We have another example of a teacher being disciplined for an act of free speech in his private time. I have previously written about the increasing scrutiny given public school teachers in their use of social media sites. University of Kansas Associate Professor of Journalism David Guth has been placed on administrative leave after posting an anti-NRA tweet following the recent Navy Yard shootings that killed 12 people. Guth tweeted” “blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.”
Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little issued the following statement after Guth was placed on administrative leave:
“In order to prevent disruptions to the learning environment for students, the School of Journalism and the university, I have directed Provost Jeffrey Vitter to place Associate Professor Guth on indefinite administrative leave pending a review of the entire situation. Professor Guth’s classes will be taught by other faculty members.”
While the statement is framed in terms of avoidance “disruptions,” it does not appear to be at the request of Guth. Free speech is often limited in the name of maintaining order and avoiding disruptions. Once again, I find the statement of Guth to be repulsive in wishing the death of the children of gun rights supporters. Yet, it was clearly a political statement made outside of the university.
Nevertheless, Kansas State Senator Greg Smith wants Guth to be fired for engaging in free speech. He is further promising to oppose any appropriations for the university. That sounds like threatening students in protest of a tweet deemed threatening to children of NRA members. A curious moral high ground.
Smith, a former law enforcement officer, however may feel such a threat particularly acutely. His website cites the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of his daughter, Kelsey, as his motivation to continue in public service. I can certainly understand why Guth’s words would be particularly hurtful to Smith. Yet, threatening an entire academic institution for the views of a single faculty member is excessive and wrong-headed.
Likewise, the Kansas State Rifle Association President Patricia Stoneking has pledged that it “will do everything possible to see to the removal of this man . . . He should be fired immediately. His statements are outrageous!. . . Is this who you want teaching your children? I certainly do not want him teaching mine.” Of course, these are not children but college students who are part of an academic community built on the exchange of different ideas and values.
For his part, Guth is not backing down. He is quoted as saying “I don’t apologize for it because I’m not saying in the tweet that I want anybody harmed, and I expanded on it in my blog.”
He is not getting a lot of public support from Ann Brill, dean of the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications. Brill wrote that “While the First Amendment allows anyone to express an opinion, that privilege is not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of others. That’s vital to civil discourse. Professor Guth’s views do not represent our school and we do not advocate violence directed against any group or individuals.” The reference to the limits of the first amendment by Brill would seem to encourage those who want Guth disciplined by suggesting that this case might fall within those limits. However, this is an expression of a teacher on a matter of great social and political debate. I do not believe that he actually wanted harm to come to NRA family members. He used injudicious and offensive words to convey his passion. Since some of his students are likely gun rights supporters, it was particularly disturbing. However, he was on a social media site expressing his anger in the aftermath of a great tragedy. I do not see how the “limits” of free speech would allow the discipline of a teacher for such a statement in such a circumstance. Notably, it is Brill’s”limits” point that was quoted by the Regents of the University.
Ironically, Guth specializes in public relations according to his resume. He has a M.A. in Journalism, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill (1990) and a B.A. in Radio, Television and Speech, University of Maryland at College Park, 1973.
Do you believe that a professor can or should be disciplined for such a posting on a social media site?
David, Mike answered so much more eloquently then I ever could.
By the way your assumption that I have never worked with the poor is completely offbase. And in addition, unfortunately I was “the poor” before I was able to get disability. I was in the line at the assistance office, I felt the humiliation of being on food stamps. I went from upper middle class to poor, in the span of a moment when my disability started.
I want to work. I know many who want to work but cannot because they have invisible disabilities. You seem to presume that everyone getting help is a scammer, lazy sloth. I think you need to work with the poor and the disabled. Ask them how they feel about not being able to work. Being able to get back to work is one of my most wished for things. (BTW I have family who wweere never there, not even for my 12 brian surgeries. Just because people exist do not mean they are willing, able or want to help.)
leejcaroll wrote: “You seem to presume that everyone getting help is a scammer, lazy sloth.”
No, I am sorry if I came across that way. I meant only to say that many are playing that game, and there are more now playing that game than there were before President Obama came into office.
