Nationalization is public ownership via government, which this isn't. Yes, the costs are being passed onto the public, but any profits that come out of this will be going to the pockets of the private owners. To suggest "since when did the public truly own a 'public property'" means it's okay to call this nationalization is like saying "since whenever did we have a pure free market" therefore what we can call what we have in North America a "free market". Of course it doesn't make much sense to say that considering government involvement in the market, but it equally doesn't make sense to call something nationalization when the companies being bailed out, like the automakers, will still be owned by the same people. The public is simply bailing them out, but seeing little to nothing in return, hence crony capitalism.In short, definitions matter. This is not nationalization.
I wish I had half the wisdom, conviction, optimism and patience that Paul has. Thank God for this freedom fighter and truth-teller who toils tirelessly for the enlightened and ignorant alike.
A number of problems with your argument... 1. Free market = more expensive? Your implication being unfree market = less expensive. That comment is vague, without any non-biased statistical backing, and without historical precedent. 2. "... products we don't need". Is that for you or some hack politician to decide? What you may need, or want, is not always going to be what someone else needs or wants. If we stuck to just "the basics" like "progressives" desire then we might as well go back to hunting and gathering. 3. "...a government that represents 'the people'." Remember, although Obama did get 63 million votes they're are about 300 million Americans. Out of those who did vote, over 50 million did not vote for him. "The people" have differences of opinions, different needs and different wants. Obama doesn't represent "the people", he represents a group and his main job is to protect our Constitutional rights... not dictate policy based on some so-called "mandate". 4. France, Sweden, etc. - When was the last time either country did anything great? And American industry saved much of Europe - again - in WWII. I know that's cliche by now, but it's true. Trade with Europe, yes. Diplomacy, yes. But you need to stop looking to European socialism as if they have all the answers. Besides, you really don't know if the "quality of life" is better there... in developed society that's just conjecture... they do have their problems too. 5. "We consumer without regulation... ruin the Earth... " You're incorrectly assuming that government doesn't pollute. In fact, the DOE is one of the biggest polluters around. And how about stopping all of those taxpayer subsidies to "dirty energy"? Also, nukes wouldn't exist without government subsidy. 6. High incarceration rate - I totally agree. Too many non-violent drug offenders in prison. End the drug prohibition - but that means embracing smaller government and the free market you supposedly hate. So-called "private prisions" - evil, yes - but they're not "private" when they're subsidized by government. 7. Free market=slaves. You're way out of line there. Slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, Apartheid, etc., would not have existed without the sanction of big government. Companies that pay crap wages or use slaves do not produce good products and are not as competitive as corporations that pay higher wages for talent. That said, a "low wage" in China might not be a "low wage" to them at all. And as their production grows, so will their wages. New jobs will be created in response to that productivity. If what you posit were true, then the big and small businesses that pay people well above the minimum wage here in the US - and there are many - would never have been competitive and would've gone out of business fast. Extra Eye, you and your "progressive" friends must have more self-confidence. The government is not the answer to all of your problems or is it the bringer of utopia.
supermosesDec 11, 2008
Nationalization is public ownership via government, which this isn't. Yes, the costs are being passed onto the public, but any profits that come out of this will be going to the pockets of the private owners. To suggest "since when did the public truly own a 'public property'" means it's okay to call this nationalization is like saying "since whenever did we have a pure free market" therefore what we can call what we have in North America a "free market". Of course it doesn't make much sense to say that considering government involvement in the market, but it equally doesn't make sense to call something nationalization when the companies being bailed out, like the automakers, will still be owned by the same people. The public is simply bailing them out, but seeing little to nothing in return, hence crony capitalism.In short, definitions matter. This is not nationalization.
stormcommanderDec 11, 2008
Kucinich voted for the bailout
dukeyeDec 14, 2008
I wish I had half the wisdom, conviction, optimism and patience that Paul has. Thank God for this freedom fighter and truth-teller who toils tirelessly for the enlightened and ignorant alike.
whereamiDec 15, 2008
Thats because Ron Paul doesn't exist as a major candidate at all.
whereamiDec 15, 2008
Because there were not enough votes.
paulotto2007Dec 21, 2008
A number of problems with your argument... 1. Free market = more expensive? Your implication being unfree market = less expensive. That comment is vague, without any non-biased statistical backing, and without historical precedent. 2. "... products we don't need". Is that for you or some hack politician to decide? What you may need, or want, is not always going to be what someone else needs or wants. If we stuck to just "the basics" like "progressives" desire then we might as well go back to hunting and gathering. 3. "...a government that represents 'the people'." Remember, although Obama did get 63 million votes they're are about 300 million Americans. Out of those who did vote, over 50 million did not vote for him. "The people" have differences of opinions, different needs and different wants. Obama doesn't represent "the people", he represents a group and his main job is to protect our Constitutional rights... not dictate policy based on some so-called "mandate". 4. France, Sweden, etc. - When was the last time either country did anything great? And American industry saved much of Europe - again - in WWII. I know that's cliche by now, but it's true. Trade with Europe, yes. Diplomacy, yes. But you need to stop looking to European socialism as if they have all the answers. Besides, you really don't know if the "quality of life" is better there... in developed society that's just conjecture... they do have their problems too. 5. "We consumer without regulation... ruin the Earth... " You're incorrectly assuming that government doesn't pollute. In fact, the DOE is one of the biggest polluters around. And how about stopping all of those taxpayer subsidies to "dirty energy"? Also, nukes wouldn't exist without government subsidy. 6. High incarceration rate - I totally agree. Too many non-violent drug offenders in prison. End the drug prohibition - but that means embracing smaller government and the free market you supposedly hate. So-called "private prisions" - evil, yes - but they're not "private" when they're subsidized by government. 7. Free market=slaves. You're way out of line there. Slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, Apartheid, etc., would not have existed without the sanction of big government. Companies that pay crap wages or use slaves do not produce good products and are not as competitive as corporations that pay higher wages for talent. That said, a "low wage" in China might not be a "low wage" to them at all. And as their production grows, so will their wages. New jobs will be created in response to that productivity. If what you posit were true, then the big and small businesses that pay people well above the minimum wage here in the US - and there are many - would never have been competitive and would've gone out of business fast. Extra Eye, you and your "progressive" friends must have more self-confidence. The government is not the answer to all of your problems or is it the bringer of utopia.
sonofthebraveJan 4, 2009
Dr. Ron Paul is an American Hero and warrior fighting for truth, justice and Americanism. What is Americanism? Click here <a class="user" href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950.">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166 ...</a> God bless you Dr. Paul!