Yes, the department of fair markets, will that be a new cabinet position and how many billion to operate, 300 to 500 thousand employees should probably fix the problem. Back in, back in, back in, the USSR,
Well, your hero Obama is doing that right now. Why do you think he is folding all of the commercial and trade agencies into one entity that he can control?
Ethical capitalism depends on individual morality. There will always be hard choices, which is fine, and everybody realizes that. But one of the reasons for the rise of unions is that workers actually were very badly treated after industrialization (and even before, but they didn’t have the technological ability to group together at that point) by unethical people. So if you want to argue for lack of ethics and human morality, go ahead...but remember that you’re destroying the capitalist system, which is based on contracts and trust, when you do that.
Few people realize that the essence of capitalism is the contract, honesty and trust. If you undermine that, you undermine the whole system. And that was essentially what was being done by Romney with his rapacious deals and reliance on taxpayer support to make up the difference so that the employees would not come out after him with pitchforks after they had lost their pensions.
Back in, back in, back in, the USSR,
************
Whodat- you are pretty smart— so you should understand, you ARE already in the USSR. When 75% of the people say they don’t want the banks bailed out- yet the poliboro says screw you, we’ll bailout whomever we want-— how’s that type of democracy feel to you? -:)
No different than George Bush using the feelings word “compassionate.”
Whatever the intention, any time you see an emotion qualifier attached to a system of thought, you can be sure it is or will utilized for Lefty ends.
Please, pretty please show me where Newt is advocating that?
Or, is he saying perhaps the character of Romney is what's under the microscope here - character being how you act when no one is forcing you to take either position? Romney's Bain Capital bought companies, issued debt (some would argue while covering up major business risks), used the debt to buy it and its investors out of the acquired company and pay itself lots of fees, then moved on. Too often, the acquired company then folded like a house of cards under the debt load.
Legal? Unless fraud was involved, sure. Moral? If you advocate a beggar-thy-neighbor approach to life, or fall into the atheist Ayn Rand camp, or like to parrot the "it's capitalism, trust us" message of the folks who made their bank this way, sure.
But if you expect the people adversely impacted by this to nod sagely and say, "no worries, Bro, this sort of thing happens in capitalism, and we hope Romney enjoys his nine-figure fortune", well, you're a bloody idiot.
Let me put it another way. Obama was a community organizer - a legal advocation - involved with assembling a constituency to petition for a redress of grievances - Constitutional even! How he did it, why he thought those folks deserved it, and the outcomes he achieved are all highly questionable. Obama got serious power as a result, and I didn't want that type of guy in White House. I don't want the type of guy Romney is in the White House, either.