The Department of Common Sense (DCS)

My revelation

Over the course of the last several days, I have had a revelation on how I think this country should handle the current mess it has gotten itself into. I believe the time has come that we be more open minded and somewhat progressive. I believe perhaps we need expand our government with a new agency. This agency is designed to restore, revitalize, and to return this land back into the nation our forefathers once believed it would/should be. More importantly, its main focus will be to restore Common Sense back into the daily functions of this country.

That is why I am suggesting we start the Department of Common Sense (DCS). This would oversee ALL of the cabinet positions. It would be led by the Secretary of Common Sense.

Mission Statement

To advance logical thinking by utilizing common sense to develop and procure the freedoms and liberties for the American people. Providing common sense in an official, timely and accurate manner to apply to all government related organizations, functions and operations. To create policies, to promote logic and to eliminate the poorly informed, ill-mannered, unlawful, the unintelligent and obtusely elected officials from furthering the destruction of this Nation.


The Mission

The main mission of this job would be:

  • Turn over as many of the current federal responsibilities back to the State and Local governments to run.
  • Reallocate as many federal jobs back over to the private industry.
  • Reduce the fraudulent acts, the abuse and the waste that is currently swallowing us up alive.
  • Allocate the new Secretary to utilize their God given sense of reasoning to do what is best for the Country….and report back to the White House with their newly found goals and ideas.

As the founding “dude” of this new entity, I would like to nominate Will Starr and Old Poolman to be the first Co-Secretaries of the Department of Common Sense to head off this mission. I can think of several wonderful folks from hubpages that would be fantastic, but these two constantly have displayed Common Sense on a regular basis since I have been a member.

I suggest that they be free to hire a staff to fulfill these obligations, and give them a per-Diem for meals and board, plus any expenses they deem appropriate. After all, they are entrusted as our forefathers were, to utilize the brain God gave them for the betterment of this Nation.

Even though it may appear I write this in jest, I think there could be much to this thought process, and honestly would love nothing more than a return of Common Sense in America.

If you have suggestions of members to add to this department or ideas to add, please feel free to do so.


Comments 250 comments

Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

CMerritt - Thanks so much for the vote of confidence. If such a department was ever started, I would gladly serve without pay, and would pay all of my own expenses. I assure you, I would not be popular with the incumbents as I would be rattling their cages on a daily basis. I would force them all to take a common sense test, and those who failed would need to be replaced by someone who could pass the test. Hmmm, that would be a whole bunch of people to replace.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

THAT response RIGHT THERE is why I want you to be a part of this. You are the eptome of what a modern day patriot IS!

God Bless you OP!!

I love the commons sense test!! Those are the ideas we need to enforce on our elected officials....excellent!


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 5 years ago from Tucson, Az.

CMerrit.

You know .. I pride myself on thinking outside the box. I arrogantly think I'm the king of cutting edge politics. Everything I preach comes back to common sense and keeping it simple. Sir, you have captured my rhetoric, and done a better job of explaining what I believe in better than I've been able to. I am truly humbled by this hub my friend.

You are absolutey right about Young Pool Stud. He's my friend and neighbor, and I can tell you, he's the same guy in person that he is in print! He's been a sort of mentor in helping me organize my thoughts and the mission of THP.

jim


Pamela99 profile image

Pamela99 5 years ago from United States

I think you plan makes a lot of sense and you have chosen two good leaders. The problem might be that you would be dealing with a lot of government people that lack common sense, Therefore Will and the Old Poolman would have to clean house!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Jim, you of all people I truly appreciate your remarks. You are one of the people who has motivated me to think outside the box.

I also think it would behove the New Secretaries to hire you on their staff. You have so much positive energy and passion for commons sense.

Thanks again for the nice words Jim

Chris


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thanks Pam...Will and OP are just the guys to clean house...

Thanks for your kind words.

:-)


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

What a Crackerjack idea! Woo-hoo! Up and brilliant.

(Can I borrow this for a letter to the editor?)

Oh, and I'd have to decline. I have stories to write, but thanks for the honor!

Mike, however, would be great! How about Wayne or Pop? Or you!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Will,

Wayne and Pop are all excellent people and I would support them in an instant..

However, I would like you to have a special "red" phone placed in your home where you could be contacted immediately when a common sense crisis would occur.

If you accept this offer then you have my permission to use this hub...lol


emichael profile image

emichael 5 years ago from New Orleans

I have nothing to add except that I fully support this idea :)

Voted up and everything.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thank you emichael!! I appreciate your words. I am on my way to check out your hubs!!

Thanks...


emichael profile image

emichael 5 years ago from New Orleans

No problem :)

And thank you.


Peggy W profile image

Peggy W 5 years ago from Houston, Texas

Whoever takes that job would need a gigantic broom to sweep out all the accumulated cobwebs in Washington that have built up over time. Using common sense...now there is an idea whose time is long overdue!


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 5 years ago from Tucson, Az.

Kind words my friend. I just wrote another hub. Somemthing about the folks on the Hill talking about taxes being revenue got me to thinking about something I think is important. I'm going to drop a link so you can check it out if you'd like.

http://hubpages.com/politics/If-I-Were-Your-Presid...

jim


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Peggy, no doubt there is some major house cleaning to be done...Thanks for stopping by and commenting


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Jim, I am on my way right now to check out your new hub....

:)


Cardisa profile image

Cardisa 5 years ago from Jamaica

How about throwing in Ghost32 (Fred) in the mix?


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Cardisa, I am a fan of his....and I think he is very much a Common Senser.....( I just made up that word common senser)....He has strong and sensible hubs all the time.

Thanks Cardisa for reading and your suggestion.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

I would be proud to have Fred on this team.


BukowskiBabe profile image

BukowskiBabe 5 years ago from Somewhere in the middle of it all.

When we see the leader of the senate, Harry Reid, lament that we won't be funding the Cowboy Poetry Festival in the middle of an economic meltdown, common sense is not present in DC. I'll vote for common sense. It's long overdue.


SubRon7 profile image

SubRon7 5 years ago from eastern North Dakota

At last, a common sense solution. Good job, CMerritt, I am with you.


American Romance profile image

American Romance 5 years ago from America

CMerritt, that is to easy for anyone to understand! Rewrite it and add about 3000 pages of goblygook and then some senator might look at it! Of course it wont pass the senate because it was written by a common sense red blooded American! voted UP!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thanks BB, we are going to need YOUR kind of Common Sense approach to things if we want this thing to ever work!!!

:)


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thanks SubRon!! Let's do this thing!!

:-)


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

AR, okay BUST my bubble!!! Sadly you probably are right!

Thanks for the read and the comments...Hey, I have never seen the word "goblygook" in written form...THAT is a good looking word and needs to be in my "mission statement"...


50 Caliber profile image

50 Caliber 5 years ago from Arizona

Chris, your view would be great action if we survive obama and his tug-o-war with the Tea Party, I'm starting to wonder who is more stubborn here and wants a GOP failure, great write voted up, dust


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

If we had the DoCS three years ago, we would NOT be in the mess we are in today.

Thanks Dusty, I always look forward to your remarks.


rachellrobinson profile image

rachellrobinson 5 years ago from Southwest Missouri

Common Sense, sounds like a plan. Awesome Hub.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thanks Rach!

:)


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Sorry, C Merritt, to be a wet blanket but we on the other side of the ideological divide have a different take on what such a new agency would look like and how it is to see to the nation's dilemma.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Credence, no need to be sorry....but, the way I see it...Common Sense is Common Sense.....but, I do thank you for taking the time to read my hub...and it really is appreciated.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Credence2 - I don't mean to be rude or anything, but your last comment is so broad in nature it makes no sense at all to me. Could you please explain the ideological divide you reference in your comment? I have no idea what this means or where you are going with it.

