« Helen Thomas' Second Career | Main | Scenes From Obama Press Conferences »

Mass. is giving out free cars,
Oprah is giving out free chicken,
what's next???????????

He is so unpopular. The online poll in the Boston Herald had a 8700 person response, with 91% giving him a D or F (74% F). I know the online polls aren't scientific, but come on.

Will even moonbatty Mass wake up?

The program started in 2006. I'm not sure how much Romney contributed to its design, but in all fairness, it can be traced back to Mitt or Muffy.

What did the folks up there in MA think they would get with this clown? Doesn't Detroit, Cleveland, Newark, D.C., New York State provide any clue whatever?
Morons still voted for him. I can't talk, I live in NJ.
Unions, liberals and negroes, that's what you get!

You people rag on and on about poor people somehow screwing you over or having some advantage that you don't get

...so I have to ask, does the word greed even exist in your vocabulary when your talking about people at the other end of the spectrum... or do I just have an incorrect understanding of your religion... you know the stuff Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount. Is that just "old christianity" and in Moonbatteryville you follow the New! Improved! version???

Anonymous, reboot and try again. Your talking points are all jumbled up and unintelligible. :(

Anonymous@11:14,
I worked for my cars, me house, my furnishings. When they break or need to be replaced its up to me to foot the bill.
as for "advantage you dont get" this is still America, for now, and EVERYONE has the same chance to succeed. Thats why its THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS. It's not a guarentee nor is it to be provided. Give a kid a toy, then make the other kid work (cringe) a little for the same type of toy. come back in a week and see which one knows where the toy is.
no name coward!

Anonymous / Moon bat,

Man! You are getting DESPERATE!!!

Not even sure where to start with that post of yours - hard to get traction in a pile of muck like that.

Normally you accuse us of being "Po' Iggerant Unedumecated Rednaaacks" - now we're all a bunch of Rockefellers?

What is it you don't understand?

Is it that the Democratic party needs to foster a culture of dependendency to maintain control?

Is it the shameless attempt to buy votes and curry favor with that base?

Is it the dubious cost / benefit ratio to handing out cars to everybody on welfare?

Is it the precedent they are setting with this?

Is this just another example of the "class warfare" that the political Left is so fond of these days? "(Non)workers Of The World, UNITE!!"

Like I said....where to start?

And you, you're trying the old Leftist ploy of "Let's throw Christianity back in thier face", while at the same time professing your own non-belief and the irrelevance of the Christian concepts of charity and fairness.

If you want to truly help the poor in this country and this world, then let's stop with this Socialist nonsense.

Lefties keep telling us that somehow capitalism benefits by maintaining a poor underclass - how's that supposed to work? We want everybody to do well.

I'm from Mass & can tell you that the MOONBATS here should be a cautionary tale for everyone about arrogance and unchecked power that stems from a one party state. It's been happening here for years and this is the sort of program tht you get when they control everything. No accountability. Oh and I apologize on behalf of all the sane folks up here about Kennedy and Barney Frank, etal. Quite an embarassment.

What our dumb anonymous trolls don't get is that there is nothing generous about demanding that the government take money away from other people and redistribute it to other people.

Real charity is when *you* do something for some one else; not when you demand that the government do it.

I know, it's like expecting a retarded box turtle to comprehend quantum physics, but whatever.

I know this is off post, but the song "Time Is Running Out' describeds the Democrats time.

Who is paying for these so called free cars?

"You people rag on and on about poor people somehow screwing you over or having some advantage that you don't get"
You people? What do you mean, "You people," Anon?

"Normally you accuse us of being "Po' Iggerant Unedumecated Rednaaacks" - now we're all a bunch of Rockefellers?"

It seems stupid (Because it is), but it's standard procedure for the radical left. In one argument of theirs, we're all a bunch of brainless, inbred, racist, gun- clinging, Bible- thumping hillbillies who ar all active in the Ku Klux Klan. Then, in another argument of theirs two minutes later, we're all suddenly uber- rich, greedy, cunning, pure- evil corporate boogeymen who not only hate the poor so much that we wouldn't even consider donating the slightest amount of our money or time to help them, but also blatantly love oppressing the poor and destroying the environment for the fun of it.
To use a 'Simpsons' allegory, in the first argument, we're all a combination of Ned Flanders and Cletus, and in the second argument, we're all a combination of Mr. Burns and the Rich Texan Guy.

