Perfect article. Enjoy it Havakasha and Atypical (provided you're still around).
Perfect article. Enjoy it Havakasha and Atypical (provided you're still around).
Excellent article SL!
This is what I would call the New Middle. He isn't bitter about paying taxes. He just doesn't like supporting lazy people. He understands charity and the fact that being charitable isn't the ticket to Heaven, like some on the Right seem to believe. He's not asking for unreal job protections or a free ride for able bodied people like the Left seem to want.
I particularly like that he isn't yelling about moral problems in our country like others do. In other words he is taking a conservative approach about money, but not touching on Gay Rights, Gun Control, Abortion, Environmental issues, or other ideas that cloud up the discussion about being fiscally responsible.
Maybe it's not really the New Middle..... but more like the good ole middle. The middle has been lost over the last 30 years. Those of us in the middle just want to go to work, feed our kids, breath fresh air, live crime free, and enjoy our life.
It's fitting that this would come from the Ann Arbor press. When I was a college student I loved going to Ann Arbor. It was a wide open free thinking place. A wild party town too!!!
I think you and I are pretty much on the same page about the role of government and the role of the public. I don't mind paying taxes; I just think a lot of what we pay gets wasted, and that bothers me.
There is one good government program I fully support. Here in Michigan, a soda or beer can or bottle is worth 10 cents. That was great legislation. Not only does it add to the common good of society, but it creates jobs (someone made those do it yourself return machines and someone tends to them).
When I go down to your neck of the woods, it's a little disconcerting to simply throw all those beer cans away LOL.
Put me down also for not minding to pay my fair share of taxes.
Is there waste in Govt? Absolutely. We just probably disagree about
where to start looking first to find and cut out that waste.
And by the way there is ALWAYS going to be waste NO MATTER WHO
is running the govt. Unfortunately that is just human nature. As is greed
What i really find disoncerting is this constant barage of negativity about everything to
do with govt. It is completely simplistic and it solves nothing, and interestingly enough the first people to cry for competent govt (think John and the oil spill.lol) are the same people who cry the loudest and work the hardest to defang and destroy govt's necessary role in our society. We need Govt; it does some really good things for us and it messes up at other times. Why not spend our energies trying to improve it? Wow, now there is a novel idea huh?
Last edited by Havakasha; 06-15-2010 at 01:24 PM.
I agree that Government is necessary, and does some good things as I cite above. What we likely disagree on is the necessary role, and unfortunately, that discussion is typically mired in partisan beliefs.
My barrage stems from the fact that I thoroughly disagree with the actions of the current administration. Our federal government has a pretty $hitty track record; wouldn't you agree? Look at the state of our social security program. Look at the two unfunded wars we are in? Look at the lack of correct oversight on the oil and banking industries (cheap shot). Look at the deficit. Look at the exportation of jobs. It goes on and on. And now Obama waltzes in and expands the reach of government when he probably should have downsized just like everyone else. See my point? It's like hiring an arsonist to the fire dept. How can you trust them? As for solutions, I've stated my preference for stimulating the economy, and fully believe that it would be a better solution than the feds handing states money who then hand it to counties and so on (quiz: what is 90% of 90% of 90% and I'm being generous - it's more like 75% of 75% of 75%?) to repave roads. How effective is that? I've also stated my preference for providing health care. Fine me if I don't have insurance -- laughable.
So yes, I am negative, very negative, and what hope do I have? None. Obama is running roughshod with a typically liberal agenda of having the visible hand of government reaching farther and farther into our lives. I trust him even less than the institution he represents.
I dont have a problem with less govt as long as they can regulate Big banks
and try to prevent them from bringing the worlds financial system to its knees (as they just did), can regulate oil companies so they dont destroy our waters and shorelines, etc. etc.
The problem is that people who have espoused less govt have generally wanted to defang it so big companies and powerful interests are free to run roughshod over the interests of the average person. if 8 years of Bush wasnt a test case of how people could destroy important regulatory systems, and at the same time grow the deficit and bureaucracy, all the while yelling and campaigning about the size of govt then i dont know what else is.
I call out that hypocrisy from the likes of John and all others of his ilk.
I would challange you on "8 years of Bush wasnt a test case of how people could destroy important regulatory systems". Each party has their cause. You talk about the banks, but don't note that the government enabled the housing bubble. Heck, that made the banks you loathe that much richer.
In case you don't want to read the links.
"In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit Act. Dubbed "Renewing the Dream," the program would give nearly $2.4 billion in tax credits over the next five years to investors and builders who develop affordable single-family housing in distressed areas.
On September 10, 2003, the Bush Administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. Under the plan, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set capital-reserve requirements for the company and to determine whether the company is adequately managing the risks of its portfolios. The New York Times reported that the plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is broken. The Times also reported Democratic opposition to Bush's plan: "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." 12] Congress, controlled by Republicans during this period, did not introduce any legislation aimed at bringing this proposal into law until the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which did not proceed out of committee to the Senate. 
On December 16, 2003, President George W. Bush signed the American Dream Downpayment Act, a new program that provided grants to help home buyers with downpayment and closing costs. The act authorized $200 million dollars per year for the program for fiscal years 2004-2007.
President Bush also tripled the funding for organizations like Habitat for Humanity that help families help themselves become homeowners through 'sweat equity' and volunteerism in their communities. Substantially increasing, by at least $440 billion, the financial commitment made by the government-sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market specifically targeted toward the minority market."
Bush pushed housing as one of his principle policies. You really need to read your history. He and the Republicans were in complete control of the govt while the housing bubble grew. I am not saying he is solely responsible for it but for gods sake go back and look at how much he talked about an ownership society and how he and his federal reserve chairman Alan Greenspan (Republican) supported growth in housing ownership and denied the bubble that was obviously forming.
How the hell could you possibly challenge me on what happened under Bush. Just look at all the statistics of the economy (enormous growth in deficit, 2nd worst recession in our history, lack of regulation leading to derivative trading expansion which helped lead to the breakdown of the worlds financial system, etc. I could go on. Sorry but its plain to see
I dont oppose companies as you seem to suggest. My grandfather started an extremely successful one in this country. He was an honest and fair employer, and cared deeply about their welfare. i dont get the sense that those values are in the ascendancy in this country. Quite the opposite.
Cant you see the power that lobbyists for the oil, banking, and pharmaceutical industries have over average people. The system is out of balance i believe.
Last edited by Havakasha; 06-15-2010 at 05:49 PM.
i quess we were typing away at the same time. lol
Yep you confirmed what i said. Housing ownership had probably the biggest push under the Bush administration. Together with Alan Greenspan they helped to cut taxes for the rich, grow the deficit, and help to create an enormous bubble in the housing and stock market which they denied was a problem waiting to happen. Brilliant.
Fannie and Freddie were part of the problem, not the whole problem. Unfortunately people like you use it as a neat little talking point over and over again while completely ignoring the multi dimensionality of the issue.
Why was Bush making it a priority that everyone own houses?
Why did the Republicans wait till 2005 (in power for 5 years) to push for regulation of Frannie and freddie. Why did their legislation not get out of committee in 2005 when Republicans controlled the committees? Remember Republicans controlled the House and Senate until 2006.
Last edited by Havakasha; 06-15-2010 at 05:59 PM.