Couldn't have said it better:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574475110152189446.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

That's an interesting take and some information that more folks should know about but there are a few things that this collumnist should have made a little more clear.

First, it was not that people blame the Bush administration for initiating the deregulation that caused the financial collapse what I do believe they generally blame him and his administration for was sleeping on the job (turning a blind eye to any warnings the regulators gave). Bush had no need to really deregulate any further as most financial market deregulations went down during Reagan's, Bush Sr. and Clinton's reigns. There simply wasn't much left to deregulate. The major economic flaw of the Bush administration was his tax cuts which have actually been the biggest addition to our budget deficit every year since they were enacted. Tax breaks are great when they can be paid for: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692
Most of the information on that site came directly from Bush's White House.

Second, yes the government is responsible for enacting such rediculous legislation and programs but I would be shocked if a single congressman ever actually wrote or even read ANY of that legislation. As it has been made abundantly clear in the healthcare debates it is the lobbyists for the industry in question that write the legislation and have their paid-off-politicians find a way to sell it to the public. I don't put the blame on the government as much as I do the people who elect these politicians (myself included) and do nothing when they screw up accept complain for a day or two and then forget about it. Put the blame where it really belongs, on the people/corporations buying off our government. If you follow the money the government is always just the middle man for buisness. Not all government spending is wasteful yet I do acknowledge there is PLENTY of bad government spending today. For example there is no reason the government should be giving subsidies/tax breaks to multi-national/well established corporations (breaks should only go to small/fledgling buisnesses) or contracting out work to the private sector without taking bids. Here in the political joke that is Illinois most of the bad government spending comes from contracting work out to the private sector when it would cost a fraction to have it done in-house. Our solution here in IL to the budget deficits are cuts to education funding (Illinois students as a whole already rank 49th in the Union in test scores so watch out Texas, we're gunning for 50th!) and a fire-sale on all public infrastructure.

Finally, it generally becomes problematic when our government tries to do things for a profit (or even just for more funding for a specific department/program). I do understand how profit motivs work in the private sector but the government simply cannot be made to function exactly like a buisness. Here in IL (and in most states) all raises and promotions within law enforcement are based upon quotas and their department's funding is often tied to a quota system as well. Now I have no problem with the law being enforeced but I just feel as though it puts police officers in a bad position when they know someone could get off with a simple warning but they cannot advance otherwise. A friend of mine does audits for a few different branches of IL police and has told me that they now push officers to seek out the costlier crimes (especially DUIs which can result in fines in the thousands of $s). I believe in fully enforcing DUI laws and never drink more than one beer when I know I'm driving but here in the grand state of Illinois DUI laws have been expanded to include so much recently that you can literally get a DUI for being too tired (which I guess could be a good thing?) but more importantly we have 'zero-tolerance' laws meaning you can blow .0001 and still get a DUI because it is up to the officers discretion. Law enforcement is also now being privitized in IL and being done for a profit. Right now it is only traffic light enforecment cameras meaning private companies put up cameras and get generally 75% of each $100 ticket issued (the township generally gets the other 25% or so). They are said to reduce T-Bone collisions yet studies are begining to show that they are rarely put up at intersections that are known for T-Bone collisions and have actually dramatically increased rear-end collisions as people are afraid to go through yellow lights. Studies are also begining to show that some how the average time traffic lights stay yellow is as much as 2 or more seconds less at camera intersections (normal intersections average about 5 second yellow lights while camera intersections magically all seem to have about 3 second yellow lights...). Have I mentioned that I am moving to Colorado in about 8 months... I have also read a couple places recently that within the next few years most major cities will be privatizing part/possibly all of their law enforcement due to budget constraints. Companies like Xeon (aka Blackwater), Triple Canopy and Dyncorp could soon be vying to provide state law enforcement all across the country. This almost already happened in Montana with a company that has a terrible track record: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,562600,00.html
I got sidetracked though, the reason Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are a bad idea is not because of a lack of profit motivs but rather the fact that they are quasi-public institutions (being publicly backed but privately held, a bad combination...). I could be wrong, but I do not think I want the government doing stuff for a profit more often.

I understand that yes, Democrat politicians are just as slimey as some Republican politicians. Great. It would just be nice to see folks stop the partisan bickering and just do (not justify) what is right for this country's long term outlook. If it was only that simple

I have given up on blaming the government as it is we the people that have elected these politicians that have forsaken us and what is right. Our government is simply a representation of us. For the record I do not belive in the left or the right. I believe in buisness and capitalism but not companies that buy legislation yet blame the government when bad things come from bad legislation. The American public deserves better than all of this.

Joe

The problem in Washington has never been not enough taxes, of course it is excessive spending of other people's money. Funny thing about raising taxes, the higher the tax rates the lower the revenue. I certainly deplore the Bush 2 administration myself for spending like Democrats! Of course the liberals won't take responsibility for the economic implosion caused by the Pelosi and Frank Community Re-development Act forcing banks to lend to people who couldn't pay back. My goodness, the banks are audited on compliance with the CRA and berated if they don't have enough poor quality loans and pressured to get in compliance. My information on the CRA comes not from the Bush administration but my banker brother who is a vice-president in charge of rating loans for Washington Federal Savings and Loan one of the banks forced to buy bad loans by the Fed to comply with CRA. Poor people "deserve" to own real estate irregardless of the ability to pay. The most laughable change a few years back, the liberals once again raised the max amount for conforming loans so that the poor suffering people in inflated housing markets could pay inflated prices for their real estate and have good old Fannie and Freddie still buy the loans at the standard interest rate rather than the higher rates for jumbo loans, throwing gasoline on the fire at the same time.

