The Moral Case for Free Enterprise

Hoosier4Liberty

Libertarian Republican
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Messages
465
Reaction score
87
Points
78
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NfLUCBZ1is]Don't Eat Your Dog: The Surprising Moral Case for Free Enterprise - YouTube[/ame]

As we on the right now, free enterprise is unquestionably the way to improve the economy and help the most people. But too often, liberals are able to win these arguments by framing things like income inequality, the minimum wage, and unemployment benefits as being about morality/fairness. We need to fight the left on their own turf, and we need to win.

Here's the most salient points in defending free enterprise.
1) Supporters of the free market believe that every individual should be free to pursue their own happiness. We think people should be able to follow their own hopes and dreams without excessive intervention by the government. Some people turn out richer and some poorer than others, but that's OK. In fact, studies have confirmed this. People who say they feel they've earned their success are much happier than those who do not, regardless of income. A study showed that people who delayed gratification in kindergarten, by waiting 15 minutes for a 2nd marshmallow rather than eating the first one right away, had higher SAT scores and GPA's, and were less likely to do drugs, than those who were not. We think people should be able to pursue their own happiness, and live in their image, not Barack Obama's or some government bureaucrat's.
2) Inequality is the price of a free society, but rich people are the ones who are making life better for everyone. A poor person in the US today has a cell phone(quite possibly an iPhone), a microwave, a car, a fridge, clean water, a computer with Internet, and air conditioning. 30 years ago, a middle class family wouldn't have a lot of these things, and the wealthiest would have none of these things 120 years ago. People act as if the rich are taking up a bigger slice of the pie, but in reality, the rich are the ones baking the pies.

3) We have to argue for basic fairness. For most Americans, a fair society is one in which hard work, creativity, and honest competition result in financial reward. It does not mean that we redistribute resources through government power just to get more equality. It also does not mean rewarding the government's cronies in favored industries - from green energy, to banks, to labor unions. It means rewarding merit and creating opportunity. It does not mean insider dealing, social engineering, equalizing economic outcomes, and pork-barrel spending.

4) Finally, and this is alluding to point #2, we have to argue for the rights of the poor, and fight for the system that lifts them up by the billions. Between 1970 and 2010, the percentage of the world's population living on less than a dollar a day has been reduced by about 80 percent. What explains this miracle? The United Nations or International Monetary Fund? U.S. foreign aid? Of course not. It was globalization, free trade, entrepreneurship, property rights, and the rule of law spreading around the world.

In conclusion, economic freedom isn't just right economically. It's right morally. We need to show the compassion that underlies support of free enterprise policies, and stop letting liberals claim the mantle of morality.
 

occupied

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
23,988
Reaction score
4,838
Points
280
Free enterprise should not be confused with capitalism, it seems you have made the same mistake as other conservatives. Your mom and pop operation is not the same as Walmart or Citigroup, attacking the monopolistic monsters and the investment banking industry is the kindest thing anyone can do to aid the average American business owner to actually be able to practice free enterprise rather than this rigged system we have now.
 
OP
H

Hoosier4Liberty

Libertarian Republican
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Messages
465
Reaction score
87
Points
78
Free enterprise should not be confused with capitalism, it seems you have made the same mistake as other conservatives. Your mom and pop operation is not the same as Walmart or Citigroup, attacking the monopolistic monsters and the investment banking industry is the kindest thing anyone can do to aid the average American business owner to actually be able to practice free enterprise rather than this rigged system we have now.
Conservatives oppose corporate welfare far more than Democrats. Guess which liberals refuse party gives billions in "green-energy" subsidies to General Electric? With regards to oil subsidies, Republicans support getting rid of them. Nevada Senator Dean Heller wrote the Gas Price relief act which lowers the gas tax with the money made by getting rid of oil companies' tax cuts. But liberals refuse to take any money saved and give it back to Americans.

Wall Street tends to vote Democrat as well, though 2012 was an exception. Most Republicans voted against the Wall Street bailout, and most Democrats voted for it.