Far too many people equate equal rights with equal possessions , and often do so with little thought as to how either one is aquired .

Anonymous@11:14

Which of the following is an example of greed:

A: A person who has started a business, worked 80 hour weeks for years, has 10 employees, pays 10 different taxes both for himself and his employees, must comply with every regulation (local, state & federal)and finally is able to afford a comfortable lifestyle.

B:You want his money.

Why doesn't the Scuba-diving-Senator Kennedy give all the welfare recips time-shares at his Cape Cod estate? He could get them to cook and clean and chauffeur him and his clan all summer.

Massachusetts...home of Provincetown...Barney Fwanks paradise. A drag Cher could lead him around with a spike collar on a leash. How about a ride in the leather sling at Muscle Beach? Oh, the images!

Also Anonymous@11:14

I am always amazed by people who do not believe the Bible think they can quote the Bible. Here is a quote for you: "he who does not WORK neither shall he eat."

"Republican Sen. Scott Brown vowed to abolish an expanding state program handing out donated cars to welfare recipients with state-funded insurance and AAA memberships - even though the perk was established under former GOP Gov. Mitt Romney."

That would be the first paragraph of the story...from the Boston Herald...I would draw your attention to the final sentence....that is all.

'You people rag on and on about poor people somehow screwing you over or having some advantage that you don't get'

Poor people aren't screwing me over, the government is doing it. They buy the poor peoples' votes with my money to stay in power. The poor stay poor because politicians keep them poor and ignorant and on the 'plantation' drinking their kool-aid. Like any whore they'll sell their vote to the highest bidder, usually Democrats.
The party with the power to take from Peter to give to Paul is assured of Paul's vote!

Why stop there?

Pointing to a brutal fiscal crisis, Brown (R-Wrentham) said he would file an amendment in the upcoming budget eliminating the $400,000 annual program spotlighted in a Herald report yesterday.

“I don’t care who started it,” Brown said when told it began under Romney in 2006. “In this day and age, it’s not appropriate. I mean, we’re paying for Triple A? You’ve got to be kidding me.”

Right...

But if this site is devoted to how crazy liberals are, then having a Republican lawmaker undo what a Republican lawmaker did does not seem to qualify.

Buckeye State, this site is devoted to Moonbattery. The philosophy of modern-day Liberalism, and hence of Moonbattery, isn't the exclusive province of the Democratic side of the ticket.

I do hope y'all read the article. So many times you take the Moonbat "condensed" version which leaves out important aspects. In this particular case, the cars are not new cars, but have been donated by people to a local charity called Good News Garage.

Also not mentioned is the fact that the $6,000 a year cost for the maintenance of the vehicle is subtracted from the welfare payments given to the family. Yes, if they lose the job they keep the car, but it wasn't a car the taxpayers bought in the first place.

Its pretty much a break-even program that gets people to their jobs. You know, where they can WORK, and MAKE MONEY OF THEIR OWN.

What it sounds like is that the state had no reason to be involved in the program at all. The private charities could have managed it just fine.

What it sounds like is the "story" as it was listed here, left out a couple of points to rabble-rouse. I was quite concerned when I read it, until I went back to the original article, and then it turns out to be not much.

It cracks me up that everyone on this site talks about stilted media, and then proposes to "inform" people with this junk. If I'm going to get outraged, maybe you could let me be outraged by the truth, instead of parsing it.

so to enlighten us that apparently can't read, what were those points that we missed??

I mentioned them in the post above, blue. They are also in the original article, if you care to click the link. But to repeat:

1. The cars are donated cars, not purchased.
2. The "cost" for the auto maintenance and insurance come out of the welfare they are already receiving.

So, the money was already being spent, this just channels it in a program that gets people's asses to work across town.

