Understood. Only government has the resources to thwart the Apocalypse. As I wrote earlier, OK!
Look SDW, you're either an advocate for free market capitalism or you're not. You're either a rugged individualist or you're not. I don't have to ask which you are since you've already removed any uncertainty I may have had.
Though they were written over twenty years ago, I submit the above would be an apt description of AIG's collapse. May I assume you agree?
Here's more. It's from the same speech.
The above was written a long time ago. It is still relevant today. Given recent events it's only likely to become more relevant in the future.
You either agree with it you don't SDW. If not, you ought to turn in your Conservative card because you're not worthy of it.
To be clear: the current debacle was born way before AIG and the circumstances that led to its collapse. It was the predictable, inevitable, and direct result of government intervention in free markets. The path to prosperity is less intervention, not more. To (almost literally) paper over the systemic problems that still exist is no solution at all.
Enjoy your vacation from reality in Disneyland. Sounds like it began some time ago though.
...or am I just being an ass again?
You are not just being an ass, you're being a narcissistic ass. No one appointed you arbiter of the conservative movement. No one gave you the power to decide who is a conservative and who is not. No one bestowed upon you the ability to define conservatism one way, and dismiss anyone who has a view that varies even slightly.
This board is a place for discussion. It's not a place where you get to run around and be The Professor. You have stated your opinion that you don't agree with TARP and that you want government out of economy. You have further stated that government caused our current problems. Fine.
What you fail to understand, however, is that we are we are. Government intervention over the years may have lead us down this path, but we're still at the end of the path. The question with the 2008 crisis was whether the financial system could survive without immediate intervention. I do not believe it would have. By "not survive," I mean a situation far worse than the Great Depression. I'm not talking about a painful adjustment. I'm talking about full-blown civil unrest--the end of America and perhaps the world as we know it.
Now, we can debate government intervention and the role of government in general all day. You'll find we agree on most things. I, too, think government MUST shrink and get it tentacles out of the economy. But the time for that debate was not when we were facing collapse. We're not sitting in a classroom debating the pros and cons of government intervention and the history of free market systems. We came to a point in time where, in reality, a perfect storm hit. Your position was to stand on principle while Rome burnt to the ground. My position is that it was better to save the financial system and worry about the government involvement debate later---which is now.
I'd love to see you explain to the millions of homeless and starving people that we didn't act to save the system because we thought the government was getting too big and too involved. Sometimes principles cannot come first in crisis situations. It's not the way we'd like it to be, but it's the way the world is. I, for one, understand that. I do live in reality. As for you...you don't seem like you have any idea of what was happening to world financial system. While you were busy thinking your economic feces didn't stink, the rest of the world was burning.