Your rhetoric fails to match up to reality once again. :cuckoo:
 

occupied

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
23,988
Reaction score
4,838
Points
280
Free enterprise should not be confused with capitalism, it seems you have made the same mistake as other conservatives. Your mom and pop operation is not the same as Walmart or Citigroup, attacking the monopolistic monsters and the investment banking industry is the kindest thing anyone can do to aid the average American business owner to actually be able to practice free enterprise rather than this rigged system we have now.
Conservatives oppose corporate welfare far more than Democrats. Guess which liberals refuse party gives billions in "green-energy" subsidies to General Electric? With regards to oil subsidies, Republicans support getting rid of them. Nevada Senator Dean Heller wrote the Gas Price relief act which lowers the gas tax with the money made by getting rid of oil companies' tax cuts. But liberals refuse to take any money saved and give it back to Americans.

Wall Street tends to vote Democrat as well, though 2012 was an exception. Most Republicans voted against the Wall Street bailout, and most Democrats voted for it.

Your rhetoric fails to match up to reality once again. :cuckoo:
What does all that have to do with my statement? I made the claim that there is a difference between capitalism and free enterprise that often escapes conservatives in their rush to demonize liberals. Do you want to address that point or continue assuming that there is a big difference between congressional democrats and republicans when it comes to kissing billionaire ass?
 

LeftofLeft

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
12,153
Reaction score
3,663
Points
350
Free enterprise should not be confused with capitalism, it seems you have made the same mistake as other conservatives. Your mom and pop operation is not the same as Walmart or Citigroup, attacking the monopolistic monsters and the investment banking industry is the kindest thing anyone can do to aid the average American business owner to actually be able to practice free enterprise rather than this rigged system we have now.
Remember Joe The Plumber? He was looking to become a mom and pop Main Street small business. When he questioned the Democrat plan, he was smeared to the point wear his private records were being accessed by Democrat workers and he was being mocked by the Democrat ticket for being a $250k per year plumber. Anyone in small business knows that this $250k number was a gross figure and that Joe might net $70k off that.

Main Street is the only engine that can bring this economy back
 

Londoner

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
3,144
Reaction score
980
Points
285
Where in the world did people get the notion that we've ever had free enterprise?

The state has always been a dynamic advocate for the interests of capital accumulation; it has always given subsidies, bailouts, and in immense regulatory aid to our largest suppliers (e.g., creating impossible entrance barriers for foreign drug suppliers so that our domestic manufactures can have monopoly pricing power. Does the OP know how much money corporations like Eli Lilly invested in the GOP Congress in order to influence the 2003 drug bill - Medicare Part D?).

Does the OP know the degree to which profit makers depend on our satellite system? Does the OP know that our satellite system came out of the Cold War Pentagon and NASA budgets? Does the OP know the investment that the taxpayer has made in the advanced industrial infrastructure upon which commerce depends?

[We have raised a generation of talk radio Republicans who don't know anything about how Washington works and the ways it intervenes in the market on behalf of our capitalist class]

Does the OP know why the private sector has created a lobbying empire in Washington DC, the place where big money goes for centralized power over domestic markets?

Does the OP understand how much protection the private sector gets from the nanny state through our very expensive patent system? Does the OP understand how much our capitalist class depends on the global capitalist system, a system which requires massive military investment to stabilize dangerous areas of the globe that feed the capitalist engine with cheap labor and raw material? Does the OP know how much the taxpayer spends to protect Exxon's oilfields in the Middle East?

Big government has always provided massive welfare to our private sector.

This is the problem with public debate. The right wing message system has raised a generation of idiots.
 
Last edited:
OP
H

Hoosier4Liberty

Libertarian Republican
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Messages
465
Reaction score
87
Points
78
Where in the world did people get the notion that we've ever had free enterprise?

The state has always been a dynamic advocate for the interests of capital accumulation; it has always given subsidies, bailouts, and in immense regulatory aid to our largest suppliers (e.g., creating impossible entrance barriers for foreign drug suppliers so that our domestic manufactures can have monopoly pricing power. Does the OP know how much money corporations like Eli Lilly invested in the GOP Congress in order to influence the 2003 drug bill - Medicare Part D?).

Does the OP know the degree to which profit makers depend on our satellite system? Does the OP know that our satellite system came out of the Cold War Pentagon and NASA budgets? Does the OP know the investment that the taxpayer has made in the advanced industrial infrastructure upon which commerce depends?

[We have raised a generation of talk radio Republicans who don't know anything about how Washington works and the ways it intervenes in the market on behalf of our capitalist class]

Does the OP know why the private sector has created a lobbying empire in Washington DC, the place where big money goes for centralized power over domestic markets?