All CMerritt is trying to say is we are in our current mess due to decision makers not using plain old common sense. As in you can't spend more than you make or you will be in trouble. Does this make sense to you?


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Credence2 - I just read your profile and things are becoming more clear to me. You were a Federal Employee responsible for handing out large sums of taxpayer money for Federal contracts and grants. Were you part of the decision making process on who got these contracts and grants, or did you just process the paperwork to give them the money?

I can see how your view of Federal spending may be much different than mine as this is how you made your living. In the most basic form, you took my tax payments and gave them to someone else, and received a paycheck for doing this task.

I am not putting you down, everyone has to earn a living, and I'm sure you paid your fair share of taxes along with everyone else. Would you say that any of this money you were responsible for handing out could be classified and wasteful spending? I would love to see your comments on this now that I know more about who you are.


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 5 years ago from Tucson, Az.

Creedence 2,

No offence intended, but what the hell are you trying to sell here my man? There are those on the other side of the ideological divide, then there are those WAY on the other side. The latter is known as kooks. They are dangerous, because they have no common sense. We have those who are WAY on the other side of the last group over here too. They're known as assholes. They are dangerous too, because they forgot the importance of common sense, and no longer use it. Right now a bunch of kooks and assholes are up there in Washington trying to decide what to do with our economic future. This is not good. See, common sense has something to do with, well .. sense that is "common." That means having to do with ordinary people who make up most of this planet. Any kind of sense that isn't common to them would be ..UNCOMMON sense. See where I'm going here bro? Some sort of real or imagined "higher level" thinking has little or no meaning if common folks don't get it. They're the earners, and you can only play games with them for so long before they quit earning for you.

Hawaii is a beautiful place. I have a friend who I haven't seen in years living there. I believe he owns a restaurant. I love my friend dearly and really miss him. He is a kook, and I just thought you might be him. His name is Mike. If that's you, send me a coconut man!

jim


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 5 years ago from Chicago

Sounds like a great idea to me. Those two men are true American patriots. Excellent thinking, my friend!


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 5 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

Perhaps one of the first acts of a Department of Common Sense would be to propose changing the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of Offense.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Duly noted FitnezzJim, that will be one of the first things on our agenda. Right now we are looking for a new name for the IRS, but can't seem to come up with any that could be published.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX

C - We could close down about 50% of the federal bureaucracy with this department. I'm just sayin...

The Frog


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX

OP - The Fair Tax Department?


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

FP - I could live with this.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

CMerrit you are truly the gracious and as I write the scathing attack on U.S policy toward Cuba, I have kind thoughts regarding you civil and evenhanded discourse

Regards, Cred 2


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Old Poolman, you are so kind as I step lightly into the lion's den.

You said:- I don't mean to be rude or anything, but your last comment is so broad in nature it makes no sense at all to me. Could you please explain the ideological divide you reference in your comment? I have no idea what this means or where you are going with it.

I know that Will is a conservative, I do not know as of this writing where you are, but many of us are trusting of the private sector as a solution to what many of you seem to indicate as government incursion into the private sector. I do not trust the private sector to operate in the best interest of all because of its profit motive. I have written a couple of articles speaking on that. One about the TSA and the other regarding the right's disdain of Government.

Before you guys come after me, this is never anything personal.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

OldPoolman: You are right all of agree that you cannot spend more than you bring in, the rub is how we make the adjustment so that it is effective, fair and not undoing the fragile state of the current economic rebuilding:

Hello Manwithnopants: I hear you, I hope that we all agree that common sense means not tying the economic and financial well being of the country (debt limit) to negotiations between opposite parties regarding how we deal with budget deficit. Scotched earth policies and attitudes are what I consider the antithesis of common sense. Come on out to visit it is calling you, I am not a kook, but a liberal and many conservatives consider that one in the same.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

OldPoolman, in regards to your question you are so kind to ask. While brief, these articles shine a light on the job and its nature.

http://hubpages.com/business/How-to-get-a-Federal-...

http://hubpages.com/business/HOW-to-GET-a-FEDERAL-...

Credence2 - I just read your profile and things are becoming more clear to me. You were a Federal Employee responsible for handing out large sums of taxpayer money for Federal contracts and grants. Were you part of the decision making process on who got these contracts and grants, or did you just process the paperwork to give them the money?

To answer this question, I was primarely responsible for determining the successful proposal, made the award and authorized our financial offices to make the payment according to the terms of the contract.

You said:

I can see how your view of Federal spending may be much different than mine as this is how you made your living. In the most basic form, you took my tax payments and gave them to someone else, and received a paycheck for doing this task

To answer this one please visit my article:

http://hubpages.com/politics/Why-Do-Conservatives-...

There are many functions of government that are truly governmental in nature, i.e. regulatory agencies. I would never trust to private sector to police itself as we have seen, we are all subject to its excesses and abuse.

Question 3

I am not putting you down, everyone has to earn a living, and I'm sure you paid your fair share of taxes along with everyone else. Would you say that any of this money you were responsible for handing out could be classified and wasteful spending? I would love to see your comments on this now that I know more about who you are.

Yes, SOME, can be so classified. I have awarded many contracts that I had to terminate for default or convenience because of failure of the contractor. But these are the exceptions and not the rule. There were many strict mechanisms in place overseeing my process to make sure that awards were to capable contractors and that costs remained in line. I was paid well for the years of experience at the job and you can rest assured that I paid my fair share of taxes.

Your interesting inquiry is appreciated, regards, Cred2


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Credence,

"I do not trust the private sector to operate in the best interest of all because of its profit motive."

Why do you assume that profit is evil? Without a profit motive, why build a company at all? To what end?

That nonsense is the basis of socialism, and the very reason it always has and always will, fail! It is human nature to strive, to better oneself, to better one's condition, and to better one's way of life.

The real evil is the socialist's desire to deny the people the right to try and to succeed. It is not profit making capitalism that is based in evil...it your human misery socialism that is evil.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

So you say, Will, but there are other issues like public safety to name a few that could be in direct conflict with corporate desire to earn a buck at all cost, these are what I refer to... That is not socialist, but regulatory, there is a difference. Profit and Success are fine as long as the players agree to play by the rules as I speak of in more detail in this article:

http://hubpages.com/politics/Why-Do-Conservatives-...


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX

Will - Well dammit man, knock me over with a feather. You'' fit right in The Department Of Common Sense.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Credence, If I told you I wanted to start a company, risk everything I owned, work 14 hours a day, fight my way through all the bureaucratic red tape, hassle with employees and labor unions, pay huge taxes, BUT DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE A PROFIT, what would you call me? I assume you would call me crazy. I know a lot of business people, and don't think any of them would do this either, at least not on purpose. I assume your methodology would be everyone should work for the government, and the tax rate would be set at 75%. I'm afraid we are so far apart in our thinking we will never find any common ground.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Credence, I forgot to ask. Did you always work for someone else for your entire career, or did you ever step up and try to create some jobs so others could make a decent living and pay their taxes. Just curious.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Credence,

"So you say, Will, but there are other issues like public safety to name a few that could be in direct conflict with corporate desire to earn a buck at all cost, these are what I refer to.."

Right.

I totally destroy your 'I don't trust profit making', so you just move your goalposts elsewhere...now it's all about some vague, public safety issue.

By the way, while you're criticizing profit making corporations, you shouldn't do it on a corporate made computer, on a corporate created internet, and on a corporate owned website.

