Obama's Stimulus Package ...

My point is the fairness is irrelevant. But we can't say too bad to anyone who bought a house in the past 4 years as though they were separate from the rest of us. The problem is, the fate of the entire housing and financial sectors is tied to everything else. So while there is a visceral bit of joy in thinking at least we aren't the ones on the elevator with the broken cable, that's the wrong analogy. We all need businesses to be able to get loans. Broken banks won't do that. We all need there to be such a thing as stable investments. And now there aren't. We can lie to ourselves and claim some sort of moral superiority over the people sitting on the other side of the plane, but we are going where they are. Yes, the arrival times may be slightly different. But that isn't much help in a crash.

Mike Hosea said:

I think the "it's not fair" sentiment resonates deep in the human psyche. It comes from somewhere inside us at an early age. Fairness remains an unrealized ideal. Almost nothing in life is really fair. As George Carlin once said, death is one of the fairest things we've got--everybody get's just one.

Since I have given up on "fairness" in life, I would just like to see that tax dollars are spent well. I think the investment in infrastructure is a good idea. Infrastructure is one of the things government is for. I worry, however, about that forestalling home devaluation is both futile and undesirable. When the growth of home values has outstripped inflation in the past (especially true here in the Boston area since 2000), corrections are not unhealthy things, despite the pain that any homeowner who bought in high must feel. C'est la vie. I think government should focus on doing what government in the US is supposed to do, and that should not, IMO, include trying to manipulate fair market prices of anything.

Our slavery has just moved overseas these days.

George Blahun said:

Jeffrey:
Thanks for your comments, I hope you are correct about Ron's point of view. Perhaps it was hyperbole, but visible soot in the snow is in no way an acceptable by product of an active and healthy economy. You covered a lot of area in your response, but one which did catch my interest was the reference to unions. While I am in agreement that in today's world many unions have become corrupt and unreasonable, the days of no unions in this country meant for unbearable working conditions for men, women and children. Our history is replete with the Johns Manvilles proclaiming asbestos was harmless, coal dust could just be washed off the miners' skin and PCBs were safe to dump anywhere. When the Berlin Wall came down and we saw the demise of Totalitarian Communism many of us in the west thought this meant that Free Market Capitalism was the perfect solution for a world economy. It may be a very good way of running the planet, but it is not without major problems. Environmental and human rights issues are but two concerns. I think it's unfair to blame Al Gore's hype as the source of many problems. He was just the messenger not the source of the information. If we were to all sit back and let the unregulated people run things we'd still have slavery, women would not be able to vote, if your well was polluted with MTBE you'd just have to get water somewhere else, and the average person would still live to the ripe old age of 50. I'm sure there is room for compromise on both sides, but if it weren't for the New Deal and FDR, chances are you and I would still be slaves to the few wealthy men who ran everything.

Ah, but I *can* say that I am separate! *I* did not buy a house. Your delusion that *everyone* has a mortgage, that everyone rides the elevator, and that everyone even cares about the housing and financial Fat-Cats is simply too narrow minded. I am NOT lying to myself one bit and your claim to it being some kind of moral issue is insulting. Trying to prey on people to guilt them into handing money to people whom still have 6 figure incomes is absurd and self-serving. All you want is for me, who didn't buy a home, who didn't have "investments" (READ Didn't take a risk) to now pay *you* for *your* risks YOU took? YOU are the one who went out on a limb for YOUR chance to gain. *NOT* me. Those Banks that were so greedy MUST fail! THEY took risks, NOT ME. They were unethical, NOT ME. *I* had ZERO say in any of it. THEY are still RICH and whine about wanting their asses "saved" (READ Rewarded and Keep their spoils) for bad behavior and making BAD choices. THEY are the ones who should PAY for their actions! NOT the American Taxpayer!
You all talk about taking responsibility for ones's actions. So where are the consequences of those actions?? Why are you so willing to HELP those that HURT YOU???
Sure, I can feel bad about a lot of people getting caught up in all this. But *I* didn't do it to them! If you want to go after someone, go after the ONES WHO CAUSED THE DAMAGE! You do NOT punish Mike for what greedy jerk Joe did! Where are your ethics??