There are real people who truly need assistance. Some are mentally ill or have other issues that prevent them from holding a job. I have been very thankful for HUD programs that allowed me to place them there so at least they could have a place to live. It saddens me to find people wandering the streets for years just because they are mentally ill. Some of these people could hold a job for two to five hours a day, but the current regulations do not allow that without hurting their benefits. As Bron said, there should be programs that perhaps increase benefits for people working, or there could be a public works program that places them for the benefits they receive. Someone would just have to take the time to evaluate how that person could function in society and then put them in that place. In return, they get housing and food subsidy and some spending money.
leejcaroll wrote: “Being able to get back to work is one of my most wished for things.”
I know it is. It is human nature to feel this way. Virtually every disabled person I know feels this way.
Don’t you think we can improve our assistance programs to address this issue? Rather than just handing out a check, can’t we also provide a path toward productivity? Even quadriplegics have been productive, and look at inspirational people in history like Helen Keller.
Mike Spindell:
I disagree, wages are based on knowledge. Labor of all kinds is needed; from highly skilled professionals to high school kids earning minimum wage. Especially in a good economy.
I cant really use unskilled labor except to cut my lawn and do odd jobs around the house. My grandfather’s wife once told me that if you have a trade you will never go hungry, she was right.
Maybe you are right, I would hope not. Industry needs skilled people not lawn mowers.
davidm2575 1, October 2, 2013 at 8:31 am
Elaine M wrote: “Over the years, he had experiences with some people who didn’t want to work hard–but they were not the majority.”
When was this? Has he hired while Obama has been in office or are you talking about a time prior to the Obama era? What industry are you talking about? My hires require a lot of training. It is not like hiring for McDonalds or Walmart.
*****
Elaine M. 1, October 2, 2013 at 9:48 am
davidm,
My husband has been involved in the de-manufacturing and recycling of computers and other electronics for more than twenty years. His businesses have done work for the government, HP and other companies. His employees were well-trained. Some had to run expensive equipment and machinery. He hasn’t found any differences in workers since Obama took office.
What business are you in? What kind of training do you give your employees?
*****
davidm,
I responded to your questions. Yet, you haven’t responded to mine.
Elaine M wrote: “What business are you in? What kind of training do you give your employees?”
Hi Elaine. Sorry for the delayed response.
I develop computer software. My employees have to learn the software that we develop and provide help desk support or sell the software to people who call in interested in buying it. Some employees have to be trained in computer network administration, in troubleshooting techniques, and in the basics of how the software we produce is designed to operate, and in how to give a demonstration of the software.
I don’t know why your husband’s experience is not the same as mine. I was shocked when I offered a man a job, only to have him call me back and tell me that his unemployment was extended another year and the increase in pay for working just wasn’t enough. He wanted me to hire him the next year after his unemployment ran out. This happened when Obama got his extended unemployment benefits bill passed in Congress. I never had anything like that happen before Obama came into office.
David not sure why unless you either ignored it or weren’t in the position of hiring before Prez Obama extended benefits since happened numerous times under Bush and other repubs http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbenefitprograms/a/unemployment-benefits-and-partisanship.htm
There is such a program, it is called welfare to work. Also ticket to work for disabled as just 2 examples.
Funny how it was the president, by your logic, that has enabled people to suddenly, since he became pres to become lazy, unwilling to work, game the system.
leejcaroll wrote: “extended benefits since happened numerous times under Bush and other repubs…”
LOL ! Bush extended it from 13 weeks to 20 weeks. Obama extends it to 2 years then to 3 years. How can you possibly have a straight face with your equivalency argument?
DavidM:
that is exactly right, I have been aware of this since my early 20’s. The first time I was told by 2 young women, who were good, hard workers, that they could not work more than a certain number of hours per week or lose all their benefits I was amazed.
You would think the government would say the poverty line is 100 and we will help you get there or even beyond. You work as hard as you can and earn as much as you can and we will supplement your income to push you over the line.
Maybe even give people a monetary incentive to work more than 40 hours per week and match those earnings and put them in a savings account for them tax free so they can build up a nest egg to buy a house or start a business when they are able.
There are so many things which could be done to help people who need it without just handing them a check. At some point you wonder about the motivation of a person who wants to declaw and defang a lion. It isnt to return it to the wild to fend for itself. It is for personal gain in some manner.
