"Unconstitutional" Double Standard?

Discussion in 'Economy' started by DamnYankee, Sep 15, 2009.

  1. DamnYankee
    Offline

    DamnYankee No Neg Policy

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,516
    Thanks Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +441
    U.S. Is Finding Its Role in Business Hard to Unwind - NYTimes (Business)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/b...=th&adxnnlx=1253001827-Z0r3i2NBPOo2w2zPtsdsvQ


    The founding fathers and the Continental Congress must surely be rolling over in their graves. I could have sworn I learned that the U.S. government did not have the legal authority to be an owner/share holder in private enterprise(?) How is it that, over the past decade, Haliburton was castigated constantly, due to involvement of officials in "FORMER association" with that company, yet the government under Obama now holds 60% of GMC (that's a controlling percentage)? Something isn't right!

    How is it a poor slob can't walk into a bank for a loan to "bail himself out", yet on my way to work, I saw my bank with all kinds of equipment in their yard, and when I went home for lunch, they had brand new landscaping? Sure, some contractor got big $$$, in hard times, for doing that job, but what about infrastructure with bailout bucks? Shouldn't we be concentrating more on "banking business" than "cosmetics"? Bridges are collapsing and we spend on landscaping???

    I don't get it, but according to the "Yes We Can" folks, "that's why you lost"? What, exactly, have the "winners" won? What about liberal usage, ad nausum, of the Gore quote, "what should be up is down, and what should be down is up"? Reminds me of the Fun House at the carnival -- no matter how it's billed, you always leave demanding your money back!
     
  2. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    136,925
    Thanks Received:
    12,307
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,354
    Allibiz, a bank was designed by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton; the legislation passed in a House led by James Madison; the bank had had 20% of its directors from government; a bank had 20% of its capital from the government ~~ that bank was the first U.S. National Bank, a jointly funded, jointly managed operation between business and government.

    Where on God's green little acres did you get such a foolish idea/
     
  3. DamnYankee
    Offline

    DamnYankee No Neg Policy

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,516
    Thanks Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +441
    Let's see....

    20% is 30% less than 50%

    60% is 10% more than 50%

    I presume that "new math" isn't too difficult?
     
  4. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617

    The founding fathers also erected huge tariffs to encourage industrial growth in the USA and the entire Federal government was run on the revenues from those tariffs.

    There was no incomes taxes, back then, either.

    You down with systemn too, or is you adherence to wht the floundering fathers did, only limited to whatever your Masters tell you to support?
     
  5. pinqy
    Online

    pinqy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,044
    Thanks Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    What does the percentage matter? You stated that "I could have sworn I learned that the U.S. government did not have the legal authority to be an owner/share holder in private enterprise(?) ." I have no idea where you learned that from, and you learned wrongly. And editec correctly points out that the founding fathers demonstably didn't have a problem with it.
     

Share This Page