Richard Wright said:

My point is the fairness is irrelevant. But we can't say too bad to anyone who bought a house in the past 4 years as though they were separate from the rest of us. The problem is, the fate of the entire housing and financial sectors is tied to everything else. So while there is a visceral bit of joy in thinking at least we aren't the ones on the elevator with the broken cable, that's the wrong analogy. We all need businesses to be able to get loans. Broken banks won't do that. We all need there to be such a thing as stable investments. And now there aren't. We can lie to ourselves and claim some sort of moral superiority over the people sitting on the other side of the plane, but we are going where they are. Yes, the arrival times may be slightly different. But that isn't much help in a crash.

Mike Hosea said:

I think the "it's not fair" sentiment resonates deep in the human psyche. It comes from somewhere inside us at an early age. Fairness remains an unrealized ideal. Almost nothing in life is really fair. As George Carlin once said, death is one of the fairest things we've got--everybody get's just one.

Since I have given up on "fairness" in life, I would just like to see that tax dollars are spent well. I think the investment in infrastructure is a good idea. Infrastructure is one of the things government is for. I worry, however, about that forestalling home devaluation is both futile and undesirable. When the growth of home values has outstripped inflation in the past (especially true here in the Boston area since 2000), corrections are not unhealthy things, despite the pain that any homeowner who bought in high must feel. C'est la vie. I think government should focus on doing what government in the US is supposed to do, and that should not, IMO, include trying to manipulate fair market prices of anything.

Unions do have a purpose, like making the workplace safe. But it stops there. They've gotten greedy and have indoctrinated the "members" with the idea that the "Union knows what's best for you" and they'll follow the "leader" blindly. With that said, the "New Deal" that FDR created was one of the worst disasters that came about from the depression. It was what made it the GREAT depression. There is a huge difference between then, and now. There will not be any "just a few rich people" to be slaves to. There wouldn't have been then either. The fear mongering by Obama seems to be working in his favor.
Al Gore has manipulated the information for his benefit. Those are the types of people that cause great harm. Those types of people include Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barak Obama. Though I believe Obama is "just the messenger".
Can you answer this question? Why is Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE, now in Obama's administration?
Everyone used the term "fascism" to describe Bush (called it Big Business Controlling Government). Now we have GE in a position to "control" the finances of the U.S. Government?? You talk about manipulation of facts, well there is some "fact hiding" right there. Who will we really be "slaves" to here? You guessed it, a "Few Rich People".

George Blahun said:

Jeffrey:
Thanks for your comments, I hope you are correct about Ron's point of view. Perhaps it was hyperbole, but visible soot in the snow is in no way an acceptable by product of an active and healthy economy. You covered a lot of area in your response, but one which did catch my interest was the reference to unions. While I am in agreement that in today's world many unions have become corrupt and unreasonable, the days of no unions in this country meant for unbearable working conditions for men, women and children. Our history is replete with the Johns Manvilles proclaiming asbestos was harmless, coal dust could just be washed off the miners' skin and PCBs were safe to dump anywhere. When the Berlin Wall came down and we saw the demise of Totalitarian Communism many of us in the west thought this meant that Free Market Capitalism was the perfect solution for a world economy. It may be a very good way of running the planet, but it is not without major problems. Environmental and human rights issues are but two concerns. I think it's unfair to blame Al Gore's hype as the source of many problems. He was just the messenger not the source of the information. If we were to all sit back and let the unregulated people run things we'd still have slavery, women would not be able to vote, if your well was polluted with MTBE you'd just have to get water somewhere else, and the average person would still live to the ripe old age of 50. I'm sure there is room for compromise on both sides, but if it weren't for the New Deal and FDR, chances are you and I would still be slaves to the few wealthy men who ran everything.