In fact, you wouldn't have anything but a dark cave, an empty stomach, a dirty butt, and an itchy animal fur without all those profit-making corporations you despise.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Credence, I hear North Korea is looking for a few good men with your view of the world. Perhaps you should consider putting in an application. You would most likely love their life style. I said this as a joke, but if you detest our life as badly as you make it sound, this might be something for you to consider. You may protest all you want, but at least for the time being, Corporations are here to stay.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX

OP - I know what I would call you - AN IDIOT. But I know you're not.

The Frog


caltex profile image

caltex 5 years ago

Great idea, CM! We sure need one.

Old Poolman and WillStarr have my full support. I am so honored to have met these two gentlemen here on HP.

I agree that there are some federal departments that need to be turned over to the private sector such as USPS. I just read the other day that they've lost $20 billion in the last 3 years despite cost-saving measures and raising the cost of stamps and other services. Whatever they are doing is clearly not working. Quite frankly, I don't understand why they could be losing that much while FedEx and UPS are reporting some earnings. Any difference? Anyone?


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

caltex, The USPS has us believing it costs us 44 cents to mail a letter, but at the end of the year or whenever, they are reimbursed all the money they lost for the year. So in effect, it may be costing us 44 dollars to mail that letter, but we will never know.

Please don't get me wrong, there are some really great people who work for the USPS. I would drink a beer with my mailman anytime. Now any other business that was run as inefficiently as the post office would have folded their tent years ago. But they can't fail no matter how poorly they operate because the taxpayers give them back what they lost.

I have to ask how many people would really be upset if they only received mail every other day? The mail could be delivered by half as many mail delivery people. My mail is mainly bills and junk mail now, so I wouldn't care if they delivered once per week. Packages are better handled by UPS and FedEx anyhow. From what I read, the USPS is very top heavy with management, but I have no proof.

They need to be told to either show a little profit or get the hell out of the way.


Sueswan 5 years ago

This is a gem.

Bring back "common sense", vote CMerritt.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

FP - If I ran a business with the intent to NOT MAKE A PROFIT, I would gladly accept the title of "Idiot."


caltex profile image

caltex 5 years ago

Thanks for addressing my question, OP! I completely agree that there are a lot of great people that work for USPS. I personally know a few. I, too, would hate to see USPS fail, but I think it will be better managed by the private sector, and you have just proven my point. How come they have not thought of that? Because they are not really profit-driven just like a businessman - it's not their money anyway that they are bound to lose, but the taxpayers'.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Mike,

When leftists like Credence gripe about profits, what they really mean is that all companies should be owned by government, which would be ‘non-profit’, you see, and therefore, a worker’s paradise.

Every time it’s tried, it’s a dismal failure, and the government stores' shelves are empty, but the idiots insist that this time, it will finally be different.

In the meantime, we in the US, live in capitalist luxury, with plenty of everything, but to hear the left, we are in misery. A recent report said that in America, even the poor have computers, two bathrooms, flat screen TV's, and more than one car! That's not true in socialist Europe!


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Old Poolman and Will Ok, conservatives let me give you an example. I lived in California for a few years. Restaurants there are required to have a placard prominently displayed A-D that indicate the level of cleanliness for the establishment. If that was not done, there is a danger that many people would get sick and it encourages these establishment to keep a clean kitchen. That is what I mean. You can have your business, but if you operate in the public domanin you will submit to regulation and oversight, as long as you do that, you can have your profits. So you guys, stop making me look like some Communists because you want to let corporate America run off with store. I am not criticizing the free-market economy, but I am not interested in capitalism without controls, is that so hard to understand?

Please in the future do not misrepresent what I have said here. There are many things that economically can be privatized, but not everything! My view as a progressive is agreed to by millions, hardly that right wing 'make everybody that disagrees is a Communist stuff'....

Old Poolman, you said:

I assume your methodology would be everyone should work for the government, and the tax rate would be set at 75%. I'm afraid we are so far apart in our thinking we will never find any common ground.

You are putting words into my mouth because so many of you resent the Government in principle. You inference in that statement is incorrect. No, I do not have the resources to start a business and most of us do not. With a 95% percent failure rate, it is not all that attractive for everyone. Many have to work for others and so be it, we all cannot be Thurston Howell III. I don't get it with conservatives, why are the two concepts of free-enterprise for profit and the need for regulation of these entities got everybody's panties in a bunch? I merely say you should not be allowed to operate without oversight when you interface within the public domain, depending upon the nature of the business, not that you should surrender yourself and your business to the Government. We seem hopeless at odds as we continue to misunderstand one another.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"You are putting words into my mouth because so many of you resent the Government in principle"

The irony.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Goodnight Credence, I can tell we will never agree on anything. Have a good life.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Well gentlemen, I did not expect to enter the lions lair without getting mauled a bit. Most regretable that I cannot have anything common with far right conservative types. Aloha, to you both


Hyphenbird profile image

Hyphenbird 5 years ago from America-Broken But Still Beautiful

All the education in the world cannot buy common sense. And it is greatly needed in our government especially now. I actually found myself wondering the other day where Ross Perot is at. laugh

At least he might get the budget balanced.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Hyphenbird - It does make you wonder. A budget is not rocket science, and usually only requires a little basic math. Maybe some of these Political genius's should talk to their wives about budgets. All their questions about budgets could be quickly answered.


Dexter Yarbrough profile image

Dexter Yarbrough 5 years ago from United States

Hi CMerritt! I would like to be nominated as Secretary of Satire and Humor in the administration. People need a good laugh nowadays. Since I consider this as an opportunity to serve my fellow citizens, I would accept no pay (hint, hint), keep my office expenses low (hint, hint), and truly be accountable to the public (hint hint)!

Great hub! Voted up, up and away!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Dexter, I most certainly believe that your idea of the Secretary of Satire and Humor is excellent and would be very beneficial to this Nation...I could NOT think of a better person to head off this department than you. You have my support...

Thanks for stopping by!!

:-)


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

I have been away for the last couple of days, and I want to thank EVERYONE for coming by the Hub "Department of Common Sense"....Old Poolman, you have displayed excatly why I wanted you to fulfill this position with your responses to others on here. Great Job.

Will, I wish you would reconsider and accpet this job along with OP. You always make common sense to me on all issues.

To everyone else, thanks again, I have read all of the posts, and thank each of you for your comments.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Hey frog, I love the "fair tax department" is very fitting for the DoCS...I love it!


Cloverleaf profile image

Cloverleaf 5 years ago from Calgary, AB, Canada

Oh how true you speak, CMerritt! I think we should forward your hub over to the Obama Administration immediately.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Hi CMerritt!

You get them to create the post and I'll take the job...and then name you vice-secretary!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Cloverleaf,

THANKS for the comment.....I would LOVE for the Obama Admin to have this department working for the American people...

I appreciate you stopping by...


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Hi Will,

If it meant for you take the post, I would do it in a heartbeat....NOW, we just gotta figure out a way get this plan in motion....


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

CMerrit - You do realize if we went to Washington using the words "Common" and "Sense" in the same sentence we would be met with nothing but blank stares. The use of Common Sense has been long forgotten by our elected representatives.

Let's just hope the voters have retained some of their common sense when the next election rolls around. Keeping this same bunch of do nothing horse thieves in office for another term could be the end of this country as we know it now.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

OP,

That is my hope with all of this, is to energize Americans, who still HAVE common sense, to demand that it be utilized once again and restore this nation to the nation it once was. I know for a fact that there are many of us still around. You are one that utlizes it magnificantly, along with several others right here on the Hubpages. I have several friends and aquaintences that glorify that word still.

You and Will are two that immediately came to my mind, by the way you respond to asinine, liberal comments on these page.

