New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

It "kills me not to be there".......

Mr. Romney concedes that as the loser of the last election he is not in the position to tell people how to win elections. Then he goes on to say how Mr. Obama is not leading the nation and suggest that he feels if he were in office, he'd do what Obama is not doing. He spends much of the interview and discussion blaming Mr. Obama for blaming Republicans. HELLOOOOOOO!!!!

This is becoming an emerging hallmark of a political party in distress. A lack of introspection, hints that some introspection and changing tactics that would no longer demonstrate their lack of introspection, perhaps by applying some introspection would appear to correct this have been offered. Yet, the same old denial and delusion, the same old narcissistic return to the idea that Republicans, Mitt Romney, lost, not because of something they did, not because they can't seem to realize, acknowledge or take note of (because they lack introspection) remain in force all the time they spend criticizing their opponents for criticizing them, essentially blaming their opponents and their losses on the criticism of their opponents. Most of America appeared to take note of this, even members of the Republican Party have and with great difficulty for some, brought forth the notion that there is an element of their losses that are due to the party's inability or unwillingness to take a good hard look at itself in the mirror.

This interview of Mr. Romney only seems to reinforce a real need to apply some real and honest introspection, even therapy to get off the habit of blaming their losses on the opposite party's criticism of them. They don't seem to recognize what it looks like to others and some members of their own party to spend most of the time in an interview blaming one's opponent for using blame. if blame is the crime of the opponent and the wrong of the opponent, don't join the opponent by doing the very thing you're trying to criticize them for.

If one would like to demonstrate they are in touch with themselves, aware of their own faults and potential for being offensive, one who does not like people smoking would not be wise or exhibit intelligence by puffing on a cigarette while talking about how bad other people's habit of smoking is.

On the other hand, if one is conciliatory and fully recognizes, acknowledges and points out their own problems with their addicition to a bad habit as their basis for urging others to stop or not start, their message presents some credibility, honesty and clearly shows they have taken note of themselves and are not trying to suggest what others should do while they proceed to do the same or criticize others for doing the very thing they are doing.

The use of criticism by Democrats, Republicans or any party is their own problem, if it is truly the problem or reason their opponents lose. Let the people decide if anyone's use of criticism is bad or is warranted.

Criticizing others for criticizing offers a theater of the absurd, one that I could/may have just offered here, but perhaps some will get the point, that hearing Romney launch into criticism of Obama's use of criticism makes one wonder if Romney ever listens to himself honestly and forthrightly.

I'm not sure how any of us, religious or not, can apply any sort of ethic of reciprocity (those found universally throughout different ages, cultures and religions) without being totally honest with ourselves and applying and honest and forthright critique of ourselves in order to apply thought to whether our own actions are something we would approve of coming at us, no less than we'd readily approve aiming the same at others. Do we ask others to accept something we wouldn't accept ourselves?

Bobby Jindal, touched the surface of a great opportunity for the Republican Party to take an honest look at tself and admit to the American people it's frailties in the past and its committment to trying to avoid falling into the same traps which have turned off the American people to their party and lost them elections. So far as I can see, that glimmer of honesty and call for introspection has been ignored or buried and the same old same old continues to emanate from what was once a grander old party, that now seems to have no interest in recognizing, much less looking for, any cracks in its hull. At the same time, they have been trying to convince Americans they know how to run the government like a well oiled business.

After experiencing the worst financial crisis since the worst and based on the bad judgment, greed and gluttony of America's business elite, there seems something wrong with the suggestion that a big business influence is the right thing to solve what big business calls big government.

Kinda like saying, 'oh yeah, we ran the nation's economy into the ground, got a bailout, abused that too, (and by the way, love to bash the gift horse), but we'd be very good for government and we'd get a handle on things right away' and expecting any sane and intelligent person outside your cabal to believe you.


http://theweek.com/article/index/240843/mitt-romneys-first-post-election-interview-5-takeaways
 
Republican voters are not so unlike abused women who keep returning for more abuse -- all the while insisting that "things will be different this time".
 
Republican voters are not so unlike abused women who keep returning for more abuse -- all the while insisting that "things will be different this time".

Howdy NS!

It would appear the American people are disgusted with their elected representatives in general, the Democrats with a slight preference (for approval) over the Republicans. The problem is that all the dissatisfaction that Americans have with Congress, they love their own reps, and thus keep voting for them and since they can't vote for others, can never change the makeup of Congress. What has to happen is that some or all of us have to realize that change will come when we change and perhaps our government is merely a reflection of the dysfunction and/or entrenchment and division of the society that choses that government by electing those they want to represent them and that government to office.

While the neo republican faction of the Republican Party appear to be more resistant to introspection, it would seem important that people and leaders of all parties employ introspection as a means of quality control and maintenance of any quality they may possess. Manufacturers and businesses that fail to review, inspect and apply quality control to maintain the level of quality that attracts buyers to their products are not going to remain in business over the long term. In that way, business principles might be applied not necessarily to government, but to the political parties and leaders of those parties. I sure you know that government is not structured and designed to run like a for-profit business, yet some seem to insist that that corporations are run, just like government, thus running government just like a business entails no difference. Yet, I imagine if they really took the time to do real comparisons, they would find the similarities to business models and republics with a democratically elected representative government are far fewer than the contrary differences.

It makes good press for the heads of the for-profit business world to suggest they can run government, just like they run corporations. Unfortunately the "Great Recession" offered some hesitation and skepticism by Americans to that notion.

In the end, a government like ours appears to be the entity that is charged with being responsible for all the things that are not profitable and thus not taken up by most of society on its own or not fully taken up. Those problems and concerns don't go away just because society tries to ignore them or sweep them under that rug hoping their being out of sight, out of mind, they will never be heard from or cost anything to society again. Sweep too many things under the rug and if nothing else, the rug gets lumpy and impossible to walk on, much less costly to clean up from the accumulation of things sweep under it.

But you know all this...... : )

All we can do is offer our thoughts and hope, if they have any merit or wisdom, that will eventually be taken note of, with action following.

Very best!
 
Nice to have you back at PJ, KF. Your thoughtful contributions to our discussions are a welcome respite from the typical partisan sniping.
 
Then Jeb comes on Joe and repeats the same thing!

Yep, Bobby Jindal's suggestion, even if he struggles with it himself, appears to have either fallen on deaf ears (as that appears to be one of the things Jindal mentioned as a problem with his party) or went in one ear and out the other.

I'm not sure why anyone might expect it wouldn't as we know an exaggerated and unhealthy sense of self, narcissistic personality disorder, egotism, vanity, egocentric personalities, tend to have trouble with allowing introspection or humility. We all are vulnerable to the same, but introspection is something we can try to apply regularly as a moderating tool to our egos that tend toward becoming bloated and inflated and all the problems that come from not taking the time to look at (humble) ourselves so we might try to avoid becoming or doing the very things we call offensive in others. We're not going to stomp out our own egos and they are on some levels a healthy part of our instinctual survival, by all accounts, it seems that when they are too heavily imbalanced toward our egotistical side, we run into trouble. It's in way like the people that are unable to feel pain at all. This presents a real danger to them as they can burn and cut themselves or break bones and not have any pain to help them realize it, leading to infection, further injury or death from loss of blood from a wound they didn't know they had until they or someone else visually noted their bleeding.

The counterbalance and alarm system to our overheated egos is introspection, just as physical pain associated with injury or illness alerts us to a condition we need to attend to and where to locate that condition.

It all seems to boil down to the theories of time and motion, balance and counter balance and the interconnectivity and transference of energy in the universe in the interest of seeking a balance, but perpetually throwing things off balance requiring or creating an opposite and equal reaction as a counterbalance. Thus this seems to result in perpetual energy and perpetual motion, motion being the thing needed as a background with which to measure the passage of time. If nothing moves, nothing changes or transfers, there is no way to note or perceive the passage of time. Nothing new to knowledge or discovery, but perhaps relative to the seeking of and maintenance of a healthy balance range within the human personality and the forces that work to keep things in that healthy range of balance. Seems that perhaps an unconscious genetic propensity toward or away from that balance could possibly be supplemented with a conscious effort as a means to check one's own ego, knowing the troubles that could be caused by allowing it to get out of a healthy balance range. It may be that a conscious effort to try to check one's own ego as a form of our own quality control and maintenance of some level of balance within ourselves, is impossible once a level of imbalance is reached.

