Bush was socially conservative, but economically liberal. He REGULATED MORE, and supported making a new government agency to oversee fannie and freddy. Its you that doesn't really understand what you are talking about. Bush is no socialist, but he is nowhere near capitalist. The thing he was closest to is statist. Rewarding and bailing out companies is NOT CAPITALISM. It's corporatism.
-Advocated the creation of a federal bureau to oversee Fannie and Freddie
-Passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
-Took OVER fannie and freddie
-Increased the amount of federal employees overseeing regulation
-Increased spending in regulation by 18%
-No Child Left Behind
-THE BAILOUT. THE BAILOUT WAS NOT CAPITALISM.
-He increased federal spending.
-Added over 60,000 pages of new regulation to the federal registry.
So, yeah. He regulated more. I think you just assumed he de-regulated because he's a republican. I don't know how you can say you've won the debate, you don't argue my points. You just zero in on an arbitrary detail and try and prove that wrong, ignoring the whole argument. I had some socialistic tendencies for a while, but the more I looked into government, the more childish it seemed. Capitalism sure aint perfect, but it works.
mmm yeah, GM got too big for its britches, the government subsidy's didn't help.
If we had a good capitalism, GM never would have gotten that big, since their cars aren't great anyways, and certainly they wouldn't have been rewarded for bad business decisions by the government.
The governments been intervening more and more in these past years, and our problem is worse, so I don't see how more government helps. All the government needs to do is enforce anti-fraud laws and not let Wall-Street push them around, but not stifle the private sector, either.
Actually the bailout could be considered a very capitalistic thing to do if you only realize that we are not a direct capitalist society, we are a collective capitalist government, meaning that not only do we compete with ourselves but we compete with ourselves to help ourselves as a team beat the other major world economies. Our view of capitalism is based on the theory of competition being the best motivation. So if bailing out our selfish and failing car companies could be perceived as a good thing to the american economy it is well within the confines of market capitalism. That being said i still have no faith in the actual class of people who own and run these companies, they steal fight and feed off of the american profit margin and have opened the door for this recession in the first place.
Moral of the story: Big business, good for the country, bad for anyone outside the company.
In most cases that would be true, but unfortunately car companies are not something 'joe blow the small business owner' can just get a loan for and start doing full time, if we do not save the well established car companies from their failing owners we will be left to start over from the beginning in a field that we as americans started. I personally think the companies should be broken into a series of smaller car companies to cut back on corporate greed, but thats just me.
The Soviet Union might as well have been a monopolized capitalist nation since the government acted like one big corrupt business during the Stalin era.
You can't just throw the soviet union over to the capitalists because they were corrupt lol. That's a big danger of socialism: The government takes over everything and nobody has a say. Not to mention, a monopoly in capitalism is ridiculously hard to maintain.
