and there are some real similarities in both what happened and the circumstances leading up to it. We may need change how we think about that stuff.

But back to main theme of your post. We still need to maintain our individualism, it is what drives this country forward. The more you take the individualism out of the picture the more motivation you take out of the person. I don't want to see this country move further toward the general public being nothing more than a herd of sheep. We have been heading that way for years and it is sad to see. I don't want someone in Washington telling me or my family what I can believe, pick my job, or tell me how to spend my free time, we have given way too much in the past to protect our way of life to slowly give it up to "Socialism".

I look at where we are at today and I am guessing our Found Fathers are rolling over in their graves wondering what the he... happened here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wade, I'm delighted you're opening up for a bit!

Interesting thought. Honestly, despite the rabid disagreements around here, we all, basically, agree - it's just a matter of where we draw that line.

Me, I think there are a few things people are entitled to. Not starve, for one. Health care, for another. But, like you Wade, it [PoorWordUsage] me off when people abuse the system, whether it's Tom Petters or a stereotypical "welfare" mom.

To get even more specific, this is what I expect the gov't to do for people if they hit a rough patch, or are unable to fend for themselves: give them a warm cot somewhere. Enough food to survive. And access to care to keep them healthy. But I also think that you make these things bare-bones so that folks who need to take utilize these services aren't comfortable, to provide them with the motivation to move along.

That's it. I don't think that's asking too much of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't disagree with you on this Max. I think we see that eye to eye to a tea. Help people that are down, but get them on their feet instead of supporting them forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wade, I'm delighted you're opening up for a bit!

Interesting thought. Honestly, despite the rabid disagreements around here, we all, basically, agree - it's just a matter of where we draw that line.

Me, I think there are a few things people are entitled to. Not starve, for one. Health care, for another. But, like you Wade, it [PoorWordUsage] me off when people abuse the system, whether it's Tom Petters or a stereotypical "welfare" mom.

To get even more specific, this is what I expect the gov't to do for people if they hit a rough patch, or are unable to fend for themselves: give them a warm cot somewhere. Enough food to survive. And access to care to keep them healthy. But I also think that you make these things bare-bones so that folks who need to take utilize these services aren't comfortable, to provide them with the motivation to move along.

That's it. I don't think that's asking too much of government.

Don't we did and more now max?

Me personally I think we should do a little more than that for those in need. As and example. A person is on assistance med. etc. and they get a job do well and get a raise all of a sudden the letter comes in the mail "because of your current income you no longer qualify for XYZ" no gradual reduction of benefits just "your done". To me this makes to sense. I believe we need to gradually reduce these benefits as the persons income increases. I know people that after getting a raise had to tell there boss they needed to work less hours so they could keep there medical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im gonna open my mind here for a short while and see if any of you can explain to me how I am supposed to swallow the pill that says that I should forget all my years of hard work, 20 years of service to this country, and let the gov't take care of me. That somehow, a politician can grow government to whatever size they deem neccessary to provide me with everything I need? That basic needs, a house, healthcare, food, clothing should all be provided to me because as an American its my "right" to have all these things? Does it end there? How about a car? Guns and ammo to hunt with, maybe a boat to go fishing in too?

Where is my incentive to succeed or excel? If I know I do not have to do anything and the Gov't will take care of me, where does my drive to work hard and get ahead come from?

Now if I let that government provide me with all these things, do they not also get to decide and control other aspects of my life? My religion, my family size, possibly even what morals I can teach my children?

Go ahead, Im listening.

I think you are taking things to an extreme? Most advocate lending a helping hand to those truly in need. If they can not provide for themseleves get them heading on the right path and let them go.

No one advocates, giving them a new house, feeding them forever, buying them a car, etc. People have the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness and little else. But when something threatens their ability to live (no food, no place to sleep, no medicine) then I think its the governments duty to step in and provide them with the assistance they need.

I think the real problem is that with rising healthcare costs and lowering incomes we are going to see more and more people fall into the group of people who despite their best efforts still can't provide themselves with the things needed to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
To get even more specific, this is what I expect the gov't to do for people if they hit a rough patch, or are unable to fend for themselves: give them a warm cot somewhere. Enough food to survive. And access to care to keep them healthy. But I also think that you make these things bare-bones so that folks who need to take utilize these services aren't comfortable, to provide them with the motivation to move along.

Exactly!!!