Oh well, more pondering......you know me..... :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection
 
Nice to have you back at PJ, KF. Your thoughtful contributions to our discussions are a welcome respite from the typical partisan sniping.

Thanks so very much NS, I have always enjoyed your thoughtful contributions as well. I have to say I have my share of moments where I join in the fray of partisan sniping.... I have to slap myself around a little to try to snap out of it..... One can see how frustration leads to anger and as well, how anger can eat us up from the inside out unless we apply some conscious effort to put a lid on it.......It's a challenge, a real challenge at times....When I begin to get that way, a vacation away from here seems to help a little.
 
Interestingly the BEST ally the Democratic Party has in keeping the Republican Party from winning.....is the Base of the Republican Party.

No "reforms" or "moderations" will be tolerated by these people, who are locked into Rush and Beck and Erick Erickson telling them "No....no moderation...no modernity....we will remain the party of mandatory vaginal probes....pregnancy rape is God's plan....build a 40 foot wall on the border and shoot men, women, and children who try to cross it....scrap Social Security and Medicare!!!!! No wire hangers....EVER!!!!"

As long as their Media Pundits keep telling them to "stay true to our conservative principles" (translation- misogynistic theocracy mixed with racism and plutocracy).....they'll demand that of the politicians and ATTACK any politicians who try to shift the GOP away from it. Rubio...Bobby Jindhal...etc.

If the RNC can't control its wagon team of rabid horses....and the horses lead the wagon towards the cliff, instead of away from it....the better it gets for Democrats or those who oppose Republicanism.
 
We all have healthy ego's! but there are times when you really need to think something thriugh,especially when what ever you are doing is not working.

A smart person would think, why did I lose? I had to do that when Hillary went down in flames. I dusted myself off,waited to see what Obama would do. He was big enough to name his opponent to be SOS. She was big enough in defeat to accept. That is my idea of reasonable people.

Even GW had the good sense to leave and keep his mouth hut. Not Cheney,or McCain. Both are sore losers. Al Gore did the same,walked away without whining.

Now,we have Romney,a real sore loser!
 
Well, MaryAnne....Mitt's got DECADES to be the pariah of the GOP. Bush-41 still had some warm feelings...many of the Right blamed Perot for his defeat. Bob Dole was a throwaway candidate...even the Repubs knew he would lose to Clinton in '96. McCain is somewhat forgiven...trying to run under Bush's recession, plus he gave them Gidget.


But Mitt....has no excuse. Even to them. Even the nutters who think "It was stolen". He live for years as "The Guy Who Blew An Easy Win". And these Rightys are a cruel, unforgiving bunch when it comes to that.
 
Interestingly the BEST ally the Democratic Party has in keeping the Republican Party from winning.....is the Base of the Republican Party.

No "reforms" or "moderations" will be tolerated by these people, who are locked into Rush and Beck and Erick Erickson telling them "No....no moderation...no modernity....we will remain the party of mandatory vaginal probes....pregnancy rape is God's plan....build a 40 foot wall on the border and shoot men, women, and children who try to cross it....scrap Social Security and Medicare!!!!! No wire hangers....EVER!!!!"

As long as their Media Pundits keep telling them to "stay true to our conservative principles" (translation- misogynistic theocracy mixed with racism and plutocracy).....they'll demand that of the politicians and ATTACK any politicians who try to shift the GOP away from it. Rubio...Bobby Jindhal...etc.

If the RNC can't control its wagon team of rabid horses....and the horses lead the wagon towards the cliff, instead of away from it....the better it gets for Democrats or those who oppose Republicanism.


I agree Gordon....look at this board....the egoism, delusion and denial continues...Based on what drives it, it should be no surprise and there should be no expectation that it would change.

