[goldstategop]

In today's column, Mark Steyn stresses the inextricable connection between capitalism and freedom. The two make each other possible, whether in the matter of buying a home or in the expression of faith. He thinks both of America's political parties want to expand the nanny state - the principal difference between them is the rate of which the expansion will happen. In surveying America's political landscape, Mark Steyn sees no conservative candidate in the race committed to a capitalist future of vibrant free markets for the country.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[RoadTest]

Washington, MYOB! Get your big nose out of mine!

[Moonman62]

Where was Mark when the Fed was raising interest rates to purposely slow down the economy? And the rate freeze is a voluntary agreement, not fiat by Paulson.

[TheRake]

I like Mark Steyn, but wasn't the bail out just an agreement between the administration and the big lenders, to freeze the rates of certain sub-prime arms? According to Dave Ramsey, this effects less than 1% of the sub primes that are over 30 days and no tax dollars are involved. If that's correct, I'm not sure I understand where Mark's coming from. I am prepared to be corrected though.

[monocle]

To a great extent Christian theology promotes and embraces programs resulting in big and invasive government, e.g. government health care, aid to children, etc.. In many regards Christian leaders are similar to the barons of Wall Street who embrace Democrats for temporary advantage to their detriment in the future. Huckabee is the poster boy for the adverse effects of a Christian minister(former) promoting governmental solutions over private initiatives.

[metesky]

Steyn bump.

[Tax-chick]

I am in favor of a free market in religion and a free market in housing, but right now I'd like a conservative candidate with a clear-headed commitment to both.

You and me both, honey.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

I, like Mark, am against the government intervening to bail out lenders and borrowers when they take a risk and fail.

Based upon newsreports I’ve read, I thought this was a mandatory program. Yet an editorial I read (sorry, I can’t find it: either the WSJ or IBD) said it didn’t go far enough since none of this is mandatory. The Fed asked and the banks agreed to freeze mortgages to prevent foreclosures, but there is no force of law to require this. The editorial further said, this has been done in the past, voluntarily by the banks, and it has affected only a few people.

My takeaway from the editorial is that although this is government fiddling with the economy, it has very little effect.

[Rummyfan]

BFLR!