You got that right! It's funny how people don't look at it as slavery since the Chinese are not BLACK.

Paul McCarty said:

Our slavery has just moved overseas these days.

George Blahun said:

Jeffrey:
Thanks for your comments, I hope you are correct about Ron's point of view. Perhaps it was hyperbole, but visible soot in the snow is in no way an acceptable by product of an active and healthy economy. You covered a lot of area in your response, but one which did catch my interest was the reference to unions. While I am in agreement that in today's world many unions have become corrupt and unreasonable, the days of no unions in this country meant for unbearable working conditions for men, women and children. Our history is replete with the Johns Manvilles proclaiming asbestos was harmless, coal dust could just be washed off the miners' skin and PCBs were safe to dump anywhere. When the Berlin Wall came down and we saw the demise of Totalitarian Communism many of us in the west thought this meant that Free Market Capitalism was the perfect solution for a world economy. It may be a very good way of running the planet, but it is not without major problems. Environmental and human rights issues are but two concerns. I think it's unfair to blame Al Gore's hype as the source of many problems. He was just the messenger not the source of the information. If we were to all sit back and let the unregulated people run things we'd still have slavery, women would not be able to vote, if your well was polluted with MTBE you'd just have to get water somewhere else, and the average person would still live to the ripe old age of 50. I'm sure there is room for compromise on both sides, but if it weren't for the New Deal and FDR, chances are you and I would still be slaves to the few wealthy men who ran everything.

Don't worry Michael, the Dems (and blind sheep followers) won't let the TRUTH get in the way

Michael Vineyard said:

The problems that we are facing ARE a result of some of the people in Congress who were there in the past, and are still there now.

Consider the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make sub-prime loans to people who could not afford a mortgage and should never have gotten a mortgage. (Done by Democrats during Carter era.)
Consider how the CRA was expanded under Clinton ...
Consider how giving everyone a mortgage caused housing prices to inflate beyond reason ...causing the housing bubble that was not sustainable.

Then consider how many times REPUBLICANS tried to regulate/rein in the 2 major agencies at the heart of the CRA problem - Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae ....go to YouTube to HEAR the Republicans warning of impending problems to come ...and HEAR the Democrats - especially Barney Frank - denying the problem, and essentially accusing the Republicans of being hateful and racist for daring to suggest that such "sound" programs as CRA, FannieMae and Freddie Mac be fixed. Consider how Pres. Bush formally asked Congress, no less than 18 times, to do something to fix the impending problem.

A broad brush to paint the past Congress as the problem - and then say let the current Congress fix the problem is trusting in what never was and never will be. The Democrats who caused much of the problems are now even more entrenched and in control, and as evidenced by the Porkulus/Spendulus $1 Trillion bill - they are going to make things worse.

So I find it ironic that the Democrats have successfully completed a near-perfect crime. They set the stage for the problem through new requirements for sub-prime loans. They refused to allow anyone to fix the problem ...then they blame Pres. Bush for causing the problem (ignoring the actual history of the problem) ...and the stupid public re-elects Democrats to fix the problem that the Democrats caused.

Heck - even Forrest Gump had it right - "Stupid is as Stupid Does."

Jeffrey:
You're not really suggesting that Unions only have the right to impose safe working conditions are you? Making a wage and receiving benefits that provide for a reasonable standard of living not only benefits the workers, but the entire economy. I acknowledged in my original statement that many unions have gone beyond the reasonable but that doesn't negate their importance to individuals and our economic system. After 8 years of college and my initial work in a NY City ad agency, I hitch hiked and hopped freight trains, traveling all over the US. I had more jobs in more places of every conceivable type than anyone I know. The working conditions (at least during the 1970s and early 80s) were in many places like something out of a third world country. I don't know what your background is, but I have much more compassion for the average hardworking person after that period in my life than I did when I first graduated from college.
I think only Obama can tell you why he chose Jeff Immelt. BTW, I am one of the few who voted for Ralph Nader, so I am not blindly following the Obama program. I am however, one of those who did call the Bush administration fascist. That's only an admission since you brought it up, I don't want to turn this discussion into the worn out arguments about the last eight years.
Your reference to Reid, Pelosi and Obama brings up another point. This country would be far better off with more independents and third party members in Congress. Too many people think I must be a democrat when listening to my rhetoric. I have much to disagree with in both political parties, not the least of which is corruption, ignorance and arrogance.

