Do you think this comment by an MP is a bit like the pot calling kettle black?
“Executives at banks dependent on taxpayer support have a “moral responsibility”
Just a little bit ,it would have been too good to be true if Jaqui smith had said this
Yes!I can see where the questioner is coming from here!On the one hand you have the Bank executives making money hand over fist through bad investments and having the taxpayer to bail them out.
Yet!On the other hand we have greedy Labour politicians making money ‘hand over fist’ with little alleged scams such as manipulating the parliamentary business to ones advantage for cash,And on the other hand a Front bench spoke person allegedly leasing out her second house for a fixed sum and claiming expenses on that second house.
Why haven’t these accused people challenged the newspapers who made these allegations in the courts?Remember on both accounts the taxpayer is paying through the nose for these excesses.
Bring back honest Labour when that party represented the ordinary man and woman in the street instead of politicians getting on the ‘gravy train’ and milking and manipulating the system.
How is it that we all would like less government regulations?
Then companies like BP use the situation to try cheaper, bad altermnative methods and let their business affect everyone around their business negatively.. So instead of making sure they follow the best practices recommended by their own people.They force the government to do that for them. How do we get smaller government intervention when the deed requires a decent sense of responsibility that companies lack ?
It just seems govern t
that these types of judgment calls by companies lead to more government intervention for all of us
If big companies want less government, they should actually do their job. If they cared about people and the environment instead of money like a decent moral people should we would not need the government to hold their feet to the fire to make them do the right thing, unfortunately it would seem that capitalism needs allot of regulation due to the moral fails of Business.
However, the government is just as bad and in bed with business, if we actually had a government that was really of the people and not the dollar, I would be all for big government, if it was moral government, obviously, bp, wall street, the banks do not care about regular people and the people need the government to keep them in line
How would the UK respond if an American owned business ruined the English Channel or the North Sea?
As far as I am concerned, this BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a moral equivalent to terrorism… and if it is not solved soon, I say, “To your arms!”
They would make the American taxpayers clean it up. So you see, there is no double standard; we pay for everything always. I do not see it as the moral equivalent of terrorism (it was not a deliberate act) but the result is certainly the same.
I say To Arms! Anyway. England has been trying to rule USA since forever, especially in the field of banking. Churchill certainly had strong influence over FDR. Let’s go kick some British Butt, take their country and teach them what Liberty means and that with it comes responsibility. Oh, , , wait. Maybe we shouldn’t do that just yet, we seem to have forgotten what it is.
Why did President Jackson’s policies and campaigns against the national bank make him a man of the people?
This is pretty important. It’s for an essay, and I really just need a good solid answer. It can be anywhere from one sentence to a whole paragraph, and I won’t plagiarize your work, I will just take the main idea and draw my own conclusions based on that. Also, 10 points to the best answer.
I suspect he thought they would have too much economic control of the people. Local banks have only local influence and the government can’t stick its hands into the money people deposit in those, like it does now. I assume it was just that.
I know the Democratic-Republican Party that elected him changed to just Democratic Party under him. I don’t know if it altered its true liberal policies toward the more progressive and socialist ones it has today. That happened with Wilson just before WW I in the depression then, I think. Yes, there were many depressions, most precede wars because both are caused by wage depressing and resource depleting overpopulation.
True liberalism advocates: individual freedom, weak government, and free markets. Conservatism advocates: moral responsibility, strong government, and protected markets. Socialism advocates: social responsibility, omnipresent government, and collective markets. Progressives advocate: social responsibility, softer-than-socialist government, and controlled markets.
Will an Obama victory signal a sea change for the Conservative ideology?
Republicans have been associated with conservative ideology for many years. Now that they have embraced socialistic activities such as nationalizing banks, insurance companies and brokerage firms have they abandoned their traditional values of small government and fiscal responsibility?
They are caught between a rock and a hard place McCain who is one of there most liberal republicans will lose this election so the religious right will point a finger and say we have lost our moral way and that’s why they lost where as the more moderate ones will point a finger and say its because we let the far right and religious zealots run the party for to long and people have deserted them so if were lucky it will tear the party apart and they will split into two separate parties but I don’t believe this will happen they will come together somehow and nominate Romney next time.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers