Why do Libs. ignore their own values?

Dem's just kinda go with what is ever convenient at the time.... its much easier that way .....

Social evolution is quite different from biological evolution.

In the academic, I agree that poor business should fail, and if this economy were stronger, if the failure of one or more of the big five banks would cause extreme distress to all of us, if the nation could easily absorb the loss of another 3 million jobs (the estimated amount between GM, Chrysler and their suppliers), then I would completely agree.

But I would prefer that our government loan them the money in the vague hope that it gets paid back (as happened with Chrysler in the 1980's) and not throw our unemployment rate to 15% as well as even more damage the financial markets.

Therefore the pragmatic view is to keep them alive for now.

An apt analogy is that, I have an old truck, which need mechanical work equal to or greater than the value of the vehicle itself.

Logically I shouldn't fix the truck but buy a new one.

However, if I can't afford the new truck, I have no choice but to fix the old one.

The banks and big 3 automakers are like that old truck not worth fixing but too valuable to replace.

Look.....Republicans aren't going to let the banks fail either.

Lehman's failure put us where we are. What will Citibank's failure do?

If our banks fail, everything will fail. You are looking at a collapse that would make the the Great Depression look like a stock price fluctuation.

Survival of the fittest would be a fitting description of the result.

I agree....we shouldn't bail the banks out. That's a hand off to shareholders and a pat on the back to the CEO's. The real answer to the bank problem is nationalization. We did it during the S&L crisis and that worked very well.

The question we have to ask after this mess is cleaned up is WHY DO WE LET A COMPANY GET SO BIG THAT IT CAN BE INTEGRAL TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY? If Corporations are that big.....we should move faster to break them up, so it can be 'survival of the fittest'. It was Republican policy of deregulation that has created the massive corporate entities we now have.

After this is over - we need strict regulations for corporations. We need to rip them into smaller pieces if necessary, without the court struggles it has required in the past.

And, FWIW.....I'm as left as they come....a Socialist and Civil Libertarian, but I am a theist and believe in Creation. I have found no reasonable foundation for evolution that explains the complexity of life in its many and diverse forms.

Just a minute now, acknowledging the fact (or theory if you prefer) of evolution doesn't necessarily imply encouraging its further progress. "Evolution" in the context of the usual tired politico-religious debate, usually refers to the adaptive change in species (including ours) over time. It does not preclude caring for the weaker members of our society. The continued existence of troubled banks, car manufacturers etc. is a political question where, as usual, the costs, benefits and consequences of proposed actions must be weighed against the public good. That's all. Admitting that evolution happened, or happens, doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good, or bad, thing.

Survival of the fittest is natural selection, not evolution chief and there is a difference.

You're applying economic theory to a theory on biology.

On a humorous side note...you and the GOP just want to "abort" these companies? What about the right to life?

Great point! Socialism and Darwinism completely contradict each other. I have considered this argument before - but found it difficult to argue because Darwinism isn't owned by the left. And to believe so would pigeonhole myself into the evangelical right-wing stereotype.....

Is by evolution that we get intelligent design not the other way around. Evolution gave us reason to intelligently design society and civilization. Survival of the fittest is reason over unreasoning.

Because the people that head up the banks are crooked cheats and greed drives them. They aren't the "fittest," they would get their assses kicked if they were around a group of working people that lost 25-50% of their 401K plans in 2008.

One reason - if a republican suggests it they reject it. Ideology getting in the way.

Same goes for republicans. If a dummycrat suggests something, the republicans reject it. Ideology getting in the way.

If ideology were to get out of Washington and our so called "leaders would look at everything without their ideological blinders, this country would be a hell of a lot better off.

Interesting but during the campaign I did a poll in the spirtual section, 1/2 the atheists supported McCain- I know! I was Shocked too! I would have thought they all supported Obama.

What puzzles me is they are at large in favor of making sure banks do not fail. Give them money! But want to regulate them and put restrictions and deem them bad. Let them fail then. Some one else who has not run their company into the ground will come along. Do they really think no one will come along and start another bank?