Geez Max this is getting way too weird, we are agreeing on a lot of things lately. Scary eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Wade Joseph
Im gonna open my mind here for a short while and see if any of you can explain to me how I am supposed to swallow the pill that says that I should forget all my years of hard work, 20 years of service to this country, and let the gov't take care of me. That somehow, a politician can grow government to whatever size they deem neccessary to provide me with everything I need? That basic needs, a house, healthcare, food, clothing should all be provided to me because as an American its my "right" to have all these things? Does it end there? How about a car? Guns and ammo to hunt with, maybe a boat to go fishing in too?

Where is my incentive to succeed or excel? If I know I do not have to do anything and the Gov't will take care of me, where does my drive to work hard and get ahead come from?

Now if I let that government provide me with all these things, do they not also get to decide and control other aspects of my life? My religion, my family size, possibly even what morals I can teach my children?

Go ahead, Im listening.

I think you are taking things to an extreme? Most advocate lending a helping hand to those truly in need. If they can not provide for themseleves get them heading on the right path and let them go.

No one advocates, giving them a new house, feeding them forever, buying them a car, etc. People have the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness and little else. But when something threatens their ability to live (no food, no place to sleep, no medicine) then I think its the governments duty to step in and provide them with the assistance they need.

I think the real problem is that with rising healthcare costs and lowering incomes we are going to see more and more people fall into the group of people who despite their best efforts still can't provide themselves with the things needed to live.

The problem is that we all have a different opinion of what is needed to live and ironing that out is where the difficulty lies. Ask a rich man what he needs to live and you'll get a much different response than you would from someone on skid row. Been there, done that, and in the end I learned that one doesn't need a whole lot to survive. To maintain a certain lifestyle is something different from surviving.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't disagree with you on this Max.

I think I just heard he77 freeze over grinlaughwink

I am kidding but I couldn't resist, you guys are typically like cats and dogs.

I also agree with Max and Sandman.

Along with that, if we don't want the government to tell us what religion to practice, what to think, believe, essentially how to live our lives we should also respect those who don't want that type of government intrussion in their lives while they may have different values than we do. I understand that can become a slippery slope and we have to draw the line somewhere. I think where some of us may be in disagreement is where that line should be drawn. Who we can marry? What certain members of our population can do with their bodies? What we(or our children) can read or listen too? How much privacy we are allowed? Who's freedom to do what they please potentially supercedes someone else's health? That is just a portion of the short list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Geez Max this is getting way too weird, we are agreeing on a lot of things lately. Scary eh?

Yeah, I may have to start a topic about gun control or the Supreme Court just to make this creepy feeling go away. wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I still have not heard good rerason why I should vote for the guy on the left who is pushing the "from each according to ability, to each according to need". I have tried to open my mind to see why some of you inist on supporting Obama. Now I will give you how I see it.

Gov't run healthcare is NOT the answer. I feel Healthcare is a responsibility, not a right. Yes, basic healthcare should be provided, but a person should have to contribute SOMETHING to society to get healthcare. NO FREE LUNCH! Personally, I do not like either candidates plan for healthcare, but I think penalizing those small buisnesses who do not provide healthcare is gonna make alot of small buisnesses go under. This is gonna hurt the economy and jobs will be lost. Healthcare costs need to be reigned in, not taken over and run by a panel of beaurocrats.

Taxes...30% of americans don't pay taxes now. If you give 95% of americans a tax break, that 30% is gonna get a bigger check that they did nothing to contribute to in the first place. Then you are gonna raise taxes on the wealthy..isnt this class warfare? IMO, your willing to whizz off 5% of the public by telling 95% that your gonna play robin hood with the money from the rich and give to the poor? ON top of that, If any of you think for one minute that big corporations pay taxes, you need to take some economics classes. They pass those costs as well as the costs of production, distribution and raw materials onto the consumer as well as a profit margin. Raising taxes on them will only raise the prices of goods and services.

Character. Its a big issue with me. Let me say this clearly and slowly.

I D O N O T C A R E How old you were when William Ayers commited terrorist acts. The fact is he has never repented for it, in fact has stated he wished they had done more. Mr Obama is guilty of working closely WITH him and taken support FROM him.

Additionally, his Pastor is a racist, plain and simple. We have all seen it on tape. In 20 years He HAD to know what kinda sermons the man delivered. He only denounced him when its no longer convienient to be by his side.