So, these welfare people will get a free car. And, then, they will somehow have the money to put expensive rims on them, tint the windows, lower them to a few inches off the ground, and install the boom-bass speakers in the back seat.

And, these cars are supposed to be for "driving to work"??? Does that mean they will drive them down to the corner where they sell drugs?

Call me racist? I think not....I'm not making this up out of the sky. I see it day after day after day with my own two eyes.

OK anonimoose - lets read the whole article -

"donated cars loaded with state-funded insurance, repairs and even AAA membership

state-funded means taxpayer dollars..........

i gets da car ands da free cheese??
i'se moving mys big butt to Massachutits..

who gona give me da bus fare???

and AnyMouse - before you whine on that the article sez that the recipients have their welfare docked, let me tell you how that works:

-the tax payers pay for auto repairs, AAA, insurance etc.
-the recipients give up some of their welfare check
-the state uses the "saved" money to fund more welfare,
-the state is not reimbursed for repairs, AAA, etc

so the taxpayers are paying for the welfare & the "free " cars

why - because by law you can only use welfare money for welfare, not for car repairs etc.

I didn't call you racist, Andrea. Its weird that you would think that. Your post doesn't mention race, although I take it that what you see "day after day with [your] own two eyes" is

1. You see or know people who have received donated cars
2. These people get chrome wheels and tinted windows added to these donated cars.
3. These people sell drugs
4. (not mentioned but implied) these people are not caucasian.

Whew, you are one busy gal! That's quite a follow document program you've got there!

and the state is paying 19 people to administer this "free program"

the new employees are paid by - you guessed it - the taxpayers!!!

Sure, why would we want to make sure the money is going to something good, like keeping them in a car that gets them to work.

Just to get it straight, your proposal is that we just give them the cash instead? Trust that they'll do the right thing with it?

no my proposal is no free cars & no welfare
if 19 gazillion illegal aliens can find work in the USA, including Massachusetts, why can't these people??

and did you understand when I showed you that the :free cars" are not free to the taxpayers???

And why would we want any jobs funded by the state here at home? We could always employ people by starting another war abroad and killing more of our country's children.

"eat me" you're right on target. why help people in our own country when we could be blowing them up somewhere else instead?

geez dude - you be a typical liberal socialist - when you lose an argument, you change the subject

eat me - you are right - i'm going to the beach
lets let the anonimices play with hinself

Well sure, if you want to dream blue, dream on. Still, I'm trying to keep it to what the article is about.

And this is about trying to get people OFF of welfare. WIth the car, they might be able to get the kind of job where they don't need assistance anymore. Or perhaps you'd care to keep FULLY funding these families?

Aw geeze, sorry. I didn't mean to step on any toes.

Just making a point that it seems strange to me that conservatives seem to me SO AGAINST spending money here, in this country, you know .... where we live!

But seem to have no problem dropping loads of cash (not to mention bombs) somewhere else. Lets spend it HERE! As you are always pointing out, it is OUR money.

do we actuality have 2 anonymouses in this thread?

"Well sure, if you want to dream blue, dream on. Still, I'm trying to keep it to what the article is about."

the article is about welfare recipients getting "free" cars.

you keep claiming the cars actually are free

we keep showing you that they are not

No Anon, this isn't about spending money here or spending money there - it's about two completely different ideas of what constitutes the legitimate functions of the government of a free country. The way I see it, the government is delegated certain rights of the citizens to accomplish certain things. There is the right of self defense and therefor the government can be delegated the use of force for the self defense of the citizens. There is no such thing as the right to force other people pay your way - therefor, there is no such thing as the right to delegate to the government the forcing of people to pay your way. You don't have the right, so you can't delegate the right, therefor it isn't a legitimate use of the government of a free country. Now, here comes an interesting part of this way of looking at it - if you wish to say that the government has rights in and of itself, over and above anything that can be delegated to it by the citizens and that have nothing to do with the delegation of rights by the citizens to the government, then the government isn't a government of by and for the People, but is over and above the people. And then the people that administer the government have rights over and above those of the citizens. And therein, Anon, is the beginning of the end not only of the Rights of Man, but of civilization.

