I thought "capitalists" didn't want government involvement

[underpants]

for all I hear the market will take care of every little thing. So why not let it?

Did I miss something in my business degree education and reading the news for the last 30 some years??

:shrug:

[durablend]

1. It's OK when you're bailing out the rich

It's only those worthless good for nothing peeons (us) that can't be helped (socialism--uh uh uh no no no)

[kentuck]

2. This government is nothing but socialism for the rich.

hypocrites.

[nxylas]

6. "Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor"

Can't remember who coined that phrase, but it describes post-Reagan/Thatcher conservatism to a T.

[Echo In Light]

8. Bingo

[shrdlu]

3. Only to socialize the losses...

...Profits remain private, thank you...

[againes654]

4. Because it doesn't "take care of ever little thing"

I guess you missed "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein.

[underpants]

15. Still waiting for the library to call

reminds me I need to chec theire website to see if it is available

[ingac70]

5. When the "capitalists" are losing money...

then all this shit about free markets goes out the window. That picking yourself up by your bootstraps and taking personal responsibility is for the suckers that actually work for a living.

*my educational background: I might as well roll my high school diploma up and smoke it for all the good it has done me.

[Wickerman]

7. No, no, you got it all wrong

No government intervention for folks who make "bad decisions". See, this was a case of "bad luck". The fundamentals were sound, really. No one could've seen anything like this coming. :sarcasm:

The govt has no business helping out folks who make bad decisions, so says the party of personal responsibility. This was bad luck, not poor decision making. :eyes:

[TomClash]

9. Not much of a bailout

More like cheap money for banks and protectionism through a collapsing dollar.

The whole war was nothing but a sop to certain businesses - oil and defense - the Repukes biggest constituents. And we get the enormous debt.

As Joe Strummer said, "Patriots of the Wasteland, torching two hundred years." That's the Bush Administration.

[ThomWV]

10. You did well to put the word "Capitalists" in quotes

It implies that you know there is something wrong with whatever it is we define Capitalists to be because as cloudy as our notion of what the word might mean it in no way identifies a person who would want Government involvement.

That's the power of words that Orwell tells us about. If you don't really have an idea what a Capitalists is then how can you know what to expect from one? How can you know if you might indeed be one yourself? Its mightily hard to to have precision of thought if you have no precise words.

A Capitalists, one who invests capital with the expectation of a return, would welcome free input from any source. They would as soon take money from the Government as trees from the forest or ore from a mine. A traditional Conservative, by contrast, would not want any sort of Government involvement in any private venture. So that tells us right away that capitalists are not traditional conservatives. Maybe just figuring that part out might make you want to rethink the question.

[underpants]

13. Thank you

you are right. I, of course, was just being snarky but you make a good point.

:hi:

[marmar]

11. It's amazing how quickly these corporate types turn into welfare queens, isn't it?

Always standing around with their hands out.

[chelsea0011]

12. And God came down and said unto the rich, "save thyself". And it was done.

[rainy]

14. I've tried to argue this with a republican friend and all he says is well

we bail out the corporations because they supply jobs.

[ingac70]

16. Funny how Republicans don't actually follow the "conservatism" they claim to hold so dear. n/t

[marmar]

17. Bail them out and watch them cut 5,000 jobs to "remain competitive"....

.... Why people are still willing to drink this toxic KoolAid is quite beyond my reasoning capacities.

[underpants]

22. $15,000,000,000 and 100,000

Congress approves $15 billion airline bailout
September 22, 2001 Posted: 12:35 AM EDT (0435 GMT
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/rec.congress.airline.deal/

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/layoff.asp?id=714
The company statement said that some 100,000 people have been laid off at other airlines since 9/11.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/20/MN173249.DTL
United, based in Chicago, has a total of about 20,000 workers in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose. It said the layoffs will be made "as soon as practicable" and will result in a 20 percent reduction in its flight schedule nationwide.

Continental Airlines said Saturday that it will lay off 12,000 workers, and US Airways said it will furlough 11,000.

Plea to Congress

On the heels of Boeing Co., the world's largest aircraft manufacturer, announcing as many as 30,000 layoffs on Tuesday, the heads of several major carriers asked Congress yesterday for $17.5 billion in federal assistance to stave off imminent bankruptcy.

The White House responded last night by requesting that Congress provide $5 billion in cash immediately.

[nxylas]

18. And the wealth will trickle down

I feel something trickling down on me from the super-rich, but I don't think it's wealth.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/reaganomics_finally_trickles_down

[debbierlus]

19. Government bailouts & welfare for corporations is fine, just not for people

[Supersedeas]

20. oh, they like themselves some tax shelters, tax subsidized incentives and bailouts

[genie_weenie]

21. That's what they tell you. What they want is Government to

Use Force to stop all other companies from interfering with "their" unrestrained Capitalism.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. "Free Market" indeed..........

It is amazing that conservatives and right-wingers continue to promote the myth of the "free market" when, in actuality, government subsidizes (and competes for) businesses in several different ways often benefiting one company or another, particularly depending on which businesses have (or haven't) "bought" themselves a Congressman or some other public official. What government spends public assistance for needy families and individuals is a mere pittance compared to what it spends on corporate tax breaks, subsidies, and other incentives. Of course, they don't want the rest of us paying attention to THAT "inconvenient truth," eh? If conservatives and right-wingers want a truly "free market" system then I believe that they need to put their money where their mouth is (pun intended) and attempt to run their business by refusing corporate tax breaks, subsidies, or other incentives and let the market forces decide whether or not they are going to be able to continue to remain in business. After all, that's what a "free market" really all supposed to be about, right? If a business fails, then perhaps the public doesn't want the product and/or service they are providing or it was simply meant to fail. Who knows? But why should government be called upon to swoop in and use public resources to clean up the messes created by some private businesses and, more importantly, possibly reward CEO overlords whose businesses failed because they horribly mismanaged or even defrauded them.

[underpants]

24. Don't forget what else "government" does

it requires equal employment and it ended segregation and it is supposed to be a fair playing field.... all these things are adamantly opposed by conservatives.

When Reagan said "Government is not the solution it is the problem" that was code - some people knew that and some people just carry their water not knowing what underlies it.