Many have been outraged with the government bail-outs of AIG, as government has tried to "use" thier bail-out as a means of increasing government's power to tax (at 90%). This seems to be the case with the recent suggestion about government lending private investors money to hold toxic assests.
Whether these investors win or loose, the government gains power over the individual. If the investor overpays the government in "buying" these toxic assests, then the government can gain over the public's preception in clearing the toxic debt off its "books", while touting the "increase" of private sector "profits". But, even if the "plan" looses, the private investor looses nothing, as the government holds the "loan", and then, the government has the "opportunity" to tax the "common man" for the "public good", thus increasing government's power by increasing its coffers of private monies. So, it seems that this 'plan" is a "cover" for governmnt enlargement and power, while using the private sector as a scapegoat. These private sector "scapegoats" have a vested interest, in my opinion, in profiting from their "role". Their function is to be useful for the adminstration's goals of an "insider" political elite, that lives off of the public.
This was the very way in which, as I understand it, that A.C.O.R.N. funnelled money into the pockets of a few. The "common good" of altruistic concern over the poor and thier housing, led to a whoesale use of our government's public institutions as a means to money laundrying...
Our nation was founded on the principle of limited government. This is not the vision or goal of this adminstration. The Secretary of the Treasury is the "sole" arbitrator of trillons of dollars of tax dollars, while 17 political appointed positions under him lie vacant. What kind of power can be weilded without a "cabinet" to fight or be accountable to?
Third Sunday of Advent
10 hours ago