Economy. Lets face it, its in rough shape, and you cannot blame it all on GW. It all got started thru bad loans to people who did not qualify for them and could not afford them. Mr Obama has fingerprints all over with recieving money from Fanny Mae and Fredy Mac. Then has dealings with the man who misled the American people and Congress when asked about the status of Fanny Mae all the while lining his own pockets with millions while providing campaign contributions to those who helped with the smoke screen. #1 Chriss Dodd, #2 Barrack Obama, John Kerry, Barney Frank...do I need to go on? This is FACT, not right wing blogosphere chatter but fact.

John Mcain is NOT George Bush, as stated I do not like Senator Mcains Healthcare plan. I think his energy plan is better than Senator Obama's, I preffer Taxes were lowered across the board and spending be curtailed. I know the current administration has spent excessively, but the change the Democrat senators and congressman had promised 2 years ago has not come either. Lastly, I would say that putting a Democrat in the white house while they also control the house and senate is a BAD move if for no toehr reason than simple checks and balances. It always worked best when one party controls the veto pen while another controls the submition of Bills.

There, those are my rational thoughts on this whole proccess and I know I probably will not change any of your minds as to who to vote for, but none of you were compelling enough to make me change my vote either. I treid to open my mind and none of you said anything that actually flew in the face of what I am saying. I just think some of you are lumping Mcain with GW and essentially throwing the baby out with the bath water because of it.

One more personal note. I do not feel Senator Obama has released enough personal and proffessional information on his past for me to feel I know enough about him for me to trust him to lead out country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That somehow, a politician can grow government to whatever size they deem neccessary to provide me with everything I need?

Where is my incentive to succeed or excel? If I know I do not have to do anything and the Gov't will take care of me, where does my drive to work hard and get ahead come from?

Go ahead, Im listening.

Wade, in light of these comments, what are your thoughts regarding your candidate's plan for the government to buy back all of the "bad" mortgages and renegotiate the terms and values?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Tom, They BOTH voted for the 700 billion Bailout. As did many of our representatives, I called all of mine and said VOTE NO. That being said, If were gonna throw 700 billion at wall st. Why not use 300 billion of it and help out those people on MAIN ST. who have LEGITIMATE MORTAGES and are upsidedown now because of the housing bubble bursting. I hope he doesn't plan on bailing out EVERYONE, as some bought houses they knew they couldnt afford. But for those people who have a verifiable income that suports the adjusted value of the home they purchased AND LIVE IN. I see it as a better way to spend the money to to keep giving it to the likes of AIG execs so they can go to spa's and resorts and high buck resturants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
think penalizing those small buisnesses who do not provide healthcare is gonna make alot of small buisnesses go under. This is gonna hurt the economy and jobs will be lost.

How would small business be pealized by Obama's plan?

McCain claims Obama's plan calls for small businesses to be fined if they don't offer health care but according to every fact check source I could find including FoxNews they all came back critizing McCain for saying this since there in fact is no such pealty or fine.

Obama's plan calls for giving small businesses help to purchase insuance for their employees but it does not call for a penalty if they can not or do not choose to participate.

I'm not trying to change your mind as I doubt it can be done. You think Obama is pals with a terrorist, I guess I think its being over blown by McCain. You know that in politics everything is exagerated, how is this any different? If you are just trusting McCain and his people to give you all the "facts" then you are truly misguided. Believe whatever you want, the rest of us will do the same and in early november we will see who has the most like minded friends.

I for one wonder how all you McCain supporters still back him even after he said he wants to spend billions more purchasing all of the bad mortgages across the country and renegotiating them based on the homes depreciated value and at a lower interest rate. I thought you are for less government and for being fiscally conservative. How does this fit into those ideas.

Buying these mortgages assures the government of billions in lossed, it also assures that corrupt lenders will profit and people who made poor decisions to buy houses they couldn't afford will not end up paying for their mistakes. That is completely opposite of the free market, fiscally conservative ideals most of you hold. And yet you vote for McCain. I have to ask why. I presume its becuase you bought into McCain's fear laiden propaganda against Obama. If you vote based on this fear you are doing yourself a disservice. I would like to think people are able to put propaganda aside and make decisions for themselves based on the issues. Listen more to the facts and not the slander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Tom, They BOTH voted for the 700 billion Bailout. As did many of our representatives, I called all of mine and said VOTE NO. That being said, If were gonna throw 700 billion at wall st. Why not use 300 billion of it and help out those people on MAIN ST. who have LEGITIMATE MORTAGES and are upsidedown now because of the housing bubble bursting. I hope he doesn't plan on bailing out EVERYONE, as some bought houses they knew they couldnt afford. But for those people who have a verifiable income that suports the adjusted value of the home they purchased AND LIVE IN. I see it as a better way to spend the money to to keep giving it to the likes of AIG execs so they can go to spa's and resorts and high buck resturants.