Most laughable now is branding the liberal left's latest great idea of giving away health care as "health care reform" AND claiming that it won't inflate the deficit(a 1 trillion dollar+ deficit as far as the eye can see being morally superior to the piker Republican's mere 400 billion deficits) What a laugh with Medicare costing 10 times the amount projected to be spent before passage. And then paying for the mess by a tax surcharge of the most productive of citizen known to the liberals as the rich because they can "afford" to pay and it is only "fair" that the needy not have to pay for the government largess they so richly deserve to receive at someone else's expense. Once again soak the most productive citizens to pay benefits to the non-tax payers because they deserve "fill in the blank" and can't pay for it themselves.

The greatest threat to our republic is the growing concentration of tax paying by an ever smaller percentage of tax payers with the top few % paying greater than 50% of the total. 60+% of the population paying little to no income tax. What self interest exists for the non-tax payer to support fiscal responsibility? None of course as it is not their money being spent. Spending other peoples money so easy! Guess who the non-tax payers elect? The politicians who promise the most giveaways.

How many elections has that guy won? Has Frank ever had a job? If it isn't clear to people by now that this Congress, which I hold in the highest contempt of all, will stop at no end to spend our money, ruin our dollar, divide us, tear down our foundations and deny us the rights our betheren died to give us well I have no hope then. Tax cuts are never a bad thing, that is our money. If the money actually was spent on defense, border security, or Mercury program type events I'd be less inclined to complain.

> The greatest threat to our republic is the growing concentration of tax paying by an ever smaller percentage of tax payers with the top few % paying greater than 50% of the total. 60+% of the population paying little to no income tax. What self interest exists for the non-tax payer to support fiscal responsibility? None of course as it is not their money being spent. Spending other peoples money so easy!

But it IS their money!!! Where do you think rich people get their money from!? Richs don't steal each other (not counting Madof ).

When I go to the store with my eleven year old, and he has only his money to spend, he is very thoughtful and deliberate about his purchase selections. When I go and he does not have any money, and my money is all that is being spent, he wants everything he can possibly get away with purchasing. Even if I tell him that he will have to pay me back, it only slightly modifies his behavior, it does not reign it in completely.

Who, with two brain cells to rub together, cannot get that? Barbara

A vast majority of financially successful people are wealthy because they, or a relative, worked hard, was not afraid of taking a chance, valued education, studied hard, made wise investments, had a goal in life, and never gave up trying. In school often they were called nerds, or book worms. After school they are called boss, owner, or sir. It is the successful that provide jobs. Those who don't value education, lazy, do just enough to get by, its not my job types, are NOT the people that produce jobs for society. The bottom 40 percent of Americans pay no taxes at all. One thing for sure, exceptions, such as Madof, certainly do not prove the rule. A person's reward in life, is proportionate to their effort in life. It is the successful hard working people that pull the unsuccessful up, not the other way around. I thank God for the wealthy and their success. They make life better for everyone. My advice would be......."Get the ABSOLUTE BEST- EXCELLENT education you possibly can, (and that WILL CERTAINLY NOT be delivered in a public school). - Millet (1,173-)

Yes I know that fairy tell story of 'American dream'.
But statistic don't say that at all!!!
Richs are sons of rich people. And poors are just poor like their parents.
Don't speak about studies, in your country you have to pay to study (not in mine)... so don't say that poors can get rich going to university.
Anyway, going to university don't make you rich (I would be very rich ).

Forget propaganda and look to statistics, you will understand everything.

Sylvain, nothing in this world is free - nothing! You are most certainly paying for your education, in France you pay through higher taxes. I want nothing from the government or others, I will pay my own way through life. The majority of wealthy people presently in the USA earned their own wealth, and did not inherit it. Take care, I wish you the best. My last response to this thread. - Millet (1,172- days to go)

Statistically the more education one gets the more money one make.

Someone that does not finish high school (secondary education) is going to have fewer high paying job opportunities.

The American dream is not just a personal pursuit, but for a family. My grandfather had little education. My father was the first person in the family to go to collage/university. Now most of his kids have gone to university and higher

I would gladly pay taxes for a well armed, well trained military. The military deserves full funding, this inlcudes medical care. All most all other taxes should be questioned.

Gdbanks, I agree with every things you said. I lived exactly the same thing.
But we were speaking of very rich people, not like you and me... that are getting their money from their work.

Millet, indeed we have to pay for (nearly) everything but there are several ways to pay. You can pay for the use of things, meaning if you have not enough money you are kept out of this service, and you can pay to make a service available for everybody, meaning that everybody will have the possibility to progress and improve himself.
It is called solidarity and equal chances.
It is very true for things that play a major role in the nation health like school and university, culture, health, professional training, housing etc...

About schools, they are what the politics made it, for example in France public schools are (were?) much better than most private schools.

The term rich for many people is a relative term. People have the notion that one can never have too much money. Now you and I may be considered rich by some. If our children then become “super rich” then they came from rich families.

For us, formal education has helped us get good paying careers/jobs. But the education at home and the money values that my parents instilled in my, was far more important. It let me know that "being poor is a state of mind, but being broke is a temporary inconvenience" unfortunately “poor” families teach poor person’s habits. Statistically a lottery winner (millions of dollars) is likely to become broke several years later. Why? Because they were a “poor person” with money.


Why do we buy things that we don’t need?
With money we don’t have?
To impress people we don’t like.

I heard this somewhere but do not know who said it.

Sorry, but I must reply once more: Sylvin wrote: .......", for example in France public schools are (were?) much better than most private schools"...........

Sylvin, I wold NEVER EVER EVER EVER believe the above statement. NEVER EVER, especially knowing socialist France. - Millet (1,171-)