Saturday, July 2, 2011
Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers
Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers
By John Ransom
We had a shortage of liberals this week on the message boards and emails. But we have enough to make a scrum. So here’s “have at it” for this week’s edition of Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers.
Hal Donahue wrote: Bush the torturer's wars were conducted OFF the books but you knew that and economists say any defense spending over 3% damages the economy severely. Also, you are not counting homeland security and VA which are defense spending but you knew that. The principal cause of our fiscal malaise is the absurd conservative belief that the private sector could self regulate - it never has and never will. - in response to my column Report: Boomer Fiscal Policies Lead World to Cliff
Here’s what Obama said about it: "That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. "For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price." Of course, Obama didn’t even get that budget passed despite having a majority in both the House and the Senate.
Instead, Obama ran EVERYTHING off the books didn’t he?
Obama still hasn’t gotten a budget passed. That’s why his House budget chair John Spratt (D-SC5) who said “If you can't budget, you can't govern” lost his safe seat in Congress after serving in it since 1983.
And no, economists don’t say that defense spending over 3 percent damages the economy. Defense spending has rarely been near 3 percent. Most economists believe, as do I, that the economy can accommodate about 5 percent of GDP for defense spending.
Seriously: You expect us to believe that when the government was involved in half the mortgage transactions that led up to the mortgage meltdown that the problem was regulatory neglect?
Only liberals would believe that you can solve a problem with the federal government being half-involved in the mortgage business by getting them all the way involved in the mortgage business.
Lawrence wrote: I believe that race card has been played SO MUCH (along with the IT'S BUSH'S FAULT card) that there is nothing recognizable on the face of that card anymore. No one is even sure what they mean now when either is played. - in response to my column Rabbit Fights Back: Rabbit 1 Obama 0
Tell that to Hal Donahue. Although I do think you’re right in this sense: Hal doesn’t really know what he’s saying.
Russell wrote: I'm not in favor of the government setting the standard. But ... I bought four houses between 1969 and 1984 (sold three) -all with 20% down. Had that requirement for some skin in the game been maintained, we wouldn't have had so many homeowners who couldn't afford the houses they bought. And people wouldn't have been so quick to walk away. -in response to my column A Farewell to Homes: A Drama by Barney Frank
Good for you, but no matter how tempting it is to say “Hey 20 percent down is a good idea,” we have to tell the government to back off and let the people with the money to loan decide how much of a down payment they’ll accept.
If we don’t, the next thing you know they’ll be telling us that we have to buy health insurance; that we can only use certain types of light bulbs; that wind power is morally superior to coal-generated power; that we have to buy electric cars; that there is some global calamity called the Man-Bear-Pig that is threatening the world and only the collective action of a world government putting us all in collectives can avert it.
Big Jack II wrote: Timmy boy will be OK, he'll just go back to one of the big banks. If not there, back to the FED. Do you think we got our money’s worth out of him? We were told we had to have him, there was nobody else who could do the job, WHAT a SNOWJOB. - in response to my column HeadsRoll: Geithner Out, Or Maybe Never Mind
Dear Big Jack,
The One needed a Mini Me with a blow-dry hair-do to gather up the bankers into the Borg.
Now that his work has been done, he’s free to go.
Chicaree wrote: Giving tax breaks has proven to be a real deficit producer. George Bush proved that. - in response to my column Why Obama Must Raise Taxes
Oh, I thought Ronald Reagan proved that…or John Kennedy proved that.
I think if you asked people they’d be quite happy to go back to the golden days of Bush or Reagan, when the economy was at or on its way to full employment and the deficit, while contentious, seemed containable.
Federal revenue set a record under George Bush at $2.7trillion in 2007, with a fairly small- comparatively speaking- deficit of $170 billion. Obama’s running deficits of $1.5 trillion every year based on tax policies crafted by Democrat majorities.
As Christopher Chantrill writes at governmentspending.com:
Nobody, in 1900,speculating on the future of government, could have imagined the astonishing growth and scope of government in the 20th century. Nor would they have imagined that, for many people, this gigantic government would seem the very essence of efficiency, compassion, and modernity. But the reason that government has got so big is not, as many claim, the weight of armaments and wars. Instead the money goes for health care, education, pensions, and welfare programs. You can see how it all happened in the United States in the charts below.
Lon wrote: This is unimaginative, redundant and exceedingly poor writing. Could not finish it. - in response to my column Why Obama Must Raise Taxes
I appreciate the criticism. I also appreciate that you are one of the droves of liberals who comes back and reads me- incomplete or not- every single day. My family, my publisher and my advertisers thank you.
Thanks also to everyone else who generally makes it to the second page!
We’re growing fast and we thank you for making it happen.
As always, if you like this column, forward it to a friend.
Happy Fourth! See you there.
To read another article by John Ransom, click here.
Posted by Brett at 9:53 PM