[quote name='mykevermin']
Let me be clear, as this point is absolutely irrefutable: ANY GOVERNMENT USE OF PRIVATELY EARNED MONEY IS REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. If you don't get that, we can't continue in this conversation. It's a moot point, as it occurs anytime the government does something with money.[/quote]
I thought it was obvious, but by redistribution of wealth, in this context, I was specifically referring to social programs and welfare states. Not taxation.
It's true that Jesus never really waxed political, so nobody can really say for sure if he would be a republican or democrat (neither is my vote). But it's hard to be a student of his teachings and also say he thought people should be forced, by law, to take care of people the government labeled "in need". It's amazing that anyone would conclude such a thing from his teachings.
WHAT ALTERNATE CHOICES WERE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME? I asked you a simple question, and you can't respond to it.
Again, I thought that was obvious by what I said. GM should have failed. They made the decisions that got them in the shit-can and they got bailed out. I know you will argue that it would have cascaded into a worse recession for the whole country, etc etc - but tough shit. Hard times must be had for growth in the future sometimes. That's how nature works.
The concept of any company (even a bank) being too big to fail is such a mind-boggling bad idea for a myriad of reasons. It sets a very dangerous precedence for company behavior in the future if they can just be "too big".
The free market depends on risk. It depends on the possibility of failure. It depends on the possibility of employees and customers being
ed if the company makes bad choices. This ensures that as a company grows, so does their careful decision making.
As soon as you alleviate some of that risk, even a little, you DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET. (Which is why it's arguable that we never really have)
In his college years. Ger'off it. Avowed = current, Van Jones was in his past. You WANT to convince people he STILL IS a Communist because it suits your narrative, but it's no more true than is the ACORN scandal. You seek to believe a worldview that is contradicted by fact, but suits your political needs. If you maintained your dreadful strategic approach, but were a progressive instead, you'd be railing about how we elected a "drug addict" in 2000 because Bush had a brief fling with cocaine in college. You're grasping at straws, you want to use the image of a man decades ago and pay no attention to the man's work since that time. You want to ignore Van Jones of today and tell us he's Van Jones The College Years. I'd be embarrassed if that were all I could muster.
If what you said was true then we could surmise that you grew out of your socialist neo-progressive leanings from YOUR college days, but simply going by the grafitti you supply all over the vs forum, its a safe bet you haven't.
Same with Jones.
I'd never have brought Van Jones up if I could find where he ever denounced in his College-days Communism (I can't), and usually when one claims they are something - and then continue to act and talk like that thing (he does), it isn't a stretch to assume they remain that thing.