Did I explain that slowly enough?

I'm guessing this patrick guy is going to be our next president.

The car, itself is free. The insurance and maintenance is not. Part of this cost is paid for by displacing some of the welfare.

The idea is to get people off of welfare. An idea that I personally am a fan of, and I think you can agree whether or not you're a proponent of a welfare program in the first place. Fewer people on welfare is better for the taxpayer and better for the person who can now take pride in taking care of their self.

Yes, the government is for the people. Several of those people are the folks on welfare. They ARE part of this country right? Whether or not they are lazy or hard working and just down on their luck. So no, I never claimed that the government has rights in and of itself. Yet one of its many functions is to help folks.

PS - "delegated the use of force for the self defense of the citizens." I don't want to bite on that one but can't pass it up. The wars we are engaged in are about self-defense, did I get that right?

And how many times, on this site, have I heard "humanitarian abuses" as justification for the war? Well, if its reason enough to lose lives (not to mention billions of dollars) overseas for, isn't it worth some time and money here? I really do feel like where the money is spent IS a big part of the conversation. Apparently you don't see this side of it, but the "why" I'm not hearing.

"Forcing people to pay your way" is, I guess one way of looking at it. There is also the thought that defense of citizens could be defending us against times of financial crisis as well. I don't like welfare and what it turns some communities into. I agree that it can be completely disgusting. But I also don't see how you can ignore suffering on our own soil, especially when so much of the time its kids ... who have no vote and definitely no chance to work.

If mom or pop has the where-with-all to sign up for this program, and the willingness to give up part of their welfare check and to prove they've got the job, then that seems like a step in the right direction. Definitely better than just giving the stream of checks out.

this just in

NYC charging to live in homeless shelters

the liberal socialist democrat ain't gona like it!!!!

ha, ha, ha

whys youse white folks hates us so?

ifin we alls lives in da free shelter, drives da free car, uses da free computer, & collects da welfare & free cheese - y'all writes bad things bouts us - whys dona you likes us?

nobody sez bad things bout Obama'a auntie that lives in the projects & gets gob'ment checks - & she be a illegal alien!!!!

and the g'ovt is going to start paying you for your used car

My $4,500 Lemon: Taking the Feds Up on Cash For Clunkers

the gov't is creating a whole new source of "free" cars for the welfare recipients

these lemons will need lots of taxpayer $$$ to fix 'em up so the taxpayers can pay for the "free" insurance & "free" AAA cards!!!!

Just to get it straight, your proposal is that we just give them the cash instead? Trust that they'll do the right thing with it?

No. My proposal is to give them a bus schedule. Period.

And why would we want any jobs funded by the state here at home? We could always employ people by starting another war abroad and killing more of our country's children.

How old do they grow children where you live?

WIth the car, they might be able to get the kind of job where they don't need assistance anymore.

Sure, then they can take that neurosurgery gig on the other side of town.

Your position presupposes that lack of transportation is the only thing keeping them on welfare, when in fact personal failings, such as lack of skills and poor work ethic – such as showing up consistently, and on time – is generally a much bigger factor.

Lets spend it HERE! As you are always pointing out, it is OUR money.

Let US - individual Americans - spend it here, not the government, who will waste it. Exhibit A: the 20th century. So I have a better idea: let’s not collect the money in the first place.

But I have a modest proposal: why don’t we tax liberals to pay for welfare? Make it a checkbox on the IRS forms, like Presidential campaign contributions. I’d be perfectly happy with that.

The idea is to get people off of welfare. An idea that I personally am a fan of, and I think you can agree whether or not you're a proponent of a welfare program in the first place.

Getting them off welfare is easy. You don’t work, you don’t eat. Simple.

It’s basic parenthood – teaching children that they are expected to pull their weight. They don’t do their chores, they don’t get their allowance. The principle is identical. Not feeling like doing chores? Cool. We don’t feel like paying your allowance. Nothing contributed, nothing in return. Can’t say fairer than that.

