Toxic & Destructive Culture Motivated by Greed.

[syrenn]

Greed is not going to be an American value no matter how much you try to make it so

It would seem to me as if greed is the only value your kind has. Nothing is ever enough and they always want more...

 

[B. Kidd]

Republican = corruption

That's why Obama 'grandfathered' in Bush's economic team at the start of his term, you fat-faced nit-friggin'-wit.

 

[Neubarth]

you will never convince the American people that greed should rule our country

The sad reality is that greed does rule our nation. How else do you explain the Nuclear Industry and the tremendous ripoffs of the public by the American Medical Industry and the Tremendous ripoffs of the Republic by the Republiscam Bankers? Hell they only took about 8 Trillion Dollars and distributed it among themselves! They knew that they could crash the economic system and they did it very well. When the crash came they were betting that it would happen. Amazing and yet, not one of those corrupt sons of bitches has been shot or executed by lethal injection. We have got to change that.

 

[daveman]

Have you ever noticed that when someone condemns greed, he wants free stuff that others earned and he didn't?

I have.

Have you ever noticed that when daveman says something stupid, an angel loses it's wings?

Good thing I don't say stupid things.

I do, however, say things that make leftists lash out irrationally.

Like you did.

 

[hipeter924]

Greed is a neutral force, till it goes to the extent of being irrational or unethical. You cannot have technological, economic or social advancement without greed, likewise restraint now and then is a good idea. The problem isn't greed, so much as what people do with their wealth, and the failure of the economic system to uplift the lower and middle classes into wealth; also the persistence of the low wage economy and the economic zealots from the IMF/World Bank are another problem.

 

[KevinWestern]

Greed is a neutral force, till it goes to the extent of being irrational or unethical. You cannot have technological, economic or social advancement without greed, likewise restraint now and then is a good idea. The problem isn't greed, so much as what people do with their wealth, and the failure of the economic system to uplift the lower and middle classes into wealth; also the persistence of the low wage economy and the economic zealots from the IMF/World Bank are another problem.

I disagree completely - you don't need greed as a precursor for technological or social advancement to take place. All you need are people who are intelligent and who believe in a project or a product they're working on.

If you look at the majority of our greatest entrepreneurs and companies over the past 50 years, I'd argue strongly that it wasn't 'greed' that was the driving force. Maybe it was competition, maybe it was the pursuit of perfection, and being the absolute best at what they do; but the pursuit of excess wealth? I don't think so at all.

 

[Neubarth]

you will never convince the American people that greed should rule our country

AH, YES! But they passively accept it anyway. Most Americans are totally oblivious to the massive waves of corruption that attend each and every Republiscam administration. Reagan, Bush Sr. and Junior (all of them) think only in terms of getting money some way or some how to fund whatever they want to fund. Dubya learned from his father that being president could make you a Billionaire. All you had to do was think of a reason to go to war and make certain that your blind trust and best friends all have strong investments in companies that would profit from that war.

YOU can get mighty rich mighty fast that way. YOU can get mighty rich mighty fast just being a friend of the President as long as you know which companies will get the massive government contracts. With Cheney as VP, it was obvious that Halliburton was going to make Billions, and they did.

 

[Katzndogz]

What is greed?

One person is greedy so they work harder, make more money, save that money, invest it to make more money.

Another person is greedy so they rob someone, break into their home, or raise taxes.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

YOU can get mighty rich mighty fast just being a friend of the President

especially if the President is a Democrat since Democrats always aspire to get more and more power for those in high office. This is exactly why our Founders gave us freedom from those in high office.
Too complicated for a liberal to grasp?

 

[Widdekind]

What is greed?

One person is greedy so they work harder, make more money, save that money, invest it to make more money.

Another person is greedy so they rob someone, break into their home, or raise taxes.

the former is "ambition" (non-violent), the latter is "crime" (violent) ?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What is greed?

One person is greedy so they work harder, make more money, save that money, invest it to make more money.

Another person is greedy so they rob someone, break into their home, or raise taxes.

the former is "ambition" (non-violent), the latter is "crime" (violent) ?

greed is defined as a negative thing so if, for example, we work very very hard to support our families we can't be called greedy.

 

[Widdekind]

What is greed?

One person is greedy so they work harder, make more money, save that money, invest it to make more money.