Almost every home in America is currently worth less then what was paid for it. Does that mean we are all getting our mortgages bought out and readjusted at the lower price?

The $700 billion bailout is money that can be recouped, the mortgage bail out is $300 billion that CAN NOT be recouped. The taxpayers take the loss on it. How can you be ok with that? Just becuase its McCain's idea? What if it was Obama's idea? I bet you would be 100% against it and flaming him for such a proposterous idea. Seems like you are just following along with what ever McCain says. If you are going to follow someone step for step you better be careful who you follow or your liable to find yourself some place you never intended to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wade writes a very good post on his views and why he has them and what does he get in response "I guess it is because you bought into McCain's fear laiden propaganda against Obama" give me a break! My guess is that your reasoning for your views are not nearly as well thought out as Wade's. I would very much like to see you express your views as well as he as.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy smokes Wade. Get back on your meds. grin Here's an article From Ken Conner that I really believe explains a lot of what's going on today.

At long last, the chickens have come home to roost. And what a mess they're making.

From Wall Street to Main Street you can hear wailing and gnashing of teeth as investors—big and small—review the balances in their stock portfolios and 401(k) plans.

Corporations are failing, the government is bailing, and white-knuckled investors are holding their breath wondering when and where the market will find its bottom. Foreclosures are up, and employment is down. Workers are being laid off even as retirees are looking for jobs.

Once proud corporate chieftains—long time advocates of free markets—stand with hat in hand asking the government to bail them out. Politicians are paralyzed with fear, and the public is mad as [PoorWordUsage].

The bloom is off the rose. Irrational exuberance is a faded memory. Bears rule.

Perhaps you think the problems causing the market meltdown are economic and financial in nature. If so, think again. Such problems are mere symptoms of the malady. The root causes are moral and ethical in nature.

For decades, secularists in America scoffed at religion and her offspring, morality and ethics. They removed religion from the realm of "truth" and reduced it to mere "opinion." Truth was limited to that which could be objectified, quantified, and verified. Since that could not be accomplished with religion (at least on this side of eternity), "religious truth" was deemed an oxymoron. Absolutes were out, relativism was in. Morals became "relative" and ethics became "situational." Virtue was rejected as an antiquated notion. Results were all that mattered.

These ideas began to permeate society, including Wall Street. And since ideas have consequences, they began to influence the way business was conducted on the Street.

Unconstrained by morality or ethics, the marketplace became a veritable free for all—especially the housing market. The ends justified the means. Greed was good. Transparency became obsolete. Honesty was out of fashion. Deception was acceptable. The doctrine of caveat emptor was elevated to a new level. Mortgage brokers and underwriters gained large commissions by approving high-risk loans and passing the risk down the line. Investment banks packed high-risk mortgages into attractive packages and sold them off as "securities" to unsuspecting investors.

Politicians aided and abetted the new business model. Under the guise of deregulation, the market was left to the devices of the men behind the curtain. The payment of millions in campaign contributions aided their efforts. Not content with reduced accountability to government regulators, Big Business sought to immunize itself from accountability to shareholders and consumers as well. "Tort reform" became the mantra. Demonization of trial lawyers became the means. Affirmative action for wrongdoers became the method. The words "corporate welfare" took on a whole new meaning.

But greed and deception were not confined to Wall Street. They also infected Main Street. A new consumerism reined. Consumers and speculators thought they deserved more house than they could afford, and they were willing to lie about their creditworthiness on loan applications. After all, why defer gratification when you can have it now? It has been estimated that as many as 70% of defaulted mortgages contain "some kind of misrepresentation by the borrower, lender or broker, or some combination of the three." The FBI recently reported that "suspicious mortgage activity increased tenfold from 2001 through 2007, and rose another 42 percent in the first quarter of 2008." But why worry about the ability to repay? The government—thanks to the work of high powered business lobbyists—had implicitly guaranteed the risk of loss. That guarantee has now become explicit—thanks, once again, to the work of high-powered lobbyists.

Fearful of the collapse of the entire economy, gurus within the government (who, not coincidentally, hail from Wall Street) are now urging lawmakers to step in and interrupt the natural consequences of these corrupt business practices. They argue that many of the perpetrators are simply "too big to fail" and that innocent parties will suffer from the ripple effect of the failure of these giants. Former advocates for free market forces now want to suspend those forces because they deem the price to be too high.

