The power of government always grows. This is a fact of life just like
death and taxes. Complaining does no good and is a waste of time.
The voters slightly control the rate of growth if they pay attention.
Successful people find ways to use the system or to work under the
radar. Right now, successful people have sold the securities that
will fail and bought ones that will grow. In addition, the really
successful people are in Washington writing the laws that will give
them even more success. Only the treat of not being elected keeps the
system under a little control. Of course, the ignorant will vote the
same people back into power no matter what they do. These are the
people who will suffer the most because they are not paying attention.
Ed
On Sep 26, 2008, at 11:31 AM, Remi Cornwall wrote:
How do you regulate government then? Who governs the governors? When
do
governments vote themselves less power?
I'm in agreement about corporations.
-----Original Message-----
From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 September 2008 18:08
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
The American constitution was formed with the concept of freedom for
people, and that coorporations would do their best to oppress people.
And they were right. They had the East Indies Trading Company, they
knew what evil could be done. If such large businesses are allowed to
exist, they must be regulated. And before you give me free market
crap, a market in which such a large company exists is, by definition,
no longer a free market, as those companies begin to provide external
forces on the market themselves.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Remi Cornwall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
I'm not convinced about the need for more government.
It attracts the Machiavellian type who don't deal in facts and
distort
truth
(such as blaming the credit crunch on the free market when the demos
vetoed
reform).
It attracts unproductive hangers-on to big public projects.
It has allowed the massive build up of a stifling science
establishment.
I just find it like a 16th century scientist supporting the church
or a
monarchy. It's the opposite of progress to me. Just looking at the
character
of the people on the left it is the-lesser-of-two-evils to favour the
right.
The American constitution was forged in the light of the
Enlightenment.
-----Original Message-----
From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 September 2008 17:27
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
Less government on the individual. MORE on the corporation. and
lets
remove this political fiction of coorp as person, please!
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Remi Cornwall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
A plague on both their houses!
The less government the better. Trust your constitution that's why
it was
written.
New energy will empower people to self-reliance.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 September 2008 16:08
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
----- Original Message ----
... apparently Remi does not remember the infamous Keating Five -
... from the net, a little "refresher" lesson in how recent
political
history has this nagging tendency to repeat itself every new
generation:
John McCain & The Ghost of Keating Five
posted last week by Ari Berman
Back in the 1980s, when the US faced a major savings & loan crisis,
John McCain intervened to protect S&L magnate Charles Keating - a
major McCain donor and friend--from federal regulators. McCain was
later rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for "poor judgement"
and
embarrassed by the $112,000 in campaign contributions, trips and
gifts
he accepted from Keating. Following the entanglement, McCain
became a
born-again reformer and tried to scrub the Keating episode from his
resume.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/361711/john_mccain_the_ghost_
of_keating_five
In fact - it has been reported that Wiki was under intense
pressure from
McCain operatives when the "new" S&L Scandal become issue numeror
uno in
the
public's view - to have the pictures removed from the Wiki
entry ... IOW
even if they knew they could not rewrite the history of the indent
(but
were
able to tone down some of the rhetoric) they did not want the actual
"picture" of McCain there - as apparently that was too
inflamatory !!!
... or else some of the expected McCain supporters don't read much
but
are
impressed with visual images?