George

Not quite true Paul. People would rather buy an American made product if it were at a reasonable price. The problem lies in there just couldn't be any reasonably priced goods made here. Why? Well, it's a combination of things. Ridiculous taxes are one cause. Not necessarily by the Feds either. State and local taxes can be so incredibly debilitating to a business. That happened locally to a number of large companies. Take this example. Wal-Mart was going to buy an existing EMPTY building to renovate and open shop. Well, the building was empty because of the high taxes imposed by the local Chamber of Commerce and School district. Well, Wal-Mart was supposed to have to pay some ridiculous "fee" to Lease the building as they refused to sell it. Then they had to pay all the back taxes the city and school had "lost" from the building being empty all those years (by their own over-taxing). On top of that there were numerous restrictions. So guess what? The company just told them to get lost! Yes, this city had Piper Aircraft, The Hammermill, two chemical companies, and many other businesses that employed over 3/4 of the city and surrounding areas. They all evaporated and moved elsewhere. The taxes and the UNIONS bankrupted them. Now, back to Wal-Mart. They knew they could make out in this area. So they bought enough property across the street and built a NEW building for LESS than the ridiculous taxes and fees to use an existing structure. They bought out 4 other BUSINESSES to get the property. Does that sound insane to you? And to top it all off, the taxes are less since the city didn't own the property. Yes, that earlier existing property is owned by the local government! 5 years later, that building is still empty PLUS 4 other businesses are gone all because of greed. Now they not only lost the revenue of that building, but also lost the revenue from those 4 other businesses that relocated to another County altogether! Politicians are politicians whether or not they are at the Fed level, or Local level. The 3 things that killed this country are 1. Politicians. 2. Unions (the greedy ones). 3. Bankers 4. Lawyers (whom sue everyone and "represent" the greedy 1,2, and 3. all for a pocket full of silver.
If companies could *afford* to be here, they would be.
You know, looking back at the Wal-Mart (and Lowes too) "fiasco", it was all caused by the greed of the local merchants, who by the way, were the "Chamber of Commerce". About half of them were retired and closed their businesses already. The other half had failing businesses and only employed maybe 3 people each (about 60-80 people total), some as high as 10 people each, were so greedy and so stuck in the past with their heads so far up each others butts, they actually ruined it for a lot of people. Well needless to say that both Lowes and Wal-mart finally open shop and now employ over 400 people between them. What was the cost? Well, it cost some businesses to FAIL, yes FAIL. But other business sprung up to replace them. But their "products", for the most part, are still being Imported from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. because manufacturing just can't afford to set up shop here. It used to be "cool" to buy something "imported", just a novelty. Will it be "cool" to buy something made here? Or is it just a novelty as well?
Will the U.S. steel industry ever come back? Not as long as we have high taxes and overbearing restrictions. And of course the now demonized "You use too much coal", or "You are getting rich", or "Oh my God!, you're an Oil Company!" (Or a Republican). Thank you Socialists, and Gore-ites, for convincing the American People these institutions are EVIL. Steel was the backbone of this country. Steel is needed in *every* type of manufacturing be it the raw material, or the machinery and tools upon which something else is made. Without it, we have nothing. Go buy a tool made with Chinese "steel". A drill bit will dull and break, a router bit snap off, a saw blade dulls almost instantly, a garden rake will lose it's tines, a socket wrench will split, and so on. Shoot, look at your typical telescope! Screws strip out and/or snap off, the GEM castings shatter, focuser knobs bend, even the rubber grip rings crack and fall off in less than a year. The mirrors are sub-standard and come through scratched and unevenly coated. Try to buy an American made tool, or telescope and you'll pay out the schnoz. Why? Politicians and high taxes. Do you realize that about 80% of your income is paid out in taxes? Just think about it. Not only do you pay Fed taxes, State taxes, Local taxes on the gross income, you also pay Sales taxes, property taxes, taxes on the phone, water, sewage, electric, tires on your car, taxes on the gas and deisel, taxes on the products you buy that are passed on to the consumer the businesses pay (built into the price). Heck, your income tax return (refund) is considered a taxable income! Add all that up and ask yourself, "why can't I buy American?" So you see, the problem with "voting with your pocketbook" is directly dictated by the politicians' lust for taxes and 6 figure incomes. The "pocketbook" has very little power to vote. The "drug" of taxes has ruined this Democracy along with the LUST for Power, and LUST for handouts. Jealousy of another is a sin. So why are some people so jealous that another has "more" than they do? And why do they feel they have a right (entitlement) to take it from you? I can't afford an Astro Physics scope, but I'm happy that you can! The few scopes I have are NOT made overseas. ;-)

