Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (17546)	5/4/2010 10:49:43 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

Partially OT They are going to want and deserve to get direct compensation for their losses. And a very large amount of money will go to that effort, and if it it does turn out to be inadequate (which is itself a somewhat subjective issue), then it still would not be a "socialism for the wealthy issue" To clarify on what I mean by socialism for the wealthy is this current state of affairs in the US where big businesses like AIG and all those banks deserve to fail, but the US tax payer bails them out... I agree that is socialism for the wealthy, or at least something vaguely along those lines if it doesn't fit certain technical definitions in some cases. Whatever you call it, I don't like it, but its an entirely separate situation than BP. In the mean time, try to pass a law like the Health Care bill that benefits the middle class A new health care bill that harms the middle class, and maybe in the long run the poor as well. I find it all incredibly hypocritical and downright criminal of the GOP. Hypocrisy is overrated as a sin. (Which is very far from saying its ok.) It is however more obvious than many other faults. Do X, and people can argue whether X is wrong or right. Do X while arguing for not X, and even if the real serious problem is X, the "X while arguing for not X" issue is less disputable. Obviously you would want people to avoid doing the wrong thing in the first place, but sometime hypocrisy might be better than doing wrong while arguing that its great. Perhaps less odious in some ways but maybe even more of a problem. In any case the problem of other examples of big government, socialism, and or corporatism/economic fascism on one issue, are not reduced by the existence of the same policy idea, supported by another group of people, on another issue, whether or not hypocrisy is involved. Big government bailouts make huge new government health care programs more problematic not less (and vice versa). Also, support for the bailouts and stimulus was generally stronger from the Democrats than from the Republicans.