And how many times, on this site, have I heard "humanitarian abuses" as justification for the war? Well, if its reason enough to lose lives (not to mention billions of dollars) overseas for, isn't it worth some time and money here?

Humanitarian abuses were never the primary reason for the war. We simply needed to kill some of our (at least my) country’s enemies. The foreign ones, anyway. The domestic ones will just have to be patient.

Definitely better than just giving the stream of checks out.

But not as good as simply stopping the stream of checks and firing the bureaucrats who administer the program.

I know. It’s a gift.

Let me ask you this: what exactly is wrong with giving out a stream of checks?

There is also the thought that defense of citizens could be defending us against times of financial crisis as well.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 9, 2009 3:15 PM

The financial crisis was brought about by government interference in the marketplace. That same government interference was done by using coercive force that wasn't a legitimate exercise of government power. And now you want to try and help people some more by using the same philosophy of government as that which created the crisis. You don't have the right to force people to bail you or anyone else out, that is not self defense. Self defense is the act of protecting yourself from criminal acts perpetrated upon you and by necessity, as a country, of protecting us from the deprivations from other countries whose actions and intents would deprive us of our lives and our liberties.

"Humanitarian abuses were never the primary reason for the war. We simply needed to kill some of our (at least my) country’s enemies. The foreign ones, anyway. The domestic ones will just have to be patient." Yuck.

Claim its sarcasm if you'd like Jay, but personally it feels like a barely veiled threat, and is pretty low for you.

Its a sick circle on this site. Because I don't agree with you, you label me unAmerican. And then the logic follows that because I don't conform to your idea of an American I should be eliminated. Its perfectly sick. And you want to accuse ME of being the fascist? Take a look at yourself.

"Getting them off welfare is easy. You don’t work, you don’t eat. Simple." Yeah, a little too simple. Its total bullcrap and not even worth addressing. It was a complete dodge.

"How old do they grow children where you live?" Well I guess the usual age, Mr smarty pants. Perhaps you'd be better with "youth" or maybe "our young people" ? Whatever ... another complete dodge, which I don't even understand. You're way better at this than I am. Step up.

"Your position presupposes that lack of transportation is the only thing keeping them on welfare, when in fact personal failings, such as lack of skills and poor work ethic – such as showing up consistently, and on time – is generally a much bigger factor."

I don't oresuppose that there aren't a ton of other factors, and in fact said as much earlier. I'd love to see changes in the system. This one is very small and far from perfect, but definitely opens possibilities. I think welfare is a necessary evil.

And PS Kevin, I think that looting our country's banking system and jumping out with a golden parachute is a criminal act. Looking at my property values lately, I also think its helping deprive me of some of my liberties and definitely is bringing up short my pursuit of happiness and property.

So if what you're trying to say is "government interference in the marketplace" is what you guys are now calling "deregulation," then great! We perfectly agree.

The housing bubble ALWAYS bursts. That's just how it goes. However the bad home loans though are not THE reason we're in this mess. Credit default swaps are the primary reason. And the fact that these were even available to banks as a financial instrument at all was because of lack of regulation.

And PS Kevin, I think that looting our country's banking system and jumping out with a golden parachute is a criminal act.

Good. I think people like Franklin Raines are criminals too! And let's not forget Barack:

http://hennessysview.com/2008/09/15/franklin-raines-criminal-enterprise-and-barack-obama-his-accomplice/

While I LOVE them for opinions, I think that blogs - conservative or liberal - are terrible sources for hard news. ANd Raines hasn't been at the head of Fannie Mae since 04.

That said,if Raines has stolen money, then yeah, I want it back and I want his ass in jail, you bet.

We could break this down into a "who's politicians are more corrupt" contest, but I think we'd both end up losing. Politics is a corrupt game, and if you're going to play it, there's no way to not get incredibly dirty.

As for the article calling campaign contributions "kickbacks" I don't buy at all. A person has to indicate where they work when making a campaign contribution, and I'd bet you anything that a large portion of these supposed kickbacks are from individuals.

So, why would there be credit default swaps, Anon? Were these not legitimate contractual agreements? You're saying that these in and of themselves were the primary reason which thus caused the financial crisis? Explain from the ground up. I want to know.