I started this partially in humor, but with a real desire in my heart for this to actually happen. Maybe it is just a dream, but I am still optimistic that this Country is still that shining city on a hill.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Well, CMerritt, it is obvious that you do not think much of my ideological point of view on the direction that the country is heading in and that it is futile to attempt to speak to you all about any other view outside of your rigidly held positions. The liberal perspective is automatically asinine? Well, there are million in America that hold it, many well to left of me, that voted for Barack Obama. So most of your fellow citizens are dummies and you're saying that you guys are the only smart ones on the block? Hardly....


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Yes, Credence, I do not think much of the liberal ideolgical point of view...Nor, do I care on the direction that Obama and his ilk are taking this nation.

Let me put it this way....

Common Sense does not say that spending more money than you take in is a good thing, it indicates it is asinine.

Common Sense does not say it is a good thing to raise taxes on those at $250,000 to spur the economy...it indicates it is asinine.

Common Sense does not say, leave our borders open to stop illegal immigration...it indicates that it is asinine to think so.

I don't know WHO the smart ones are anymore....I just know that Common Sense is lacking severly in this Nation's leaders....


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Credence2 - I have to ask, what are you doing commenting in a hub about common sense?

I really doubt there are many people very far left of you. I have to wonder what events took place in your life that gave you this view of the world.

Could you enlighten us a little on your ideological point of view? Give one specific example where we can compare beliefs and opinions. We may not be as far apart as you think we are if we knew what the heck you are talking about.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

You know, OP, I really don't think we want things that are so different, but we are talking past each other. I have tried to be honest on my point of view and my articles put some flesh on it. Oh, yes there are many that are far left of me, my spouse for example. Look at the congress, Pelosi and many of the left to my left were not about to bargain on any cuts to social programs and were just as stubborn as the Tea party reps in regards to deep cuts and no tax increases. I accepted the middle ground providing for not so draconian cuts with some revenue increases. Oh, yes there are those to my left. I would welcome an opportunity or medium to really go into this. I wonder about you people as well. As to how this can be done without my vomiting in Cmerritt parlour is what has to be determined, Cred 2

Maybe we can take a point that you mentioned in the previous post one at a time. Believe me, we have a lot of heartburn about the political right and most of us are not bleeding idiots. Common sense is not exclusive to one ideological point of view as you all seem to suggest. I explain better in my articles, as to the why and wherefore. Cred2


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Cred2, I never said that common sense is not exclusive to any party...it seems to me that conservative points of view are common sense, but that is from my perspective....if you have a left (lib) point of view, please explain it in a common sense fashion...that is all I want or expect.

btw, I will leave some puke bags in the parlor for those who fill ill upon entering the DoCS...

:)


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 5 years ago from Tucson, Az.

Everyone,

I became a conservative not because of my love for conservatism, but because it was the only shelter I could find when I made my escape from liberalism.

Conservatives are proud, or at least pretend to be proud, of our Constitution and our forefathers. Liberals don't even pretend on this matter. Some people see liberalalism as a disease. It's an infection, but not a disease. To be more clear, it's religion operating under the guise of a political party. Like the Muslim religion, the cause itself justifies the means. Liberalism is a childs ideology. To it's credit, like a child, they can't bear to see anything suffering, and because of their naive innocence, they'll sacrifice the future to stop short term suffering.

You can not argue with a liberal. They are famous for taking facts out of context in order to build a case. To further complicate things, I must repeat myself. Trying to make sense to a liberal is like trying to explain to your child about a fallen world, and why some people are mean, and why puppies die. It's impossible. They want to put all the mean people in jail, and outlaw puppy diseases.

Liberals actually have a tendensy to be more highly educated than conservatives, which explains where they get this bull shit in the first place I'm afraid. Liberals are also more likely to be sucidal, so use caution when debating them. During a debat with Mickie Dee, he became so upset, that the threatened to kill himself. I'm a recovering asshole, and can be harsh when provoked at times. I admit that. I was forced to back off. Some of you may remember this. I'm serious folks. Be careful.

Credence is doing the only thing he can. He sees the the state of affairs our country and this world is in. He pretends things aren't as bad as they are, but he knows. In his mind, tollerance can never be bad, so therefore it's the lack there of that must be the problem. There is a difference between the liberal today, and a person who has some liberal ideas. Hell, I've got some liberal ideas, and you can work with these people. You're wasting your time trying to get someone like Credence to debate. They live in their world of ideology and when you confront them with reality, they just retreat to the world that it is built in their imagination. Let me finish by saying that Credence is a decent guy. As you well know, many of his type are anything but. The same can be said for our side as well, I'm sorry to say. He's going to be a little shy when it comes to opening up. It takes guts to come into a conservative camp where he's out gunned 20 to 1. Make him a bud and let him put it out there. Maybe he wants to grow up. Just don't make the mistake of blaming liberals for all the problems. We made a hell of a contribution ourselves, and nothing positive will happen until we all man up and admit it. Then, and only then can we start to get things done.

jim


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Man with no pants, Maybe its time to go put some pants on?

You said:

"To be more clear, it's religion operating under the guise of a political party. Like the Muslim religion, the cause itself justifies the means. Liberalism is a childs ideology. To it's credit, like a child, they can't bear to see anything suffering, and because of their naïve innocence, they'll sacrifice the future to stop short term suffering."

Taking the attitude that millions of your fellow (as you say well educated)citizens that see things differently from you are not worth communicating with is the first problem with you guys. We see you people as resistant to every reasonable change since the abolition of slavery, Lincoln, in his time would have been a progressive, not a conservative. You can't and should not argue with anyone, but considering that there are millions of people within many populous blue states, taking that position is going to get you nowhere. Do you think that well educated people are stupid? Where does your knowledge base derive? What makes you so smart in comparison?

Credence does what is necessary and desirable, trying to figure out where we have common ground as a time I tried to challenge a rightwinger, I had my life threatened. I am all about "opening up" MWNP, thats why I hoped that this sort of dialogue would be helpful. I can assure you that am I all growed up and probably am older and more experienced than you, could that be a possibility? In the rigid right winged mode of thinking, do you ever consider these things? By the way thanks for the compliment, I wish that I see more of you commenting on the virtue of my proMarxist/Communist hubs.

I am a progressive,not afraid of contention in spiritous debate, are you? So, feel free to bring it on!


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 5 years ago from Tucson, Az.

Creedence,

Your true colors are starting to come out. Cool. You want to debate me? Awesome. Just remember to stay on the subject, and answere a question when asked. The last liberal that tried to stay the course with me threatened to kill himself, so don't go there with me. As for the pants, I'll debate you in shorts. Not a problem.

You keep talking about these millions of people who agree with you. That's not news. Millions of people had polio, but I don't want it. Now like Poolman said. Say something! I gave you plenty of stuff to bite on, now get to it. I'll lose patience real fast, if your debate consists of things like "put your pants on" and "millions of people". Don't tell me how smart you are Creedence. Show me how freaking smart you are. Right away, don't start on republicans. I only like them slightly better than democrats. You said to bring it on. If what I said above didn't bring it on for you, I doubt anything will . Now get to work.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Credence2 - You do realize that your constant use of the term "You People" tells us you put yourself in a different class. I have said this to you before. If you are so dissatisfied with this country, have you considered finding a country that already follows your beliefs? Please don't continue trying to change this country. In spite of its' many flaws, it is still the best damn country in the world.


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 5 years ago from Tucson, Az.

He wouldn't be able to write what's on his mind if he were in a country that followed his beliefs Mike. At least that's the impression I get. He hasn't said anything yet. He'll be forced to take the path of the other great liberals who've taken me on.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

MWNP, thats fine, you don't knock my shorts or socks off!