“You would think the government would say the poverty line is 100 and we will help you get there or even beyond. You work as hard as you can and earn as much as you can and we will supplement your income to push you over the line.”
Bron,
What you say is true. where you are fuzzy is in the why of government not doing it. The “why” is that it is in the interest of the Corporate class to make welfare as hard as possible to get off of. This is both a punishment for being poor and it is the need to keep a certain percentage of the population poor to keep wages low.
ObamaCare is Free
•ObamaCare is not free. A lot of people think that ObamaCare is free because their concept of universal healthcare is “free healthcare.” Universal healthcare is a term that politicians use because they sound better than “a compulsory insurance mandate.” Universal healthcare is different in every country and it’s not very well understood by Americans, but the important thing to understand or know is that ObamaCare is a “compulsory insurance act.” Healthcare is not free. Everyone is required to have (buy) insurance, so everyone is supposed to have “affordable healthcare coverage.”
•ObamaCare is a law that requires compulsory or mandatory insurance – not healthcare. We are all required to buy insurance that is subsidized by our employers and/or possibly the government. Employers are only required to pay up to 60% of the cost of insurance premiums. Thus, you’re still going to need to pay for the rest of the insurance cost.
•ObamaCare is subsidized for those qualified! This means that the government is helping individuals and families cover substantial portions of their income. If you earn less than $46,000 dollars a year as a family household (4x the American Poverty Line), then you’d likely qualify for a subsidy. The median household income for the United States is about 52,100 dollars, so this means that most Americans are going to be able to have at least some help paying their insurance.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/cameronkeng/2013/10/02/obamacare-affordable-care-act-is-not-an-insurance-or-healthcare-problem/
David The work requirement for welfare was not removed, that was a right wing lie. As for food stamps the requirements have been tightened, I guess you want children, seniors, disabled and the working poor living at or below the poverty line should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. No one gets free healthcare under Obamacare unless you are poor :.Obamacare includes a big expansion of free health care for the poor, “through Medicaid. Starting now, nearly all families making less than $31,000 yearly could get free Medicaid, which means 17 million of the 60 million uninsured could be covered.” http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/09/30-ten-questions-about-obamacare-aca-patel-sanghavi
leejcaroll wrote: “The work requirement for welfare was not removed, that was a right wing lie.”
The left wing has been lying about this. They can rightly claim that Congress never changed the law to remove the work requirement put into place by Newt Gingrich and President Clinton, but Obama’s administration does indeed grant waivers removing the work requirement despite all the denials you have read. They have misled you by telling you only part of the story. They claim to require states to demonstrate moving 20% off welfare into jobs in order to qualify for the waiver, but what happens in practice is a shell game. For more information, follow the links in the following article:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/19/fight-heats-up-over-welfare-rules/
“An Obama administration official said that the Department of Health and Human Services had the power to grant waivers and had no plans to seek congressional authorization.”
As for free healthcare being only for the poor, you state the obvious, but you still do not grasp the job killing incentives in place with this. If a person does not work, they qualify for all kinds of goodies. If they work, they lose them or have to pay for them on their own. Many prefer loafing around and receiving the free stuff to working hard and not having that much more than they had when they loafed around and perhaps enjoy their drugs. This happens with Social Security too (SSDI). I am involved with poor people all the time who are able to work, and do work, but they must not work too much or they risk losing their Social Security. So they work for less than 9 months at a stretch, in order to keep their check. That’s the game. They are constantly in this tug of war, wanting to work, but not wanting to lose their check and other government handouts. The easiest way to qualify for all the stuff free is simply not to work. So that’s what many of them do. Involve yourself helping the poor, and you will find that everything I am telling you is the absolute truth.
The left wing for the most part don’t actually help the poor hands on. They do it through government programs, so they don’t recognize how their policies and programs that they claim help the poor are actually damaging their personal work ethic.
“but Obama’s administration does indeed grant waivers removing the work requirement despite all the denials you have read.”
DavidM,
Yes they do but you don’t know why they have to do it. The “work requirement” was a failure from its inception. I know this for a fact because I was in the upper executive levels of the largest welfare department in the country. It was doomed to failure because there were never enough jobs, or even potential jobs available. The people you flack for had moved those kind of jobs out of the country. While I was there the agency has found work for barely 2% of their target population. They kept this information secret but there was a wall chart on the top executive floor, of central office, that showed the lack of progress. Incidentally, the Agency at the time was run by the people who had implemented the Wisconsin Workfare program that was the “model” for welfare reform. In private meetings it was openly discussed that the interest was not in job creation. Although I prospered during this time fixing a problem in the Food Stamp Program, I became more and more disgusted and retired.