Here's what you're missing, Lefties: What about all the working poor NOT on welfare who have to buy their OWN cars, all paid upfront, plus their OWN insuance, repairs, etc.? Might this be a little unfair to them, especially since they're paying for the welfare folks's freebies? Geeesh!

Sorry about double post.

Hi Kevin, the CDSs came about when JP Morgan found a loophole in the post-Enron regulations. They are fairly complex, but here is the most pared down explanation I can find. There is plenty of information around on the internet though. Just before the bank crashes at the end of the year, it is estimated that the CDS market was "valued" at almost 50 TRILLION.

"Credit default swaps are a type of credit insurance contract in which one party pays another party to protect it from the risk of default on a particular debt instrument. If that debt instrument (a bond, a bank loan, a mortgage) defaults, the insurer compensates the insured for his loss.

"The insurer (which could be a bank, an investment bank or a hedge fund) is required to post collateral to support its payment obligation, but in the insane credit environment that preceded the credit crisis, this collateral deposit was generally too small.

"As a result, the credit default market is best described as an insurance market where many of the individual trades are undercapitalized."

and here "undercapitalized" is just a euphemism for "completely worthless"

So basically its a market bet, and you're betting on failure. But when all of the failures come to pass, there's no underlying value to cover all the bets.

Perhaps you'd be better with "youth" or maybe "our young people" ? Whatever ... another complete dodge, which I don't even understand.

"Getting them off welfare is easy. You don’t work, you don’t eat. Simple." Yeah, a little too simple. Its total bullcrap and not even worth addressing. It was a complete dodge.

It’s nothing of the kind. Among the things that liberals fail to grasp – it’s a long list – is that by making provision for a problem you guarantee its existence. Does the IRS say “try your best to get your return in April 15th, OK?” No. Get it in by April 15th or its your ass. What do people do? They get it in by April 15th.

Another thing they fail to grasp is basic economics: anything you subsidize, you encourage. Anything you tax, you discourage. In some contexts they understand this (carbon tax proposals, for example), but in others, not. By paying welfare – i.e., subsidizing loserhood – you are encouraging it. It’s that simple.

The only people to whom I would pay welfare were the physically and mentally infirm who could not possibly work. (By physically infirm I mean quadriplegics and such, I don’t mean people with vague pains that turn up conveniently. By mentally infirm I mean people who lack the wherewithall to take care of themselves. Anyone falling into the latter category should not, of course, be allowed to vote.)

I most emphatically do not mean people who don’t feel like working. They can starve. Hunger pangs are a great motivator.

How about “our combat troops?” To serve in the military, one must be at least 18. Anyone 18 or over is an adult, by law. They’re not children, and characterizing them as such is meretricious. It invokes – as it was intended to do - an image of Timmy on his bike with playing cards in spokes going into battle. The dodge is entirely yours, my friend.

I don't oresuppose that there aren't a ton of other factors, and in fact said as much earlier. I'd love to see changes in the system. This one is very small and far from perfect, but definitely opens possibilities.

And you said you weren’t good at dodges.../g

Why not buy them shoes, so they can walk to work? The whole notion is laughably naive. The rate-limiting step in their getting employment is developing a work ethic. Show up every day, on time, don’t use drugs, don’t steal from your employer, and do a good job. The problem is largely found in black neighborhoods, where 40 years ago black families that used to be strong were destroyed...by welfare. Welfare rules of the Great Society limited payments to families without a male breadwinner, so black men left their families. We’ve now had multiple generations that have grown up without a male role model who held down a job, and therefore to whom a basic work ethic is terra incognita. (Contrast Hispanic families, to see what I mean.) Nice program. Well-intended. Just like this one.

So if what you're trying to say is "government interference in the marketplace" is what you guys are now calling "deregulation," then great! We perfectly agree.

No. “Government interference in the marketplace” refers to the CRA and, in effect, affirmative action in lending. The government – starting with Clinton, but including Bush – wanted to increase home ownership, especially among minorities. They required banks to prove that they made loans in minority areas, essentially independent of ability/inclination to repay the loan. It was part of a drive against “red-lining.” (Remember that?) Another well-intended liberal policy. Do you see a pattern emerging?