"Say something! I gave you plenty of stuff to bite on, now get to it"

I am saying something are you listening? The analogy about polio is silly, you know what I am talking about.

What do you want to know, how are smart are you? I have explained myself and stated my position clearly enough,here and in my articles. Put your questions out if you are not afraid of being outclassed by a child. Surely, you're not intimidated. I have told you what YOUR problem is, how do you reply outside of bashing progressives generally? See how quickly you folks get huffy, puffy and beligerant, no wonder I won't vote for any of you. Always ready to go to ideological fisticuffs as soon as you run out of ideas, besides timeworn slogans. There of plenty of nations in the world that allow for freedom of press and expression, what gives you the right to express your opinion, do I not have the right to express mine?

Old Poolman, my use of you people defines the obvious divide between the thinking of the left and that of the right, that is all.Where do you get the idea of my disatisfaction with the country? You and ideological kindred seem to have no problem expressing your disatisfaction with the country, why don't leave? The demographics in America are changing you will change with them or have to make the kind of choice that you are inviting me to make. We think you folks are trying to change it to an 18th century paradyme and it is meeting resistance from many more besides myself. Yes, America is the best country in the world, am I denying that. Why does the right always assume we hate America because we do not agree on the same course?


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"Well, there are million in America that hold it, many well to left of me, that voted for Barack Obama."

They voted for Obama because he ran as a centrist, not a liberal. A liberal who runs as a liberal cannot be elected, because only about 20% of US voters call themselves liberals.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Credence2 - OK, you won't do it so I will. What is the liberals thoughts on the debt ceiling and just printing more money to spend.

We will try this one question at a time. After you respond to this you get to ask the next question.


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 5 years ago from Tucson, Az.

Creed,

You still haven't said anything, and if you don't get to it soon, your out. I'm not going to waste time trying to debate some clown who won't engage. Yeah, you heard it right, Bozo The Clown was both liberal and gay. How smart am I? I wrote a damn essay above putting down liberal ideology, complete with all the circles and arrows, and you flew right past that. You've got one more chance to engage dude. In addition to the comment above on liberal ideology, here's a few things I'll be delighted to kick your ass on.

1. Obama's failed so bad, even his own party can't stand him.

2. He's weak .. so weak that he just got his ass handed to him by the freaking Tea Party. (laugning my ass off)

3. He'll be destroyed in the 2012 election by a conservative monster by the name of Rick Perry. (even several liberal experts predict this)

4. I don't need my tax dollars spent on some government agency telling me how clean a restaurant is. Gad, I can't even you brought that up. You asked me how smart I am. Well, your making me look pretty smart. You're wearing that liberal evaluation I wrote like a fur coat. (oops, I forgot, you guys hate fur coats.) Where in this whole comments section have you told anyone your stand on one single issue facing this country?

This is your last chance to take a stand on some kind of issue. The future belongs to you amigo.

jim


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

"Credence2 - OK, you won't do it so I will. What is the liberals thoughts on the debt ceiling and just printing more money to spend."

Pay attention MWNP, this is what I was asking you for, there are post here, so if I did not readily identify yours, don't get your pants in a bunch.

Thank you OP, a question I can answer. We see the debt ceiling as an artificial boundary that should have never been linked to the need to negotiate budget cuts. That debt ceiling has been raised without incident over a hundred times in the last 30-40 years, deficit spending is not new. Too sharp an axe may well threaten recovery efforts, in the worse economic downturn in almost a century. I am not in favor of printing money and reducing the value of currency, spending has to brought under control, we debate on what should be cut and to what extent. Moderates and centralist libs acknowledge the need to get this under control.The other part of this is why not close subsidies that no longer benefit the economy as a whole in the area of tax revenue, which the other side was so adament against for even the most modest proposal.


TheManWithNoPants profile image

TheManWithNoPants 5 years ago from Tucson, Az.

If debating doesn't work for you, give stand up a shot. You're pretty quick. (snort, snort) If you've read any of my stuff, you'd know that I've been preaching this whole debt ceiling/credit rating thing is nothing but a failure on both sides. It's being used as a gimmick for political posturing for both sides. What both sides did on this was disgraceful. Closing unneeded subsidies? I'm all over that. Not so sure we're too far apart here. I remind you Credence. I'm conservative by definition with the small government low regulations thing, but I beat up my own side harder than I do yours. If you were wanting to take Mike (Young Pool Dude) on. That's cool. Creed, I'm working my ass off putting together the Housefire Project. I preach dropping labels and ideologies long enough to solve problems. This blame game crap is a waste of time, and as wonderful as you may think your left wingingers may be, I've got news for you. They're using you, the same as the crew on the right is trying to use us. There's less than twenty five up there on the Hill who aren't playing the game. The rest are bought and paid for. A lot of the people on the left have joined me at Housefire, including the most liberal dude on the Hub .. Crap, what's his name Mike?

I'd suggest that you read some of my hubs Creede. I'm full time politics, and I'm different.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Credence2 - Thanks for the response to my question. I think raising the debt ceiling without any budget in sight is a crime. The GAO recently published a report identifying Billions in waste and outright theft of taxpayer money. They also gave recommendations on what to do to correct the problems. None of their recommendations had anything to do with entitlements in place today. Yet this report was not even looked at during the big battle over spending and the debt ceiling. No, they chose to scare the living hell out of senior citizens and veterans by threatening they might not get their checks this month. That was despicable and inexcusable in my opinion. Very low class behavior on the part of this administration. I doubt we will ever see a published list of what was supposedly cut. That way we will never know if it was really cut or not. Just because they have been raising this debt ceiling for 40 years doesn't make it right. If my neighbor had been stealing chickens for years, he would still be a chicken thief. You can't operate your household without a budget, and they can't run the government without a budget.

Printing money to pay our bills is a real crime. Every time they print a dollar, the dollar you have in your pocket is worth less. This has got to stop or our money will become worthless in a few years.

Ok, fire away with your question.

CMerritt, I apologize for using your hub for this Q&A session, and will gladly move off to another site if you wish.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"We see the debt ceiling as an artificial boundary that should have never been linked to the need to negotiate budget cuts."

That attitude has put us $14 trillion in debt, and no end in sight. Each American now owes $46,667.00, including newborn children.

Do you really think we can keep borrowing 40 cents of each dollar we spend? That's insanity.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Jim, Will and OP....YOU guys are exactly what we need in the DoCS.

Poolman, you do not need to apologize at all. This hub is explifying exactly what I intended it to do. That is display some common sense solution to common issues. Debate is the only way to show what we want to accomplish.

Thanks to all of you guys....you too Credence! I appreciate you rolling up your shirtsleeves to defend what you believe is right....I just hope you keep your mind open and listen to Will, Jim and OP.....they really do speak with common sense.

Chris


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

I am all ears, Chris, thank you


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

your welcome


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

The DOW lost almost 400 points today, and over 1,000 points in a few days, over huge debt worries, so while people like Credence see no problem with owing over $14 trillion, wiser heads are very, very concerned. If your 401K is looking dismal again, you can thank Obama and the Democrats for refusing to address the spending and debt! Wall Street is realistic, even if Obama is not.

Tomorrow, the latest unemployment figures are coming out, so we'll soon see how our wonderful 'Hope and change' president is doing.

(BTW, this economy is now Barack Obama's, bought and paid for with a trillion of your hard earned tax dollars on a failed stimulus. And yes, we did tell you so!)


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Well now Will, common sense tells us that this is clearly George W. Bush's fault........right?..........................................................NOT!!!