Does the OP understand how much protection the private sector gets from the nanny state through our very expensive patent system? Does the OP understand how much our capitalist class depends on the global capitalist system, a system which requires massive military investment to stabilize dangerous areas of the globe that feed the capitalist engine with cheap labor and raw material? Does the OP know how much the taxpayer spends to protect Exxon's oilfields in the Middle East?

Big government has always provided massive welfare to our private sector.

This is the problem with public debate. The right wing message system has raised a generation of idiots.
Yes, there's always been some amount of government involvement in business, but it's reached unprecedented levels under Obama. I accept that government has a role, but that role should be much smaller. I don't believe spending trillions and trillions of other people's money is a good thing. Both parties are to blame, but Obama's really messed things up.
 

Clementine

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
12,919
Reaction score
4,801
Points
350
Free enterprise should not be confused with capitalism, it seems you have made the same mistake as other conservatives. Your mom and pop operation is not the same as Walmart or Citigroup, attacking the monopolistic monsters and the investment banking industry is the kindest thing anyone can do to aid the average American business owner to actually be able to practice free enterprise rather than this rigged system we have now.
That is an argument for abolishing the Federal Reserve.

It's government regulation and Fed control over money and banking that allows some to have monopolies. When has either a Dem or Repub even attempted to change that?
 

occupied

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
23,988
Reaction score
4,838
Points
280
Free enterprise should not be confused with capitalism, it seems you have made the same mistake as other conservatives. Your mom and pop operation is not the same as Walmart or Citigroup, attacking the monopolistic monsters and the investment banking industry is the kindest thing anyone can do to aid the average American business owner to actually be able to practice free enterprise rather than this rigged system we have now.
That is an argument for abolishing the Federal Reserve.

It's government regulation and Fed control over money and banking that allows some to have monopolies. When has either a Dem or Repub even attempted to change that?
I believe it was JFK, look what happened to him. I agree that the Fed is a horrible thing but the way things work, if we abolished it the rest of the world would declare war on us, kind of stuck with it.
 

LoneLaugher

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
60,531
Reaction score
8,978
Points
2,040
Location
Inside Mac's Head
Where in the world did people get the notion that we've ever had free enterprise?

The state has always been a dynamic advocate for the interests of capital accumulation; it has always given subsidies, bailouts, and in immense regulatory aid to our largest suppliers (e.g., creating impossible entrance barriers for foreign drug suppliers so that our domestic manufactures can have monopoly pricing power. Does the OP know how much money corporations like Eli Lilly invested in the GOP Congress in order to influence the 2003 drug bill - Medicare Part D?).

Does the OP know the degree to which profit makers depend on our satellite system? Does the OP know that our satellite system came out of the Cold War Pentagon and NASA budgets? Does the OP know the investment that the taxpayer has made in the advanced industrial infrastructure upon which commerce depends?

[We have raised a generation of talk radio Republicans who don't know anything about how Washington works and the ways it intervenes in the market on behalf of our capitalist class]

Does the OP know why the private sector has created a lobbying empire in Washington DC, the place where big money goes for centralized power over domestic markets?

Does the OP understand how much protection the private sector gets from the nanny state through our very expensive patent system? Does the OP understand how much our capitalist class depends on the global capitalist system, a system which requires massive military investment to stabilize dangerous areas of the globe that feed the capitalist engine with cheap labor and raw material? Does the OP know how much the taxpayer spends to protect Exxon's oilfields in the Middle East?

Big government has always provided massive welfare to our private sector.

This is the problem with public debate. The right wing message system has raised a generation of idiots.
Yes, there's always been some amount of government involvement in business, but it's reached unprecedented levels under Obama. I accept that government has a role, but that role should be much smaller. I don't believe spending trillions and trillions of other people's money is a good thing. Both parties are to blame, but Obama's really messed things up.
Support that claim or we'll have to give you detention.
 
OP
H

Hoosier4Liberty

Libertarian Republican
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Messages
465
Reaction score
87
Points
78
Where in the world did people get the notion that we've ever had free enterprise?

The state has always been a dynamic advocate for the interests of capital accumulation; it has always given subsidies, bailouts, and in immense regulatory aid to our largest suppliers (e.g., creating impossible entrance barriers for foreign drug suppliers so that our domestic manufactures can have monopoly pricing power. Does the OP know how much money corporations like Eli Lilly invested in the GOP Congress in order to influence the 2003 drug bill - Medicare Part D?).