We all know or may have heard of those with tragic substance abuse problems that never managed to overcome or overpower their denial and see that their addiction and substance abuse problem....while maybe a temporary escape from reality and all their problems....was only exacerbating problems in the real world they abused substances to escape from. Because they never were able to find the willpower and strength to toss of their yolk, delusion and denial about it or because they found more comfort in the short periods of oblivion found in their substance abuse....it eventually took them down...to the gutter....then to their deaths. The sad thing is the story is repeated over and over.


It sure seems that while we need a healthy ego to make sure we look out for ourselves enough to survive, we also need humility and introspection to balance that out so we don't end up in a permanent state of denial and delusion about ourselves. That also works a survival apparatus. If we refuse to check our physical body or character out like a pilot checks out their aircraft before getting in it or lie to ourselves about what we find if we do, we decrease our chances of survival, just as a pilot who didn't check out their aircraft or found dangerous flaws or damage, but ignored them. If that pilot is responsible for a load of other people on his aircraft and fails to check that craft out or ignores obvious problems with it, he puts not only his life in jeopardy, but all on the aircraft.

It's not just about looking weak, imperfect or being wrong, but about honesty, courage and strength. We all fear our own mistakes, our flaws or being wrong, but while some of us seem to have an obsessive fear of it to the point they'll deny admitting their flaws, mistakes and weaknesses to themselves (even if others can plainly see them or their fear (insecurities) and denying their imperfections), others realize trying to deny and hide something that is obvious only adds to any imperfections they have discovered about themselves.

GWB was "elected" in 2000 by minute number of votes in a relative sense even if one discounts or ignores all the series of coincidences that just happened to "fall into place" to have a president chosen by a 5-4 SCOTUS vote based on a voting controversy in a state governed by the "winning" candidates brother and a vote certified by that state's Secretary of State who happened to also have been the co-chair of that state's Bush for President campaign. Yet act suspicious in any way about it and you're called a loon by neo-republicans. Imagine if the same circumstances had occurred with the candidate of any other party, especially the Democratic Party. GWB enjoyed a huge jump in popularity that lasted for about 5 months following 9/11. It was all a downhill trend from there, but for small blips. The 2004 election occurred just in time for him and he managed, even in the midst of the fall, to eek out the smallest margin of victory over the next closest candidate any sitting president in this nation's history has had.

Between the two "elections", I don't believe any sane person could call that overwhelming support for him or perhaps a Republican for president, even then. Then comes the Great Recession in 2007, hitting the fan in 2008 and what was not overwhelmingly supported to begin with, presents reinforcement to why they barely won their "elections". I think the reaction was a form of shell shock or disbelief. Aside from full acknowledgment and admittance accountabilty, the only thing left to do seemed to be what has been done since. Like a young child caught with their arm fully submerged in a jar of chocolate cookies, their mouth smeared with chocolate and cookie crumbs, the only alternative to turning bright red from guilt and embarrassment for being caught red handed is to go into full kamikaze denial mode, perhaps hoping doing so would be so absurd one would somehow escape accountability.

Children know enough to know they were caught red handed knowing they were doing what they were told not to do, but they aren't mature enough to know trying to deny it would not only be futile, but only add to their troubles, especially if they weren't a kid and had the excuse that they were a child.

Without admitting to a whole series of disasterous leadership and recognizing a need to not just change, but work really really hard to regain the trust of those who felt the effects of the screw ups, the only choice is to act like that kid caught with their full arm in the cookie jar and deny their arm is/was where it was. Those who would take that leap are not likely to change from that position because of the reasons they took that leap in the first place. Maybe it should be labeled the "cookie jar syndrome".
 
We all have healthy ego's! but there are times when you really need to think something thriugh,especially when what ever you are doing is not working.

A smart person would think, why did I lose? I had to do that when Hillary went down in flames. I dusted myself off,waited to see what Obama would do. He was big enough to name his opponent to be SOS. She was big enough in defeat to accept. That is my idea of reasonable people.