When do you suppose that a tad of common sense will begin to infiltrate the minds of those who thought they was going to see HOPE & CHANGE.....BTW, did you see Obama say that he didn't mean that "Change you can believe in" would be tomorrow...it will take a few years...but, he failed to tell everybody that during the campaign...


Ken Landgrebe profile image

Ken Landgrebe 5 years ago from Newton, IA

Finally! :)


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Welcome to the DoCS Ken....Jump in and let us know what you think.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

WillStarr - If it will make you feel better I hired a new employee this week, so the unemployment numbers will go down by 1.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

lol....OP, YOU are the MAN!!


Becky 5 years ago

My son's got jobs last week and a friend of theirs got one this week. It is looking up in TN finally. My 2 son's were out of work for 2 1/2 years. They would have taken anything, no one was hiring. One finally got a good job and one is a dishwasher. Both are happy.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Will, you said:

The DOW lost almost 400 points today, and over 1,000 points in a few days, over huge debt worries, so while people like Credence see no problem with owing over $14 trillion, wiser heads are very, very concerned. If your 401K is looking dismal again, you can thank Obama and the Democrats for refusing to address the spending and debt! Wall Street is realistic, even if Obama is not

Will, where did I say that I approve of 14 trillion dollar debt. Where and how did you come to this biased point of view? Seems like you bash the left even beyond the point of being rational. This certainly is not the first time wall street laid an egg and it certainly wont be the last. I explain my position as to this debt in my articles entitled

http://hubpages.com/politics/Why-Obama-is-Right-as...

http://hubpages.com/politics/Critical-Thinking-A-L...

Tell me after checking them out, what you disagree with and we will go from there.

It is too much to explain in one response to a comment.

That is of course if you are interested in the truth of where many of us stand on things and why, over verbalizing timeworn ideological suspicion and stereotypes. The latter is really easy, don't you know.

Cred2


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

OP, I hear you, thanks for your reply. Why are we going the threaten the financial stability of the United States, in fact burning down the house we all have to live in over a disagreement as how the budget was to be cut?. Obama offered 4 trillion in cuts and was willing to bring hesitent Dems to his left on board and disappoint many who would just as soon not see any cut to social programs. All Obama wanted was that I trillion of the money be obtained from closing loopholes and restoring Clinton tax rates for the aritocrats. We had budget deficits before, why are we putting our finacial security as a nation at risk this time? I have plenty of data that show that proportionately spending increased at a greater during the Bush administration. Is scorthed earth the answer to the far right conservatives, my economy being taken hostage is not responsible in my opinion. So which president was responsible for delinking US currency from the Gold standard, I may be wrong but wasn't it Richard Nixon? Mr. Wage and Price controls, that had to be socialist madness, but it mainstream republicanism just 40 years ago.

It is not just the "left" to blame for this morass in the budget, everybody wanted to avoid having his or her ox gored. We say everyone has to pitch in for a solution and that that solution is not to be place disproportionately on any one group.

what is your next question for me?


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Becky, I am very happy to hear about your son's getting employement. A tough thing to do in this economy, and with the outlook, I hope they can hang on to them.

Thanks for stopping by...


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Credence,

If you refuse to admit that the Dow's drop is due to the massive debt and Obama's failure to lead, then there's nothing to discuss.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

The timing of this alone is enough to tell you WHY the drop....His failure to lead is becoming more and more of a threat to wall street each and every day.

I just wrote on another hub about Reagan's ability to give a speech on TV and lift the spirits of Ameicans....talking about us having a "rendezvous with destiny" and a "shining city on a hill"...how he had confidence in the American Entreprenuer and encouraged them to live the American Dream....

We don't hear anything like that but how "Bush ruined the country"...how we are heading into another "depression" if we don't raise taxes on the wealthy...how republicans can go "along for the ride but stay in the back, out of the way"....

His leadership alone is keeping this nation from returning out of a recession....He lacks one big thing....

are you ready for this?......

Here it is

COMMON SENSE!!!!


feenix profile image

feenix 5 years ago

Hello, CM,

The U.S. Department of Common Sense. What a terrific idea.

Interestingly, the thing that ignited that idea was your gift of common sense.

But what do you think about this? If the feds refuse to establish such a department, an endeavor could be undertaken to set up a large privately-run corporation called Common Sense, Inc. And it would fund itself by taking common-sense measures, and its primary objective would be to orient as many people in the country as possible to start using their "noodles."

Now that I think about it, I believe that setting it up as a private organization is the way to go. In my way of thinking, a government-run common sense department would be akin to an oxy-moron. ;-)


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Hello feenix,

You have just demonstrated exactly the intent of the DoCS is supposed to work.

That really is a much better idea, to have it ran by a private organization. That is the ultimate goal, to reduce government and to run our nation in a more efficient manner.

I think you along with Will and poolman would make excellent boardmembers to oversee this operation.

Like I said throughout this, It is partially in jest, but there is a part of me that truly believes we are in real need for this.

Thanks again feenix.


dramatis personae profile image

dramatis personae 5 years ago from USA

Common sense is something this world could use more of.....some wonderful ideas here.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thanks dramatis, and feel free to jump in with your suggetions...

Thanks

Chris


carcro profile image

carcro 5 years ago from Winnipeg

I'm not sure whether I find this intersting or funny, maybe both. Really good sarcastic view on the state of governments everywhere. Thanks for sharing!


feenix profile image

feenix 5 years ago

CM,

Yeah, the hub was in jest but now, I'm thinking, I'm thinking.

We have got to talk about this idea some more. Off the top of my head, a small group of us Christian conservatives could form a "Hub group" that would write one hub after another promoting the use of common sense in government as well as in many other aspects of society. And it would be based on the same concept as NATO.

I am going to think about this and shoot you an email about what I think are some of the ways such a group could be formed.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

carcro,

Yes, it has some sarcasm, but my heart tells me that there is much more to this than just some humor....I honestly do believe common sense has left the building.

Thank you for stopping by and your comments.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

feenxi, YOU are exactly the kind of person to take this to the next level. I am all ears and extremely eager to do what ever it takes to restore common sense throughout this nation.

Let me know...

Chris


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Credence2, You asked for your next question so here it is.

Let's say in a broad sense, this country is divided into two main groups. The "Takers" who believe the world owes them a living, and the "Givers" who are forced to share increasingly larger portions of their hard earned money to support the "Takers." Which of these two groups would you prefer to join?


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

And let me add that the 'takers' now include the 51% of Americans who pay no income taxes in support of our country. The 'givers' are the 49% who do pay taxes.

Which group is yours?


feenix profile image

feenix 5 years ago

Hey, Crendence2,

Where in the hell are you?

I want to hear your response to the questions posed my Old Poolman and Will Starr.

Which side ARE you on?


Credence2 5 years ago

ManwithNoPants, I missed your reply earlier. Yes, both sides are at fault, that is all I trying to get people to acknowledge and that wasteful subsidies have a play a role. I will check on your articles and try to get an understanding and hope that you return the courtesy to me.

I can see why you are harder on your side, it is an honest confession as they claim to be the "fiscally responsible" party. All we have are bad choices and I resign myself to accept the lessor of two evils from my perspective.

I think that you would be surprised that are differences may amount to no more that how we would pronounce the same word, (tomato-tomatoe)

Cred2


credence2 5 years ago

Greetings, OP

you asked:

Let's say in a broad sense, this country is divided into two main groups. The "Takers" who believe the world owes them a living, and the "Givers" who are forced to share increasingly larger portions of their hard earned money to support the "Takers." Which of these two groups would you prefer to join?

