Inspector71

Wow, the information I received is so good, I need to copy this. I couldn't agree more with both posts. Romney, unless he really does not support the free market, should have defined/described what he means by "regulation." As a constitutionalists, I am familiar with the role the Constitution assigns the federal government to "regulate" the economy...none. But what struck me was the notion that something free has to be related coming out of the mouths of both candidates. Was this kind of like Bush saying we have abandon the free market to save it? Anyway, you folks know your stuff so if you don't see a great deal of posts from me, I am busy reading and learning on this site. I have many questions and this is definitely the place to come.

I am new here and have a great deal to learn. I am a public high school teacher in the SocialIST Studies Department (20 years). I taught government from an originalist perspective and the free market as well. I am no longer allowed to teach government. I taught advanced studies American history. The curriculim employs two books, The Jungle, and Grapes of Wrath, to teach industrialism and Great Depression, respectively. I suggested using Ayn Rand's, Atlas Shrug and even arranged to obtain a book for every student for free. I am no longer allowed to teach advanced anything. There is no one within my department, including 3 junior and 3 senior highs, that I can discuss these topics so I thought I would try you folks. As I was watching the presidential debate, I heard both Mitt Romney and Barak Obama say they supported the free market as long as there were "regulations." Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that counterintuitive? Isn't that like saying one believes in freedom as long as it's controlled? If I'm on the right track, how might I present it so my students would understand...as long as I still have a job.