Does the OP know the degree to which profit makers depend on our satellite system? Does the OP know that our satellite system came out of the Cold War Pentagon and NASA budgets? Does the OP know the investment that the taxpayer has made in the advanced industrial infrastructure upon which commerce depends?

[We have raised a generation of talk radio Republicans who don't know anything about how Washington works and the ways it intervenes in the market on behalf of our capitalist class]

Does the OP know why the private sector has created a lobbying empire in Washington DC, the place where big money goes for centralized power over domestic markets?

Does the OP understand how much protection the private sector gets from the nanny state through our very expensive patent system? Does the OP understand how much our capitalist class depends on the global capitalist system, a system which requires massive military investment to stabilize dangerous areas of the globe that feed the capitalist engine with cheap labor and raw material? Does the OP know how much the taxpayer spends to protect Exxon's oilfields in the Middle East?

Big government has always provided massive welfare to our private sector.

This is the problem with public debate. The right wing message system has raised a generation of idiots.
Yes, there's always been some amount of government involvement in business, but it's reached unprecedented levels under Obama. I accept that government has a role, but that role should be much smaller. I don't believe spending trillions and trillions of other people's money is a good thing. Both parties are to blame, but Obama's really messed things up.
Support that claim or we'll have to give you detention.
1. America's economic freedom ranking is down below #12, below Canada for the first time ever. It's fallen 7 places under Obama.
Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity by Country
2. Government spending as a percent of GDP is the highest it's ever been outside when we weren't in a world war
Government Spending as a Percentage of GDP | The Big Picture
Lessons From the Decades Long Upward March of Government Spending - Forbes
 

LoneLaugher

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
60,531
Reaction score
8,978
Points
2,040
Location
Inside Mac's Head
Yes, there's always been some amount of government involvement in business, but it's reached unprecedented levels under Obama. I accept that government has a role, but that role should be much smaller. I don't believe spending trillions and trillions of other people's money is a good thing. Both parties are to blame, but Obama's really messed things up.
Support that claim or we'll have to give you detention.
1. America's economic freedom ranking is down below #12, below Canada for the first time ever. It's fallen 7 places under Obama.
Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity by Country
2. Government spending as a percent of GDP is the highest it's ever been outside when we weren't in a world war
Government Spending as a Percentage of GDP | The Big Picture
Lessons From the Decades Long Upward March of Government Spending - Forbes
That does not support your claim. Try harder.
 
Last edited:

hazlnut

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
12,387
Reaction score
1,918
Points
290
Location
Chicago
Don't Eat Your Dog: The Surprising Moral Case for Free Enterprise - YouTube

As we on the right now, free enterprise is unquestionably the way to improve the economy and help the most people. But too often, liberals are able to win these arguments by framing things like income inequality, the minimum wage, and unemployment benefits as being about morality/fairness. We need to fight the left on their own turf, and we need to win.

Here's the most salient points in defending free enterprise.
1) Supporters of the free market believe that every individual should be free to pursue their own happiness. We think people should be able to follow their own hopes and dreams without excessive intervention by the government. Some people turn out richer and some poorer than others, but that's OK. In fact, studies have confirmed this. People who say they feel they've earned their success are much happier than those who do not, regardless of income. A study showed that people who delayed gratification in kindergarten, by waiting 15 minutes for a 2nd marshmallow rather than eating the first one right away, had higher SAT scores and GPA's, and were less likely to do drugs, than those who were not. We think people should be able to pursue their own happiness, and live in their image, not Barack Obama's or some government bureaucrat's.
2) Inequality is the price of a free society, but rich people are the ones who are making life better for everyone. A poor person in the US today has a cell phone(quite possibly an iPhone), a microwave, a car, a fridge, clean water, a computer with Internet, and air conditioning. 30 years ago, a middle class family wouldn't have a lot of these things, and the wealthiest would have none of these things 120 years ago. People act as if the rich are taking up a bigger slice of the pie, but in reality, the rich are the ones baking the pies.

3) We have to argue for basic fairness. For most Americans, a fair society is one in which hard work, creativity, and honest competition result in financial reward. It does not mean that we redistribute resources through government power just to get more equality. It also does not mean rewarding the government's cronies in favored industries - from green energy, to banks, to labor unions. It means rewarding merit and creating opportunity. It does not mean insider dealing, social engineering, equalizing economic outcomes, and pork-barrel spending.