Most reasonable people want to make a contribution and not be a free loader, but as to who are takers are verses who are givers is a matter of a point of view. This a broad answer to a broad question, let's zero in. I have heard a lot about this idea that Will is throwing around that that is large percentage of people are not paying taxes at all, sounds like rightwing talking points. I would like to see that verified from a reliable source. i pay taxes, I have a modest income and no one is giving me a break-so, Will, what side do you think that I am on?

Oh Feenix, et tu Brute? What was all of this talk about me standing idly by while you were being fed to wolves on another thread?


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Credence2 - I would have to guess that because you have a modest income, and don't accept any form of welfare, that would put you in with the group known as "Givers." A part of the taxes you pay goes straight to the "Takers."

The "Takers" I refer to fit into the following:

1. Those who pay zero income taxes, yet receive a tax refund every year. I never have figured out how this works. To me a refund is getting back a portion of what you paid in, yet they get a "refund" when they paid in nothing.

2. Those on unemployment who will not accept a job offer until their unemployment benefits run out. They do ask if they can be paid under the table so they can continue to collect their benefits. I am not talking about a minimum wage job either. If you don't believe this I can provide you with some names and phone numbers so you may call and talk to these people directly.

3. Those who demand and get a free cell phone provided by the government so they can seek employment.

4. Those women who become baby factories by different fathers because each new baby brings in additional income.

5. Those who are not even legal residents of our country who get free medical care when I have to pay for my own medical care.

6. Someone who is drawing unemployment because he showed up to work intoxicated and was fired for not being able to safely perform his job. After a short waiting period he is eligible for unemployment which raises the rate his former employer must pay for unemployment insurance.

Credence, I could go on and on with this, but it would most likely be a waste of my time and your time.

I don't know many people who would not help out a neighbor in their time of need, but that is by choice. Now we are forced to help people who are not even trying to help themselves. This I strongly object to. You question Wills claim about the percentage of people in this country who actually pay taxes? I'm sure Will can provide you with some links to information that will surprise you. You claim these figures are nothing but right wing talking points. Then I would have to ask how all of those on unemployment, some by choice, are paying into the system.

I will await your response.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Credence,

I don't make things up. I pay close attention to what is going on. You should try it:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/0...

If you are a working age adult, yet pay no income tax to support the nation, you are by definition a taker, because you enjoy the services, yet don't help pay for them.

That's one reason I support the FairTax...everybody helps pay.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

WillStarr - thanks for providing the link for Credence2.

Credence2 - our single biggest fear is that one day, the "takers" will outnumber the "givers" and the money well will run dry. When the "givers" are giving all they reasonably can, and are then forced to give even more, they will give up and join the ranks of the "takers." When the last of the "givers" is gone, where will we be? At that point, only those who have fought for and used our 2nd amendment rights to bear arms will have anything to eat, and will be able to keep what they need for survival. You may think this is far fetched, but it is well within the realm of possibility.

LRC, sorry my friend, I didn't mean to use your hub for my own sounding board.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Thanks for this question I will make a reply after I repost your question so that I do not get confused:

1. Those who pay zero income taxes, yet receive a tax refund every year. I never have figured out how this works. To me a refund is getting back a portion of what you paid in, yet they get a "refund" when they paid in nothing.

Ok, I follow you, it may well be a form of resdistributing wealth that I could agree is inappropriate as these poorest of the poor should rely on welfare and other social services for their aid. I concur with you here.

2. Those on unemployment who will not accept a job offer until their unemployment benefits run out. They do ask if they can be paid under the table so they can continue to collect their benefits. I am not talking about a minimum wage job either. If you don't believe this I can provide you with some names and phone numbers so you may call and talk to these people directly

Thats, OK I believe you, I concur, we need to have a little discretion in the process of carefully weeding out those that are 'gaming' the system and the others that are legitimately unemployed and in the current economic climate are unable to find jobs. I don't know that the threat of cutting them off is really addressing the dearth of jobs in the economy and the documented evidence that perfectly good people are having difficulty.

3.Those who demand and get a free cell phone provided by the government so they can seek employment.

4. Those women who become baby factories by different fathers because each new baby brings in additional income

For the previous two questions, of course I concur with you, I never said that I want to subsidize lazyness and irresponsibility. No cell phones and the implication fordealing with baby factories will cross the line of decorum. Since sterilization is unacceptable as possible base for eugenics thinking, we will have to consider taking children away if the guardian is unable to support them. Prosecuting dead beat dads and garnishing checks to keep the burden from the tax payer, using DNA if necessary. It is not fair to penalize the children.

Those who are not even legal residents of our country who get free medical care when I have to pay for my own medical care.

I am in complete agreement, I plan to write a hub about immigration issues from my perspective, hopefully I will touch on that.

6 Someone who is drawing unemployment because he showed up to work intoxicated and was fired for not being able to safely perform his job. After a short waiting period he is eligible for unemployment which raises the rate his former employer must pay for unemployment insurance.

In principle as you present it here, I agree. But there are many explanations as to why someone was 'fired' that may well not be as clear cut as the agencies responsible for unemployment payments are not there to sort out such things.

I don't know many people who would not help out a neighbor in their time of need, but that is by choice. Now we are forced to help people who are not even trying to help themselves. This I strongly object to.

You know, OP, I know quite a few people that would not help a neighbor in time of need. We cannot have a society reminding us all of a Dickenss' novel, kids begging in the streets and that sort of thing. Capitalism, particularly in the economic mess we are in to day produces many losers. The need is greater than charity even if it could be relied upon consistently. I would just as soon see everyone gainfully employed contributing to the whole, but we know that that is not likely. We cannot have women and children in the streets, someone has to pay at some point. My point is that the social safety net does serve a purpose and its very existence does not mean that it has to be synonomous with abuse. I say mend it, don't end it.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Will, I am surprised you actually got a link from a respected publication known for timely and well written articles, to which I had subscribed for many years. So, you did not get your data from a typical rightwing rag, I guuess hope springs eternal. Ok, you have made your point.

If you are a working age adult, yet pay no income tax to support the nation, you are by definition a taker, because you enjoy the services, yet don't help pay for them.

Well, Will, that is all well and good if you can get a job. I suppose that you have never been unemployed?

Just because we are progressives does not mean we are in favor of taxing everyone to death. What about VAT or Consumption Tax? I am not an economist, but I had read the other day that 900 trillion, thats trillion dollars, changes hands in this country every year. If we taxed that consuption at the rate of 2%, something that evern the poor would not burdened by, that is 18 trillion dollars. So I don't see a lot of effort on either side of the political divide to overhaul the tax code. I hear a lot of talk, but it is high time to get beyond the IRS. A smarter system that taxes consumption and not savings and investment is long overdue. If this is the direction you are interested in, I concur.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

OP, with the overhaul of the current tax system maybe we can jump start the economy, and make more givers from the current takers.


feenix profile image

feenix 5 years ago

Credence2,

By suggesting that I don't have your back here after I said you should have had mine is like comparing apples to Beyonce.

I was fighting against what could have been construed as a racist attack. What's happening here ain't about racism at all. It is largely about differences in opinion concerning the nation's social and economic affairs.

By suggesting that I don't have your back at this point in time, you are only making an attempt to get yourself off the hook for punkin' out when I was out there standing up for "our people" all by myself.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Whatever, Feenix


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Credence2, now it is becoming clear to me that you and I are not that far apart after all. We view the problems from different sides of the fence, but our proposed solutions are very similar. We have some very brilliant minds among the writers here on hub pages. I learn a great deal from reading the hubs of those who are far more knowledgeable than I about the economy, and the internal workings of the government. I thank you for hanging in here with us in spite of the rough road in getting this dialog started.