Even GW had the good sense to leave and keep his mouth hut. Not Cheney,or McCain. Both are sore losers. Al Gore did the same,walked away without whining.

Now,we have Romney,a real sore loser!

Denial MaryAnne, denial. Another thing we are all vulnerable to, but when you lose elections several times (Romney lost the 2008 GOP nomination to McCain in 2008, McCain lost it to Bush in 2000, Bush presided over the worst crash since the worst), it would seem time to stop blaming other things.

In the minds of some, they perhaps think, what else do you do, but act as if the train wreck your party left behind never happened or happened when it did. OR one could refuse to lie to themselves about the disaster their party left behnd and tell them to get a clue and stop lying to themselves? I have to give Jindal credit for being blunt, even if he still seems to struggle with the temptation to continue to do all the things he said his party needed to stop doing and being.
 
Denial MaryAnne, denial. Another thing we are all vulnerable to, but when you lose elections several times (Romney lost the 2008 GOP nomination to McCain in 2008, McCain lost it to Bush in 2000, Bush presided over the worst crash since the worst), it would seem time to stop blaming other things.

In the minds of some, they perhaps think, what else do you do, but act as if the train wreck your party left behind never happened or happened when it did. OR one could refuse to lie to themselves about the disaster their party left behnd and tell them to get a clue and stop lying to themselves? I have to give Jindal credit for being blunt, even if he still seems to struggle with the temptation to continue to do all the things he said his party needed to stop doing and being.

They should be a small government, fiscally conservative party. They just don't deliver it. They need to stop doing the things they have been doing and start doing the things they actually purportedly stand for.

As for Romney this should bother him. You should never accepting losing (No, I'm suggesting a coup). He should run hard, make his play in the marketplace of ideas and the ensuing loss should bother him. Would you prefer a Presidential candidate who nonchalantly says, "Oh, no biggie, no skin off my back?"
 
I could respect Dole, Bush 41.They served decades,although I do think 41 was up to his ears in many of the wrong things both before and during the Reagan years,he did serve his country as he saw fit.

McCain turned from being a well respected man,to an angry,bitter old man,who does not know enough to shut up.

Romney was never Presidential material. He built his wealth on the backs of workers, made it clear how arrogant he really is. And,now does not have the sense to shut up about why he lost,using every excuse except the real one. Romney was his own worst enemy. A lifetime of cheating others cannot be undone.
 
yeah - you had me engaged until you fell into the disproved diatribe that it was "ameica's business elite" that caused the housing crises. although they played a role, there's plenty of well documented blame to go around, including . . .

- legislation requiring fannie mae and freddie mac to take exotic, risky loans "mainstream" (liar loans, zero down loans, high resets, etc)
- inflated appraisals by professionals who should have known better
- bond rating agencies who didn't do their jobs
- home buyers who believed all those "flip that house and make 100 grand" tv shows
- senators who lead by example with sweetheart loans on mansions
 
yeah - you had me engaged until you fell into the disproved diatribe that it was "ameica's business elite" that caused the housing crises. although they played a role, there's plenty of well documented blame to go around, including . . .

- legislation requiring fannie mae and freddie mac to take exotic, risky loans "mainstream" (liar loans, zero down loans, high resets, etc)
- inflated appraisals by professionals who should have known better
- bond rating agencies who didn't do their jobs
- home buyers who believed all those "flip that house and make 100 grand" tv shows
- senators who lead by example with sweetheart loans on mansions

I agree with everything you say!
 
Thanks so very much NS, I have always enjoyed your thoughtful contributions as well. I have to say I have my share of moments where I join in the fray of partisan sniping.... I have to slap myself around a little to try to snap out of it..... One can see how frustration leads to anger and as well, how anger can eat us up from the inside out unless we apply some conscious effort to put a lid on it.......It's a challenge, a real challenge at times....When I begin to get that way, a vacation away from here seems to help a little.


Yeah... I think it wouldn't kill me not to be here for a while. The vitriol gets kinda deep around these parts whenever the GOP steps in political poo. This is definitely one of those times. A vacation sounds like a pretty good idea.
 