4) Finally, and this is alluding to point #2, we have to argue for the rights of the poor, and fight for the system that lifts them up by the billions. Between 1970 and 2010, the percentage of the world's population living on less than a dollar a day has been reduced by about 80 percent. What explains this miracle? The United Nations or International Monetary Fund? U.S. foreign aid? Of course not. It was globalization, free trade, entrepreneurship, property rights, and the rule of law spreading around the world.

In conclusion, economic freedom isn't just right economically. It's right morally. We need to show the compassion that underlies support of free enterprise policies, and stop letting liberals claim the mantle of morality.

Without pragmatic regulations and consumer protections FREE ENTERPRISE GAVE US:

  • Company Towns.
  • Child Labor.
  • Toxic Sludge dumping in rivers and lakes.
  • Acid Rain.
  • The Pinto.
  • Love Canal.
  • Cancer Clusters.
  • Women and Children burned alive in sweatshop fires.
  • THE GREAT DEPRESSION
  • THE GREAT RESCESSION
 

occupied

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
23,988
Reaction score
4,838
Points
280
Don't Eat Your Dog: The Surprising Moral Case for Free Enterprise - YouTube

As we on the right now, free enterprise is unquestionably the way to improve the economy and help the most people. But too often, liberals are able to win these arguments by framing things like income inequality, the minimum wage, and unemployment benefits as being about morality/fairness. We need to fight the left on their own turf, and we need to win.

Here's the most salient points in defending free enterprise.
1) Supporters of the free market believe that every individual should be free to pursue their own happiness. We think people should be able to follow their own hopes and dreams without excessive intervention by the government. Some people turn out richer and some poorer than others, but that's OK. In fact, studies have confirmed this. People who say they feel they've earned their success are much happier than those who do not, regardless of income. A study showed that people who delayed gratification in kindergarten, by waiting 15 minutes for a 2nd marshmallow rather than eating the first one right away, had higher SAT scores and GPA's, and were less likely to do drugs, than those who were not. We think people should be able to pursue their own happiness, and live in their image, not Barack Obama's or some government bureaucrat's.
2) Inequality is the price of a free society, but rich people are the ones who are making life better for everyone. A poor person in the US today has a cell phone(quite possibly an iPhone), a microwave, a car, a fridge, clean water, a computer with Internet, and air conditioning. 30 years ago, a middle class family wouldn't have a lot of these things, and the wealthiest would have none of these things 120 years ago. People act as if the rich are taking up a bigger slice of the pie, but in reality, the rich are the ones baking the pies.

3) We have to argue for basic fairness. For most Americans, a fair society is one in which hard work, creativity, and honest competition result in financial reward. It does not mean that we redistribute resources through government power just to get more equality. It also does not mean rewarding the government's cronies in favored industries - from green energy, to banks, to labor unions. It means rewarding merit and creating opportunity. It does not mean insider dealing, social engineering, equalizing economic outcomes, and pork-barrel spending.

4) Finally, and this is alluding to point #2, we have to argue for the rights of the poor, and fight for the system that lifts them up by the billions. Between 1970 and 2010, the percentage of the world's population living on less than a dollar a day has been reduced by about 80 percent. What explains this miracle? The United Nations or International Monetary Fund? U.S. foreign aid? Of course not. It was globalization, free trade, entrepreneurship, property rights, and the rule of law spreading around the world.

In conclusion, economic freedom isn't just right economically. It's right morally. We need to show the compassion that underlies support of free enterprise policies, and stop letting liberals claim the mantle of morality.

Without pragmatic regulations and consumer protections FREE ENTERPRISE GAVE US:

  • Company Towns.
  • Child Labor.
  • Toxic Sludge dumping in rivers and lakes.
  • Acid Rain.
  • The Pinto.
  • Love Canal.
  • Cancer Clusters.
  • Women and Children burned alive in sweatshop fires.
  • THE GREAT DEPRESSION
  • THE GREAT RESCESSION
No, it was Obama, I'm sure of it.
 

OnePercenter

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
23,635
Reaction score
1,836
Points
265
Free enterprise should not be confused with capitalism, it seems you have made the same mistake as other conservatives. Your mom and pop operation is not the same as Walmart or Citigroup, attacking the monopolistic monsters and the investment banking industry is the kindest thing anyone can do to aid the average American business owner to actually be able to practice free enterprise rather than this rigged system we have now.
Remember Joe The Plumber? He was looking to become a mom and pop Main Street small business. When he questioned the Democrat plan, he was smeared to the point wear his private records were being accessed by Democrat workers and he was being mocked by the Democrat ticket for being a $250k per year plumber. Anyone in small business knows that this $250k number was a gross figure and that Joe might net $70k off that.

