Well, Jane,
We disagree about the role of the state, to arrange sexual encounters at taxpayer expense. If this is supposed to be the norm of government responsibilites...er, there really isn't much left that the state shouldn't do for me.

I think you should pledge your salary or whatever it takes of your assets to make this worthy program fly. Any problem with that? I can't see why. You can be a great moral leader here, and inspire lots of people to sign on to the program, yes?

If others don't happily follow your lead, then they obviously are being ripped off as taxpayers without their consent to support a program you have a particular need to see happen. Are you the person people should talk to about how THEIR money should be spent?

And your picture is quite nice. Outside of money, are you willing to put your other assets to work on this wonderful objective? You describe it as a wonderful charity. A little personal involvement never hurt someone who loves to hand out other people's money.

Besides that, he thinks Hugo Chavez is a really good guy. Maybe he is a fine companion to get drunk with. So far, he has made a muck of his country's economy and civil liberties (but remember, only the "right people" should have liberties, as Lenin said). He is incompetent as a head of state. I personally think Dodd envies the guy...just think what our boy Chris could do if he controlled the military, the election councils, had his own paramilitaries operating in neighborhoods to make sure things work "right". Chris would really feel good. Finally, maybe, like a real man achieving his real destiny. Chris and Adolf and Vlad (Lenin) and Mao and Ho might really be all of a piece. I will skip over a piece of what.

Dear Sir:
I thank you very much for your post. I guess us old goats (I am 58) need to hang together!

If Dodd was competent, he had to know what was coming. If just a fool, he should resign in disgrace rather than calling for replacement of GM's CEO. He is not resigning, but resurgent in his majesty as a savant. This is a clear statement of moral and intellectual bankruptcy. He knew, I think, and he let it happen. Um, treason of a sort, for the pain inflicted on so many people. How can such dereliction of duty be honorable?

But, the double standard is such a standing joke it almost is not worth mentioning anymore. Nobody on the left could care a whit. Objective standards, go to hell. We just want to play! We don't like those people, send them back to the ovens. Oh yeah, we are open-minded, inclusive of those different from us, loving, thoughtful, respecting of the rights of all humans...but don't even think of doing something we disapprove of. We will scorch the earth you walk on, you horrible people. You should be punished in every way possible for your disagreement with your moral superiors.

Yah, well, in 1943 the "right people" were getting herded onto trains for the camping trip of a lifetime. And just who are the Nazis of today?

Free markets allow a body to walk away from frauds and shoddy service, and allow those who meet consumer needs better than others to prosper. Monopolies, whether "private" or government, can get away with poor treatment of consumers...where else can you go? If you have lots of money, you can duck to the head of the line, get what you want. If you don't, stay in the queue, mind your manners.

The "stimulus" plan unveiled in the US Congress this week is indeed an ugly child, mostly one-time welfare payments than "investments" that will make the US economy more efficient and thereby produce more jobs. Approval of an expanded SCHIP is the crucial first step to nationalize US healthcare. The US federal government is running unprecedented deficits and Bama's inauguration is at least 4x what Bush spent in 05, but the news media is gushing about the elegance of the ceremony. Not quite how they commented on Bush.

Where were the sober voices? Bush and McCain both introduced motions to restrain Fannie and Freddie from adding "toxic debt" to their portfolios and selling it to others, and Fannie and Freddie served as examples to other banks elsewhere in addition to selling them mortgage backed securities that any sober person would have thought suspect. Fannie and Freddie, though, could tout the US taxpayer as guantor (sp?) of the securities, so what's to worry?

My personal thought is that politics overwhelmed economics, by omission or comission. And, where and whenever that is tried, it fails. Government is the problem, not the solution, but since governments can print money and citizens can't (or won't) they can pretend to make it all well.

I wonder where Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, with their decades of "experience" and chairmanships of the US Senate and House banking/finance committees were since 06 and before. Since this is all a Republican problem, why did these solons do nothing about it? Why did Harry Reid say, prior to Bush + company taking any action, that "no one in the Senate knows what to do".

The kernel that got this failure going is the real estate bubble in the US. The kernel that got that bubble going was the abanadonment of prudent lending standards on mortgages. The seed of that lies with ACORN (pun intended) and the idea that lending should be based on race eather than ability to repay the debt. Barack Obama's very brief career (other than as a politician) was as a lawyer filing lawsuits against banks so they would lend based on race, not financial capacity.

Free markets decentralize political and economic power. Some people get wealthier than others, maybe it is envy of them that animates you, since you have no capacity or interest to compete, just enough self-esteem to think your lifestyle should be the baseline for "good people" Is this the case?

In that regard, socialism ensures that only the poltical elites get wealthy. They are the kings and rulers Marx claimed to dislike, but wished to emulate. That is the hoax of Marxism and socialism, proven time and again but ever fresh in some minds

Securitization of "toxic debt" was led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government entities in all but appearance. Polticians provided cover for those institutions when there was an Enron-scale accounting fraud to enable multi-million dollar bonuses to people like Frederick Raines, who was canned but kept about $90M in bonuses and works for Obama as an economic advisor.

The facts are that free markets did not produce the subprime mess or the "soft dollar" policy...these came from government. Solons like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank actively shielded Fannie and Freddie from any restraint, and for all their "experience" (decades on their respective Senate and House banking/finance committees, in addition to chairing the committes from 06 onward, made no effort to head off the disaster, warn of its approach or otherwise by any action that they remotely knew it was coming.

Dodd and Frank are either incredibly stupid or very evil men. And this is why your plaintive conclusion free markets and capitalism is faulty compared to socialism, which empowers people like Dodd and Frank, is simply inane.

Well, you are right in a way, a socialist government with all the guns and the power to do whatever is "necessary" may get "the trains to run on time", which is the kind of organization that caught FDR's attention and admiration and led to some of the poorer ideas of the New Deal. Suffice it to say FDR would have had some problems getting re-elected without a war. That is not a great recommendation to imitate his policies as the Great One wants to.

You imagine that capitalism has brought us to our current state. You should do your homework.

The subprime mess begins with government policy. The enabling feature of spreading this disease is not a free-market decision to lend based on ecomomics, but a political imperative (which provided Obama most of his tiny experience of employment when he was not supping at the public trough, filing lawsuits for ACORN to force banks to lend based on race, not creditworthiness).

.