Only time will tell what the outcome of this whole debacle will be. But in the meantime, there are some valuable lessons that we should learn:

* Virtue may be its own reward, but there are other rewards that flow from it as well. Virtue in the marketplace should be encouraged and applauded, not mocked and ridiculed.

* Honesty, accountability, and transparency are essential to the survival of free markets. Unless those virtues undergird the markets, they will collapse under the weight of greed, avarice, and deceit.

* Men are not angels (as James Madison rightly observed). Therefore, government has an obligation to ensure honesty, transparency, and accountability in the marketplace. Reasonable regulations in pursuit of such virtues should be welcomed by reasonable people from all quarters of the market.

* Material misrepresentations about one's products or services or financial condition constitute fraud and should not be tolerated. Perpetrators of fraud should be prosecuted by government.

* Victims of fraud and deceit should be permitted to pursue remedies aimed at recovering the full measure of their damages along with other remedies designed to punish wrongdoers and to deter a repetition of such misconduct in the future. Even at its best, government is inadequate to protect consumers and investors. Innocent victims should always be afforded a remedy for their loss.

In the aftermath of the market meltdown, morality and ethics may well make a comeback. Hopefully, people will soon come to realize that virtue is never out of fashion. If they don't, we will undoubtedly have more rocky times ahead.

The financial world needs to return to honesty, transparency, and accountability in its dealings. Unrestrained greed, ambition, and immediate gratification will only lead to more crises like the current sub-prime mess. Our government must live up to its responsibility to hold criminals accountable for their crimes, and we need to relearn the responsible thrift of our forebears who learned this same lesson after the Great Depression. That calamity taught them the importance of saving and the danger of living on credit. If we do not learn that same lesson now, we will learn it the hard way in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy smokes Wade. Get back on your meds. grin Here's an article From Ken Conner that I really believe explains a lot of what's going on today.

At long last, the chickens have come home to roost. And what a mess they're making.

From Wall Street to Main Street you can hear wailing and gnashing of teeth as investors—big and small—review the balances in their stock portfolios and 401(k) plans.

Corporations are failing, the government is bailing, and white-knuckled investors are holding their breath wondering when and where the market will find its bottom. Foreclosures are up, and employment is down. Workers are being laid off even as retirees are looking for jobs.

Once proud corporate chieftains—long time advocates of free markets—stand with hat in hand asking the government to bail them out. Politicians are paralyzed with fear, and the public is mad as [PoorWordUsage].

The bloom is off the rose. Irrational exuberance is a faded memory. Bears rule.

Perhaps you think the problems causing the market meltdown are economic and financial in nature. If so, think again. Such problems are mere symptoms of the malady. The root causes are moral and ethical in nature.

For decades, secularists in America scoffed at religion and her offspring, morality and ethics. They removed religion from the realm of "truth" and reduced it to mere "opinion." Truth was limited to that which could be objectified, quantified, and verified. Since that could not be accomplished with religion (at least on this side of eternity), "religious truth" was deemed an oxymoron. Absolutes were out, relativism was in. Morals became "relative" and ethics became "situational." Virtue was rejected as an antiquated notion. Results were all that mattered.

These ideas began to permeate society, including Wall Street. And since ideas have consequences, they began to influence the way business was conducted on the Street.

Unconstrained by morality or ethics, the marketplace became a veritable free for all—especially the housing market. The ends justified the means. Greed was good. Transparency became obsolete. Honesty was out of fashion. Deception was acceptable. The doctrine of caveat emptor was elevated to a new level. Mortgage brokers and underwriters gained large commissions by approving high-risk loans and passing the risk down the line. Investment banks packed high-risk mortgages into attractive packages and sold them off as "securities" to unsuspecting investors.

Politicians aided and abetted the new business model. Under the guise of deregulation, the market was left to the devices of the men behind the curtain. The payment of millions in campaign contributions aided their efforts. Not content with reduced accountability to government regulators, Big Business sought to immunize itself from accountability to shareholders and consumers as well. "Tort reform" became the mantra. Demonization of trial lawyers became the means. Affirmative action for wrongdoers became the method. The words "corporate welfare" took on a whole new meaning.