“If a person does not work, they qualify for all kinds of goodies. If they work, they lose them or have to pay for them on their own. Many prefer loafing around and receiving the free stuff to working hard and not having that much more than they had when they loafed around and perhaps enjoy their drugs.”
DavidM, what a smug, self contented man you are. You show an innate bigotry towards those you consider “unproductive”, which is buttressed by a blithe indifference to the real truth of the matter. You are a true Republican in the worse sense of the label. You got yours and anybody else can frankly go to hell because they are “lazy sloths.” You spout these talking points and hold them dear to your heart so that you can pretend that you are a good, caring person. You even talk of your work assisting the “unfortunate” but that thinly disguises the contempt you have for anyone not of your class. Most of your comments are styled to evince the persona of a thoughtful, moral person. However, every once in the while you let your mask slip and we see the ugly, supercilious bigot inside. That paragraph of yours that I quoted above is not only untrue, but reflects the kind of talking points that Republicans have crafted over the years to get elected based upon one prejudice or another.
Before you use the defense of reminding me that “welfare deform” was passed under Bill Clinton, let me state it is one of the main reasons I loathe the man. Democrats are certainly less vicious when it comes to the underclass in this country, but they too are mostly under the Corporate Aegis.
The true reason that we have welfare in this country is that since the start of the Federal Reserve the corporate class has always ensured enough unemployment to give the elite the edge in bargaining wages and to frighten people about the consequences of losing their jobs. You have written about the problem you have in hiring people of quality, but perhaps that is because you seem to have such contempt for the common man.
Mike Spindell wrote: “I was in the upper executive levels of the largest welfare department in the country.”
You are exactly the kind of man I would love to sit down with and talk. If I knew what city you lived in, I would want to buy you lunch and have a nice discussion about welfare and the problems faced by the executives like you. It would be like an infantryman having lunch with a general.
Mike Spindell wrote: “While I was there the agency has found work for barely 2% of their target population.”
Mike, it is not about the AGENCY finding people work. It is about people finding work for themselves. The welfare rolls dropped by more than 50% after PRWORA replaced AFDC in 1996. Employment of never married mothers increased by 50%. Single mothers who were high school dropouts increased by 66%. Employment of young (18-24) single mothers increased by 100%. Six years after PRWORA was enacted, the child poverty rate dropped to the lowest in national history.
Mike Spindell wrote: “DavidM, what a smug, self contented man you are. You show an innate bigotry towards those you consider “unproductive”, which is buttressed by a blithe indifference to the real truth of the matter. You are a true Republican in the worse sense of the label. You got yours and anybody else can frankly go to hell because they are “lazy sloths.””
I think you misinterpret me. The Republican message of self reliance, work hard and enjoy the fruits of your labor, is a great message to the poor. It lifts them up. It is human nature to want to be productive. If I had the attitude of “I got mine and everybody else can go to hell” then I would not devote one minute to helping the poor.
What you do not understand about helping the poor is that it is not about giving them just the material things they need. That’s easy. Give the homeless shelter, give the hungry food, clothe the naked… no problem. But to really help the poor, you have to deal with the aspects of humanity that create poverty. Unfaithfulness, laziness, dishonesty, cowardness, addictions, love of pleasure, greed… all of these things require correction. I tell people that I help that they cannot choose how I will help them. I will help their whole person, spirit, soul and body. If crack is destroying them, I tell them that. If laziness is their vice, I rebuke the laziness. If dishonesty and unfaithfulness is the problem, I correct them every chance I get. This is the way to help them. Many I help without a word about God, but sometimes if they are remotely religious, I will put the fear of God in them about these things. If a person is slothful, he is going to hell. So repent. Stop it. If you are a liar, yeah, the good book says you too will go to hell. If you are a coward and afraid to try, sorry dude, God will send you to hell fire too. Alcoholic? Better repent, or get cast into hell. Anybody unproductive will be cast into hell. You might find that harsh and unloving. You probably have guessed: I call it tough love. Some need a kick in the behind to do what is right. Some need gentle coaxing. I talked to one man sitting on a park bench for two years before he would let me lead him to a job. He was one that needed gentle coaxing over a long period of time. Another man let cocaine ruin him and I rebuked him pretty harshly every chance I got… “when you gonna give that up. It is destroying you and your life and everyone you love. You don’t need it.” He needed the kick in the rear end.