The other facet of government interference in the marketplace was the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They provided a home for toxic mortgages written by other lenders, who relaxed their standards figuring that Fannie and Freddie would hold the bag on any that went south. Further, by virtue of being quasi-governmental, and therefore presumably backed by the government, they could borrow money more cheaply than any private borrower. Other lenders had to push the risk envelope to compete with them, because their cost of capital was higher.

Last, Fannie and Freddie have always been Democratic strongholds. If you doubt this, consider the clips of Barney Frank and various Democratic Congressmen defending Fannie and Freddie right up until the crisis erupted, claiming that they were perfectly sound. Note that Raines himself is today an advisor to Obama. Last, note that the top three recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1989-2008 were Chris Dodd, one Barack Obama, and John Kerry. Further note that Obama collected his second place standing in a mere 18 months, whereas the other two miscreants had a full ten years’ worth of contributions. Tells you all you need to know, except for one more thing: Fannie Mae lost $23.2 billion in 1Q 2009.

By “deregulation” I assume you are referring to repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that prohibited the mixing of commercial and investment banking. Note that the Senate vote for doing this was 90-8, the House vote was 362-57, and it was signed into law by... Bill Clinton. In short, despite being proposed initially by Republicans, it was passed with bipartisan support.

Further note that Canada has always allowed commercial and investment banking operations to be conducted by the same bank (i.e., never had a Glass-Steagall Act), and it is one of the few countries not to have a financial crisis today.

Bottom line: repeal of Glass-Steagall did not cause this problem. The proximate causes were, as you correctly noted, the use of credit default swaps, government interference in the mortgage market leading to poor lending decisions, and the agency problem with respect to lenders (those who wrote the mortgages were not those who ended up owning them).

The overall point here: it’s impossible to help people if they won’t help themselves. Meet them halfway? Absolutely. But giving idle people anything, other than a swift kick in the butt, is a waste of time and money, and merely perpetuates the problem. People appreciate what they earned, they don’t appreciate what they’re given, and over time, they come to view it as their due. Basic human psychology.

I don't know that I can get to this today, as it takes me quite a bit of reading to respond to one of your posts Jay. It is mother's day ... gotta go give mom her due!

But thanks as always for your thoughtful response ... its a pleasure.

Sorry for the length, but I appreciate the kind sentiment, and return it.

Re Mother's Day, same here. Take care!

I think that our economy is completely depleting little by little because we are compensating the people who dont want to make a living besides sucking the life out of tax payers money. How come middle class is getting rewarded, why are people that cause our poverty being rewarded. There is complete and utter reverse affirmative action going on and the people that make a living our being drained so a person who lives in the projects and doesnt have a job with four kids is being rewarded for what, being apart of the debt!! We need to be spending our money more wisely no wonder why we have no money because of the pittiful things we do like this!!!!!!!!!!

"We could always employ people by starting another war abroad and killing more of our country's children." sez anonymous, in an attempt to play our heartstrings like cheap guitars. A most cliched arguement.

Newsflash: Our brave soldiers are not children. They're more of men (or women, if the case may be) than you'll ever be, anonymouse.

It seems stupid (Because it is), but it's standard procedure for the radical left. In one argument of theirs, we're all a bunch of brainless, inbred, racist, gun- clinging, Bible- thumping hillbillies who ar all active in the Ku Klux Klan. Posted by: Adam at May 8, 2009 3:43 PM

Remember when that desribed the Dem base?

I can’t believe how unfair this world is!! I had been out of welfare since my youngest son was 4 years old now he is 19. I went to college while in welfare and since then I been working and trying to be out of welfare. I had been to so many struggles and can believe that now things are so easy for this people that don’t have any motivation in life. My car broke down been taking buses and paying for cap just to go to work just because I have bills to pay and a mortgage to pay. Just so unfair it gets me so mad. How easy things are for those that don’t even want to work..??????