They should be a small government, fiscally conservative party. They just don't deliver it. They need to stop doing the things they have been doing and start doing the things they actually purportedly stand for.

As for Romney this should bother him. You should never accepting losing (No, I'm suggesting a coup). He should run hard, make his play in the marketplace of ideas and the ensuing loss should bother him. Would you prefer a Presidential candidate who nonchalantly says, "Oh, no biggie, no skin off my back?"

What's fiscally conservative about Mitt Romney or companies that were amongst the first in the leverged buyout business (Bain Capital). If you are not familiar with how they operate and how debt is a good thing to those that end up profiting the most check it out. Conservative people live conservatively. Warren Buffet, in the top ten of those people in the world worth the most lives in the same house he lived in 30 years ago. Mitt Romney and John McCain own how many homes each, worth how much apiece? When did excesssive and gluttonous wealth come to define either conservative or fiscally conservative, much less an epitomization of Christ's teachings (for the "Christian Right") ? Con artists are great at convinicing people to believe absurdities.

While there is fat that can be cut everywhere, including fat cat compensation packages, especially when those receiving them and bonuses to boot, oversee the tanking of the companies they are supposed to keep solvent. Somehow a common thief is a dirtbag and worthy of being locked up with the key thrown away, but someone wearing a while collar and a suit is able to fade away, if not keep their job and take away huge severance packages or more absurdly keeo their bonuses. Conservative??? It's the biggest con job I've ever seen. Didn't see the Great Recession coming??? Who are they kidding? They made billions off of poor suckers....of course they "didn't see it coming" , what would one expect them to do, say they knew what they were doing was going to suck the economy dry, but they'd end up on the positive side of it, even with the losses everyone felt?

Perhaps it's time people begin thinking for themselves instead of being told how to think. A free and democratic representative government is likely to wax and wane, grow and shrink in "size" as the governed require it. The more the governed act like angels and mutually respect one another and don't rip one another off looking to make "killings" off of stupid people or the people they place over a barrel because there are few, if any alternatives to what they are selling. Until we come up with some feasible and economical alternatives, fossil fuel sellers literally have moderrn society over a barrel.

Health care is the same, all people need health care and one's life and health is held for a ransom. People keep talking about how we're going to pay for health care, yet few people talk about bringing the cost of health care down, which is one of the aims of the PPACA. There seems some absurdity to the idea that life takes a back seat to money. In addition, we fought a revoluton to separate ourselves from a monarchy, royals and aristocratic societies and look where we've gone or come to. That "American Dream" of most Americans owning a modest home has turned into a contest of who can be the most ostentacious with their huge wealth and a contest about who can be the most rich and famous.

It's not about being conservative by any definition if the word, but greed. In other words, the current "conservative" is all about conserving one's ability to remain greedy and gluttonous, not about actually conserving natural resources or the things that make life possible on earth, it's all about vanity, money, greed and gluttony and not human virtue, but all that defines the opposite of it.

Sorry Connorbug, I'm venting. I was once a Republican, but noted what other Republicans and now Bobby Jindal, recently noted. Even with losses and more Republicans speaking out, there still remains a refusal for the holdouts in the Republican Party to take accountability for their own losses instead, the losses they have repeatedly been told they would suffer unless they changed.
 
yeah - you had me engaged until you fell into the disproved diatribe that it was "ameica's business elite" that caused the housing crises. although they played a role, there's plenty of well documented blame to go around, including . . .

- legislation requiring fannie mae and freddie mac to take exotic, risky loans "mainstream" (liar loans, zero down loans, high resets, etc)
- inflated appraisals by professionals who should have known better
- bond rating agencies who didn't do their jobs
- home buyers who believed all those "flip that house and make 100 grand" tv shows
- senators who lead by example with sweetheart loans on mansions