Mike Spindell wrote: “… but that thinly disguises the contempt you have for anyone not of your class.”
Now you are getting into fantasy land. There is only one class of people. The human race. Some are gifted and more productive than others, but we are all in the same boat and we all have a role to play. I don’t have contempt for anyone except those who flat out choose to do wrong over doing what is right. I do not expect equality. I expect doing the right thing from everyone. The reason for my attitude is because I view everyone as being in the same class as me. If they were beneath me, I would not give them a second thought. They would be like the ants crawling on the ground that I usually ignore.
Mike Spindell wrote: “That paragraph of yours that I quoted above is not only untrue, but reflects the kind of talking points that Republicans have crafted over the years to get elected based upon one prejudice or another.”
That paragraph is true. It was not crafted by Republicans, but written by me, off the cuff, drawing upon my experiences in life. The problem is that you filter it through bigotry so you do not read it in the way that I meant to convey it.
I am not criticizing the poor at all in that paragraph. I am explaining the difficulties that the country’s welfare policies create. If I were in the position of the poor, and facing their same decision to work or not work, and if I were single, I would choose the same thing they do… not to work. I would choose to get on the dole and apply myself to writing books. I don’t need that much to sustain life. The government subsidies would be more than enough for me, and if it is offered legally and the only thing I have to do is quit my job, then why not? Many people would not because they value material things and need money to sustain them, but I do not care about those things at all. How nice it would be to have all that time to do whatever I wanted to do without any concern about how to turn my labor into money.
I think the economy has not come back because the Fed will not let the interest rate spike and it continues to print money.
Bron wrote: “I think the economy has not come back because the Fed will not let the interest rate spike and it continues to print money.”
And the Obama policies are killing jobs with extended unemployment benefits, food stamps, removing the work requirement for welfare, etc. I think it is ridiculous that I have to compete with unemployment when I hire. They have to decide, “do I want to work 40 hours a week or do I just want to loaf around for a few years and do whatever I want and get about $40 less per week instead.” Now with Obamacare, they get free healthcare to just loaf around. No incentives to work anymore.
gbk:
this is a pretty good lecture by Allison as well.
gbk:
I dont know enough to give you the detailed analysis. But from what I have read banks gave loans to anybody with a pulse and then bundled bad loans along with good loans. Now I readily admit that some of the people were taken advantage of by sleazy mortgage companies who preyed on their desire to own a home. And shame on them for doing so. But many others knew exactly what they were doing and did so anyway.
But government housing policies still bear a good share of the burden by setting up unrealistic goals for putting people into houses and government in general for using the Fed to keep interest rates low.
I cant prove it but I believe the rates were kept low to juice the economy so Bush would have enough tax money to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Fed is an evil institution and should be done away with. In the last 12 years they have provided the means to fight wars which we should not have fought and debased our money through increasing the money supply. The reckoning is not going to be good.
Mortgage Bubble Blamed, Ludicrously, on the Government
By Matt Taibbi
November 17, 2010
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/mortgage-bubble-blamed-ludicrously-on-the-government-20101117
Excerpt:
The bullshit train just keeps rolling on.
In the ongoing effort to rewrite history and deflect blame from Wall Street for the financial crisis, former U.S. Treasury official and current American Enterprise Institute swine Peter Wallison has issued a lengthy analysis of the mortgage bubble that, surprise, surprise, lays the blame for the crash at the feet of government efforts to expand home ownership to “those who normally would not qualify.”
The Washington Times piece about the Wallison study includes the following coda near the top. The emphasis here is mine: “Without waiting for the evidence, many in the political class, particularly those on the left, bought into the argument that the financial crisis was caused by greed.”
