posted by poet1b
You got it right about the DEA, but as far as the free market stuff, you
have had the wool pulled over your eyes.
First of all, the biggest welfare recipients in the U.S. are
International Corporations (ICs).
I think we may possibly agree on this...but I'm not positive, because
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "welfare". Do you mean that large
corporations are "underwritten" by the U.S. Gov't? Or that large
corporations use loophole laws and large phalanxes of lawyers to keep
from paying taxes? Or....what? I've found that lots of people talk
about "corporate welfare", agreeing with each other that it is a bad
thing...but everyone has a different idea of what corporate welfare
, exactly. It's a false consensus; an agreement based on a popular phrase that is semantically ambiguous.
As for my personal definition of "corporate welfare", I refer you to the second paragraph of one of my
...the one you responded to, in fact.
"Too Big to Fail" has got to be one of the most idiotic concepts most recently swallowed by the U.S. public.
Secondly, when you go to the those tea parties, you are
supporting politicians whose only concerns is continuing welfare for the
There are a lot of assumptions in this...assertion. So...I will set the
corporate welfare thing aside for the moment, along with the
implication that either A) all U.S. politicians are only concerned with
corporate welfare, or B) any politician being supported by Tea Party
members is only concerned with corporate welfare.
Even so, it seems as if you are under the impression that the Tea
Parties were about being "in support" of this or that politician. They
weren't. They were in support of a set of core principals held in
common with other Tea Partiers. I don't think I ever saw or heard a
single politician at any of the parties I attended. They may bave been
there, but they were not telling anyone about it if they were.
I'm sure they started showing up as election time came close and Tea
Party members grouped by district and began actual endorsement of
potential congressmen, but by then I was too busy with a major contract
job to have any time for that stuff.
The Freddie Mac Fanny Mae program was fine, until banks started
fraudulently giving high ratings to badly made loans, to scam the system
to drive up the price of housing. With out the fraud, home prices
would not have been driven through the roof leading to the collapse.
Okay...I can see I'm going to need to dig out some references here. Don't have time this morning, but I will get to it tonight maybe. For now, I
will say that I agree %100 with the last sentence in the quote above.
Your free market is competition with slave labor backed by monetary
policies which put all the advantages into the hands of the ICs and
screw the Mon and Pop businesses.
Stop falling for the free market scam, and start demanding that our
government do its job, and start enforcing laws against fraud, and
America could easily return to the prosperity it enjoyed not that long
Not sure what you mean by "competition with slave labor". Who are the slaves?
As for screwing the "mom and pop" businesses, I assume you are referring to the widely-publicized/criticized effect that large "warehouse
distribution chains" such as Wal-Mart or Target have had on the "Main Street" businesses of smaller towns? The effect was that they lost business
and eventually had to close. Why? Because their customers all went to the larger stores. Why? Because there was a much larger selection of
products and services at much smaller prices in a store with longer hours. In other words, the consumer, for once, got a better deal instead of
getting screwed. "Consumer" translates as "everyone in the town except those few running Main St. businesses".
This is not a bad thing....quite the opposite. Legislation to "protect" the "mom and pop" businesses would result in higher prices for everyone.
The large chains made the small businesses obsolete, and it is preposterous to think the U.S. Gov't should protect a business from a more effective
competitor. Just because a person has made money for many years in a business venture does not mean they should expect to continue to do so. Nor is
it the government's responsibility to ensure that they do. If it was, we would all still be using wagons and carriages, because Henry Ford would
have been kept from building his automobile assembly line, lest he put the wagon makers out of business.
Really, the free market is an excellent system; if left to itself it cannot fail to bring massive economic growth. Take a look at China.