Another person is greedy so they rob someone, break into their home, or raise taxes.

the former is "ambition" (non-violent), the latter is "crime" (violent) ?

greed is defined as a negative thing so if, for example, we work very very hard to support our families we can't be called greedy.

and if someone 'steals very very much (to support their family)' ?

the defining difference, between "ambition" & "crime", seems to be the "threat of violence", employed in the latter, to "transfer wealth".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the former is "ambition" (non-violent), the latter is "crime" (violent) ?

greed is defined as a negative thing so if, for example, we work very very hard to support our families we can't be called greedy.

and if someone 'steals very very much (to support their family)' ?

the defining difference, between "ambition" & "crime", seems to be the "threat of violence", employed in the latter, to "transfer wealth".

stealing is called, criminal behavior, not greedy behavior. hard work is considered good. Look it up!! What is the source of your concern?

 

[MikeK]

That former GS employee had either found religion and wanted to amend his ways, OR he was just burned out on all of the corruption that runs rampant during every Republican Administration.

It is not about Republicans or Democrats, but an elite few that call the shots and play divide and conquer games to keep us distracted.

Take Obama for example.
He talks about Redistribution of wealth and free healthcare for everyone.
His actions are 180 off, where he reaches into America's pocket to pad his Corporate and Banker Buddies. Half his team are former Wall Street execs.


Just from Goldman Sachs alone, there have been hundreds of people that have been through the revolving door between the Government and Wall Street in order to help their cronies.


The problem is not just the government but the ones controlling it and in it.

That would be the Big Banks and Corporations of this country that have their men in government, while everyone else has to pay for it, and play in an unfair market system that is rigged to benefit them.


Here is a link to a liberal blog listing all the Goldman Boys in the Bush Government.
The White (Goldman Sachs) House


and here is a Republican list of all the Goldman Boys in Obama's Government
An Updated List of Goldman Sachs Ties to the Obama Government Including Elena Kagan | MyFDL


The Big Wall Street banks don't care about party affiliation as long as they can buy men to put in each respective "party" to serve their needs over everyone else.

These methodical infilrations by like-minded economic saboteurs take place over time and are allowed to happen because there are no laws against the appearance of impropriety in place to prevent them.

For Obama to retain Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, both of whom are known to have participated in the schemes that nearly collapsed our Economy, when there were other available choices such as Robert Reich, certainly bears the appearance of impropriety. To retain an Attorney General, Eric Holder, who has ties to the finance industry, bears the appearance of impropriety -- and on and on. The entire web and network of our government abounds with appearances of impropriety, so much so that we've become so accustomed to it we barely notice it anymore. It has become acceptable in spite of the inevitable consequences.

As one contrasting example, our police agencies will not hire someone who has the slightest taint of criminal background. Some police agencies will not hire someone who has close affiliation with individuals or with family members who have criminal records. In many cases these criteria operate to the disadvantage of individuals who would not be negatively influenced by such affiliations, but the argument that the ultimate effect of such proscriptions is positive cannot be denied.

Yet our government turns a blind eye to any such potentially harmful appointment. For example, one glaring appearance of impropriety is the ability of any former member of Congress to become a lobbyist immediately upon separation from Office. While some have suggested imposing a time barrier of four years between separation from Congress and registration as a lobbyist I believe that having been a member of Congress should bar one from ever being able to lobby his/her former legislators. The appearance of impropriety in that relationship is strikingly obvious, yet it is commonplace.

 

[editec]

I cannot help but note that neither POTUS and neither PARTY has called the BANKSTERS to account for their bad behavior.

What am I to conclude from that EXCEPT that both parties CONDONE such behavior?

 

[DSGE]

I cannot help but note that neither POTUS and neither PARTY has called the BANKSTERS to account for their bad behavior.

What am I to conclude from that EXCEPT that both parties CONDONE such behavior?

What are they gonna do? Maybe pressure the SEC to prosecute any fraud cases they have. But I don't know how many cases or how much evidence they have...

 

[Unkotare]

You would be correct sir.

The big Heads on Wall Street and thier patsys in government should be charged with Financial Terrorism.

Since they also make the laws, as did Hitler make his own laws, there are very few laws they could have broken. Though, there were laws still broken, which they got away with, repeatedly, via a slap on the wrist and paying a token fee.

Since it is clear that the criminals in our Government and on Wall Street answer to noone, here is to hoping an outside country comes in and charges them with Financial Terrorism as well as War Crimes which there have been many.

I am 100% for America and this country, and the government has gone rogue and no longer represents us. The Government also does not equal Country and will not side with them in their criminal dealings.

You're a bit overwrought, kid.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I cannot help but note that neither POTUS and neither PARTY has called the BANKSTERS to account for their bad behavior.

What am I to conclude from that EXCEPT that both parties CONDONE such behavior?

what bad behavior?? Most of them lost billions and went out of business? Ever heard of Lehman, Bear Sterns Merryl WaMU Citibank etcetc. Capitalism punished them. This is the way capitalism works, in fact millions go bankrupt and out of business each year.

Does the liberal want to bring back debtors prison or something??