You may have heard the term "safe and sound", especially as in business practices? Contrary to the popular belief there was never any legislation that required any institution to fail, there was however, legislation that required safe and sound business practices to be observed and followed. The discovery of the money that could be made by trading away responsibilty and accountabilty created a feeding frenzy of greedy, get-rich-quick schemers who continue to rail against regulation that would stop their ability to bankrupt their institutions and tank the nations economy. Many of them were of the business elite and were ended up needing bailouts. Many of the business elite, export jobs, cut jobs, sit on the tax cuts they said they would use to create jobs and grow the economy, all while blaming the government for not creating jobs. Senators don't get sweetheart loans on mansions from the government, they get them from business people in the private sector. Enforcement of SEC laws are harder to force with a regulation resistant presidential administration or Congress in office, thus it could be said government failed to do it's job, so it's goverment's fault, but is there no fault of like those who take loans they can't afford, just because someone loans them the money? Should people do things they know they are wrong, just because no one is looking?

All in government are elected by the people who want those they elect to represent them. Crooks , schemers, con artists and the greedy will elect those who will represent them. If society is largely non-virtuous, what would anyone expect a government representative of and elected by that society to be? The founders of this nation didn't design a governent that was centered on special interest groups and lobbyists, it designed a government they hoped would be for human beings, ALL human beings, that meant a government with a variety of checks and balances to too much influence by any grouping of people, forcing compromise as the only way for that society to function.

If you don't know who Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu is, you might look him up and note how often he was quoted by the founders of this nation. Read what he said about the needed ingredient for any free society to work with regard to virtue. http://publiusgreenman.blogspot.com/2010/05/summary-of-montesquieus-spirit-of-laws.html I think most would also agree that too much or too little of anything is not healthy, thus a balance seems wise. The checks and balances designed into our government are a part of that philosophy.

Inflated appraisals meant higher commisisons. 6% of 100,000 is a lot less than 6% of 1,000,000. That ran through all those (the irresponsible ones) all those in the real estate lending and sales business.

People borrowing more than they can afford to borrow should know better, but those inflating the appraisals also found that they could also get the higher commissions if the deal went through and if they didn't require any credentials or proof of ability to pay the money they lent back, people who have no requirements to borrow money are going to do it, even if they shouldn't.

It's kinda like saying, unless the responsible and accountable people in any sector of society, private or government, are constantly monitoring "the people", "the people" would act like a bunch of school kids who tear apart the study hall because the monitor or teacher stepped out of the room. America in many ways has become like unruly children, bickering and irresponsible children who whine about the ir parents grounding them or not giving them enough responsibility, not making the connection between their behavior and their parents supervision or their being more free to do more or take on more responsibility because they have proven they are responsible instead of demonstrated they are the opposite.

it's not government versus "the people" its checks and balances, cooperation, compromise and most importantly, the majority looking to be and making an effort to be more virtuous instead of seeing how much they can take their fellow citizens for to get-rich-quick. I think most, but for those without a conscience about anything, would agree that making money by capitalizing on situations is not the evil, but having no conscious conscience at all about how one makes their money (sinfully or virtuously) is. Selling your daughters into prostitution is being a capitalist, but I would not hope to suggest it is not horrid, especally to the daughters. I'd like to know, but for those directly involved in either side of the profit or paying for it, would support it in good conscience? Yet you'll find people here that will rail against anything that hinted of social contribution to their society by their government (except for subsidies, grants, loans, infrastructure, jobs, etc. that benefit them) and extol all the virtues of capitalism, either not realizing or having ever consciously thought about all the variety of ways people "capitalize" and whether there are ways people capitalize which are immoral and the opposite of virtuous and merely a means to enrich a few people at a high expense in harm to others.

If we want a better government we should become a better society. Instead of always thinking it is all government's fault we should think about how our government works and how the people that populate it, become "the government" and who elects many of them to office to represent them.

It's in a way like hiring a identical replica clone of yourself to assist you, yet without having a healthy awareness of your own frailties and quirks, you get angry at the clone for not doing things to your satisfaction. Some of us under such circumstances might realize very quickly that what is happening is that we're seeing ourselves from the outside and realize we aren't necessarily the bright and shining star or bundle of perfection we like to believe ourselves to be. Others of us will never make the connection that their dissatisfaction with their clone is the same as being dissatisfied with themselves.
 
Back
Top