Main Street is the only engine that can bring this economy back
You mean Joe the Plumber that's actually not a licensed Plumber?
 

eflatminor

Classical Liberal
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
1,665
Points
245
I agree that the Fed is a horrible thing but the way things work, if we abolished it the rest of the world would declare war on us, kind of stuck with it.
Let me get this straight...if we returned to a sound money policy, as we practice during the first 200 years of the country's existence, WWIII would break out.

Care to provide a shred of evidence, logic or reason to support that statement?
 

eflatminor

Classical Liberal
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
1,665
Points
245
Free enterprise should not be confused with capitalism, it seems you have made the same mistake as other conservatives. Your mom and pop operation is not the same as Walmart or Citigroup, attacking the monopolistic monsters and the investment banking industry is the kindest thing anyone can do to aid the average American business owner to actually be able to practice free enterprise rather than this rigged system we have now.
That is an argument for abolishing the Federal Reserve.

It's government regulation and Fed control over money and banking that allows some to have monopolies. When has either a Dem or Repub even attempted to change that?
:clap2:

True that. It's also an argument for ousting all the politicians (of either party) that meddle outside their strictly enumerated powers.

But you watch, the collectivist around here will continue to bitch about corporate tax breaks and handouts while supporting the very same politicians that engage in the cronyism.

Wall Street is in Chuck Schumer's district if I remember correctly. He's one of those evil "right wingers", right???

Pfft! The meddlers are in both parties, but the bias is so overwhelming, they refuse to see reality.
 
OP
H

Hoosier4Liberty

Libertarian Republican
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Messages
465
Reaction score
87
Points
78
Free enterprise should not be confused with capitalism, it seems you have made the same mistake as other conservatives. Your mom and pop operation is not the same as Walmart or Citigroup, attacking the monopolistic monsters and the investment banking industry is the kindest thing anyone can do to aid the average American business owner to actually be able to practice free enterprise rather than this rigged system we have now.
That is an argument for abolishing the Federal Reserve.

It's government regulation and Fed control over money and banking that allows some to have monopolies. When has either a Dem or Repub even attempted to change that?
:clap2:

True that. It's also an argument for ousting all the politicians (of either party) that meddle outside their strictly enumerated powers.

But you watch, the collectivist around here will continue to bitch about corporate tax breaks and handouts while supporting the very same politicians that engage in the cronyism.

Wall Street is in Chuck Schumer's district if I remember correctly. He's one of those evil "right wingers", right???

Pfft! The meddlers are in both parties, but the bias is so overwhelming, they refuse to see reality.

Indeed. I love it when lib arguments backfire.
 

OnePercenter

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
23,635
Reaction score
1,836
Points
265
That is an argument for abolishing the Federal Reserve.

It's government regulation and Fed control over money and banking that allows some to have monopolies. When has either a Dem or Repub even attempted to change that?
:clap2:

True that. It's also an argument for ousting all the politicians (of either party) that meddle outside their strictly enumerated powers.

But you watch, the collectivist around here will continue to bitch about corporate tax breaks and handouts while supporting the very same politicians that engage in the cronyism.

Wall Street is in Chuck Schumer's district if I remember correctly. He's one of those evil "right wingers", right???

Pfft! The meddlers are in both parties, but the bias is so overwhelming, they refuse to see reality.

Indeed. I love it when lib arguments backfire.
Since 'free market' doesn't exist, your point is moot.
 

eflatminor

Classical Liberal
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
1,665
Points
245
:clap2:

True that. It's also an argument for ousting all the politicians (of either party) that meddle outside their strictly enumerated powers.

But you watch, the collectivist around here will continue to bitch about corporate tax breaks and handouts while supporting the very same politicians that engage in the cronyism.

Wall Street is in Chuck Schumer's district if I remember correctly. He's one of those evil "right wingers", right???

Pfft! The meddlers are in both parties, but the bias is so overwhelming, they refuse to see reality.

Indeed. I love it when lib arguments backfire.
Since 'free market' doesn't exist, your point is moot.
We state how Federal Reserve and political meddling and bailouts have led to a monopolistic environment in the banking industry, and your retort is "Since 'free market' doesn't exist, your point is moot."

Really?

Wait...is this really Truthmatters???
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top