I’m going to come back to that remarkable line written by senior Cato Institute fellow Richard Rahn, who’s just jumped to the very top of my shit list, in a second. But just quickly, the argument goes on to summarize the conclusions in Wallison’s study, which is described as a “stronger and more empirically-based” argument, having been done by one of what Rahn calls the “somewhat more sophisticated observers” who didn’t just rush to blame the whole thing on greed without waiting for the evidence.
The essence of Wallison’s argument is that the crisis was caused by the fact that the government in the late 1990s started forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to acquire increasing numbers of “affordable” housing loans.
Which is true. The Clinton administration did issue a mandate instructing Fannie and Freddie to purchase a larger portfolio of low-income housing loans. But this had nothing, or very little, to do with the mortgage bubble. What’s fascinating about this AEI stance is the evolution of the right-wing argument: the first effort to explain the mortgage crisis involved, of all things, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, the anti-redlining law that required banks to issue a certain percentage of home loans to the people who made up the bulk of their depositors. That propaganda effort was only mildly successful for the screamingly obvious reason that the law in question was passed in the seventies, across thirty years of crisis-free American history. That, plus the fact that the CRA had absolutely no real impact on the sudden explosion of subprime home loans in the early part of the last decade, made this a propaganda non-starter.
So now they’re coming back with this, pegging the whole mess not to greed but to Clintonian policies involving Fannie and Freddie. Note that although they could have done so, the AEI is not criticizing Clinton for the things he was actually guilty of, like repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and signing off on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (which deregulated the types of derivatives that made the mortgage-backed securities boom possible) in 2000.
No, the criticism here is not really partisan; it’s designed more to put class and race at the middle of the crash discussion, pitching the financial crisis as the result of a botched socialistic scheme to put “those who normally would not qualify,” i.e. poor white trash and poor black and Hispanic people, in fancy homes.
Here is why this argument is bullshit, and I’m not the only one saying so.
The reason there was a sudden rush to lend out homes to subprime borrowers was not because of Fannie and Freddie, but because the banks had discovered fancy new derivative tools like CDOs and CMOs that allowed them to chop up bundles of home loans and turn them into AAA-rated securities. Countrywide was not trolling the streets looking for jobless indigents to lend mansions to (this literally happened, by the way) because the government was forcing them to. It was because big banks like Goldman and JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America were letting them know that they had a virtually limitless market for mortgage-backed securities, thanks to the new derivative tools that allowed them to sell billions of subprime MBS as AAA-rated investments to suckers like German land-banks and Icelandic trade unions and the like.
Every time the AEI or some other stooge comes out with one of these “But the government made us lend this shit!” arguments, we need to stand up and repeat: no, sirs, it did not. This was not a government program to put people in homes. This was an international fraud scheme to disguise crappy American home loans as AAA-rated safe investments so that they could then be hawked to foreigners and insurance companies and pension funds. The fact that a whole bunch of people who probably didn’t deserve credit ended up owning mortgages and buying homes was actually an incidental side-effect, a kind of collateral damage, to the underlying fraud scheme. Not about greed, Richard Hahn? This crisis was about banks bundling subprime mortgages and selling it off as AAA-rated gold to pension funds.
That means a bunch of jackasses on Wall Street with $1000 suits and slicked-back hair were passing the word to Countrywide lenders that they needed masses of crap loans that they could then turn into investment-grade paper and sell it all off to, say, the state pension fund of Indiana.
That way, thousands of Indianan toll booth operators and teachers and prison guards and janitors who’d been working their whole lives and saving up nest eggs were made into customers of this toxic crap these bankers knew would blow up eventually. Indiana’s pension fund lost $5 billion during the crisis. Virtually every state in the union suffered similar fates. Why? Because a bunch of used-car salesmen on Wall Street sold them fleets of lemons with no engines under the hoods.
I don’t know what Richard Rahn would call making your yearly bonus goal by robbing some janitor in Indiana out of his pension. As a flack for the Cato Institute, I’m sure he would call it good business. But in my mind, if that’s not greed, I don’t know what the hell is.
Bron,
“The bankers and the people who bought houses they knew they couldnt afford were kidding themselves,”
If you seriously think that, “. . . the people who bought houses they knew they couldnt afford . . .” brought about the collapse of the world’s financial system then I don’t know what to say.
Except to note that if your conjecture is true, and if the free market works the way you claim, then why haven’t economies improved since 2007-2008?
Elaine:
It was government, bankers and us that caused the problem.
The bankers and the people who bought houses they knew they couldnt afford were kidding themselves, the government set up the environment for it to happen.
Bron,
We the people pay the tax dollars that the government used to bail out Wall Street. I was “sugarcoating” the fact that American taxpayers bailed out millionaires and billionaires? Many of the greedy Wall Street fat cats were only too willing to take bail out money…and later give themselves big bonuses…and after that continue some of the same practices that got this country into serious financial problems in the first place.
Think about the revolving door between Wall Street/big business and government. I don’t absolve the government. Neither do I try to sugarcoat what banksters have done to this country.
Pray tell, what is the truth according to Bron? That Wall Street/banksters didn’t cause the near financial meltdown of our financial system?
Elaine/gbk:
It was the government using our tax dollars which bailed out wall st., we the people had no choice, we were forced to do so by government without our consent.
Her version, in my opinion, just seemed to sugar coat it. To make it seem like the wall st mavens were dipping into our pockets directly and taking the fruits of our labor when in reality it was being done by the government using the force that we the people give them. Government turned against us, the wall st. bankers were just recipients of stolen property. And not all of them wanted the unearned, some were forced by government to take money they didnt need to paint a picture of deceit, to hide the truth from the people.
Bron 1, October 2, 2013 at 6:02 pm
Elaine:
“The fat cats of Wall Street who tanked our economy never had to suffer because we the people bailed them out. They are still making big bucks while many average guys and gals are just trying to make ends meet.”
Why do you deny that our taxes bailed those people out? Government bailed them out without my consent using my money and other people’s money.
*****
Did you actually read what I wrote? Did I deny that our taxes bailed out the fat cats of Wall Street? Sheesh!!!!!
Bron,
Elaine said,
“The fat cats of Wall Street who tanked our economy never had to suffer because we the people bailed them out. They are still making big bucks while many average guys and gals are just trying to make ends meet.”
Bron to Elaine,
“Why do you deny that our taxes bailed those people out? Government bailed them out without my consent using my money and other people’s money.”
Elaine doesn’t deny this, Bron. Actually this was her point.
Bron,
You completely ignore the fact that the government is not only no longer serving as a referee, but that the very people who fund the Tea Party and the radical right are some of the very same people who have corrupted government to work in their favor and against the common interests of the citizenry. 19th Century? That’s exactly what they want. To recreate the conditions that allowed for robber barons and the Great Depression in the first place – a market where they alone make the rules and they alone benefit.
is it a single shot or do you have a 3 round magazine?
Boehner needs to reign in his warlords. I’m spending next week in Key West and was planning a visit to Fort Jefferson, the least visited national park in the country. It’s a beautiful and fascinating place, and it had better be open or there’ll be hell to pay. I’m packing my finger pistol in case of trouble.
Elaine:
“The fat cats of Wall Street who tanked our economy never had to suffer because we the people bailed them out. They are still making big bucks while many average guys and gals are just trying to make ends meet.”
Why do you deny that our taxes bailed those people out? Government bailed them out without my consent using my money and other people’s money.
I guess people see what they want to see.
Maybe if government would leave some money in people’s pockets, the economy would grow and their salaries would increase or they could go and do something for themselves if they were not being paid enough.
Maybe it is the government in league with some of the fat cats which is screwing the middle class. Maybe if you cut out off the money spigot in Washington, the fat cats would have to make it on their own and not rely on you and me and others like us.
You seem to imply that I am all for fat cats being bailed out by government because I wish to limit government. I wish to limit government so fat cats cannot be bailed out and the middle class can have more money in their wallets and their savings plans.
We need risk takers, why not let them do what they do best and raise the standard of living for all? Why not let them play on a field where government is just a referee and not a stake holder with an interest in the outcome?
Corporations do not control the use of force, government does. That is why they try and form alliances with government, so they can have access to the use of force to use against competitors and to protect themselves. It has been going on since Cornelius Vanderbilt and Thomas Gibbons brought suit to end a government supported monopoly of steamboat concessions.
The government supported railroads as well, not all but some. They even supported transatlantic crossings and Vanderbilt again competed against government involvement in the market.
It was bad in the 19the century and it is bad now.