Paul McCarty said:

How true! You vote with your pocketbook. The last twenty years has shown the public would rather have cheap Chinese garbage over supporting US work and infrastructure. It is not all the fault of the politicians. Consent of the governed comes into play very much in this respect. The drug of consumerism has taken it's toll on democracy.

Jon Isaacs said:

David Berman said:

Flush the toilet in 2 years and start over. The "leadership" are poster boys & girls for the 'Peter Principle'.

The problems we are facing today are not the result of the current administration nor the current congress, they are problems created by those who went before them, they are problems created by a public who were comfortable living on credit cards rather sound personal finances.

The issue here is whether the previous occupants and our own irresponsible actions have so damaged the fabric of the economy that a simple repair is not possible.

Jon

Yes I am George. If a company has positions and those positions pay x= per hour, and the benefits are (these), then what gives a union the RIGHT to extort that company to pay out more than it can afford while driving up the price of their products? I've worked in a number of factories so I've been there. None were Union Shops. They all paid a fair wage with benefits, and had decent working conditions. So what is it with the mentality that non-union companies are somehow "evil"?? All the while, some "Union" shops went bankrupt. Those unions tried to push their way into the places I worked and were rejected. Why? Because those people didn't want their factories they worked at, that already treated them fairly, to go belly-up just like those union shops did. And you might now that those "Union Reps" still have a job! While most of those people they duped into "striking" are now jobless. I saw many of my close friends lose their jobs because they could not bring themselves to go against the union. Some who did, got beat up and 2 of them actually got killed. The Union "bosses" told them to "defend themselves against scabs at all costs". Yeah, they whipped them up into a frenzy, brainwashed them, into being violent towards their own friends that NEEDED THE JOB TO SURVIVE. So yeah, go ahead and advocate that unions have "power" to manipulate not only the companies, but the people themselves. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It happens every time no matter how noble the initial reason. That's why our Constitution is written in the manner it is with all it's restrictions on the role of Government.
I am glad that you don't blindly follow the Obama camp. I'm also glad you don't blindly follow the GOP, or Dems as well. But to say there are only "both" political parties is following politics in general blindly. There are a number of "parties", but the 2 "top" parties are just like the unions. "We don't want any competition, or we'll snuff them out". Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and others are continuously ridiculed and scoffed at because they are actually LESS corrupt, ignorant, and arrogant and fear they might just talk some sense into people. If you were to eliminate the Commie/Socialists from the left, and remove the Religious zealots from the right, you would have a body of smart, moderate, and level-headed people. But they cling to their "top party" for reasons from the past (party loyalty mostly) and are so afraid of being ridiculed, that they stick themselves in positions that compromise their integrity. They are cowards, afraid to face the truth, while hiding behind those liars "at the top" claiming to be "the truth". A new party should emerge that consist of moderates. Those that agree on 99% of all "issues", if they can only get the courage to do so. Those Far Left, and Far Right have taken over their respective "parties". Those in the middle, those some 90% of Americans, are caught in the middle and too afraid to do anything about it. The Libertarian party looks better all the time. ;-)
Oh, I think you should use a dictionary an look up the word Fascism. Not use Wikipedia that is full of fake "facts". Go to Mirriam-Webster instead. Then look up Mussolini and read some history. Then come back and tell me you still think Bush is a fascist by the true meaning of the word.
And if you saw such poor working conditions during fair to good economic times, the 70s and 80's, then those people CHOSE to work under those conditions. Those companies were either barely making a profit, or they deserved to go out of business. Again, a choice by those whom were employed there. When a place of employment has a reputation of being a "sweat shop", and people still apply for a job there, then they deserve what they get. They choose to do so. In hard times, the word HARD means just that. The work can be hard, the conditions can be harsh, but at least it's a JOB. It puts food on the table. People should start counting their blessings instead of dwelling on the things they do not have.

