Obama recently forced Gm CEO Rick Wagnor to quit-well really, that's just a nice way of saying he fired him. I didn't know firing an executive of a company part of the presidential job description? It's not, and it never should be. Perhaps it is in line with the stewardship theory of the Presidency, but I would go so far as to claim to you this act is, quite simply, illegal. The powers of the president are seemingly expanding to degrees once considered impossible, and who will be there to stop it? Congress? There didn't seem so much as a hiccup of protest against Obama's firing Wagnor. It's hard to say if a same-party Congress rallied behind their leader would do anything but eagerly support whatever the president feds them. Hey, but at least Europe will applause.
There has been talk of nationalizing the banks, instead of bailing them out. That's a terrible idea. Bailouts can create problems all by itself, but we don't need to add nationalization of corporations to our desperate far-reaching list of ideas. Our government was not intended to control business of any kind, and if they did nationalize the banks, it would be in violation of our capitalist system. To do so would be another step in the country's move toward socialism. It may be argued, that once this crisis is averted, we could return the banks to private owners. However, since when has any president, or Congress, given up a power once it was granted them?
Maybe socialism wouldn't be so bad, though , after all nearly 20% of Americans believe socialism would be a better system than capitalism. Come on...are we really that naive? Have we forgotten our history and are now doomed to repeat it? For one, we have the great and ominous example of the Soviet Union. Also, it is interesting to note, that our forefathers already tested socialism and found it a poor system. At Plymouth everyone was supposed to work for the common good and so each would get an equal share of food. Some soon discovered, however, that they would still receive food even if they didn't work, or worked the minimum. Thus, those few hard workers had to carry the weight of the irresponsible freeloaders. The pilgrims realized this was a poor plan, and soon made it so that if someone didn't work they didn't eat. Sound wisdom-maybe we should live by their example. Socialism didn't work, and doesn't work. Plus, it's just plain not American.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your opposition to remind everyone that socialism and equality does not work in a business aspect. Yet you have to understand that capitalism is not the answer to curing an economic struggle. It's not the answer to converting what you call "freeloaders" to hard working Americans. You only seem to see the point of view of a wealthy American. Socialism is an idealistic view on human behavior. Capitalism is not synonymous with democracy however. Capitalism spawns greed and corruption. If you have a system that continually feeds the elites and provides a bigger gap between wealthy and the middle class, you have a problem. You talk about those who abuse welfare, what about those who abuse Capitalism. What about ninety percent of wealth being in the hands of only five percent of the population. You want us to fold into the commercial herd that we are told will help us. We should strive to buy things we don't need and laugh at the expense of poverished people. It's fine not to pay attention to poverty, but there is no denying the truth that poverty is spreading to those in the middle class because of capitalism. Maybe 20% of Americans believe that socialism would work because they see the countless people in economic struggle under capitalism. They see the universal healthcare system being adopted in foreign lands and see its success to save lives. When you are constantly denied health coverage because of insurance you don't have, that is not American. E pluribus unum right? Why can't we help out people under our own flag?
ReplyDelete