But greed and deception were not confined to Wall Street. They also infected Main Street. A new consumerism reined. Consumers and speculators thought they deserved more house than they could afford, and they were willing to lie about their creditworthiness on loan applications. After all, why defer gratification when you can have it now? It has been estimated that as many as 70% of defaulted mortgages contain "some kind of misrepresentation by the borrower, lender or broker, or some combination of the three." The FBI recently reported that "suspicious mortgage activity increased tenfold from 2001 through 2007, and rose another 42 percent in the first quarter of 2008." But why worry about the ability to repay? The government—thanks to the work of high powered business lobbyists—had implicitly guaranteed the risk of loss. That guarantee has now become explicit—thanks, once again, to the work of high-powered lobbyists.

Fearful of the collapse of the entire economy, gurus within the government (who, not coincidentally, hail from Wall Street) are now urging lawmakers to step in and interrupt the natural consequences of these corrupt business practices. They argue that many of the perpetrators are simply "too big to fail" and that innocent parties will suffer from the ripple effect of the failure of these giants. Former advocates for free market forces now want to suspend those forces because they deem the price to be too high.

Only time will tell what the outcome of this whole debacle will be. But in the meantime, there are some valuable lessons that we should learn:

* Virtue may be its own reward, but there are other rewards that flow from it as well. Virtue in the marketplace should be encouraged and applauded, not mocked and ridiculed.

* Honesty, accountability, and transparency are essential to the survival of free markets. Unless those virtues undergird the markets, they will collapse under the weight of greed, avarice, and deceit.

* Men are not angels (as James Madison rightly observed). Therefore, government has an obligation to ensure honesty, transparency, and accountability in the marketplace. Reasonable regulations in pursuit of such virtues should be welcomed by reasonable people from all quarters of the market.

* Material misrepresentations about one's products or services or financial condition constitute fraud and should not be tolerated. Perpetrators of fraud should be prosecuted by government.

* Victims of fraud and deceit should be permitted to pursue remedies aimed at recovering the full measure of their damages along with other remedies designed to punish wrongdoers and to deter a repetition of such misconduct in the future. Even at its best, government is inadequate to protect consumers and investors. Innocent victims should always be afforded a remedy for their loss.

In the aftermath of the market meltdown, morality and ethics may well make a comeback. Hopefully, people will soon come to realize that virtue is never out of fashion. If they don't, we will undoubtedly have more rocky times ahead.

The financial world needs to return to honesty, transparency, and accountability in its dealings. Unrestrained greed, ambition, and immediate gratification will only lead to more crises like the current sub-prime mess. Our government must live up to its responsibility to hold criminals accountable for their crimes, and we need to relearn the responsible thrift of our forebears who learned this same lesson after the Great Depression. That calamity taught them the importance of saving and the danger of living on credit. If we do not learn that same lesson now, we will learn it the hard way in the future.

AMEN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Fisher. That was very well written and had some thought put in it. There are some things in there that can be challenged. But then I haven't seen and true evidence on either side of those arguments, so we are left to take it either way.

Way to go Wade, I for one agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say Nofish...you know something I don't about the bailout? How do you know the taxpayer will recoup the money? I for one am betting we never see a dime of it. If your expecting some dividend check from the big recoupment, I hope you don;t have it spent yet.

To be totally honest, I wish we could get rid of all of our senators and congressman and start over with new fresh faces and Ideas. this goes for Mcain and Obama. I'd like to see term limits of two terms max for all of them. They are all greedy and IMO corrupted by power and money.

William Ayers IS a terrorist.

Who said I am following Mcain Step for Step? You obviously didnt read my entire post.

He aint the best, he's just the lesser of the two evils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NICE!!!! Once again, agree with you 100% Wade. I don't think we'll see a dime back. And it would be nice to have terms for them so they can't sit and get fat on our dime while doing nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a matter of most of the general public living beyond their means. Most people want bigger and better, we in the outdoors market should know that. Too many people depend on the government when they are down rather than picking themselves back up. We can sit back and point fingers all day, everyone runs in different directions when it comes to one subject or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Character. Its a big issue with me.

Really? McCain has admitted to having extramarital affairs and was still married when he applied for a marriage liscense with his current wife. What does that say about his character?

From Snopes:

McCain has made several statements about how he divorced Carol and married Hensley that conflict with the public record.

In his 2002 memoir, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain wrote that he had separated from Carol before he bagan dating Hensley.

"I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow," McCain wrote. "I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980."

An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote his court petition that he and his wife had "cohabited" until Jan. 7 of that year - or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.

Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage liscense on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0