http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion...ment-programs/
Perfect article. Enjoy it Havakasha and Atypical (provided you're still around).
Printable View
http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion...ment-programs/
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!!!
Thanks for the feedback Candleman. I would love to hear Lloyd's opinon too.Quote:
Originally Posted by candleman
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
and incompetence.
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?
Havakasha, you know that you freely note that there will always be waste, yet you don't seem to mind that our government is getting bigger and more far reaching. It is as if you don't mind wasting more??? I do agree with your point, but insist on less government = less waste. Ok, call me simplistic..... lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
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.
Just remember that "big companies" employee people and provide them benefits. And unlike the federal goverment, they have to make money and have a good balance sheet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac
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. [13]
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.
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.
Sure, like I said above, each party has their cause. What I didn't know about Bush was how much he did push for housing the poor. You'd think him a social utopian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
The point was that the republicans said "hey, let's change this" and it was met with democratic resistance. It is safe to say that republican concerns were correct while Mr. Frank gets pie in his face. I hate to argue partisan politics, but my point was that everyone has an agenda (and you agree).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
Now that you've finally acknowledged this, I will drop this so called talking point. It was a big part of the disaster. In fact, I'd liken it as the Genisis. If you don't make $hitty loans, you can't securitize them and so on and so on.....
My argument revolves around the point that Republicans and Mr. Bush especially were PUSHING housing as the most important element of an "ownership society". Who doesnt want to own a house? Not everyone should or can own a house! He made a house seem NECESSARY. The reforms Republicans pushed (weakly. remember it didnt come to committee unti 2005 and didnt ever get out of a Republican controlled committee)on Freddie and Fannie were more about politics (constituencies) and would not have in the least solved the pending housing bubble.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong
The Republicans didnt want to change a LOT of things including what the mortgage companies were getting away with in pushing mortgages on people who had no ability to even pay their monthly bills. Why? Because thats where their money comes from. Very simple. They were going after Democratic constituencies in Frannie and Freddie. You make Republicans sound like saints. HARDLY the truth.
Why are the Republicans fighting consumer protections when it comes to credit card companies? Hmmm i wonder.
SL,Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong
Although this is not the right thread...... I think you've hit the nail on the head about a great government program that helps stem the waste of oil and plastic.
I LOVE the states that charge a deposit on plastic, glass, and aluminum beverage containers. It helps in several ways. First of all, it discourages landfilling of these items that CAN be recycled. Secondly, it DOES create a lot of jobs. And I think it actually causes people to think twice about buying a bottle of something that they have to return. I see hundreds of people everyday walking around with plastic bottles full of water that they bought at the store. Most of those bottles end up in a landfill. What a waste of oil and our environment!
Here on the Outer Banks, plastic shopping bags have been outlawed. We now use paper bags (again). It's much better for our enviroment here and the Sea Turtles, which is why it was imposed. But, paper bags have become cheaper than plastic bags, so it makes me a couple hundered extra bucks a year that way too.
By the way, none of this would happen if it wasn't for government regulation. And, I think most states that have deposit laws and ban plastic bags are Democrat controlled governments. In North Carolina the Republicans don't have a very good environmental track record.
Yes indeed, the republicans certainly appear to be saints if you read the links. Yes, they did push housing, but at the very core, recognized a big problem that was met with resistance from Mr. Barney Frank, a democrat. Again, I hate to argue partisan politics because you are very partisan, but when someone steps up and publically opposes change that, in retrospect, could have avoided near disaster, they are the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
Parisan politcs aside, please recognize that the visible hand of our federal government was at the core of this melt down. Remember, I'm not negative on polictical parties, but the government as a whole. It's just another fine mess brought to you by the federal government lol. The same one you are so happy to support because your party occupies the White House. You are sooooo transparent lol.