Lexvol
I'm Your Huckleberry
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Messages
- 22,284
- Likes
- 241
What is the difference between these two things:
"It isn't right for that man to be licking another man's private parts"
or
"It isn't right for that man to be making so much money without sharing it"
Not your penis...not your money. Why should you have anything to say about either?
I dig. I find fault in the default argument where those at the top are always the hardest working and most intelligent, and those at the bottom are always the laziest and dumbest. For those that make a ton of money and pimp capitalism like it is flawless...it is a convenient position, but that doesn't mean it is reality. Large inheritance and professional athletes owe a huge part of their wealth to luck.
thinking outside the box is what helps.
being a good little cube worker does not
In a true democracy the masses do, and they base it on their own circumstance. When the bottom 50% own less than 3% of the wealth, you are going to get a progressive tax system. It is what it is.
Capitalists and neo-conservatives who think the wealthiest have earned every penny through sheer hard work, while those at the bottom simply don't get it.
Says the insurance and telemarketing guy...
You came up with a business model, sold it to an investor, now you're rolling in the dough. Right? That's really all my former roommate has to do, he just hasn't gotten the right model yet or seen the right investor.
I understand the logic, and know the old DeTocqueville quotes. I still think most in America, rich or poor tend to embrace conservative economic principals especially if they are put side by side directly with marxist or socialist principles.
...or some of us just see the inherent danger in developing an entitlement culture. Spend some time in Eastern ky or West Va and you will see three generations living on the same gubment teat.
Being that we are 45 + posts into this thread, I would hardly call it going straight for the attack. You are either being intentionally obtuse or you are naturally that way.
this is a double edged question because it was the government that forced the banks to take on bad loans and because of that the bundling which caused the problem began.
If government would have stayed out of it none of it would have happened.
But to answer your question ... they should have been allowed to fail. I know this is not what many people on here will say but it is the truth.