On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Gruss wrote: > > > RoMunn wrote: > > I supported the TARP because of the > > risk of systemic collapse > > As for anti-trust, again, that is not a matter of my own personal need > but a > > general rule that the state can not allow individual private entities to > > have power over it. > > De-personalize and think policy: in both cases here you're favoring > limiting economic freedom (and its consequences) in favor of 'state' > control > > So the only question you should be asking is how much 'state control'? >
TARP under Bush was never meant to be about state control. Unfortunately, Democrats see things differently and suddenly the government is telling banks what they can pay their people. Next they will be telling the banks to make a bunch more bad loans to deadbeats. (Thanks Barney Fife, I mean Barney Frank). If the government continues to change the rules of the TARP, and it seems they will, I will call TARP a mistake and agree that we should have let those entities survive or fail on their own. Anti-trust to me is merely a tool to ensure the primacy of government, which is answerable to voters, over private entities, which are not answerable to voters. If someone can come up with a different means of ensuring the primacy of the state, I'm all for it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:292570 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