George Blahun said:

Jeffrey:
You're not really suggesting that Unions only have the right to impose safe working conditions are you? Making a wage and receiving benefits that provide for a reasonable standard of living not only benefits the workers, but the entire economy. I acknowledged in my original statement that many unions have gone beyond the reasonable but that doesn't negate their importance to individuals and our economic system. After 8 years of college and my initial work in a NY City ad agency, I hitch hiked and hopped freight trains, traveling all over the US. I had more jobs in more places of every conceivable type than anyone I know. The working conditions (at least during the 1970s and early 80s) were in many places like something out of a third world country. I don't know what your background is, but I have much more compassion for the average hardworking person after that period in my life than I did when I first graduated from college.
I think only Obama can tell you why he chose Jeff Immelt. BTW, I am one of the few who voted for Ralph Nader, so I am not blindly following the Obama program. I am however, one of those who did call the Bush administration fascist. That's only an admission since you brought it up, I don't want to turn this discussion into the worn out arguments about the last eight years.
Your reference to Reid, Pelosi and Obama brings up another point. This country would be far better off with more independents and third party members in Congress. Too many people think I must be a democrat when listening to my rhetoric. I have much to disagree with in both political parties, not the least of which is corruption, ignorance and arrogance.

George

What appears obvious at this point is we can debate facts but all those facts are filtered through the basic philosophy you and I, and of course everyone else, has developed since we were born. This is why we have either a bias for the worker or the corporate structure. What interests me ultimately, is how each individual develops these biases and prejudices. We all have them I've never met anyone who was truly objective. The one thing I have learned over the years is these opinions are in no way related to intelligence, or the inherent morality of the individuals espousing them. Perhaps my definition of fascism is different than yours, and there are certainly degrees to any political philosophy. For me, Bush wasn't exactly the same ruthless guy that Benito was, but that doesn't mean he hasn't crossed into the realm of fascism. The use of torture, (the extent of which we don't know), the adherence to a policy of belligerent nationalism, etc. Those are the factors which which enable me to use the terminology I do. As long as you are not on the receiving end of the violence, then it doesn't seem so bad. However, I also don't get upset when people on the other side of the political spectrum call me an atheist commie. Actually I see myself as more of an agnostic, socially compassionate environmentalist.
I enjoy these types of discourses when time permits and I don't really expect to convince anyone on the "other" side. It's one of the reasons I really miss Bill Buckley and Firing Line.
I rarely agreed with him but always felt it was better to know what my political adversaries were up to and why they thought the way they do. While I'm certain that you and I will probably never agree completely on many of these important issues, I feel I gain something from hearing why you others see things so differently than I do. As I said earlier, I don't follow the Obama movement blindly, but some of the changes from the previous administration are encouraging. it is, however, much easier for me to deal with criticism now than it was to tolerate the stress and frustration I felt while Bush and Cheney were running things. Anyhow, I feel your pain and wish you no ill will.