Almost everyone I know is in favor of tax reform. The fair tax would force those who deal strictly in cash to pay taxes on their legally and illegally gotten gains. In other words, a wealthy drug dealer, a pimp, a prostitute, and others with large sums of unreported income would pay tax when they spend money. It is utterly ridiculous that most business owners and even private persons have to pay someone to fill out the piles of forms necessary to pay income tax to the government.

Changing to a Fair Tax plan would put most of these tax preparation companies out of business, and would almost eliminate the need for the IRS. Eliminating the IRS would alone result in Billions of dollars in savings. All the tax loopholes would disappear overnight, and everyone would pay their fair share. I just can't find anything wrong with this plan.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

OP, we have had quite a scrap here, but I continue to enjoy it, perhaps we can delve into other areas of interest to you. We are all contributing information relative to our experiences.

I put this to you, the problem may be as much generational as it is ideological. When was the last time you have seen lemonade stands or paperboys on paperoutes? I had to do things to earn money, when young. Maybe we have showered the young with a sense of entitlement inadvertently from the relative success of the boomer generation, could it be? When I asked my dad once why he would not buy a dishwssher, he said that he had 5 already, us kids. I think that the pol,iticians are not serious about tax reform because there are too many that benefit from all the subsidies and loop holes, and they know that they do not want to upset the applecart. Courage is in short supply in so many aspects of our lives. This has been enlightening and educational surely we should be able to ask legislators to find common ground between different political philosophies in Washington. I don't think that this is asking too much.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

CR - You are absolutely correct. We have raised at least a couple generations of entitlement minded children. Like you, I was forced to work and save when I wanted things as a child. I believe our parents thought this was a valuable lesson for children to learn. My own grandchildren were given everything, and honestly don't know how to work to this day.

I saw on the news where some girls running a lemonade stand were shut down by the police because they had failed to get a permit. Could this type thing be part of the problem we see today?

When companies like GE can buy themselves some nice tax loopholes, our system is broken.

When individuals can get tax refunds when they never paid taxes, our system is broken.

When the GAO can submit a report identifying billions in waste, duplication of effort, and theft of tax money, but it is not looked at when deciding budget cuts, our system is broken.

The left vs right blame game plays right into the plan for our politicians. While we are busy fighting each other, they are robbing us blind and getting very wealthy in the process.

There is much we could do to solve some of these problems. Term limits would help greatly. We need to really look at the voting records and spending projects by each of these old time politicians, then decide if they stay or go come election time.

Glad we could work this out and have a civil discussion.


BukowskiBabe profile image

BukowskiBabe 5 years ago from Somewhere in the middle of it all.

I agree....we need to pay close attention to voting record. We've been complacent for far too long while they robbed us blind. They have been reinforced for so long that they don't think that irresponsible behavior will have any consequences. Now they're on vacation? What the heck? We're in a middle of a crisis and it's time for R and R for them... Would the founding fathers had taken a break when the nation is broken? I think not.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Babe, take for example when Charlie Rangel was brought up before the ethics committee, and then forced to stand before his fellow crooks and admit his guilt. The only thing they looked at was the fact he was stupid enough to get caught.

But even after this, he was re-elected by the voters and given a key to the safe where they store all the taxpayers money. Go figure.


BukowskiBabe profile image

BukowskiBabe 5 years ago from Somewhere in the middle of it all.

We've lost our moral compass with congress leading the way.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

thus brings us back to the Dept. of Common Sense....moral values is on top of the chart, when it comes to practicing common sense.

Guys, please continue the debates....


daskittlez69 profile image

daskittlez69 5 years ago from midwest

I am glad that someone came out and said it. Great hub! Here is your up.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thanks daskittle....it is appreciated...

:)


platinumOwl4 profile image

platinumOwl4 5 years ago

Cmerritt, this is a great hub. Feenix, all of the people I thought would be here are here. That tells me I am in the right place. Your idea took the words right out of my mouth. I could not have said it better. People don't seem to have are were not around people who had it{common sense} consequently they can have it, didn't get it.


Cogerson profile image

Cogerson 5 years ago from Virginia

I agree 100% with you.....a small dose of common sense could solve some of these issues.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Owl, thanks I appreciate your feedback.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Cogerson, I agree and would settle just for a SMALL dose about right now....but that even seems to be asking for too much.

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate them.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Perhaps a common sense test for all those running for office would be in order. Just a Pass/Fail type test that would be administered after they showed their Birth Certificate would work.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

BINGO!....there is a great start.

Thanks Mike...or Secretary of CS, Mike...THAT sounds much better.


PaytonRaw profile image

PaytonRaw 5 years ago

Like your idea CMerritt…

Like Dexter Yarbrough’s Department of Satire and Humor. Would be great to see it in action as those failing the Common Sense test were escorted out. Poor Dexter! He’s going to be exhausted.

I agree voting records are very important.

Simple solutions are always best. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the united states of America, both are short and sweet in original form. Oh… and united and states was not capitalization on the original constitution. We are America and we are to be united by states. Power to the States and local municipalities over the Federal Goobernment (pun for fun)!

In trying to keep short: Ron Paul has the best voting record, has common sense, is a true economic intellectual, a doctor, a veteran, is a true old school conservative, has real workable solutions. For these reasons he is a threat to the establishment. Ron Paul will win 2012 if given some honest airtime. Ron Paul can win, should win and needs to win. He’s the real deal and probably our last best hope.

PS: I watched Barry Soatoro AKA Hussein Obama from the time he was running for senate and I never trusted him. When he ran on Hope and Change I knew he was really saying “I’m gona take these Chumps Change”. Gangster from Chicago Kenya. Oh and I had to show my birth certificate just to play little league. No excuses Barack!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thanks Payton for stopping by and commenting, I too like SOME of Ron Pauls ideas....I think he could do many good things, but I do not think he is electable...but he does have a great deal of common sense, that is for sure...and that is what we MUST have.


b. Malin profile image

b. Malin 5 years ago

You've got my Vote to bring back Common Sense to our Wonderful Country...I'm thinking Rick Perry could do that in 2012...and he is definitely Electable! I have to add, I'm impressed with a lot of the Hubbers Comments.


MonetteforJack profile image

MonetteforJack 5 years ago from Tuckerton, NJ

Hi, CMeritt! My attention was caught with the title of your hub. Then, as I was reading, the names Will Starr & Old Poolman came up, and I was like, who are they? And then! I felt like a dummy, hehehe. Yeah, you're right, they are good for the Department. Will Starr said he'd have you for vice-secretary. Well, please do take it!

I want to contribute, too, but, am very much new in this field. I am still learning. Rest assured, I do stuff guided by my moral and spiritual values, and yeah, common sense.

What I cannot understand how some people voted Charlie Rangel again when all he got was just a slap in the wrist. I've known a couple of ordinary people whose unpaid taxes were miniscule but were penalized big time. Then, last night at Obama's job speech, the leaders were applauding. How can they applaud when Obama was brazenly lying? He said the job is paid for. When? By whom? He made it sound like, oh(!) sincerity is his name ... when we all know he had his tour buses made in Canada! I really cannot understand how Obama can make something so simple by making it complex.

Old Poolman mentioned about the "Takers." I live in a neighborhood of Takers. Of course, the EXCEPTIONS ARE MY HUSBAND AND ME AND MY STEPSON. Much as I love America, where I reside right now is not the ideal. It makes me nauseaous to see these people who abuse the system. It's been a year now since we're living here and yet, I do not even have a single friend among my neighbors. I cannot understand why these women feel the government owes them money because they bore children. I cannot understand also why won't the Social Service limit the support like, why should they provide bikes and helmets for the kids and have yearly clothing and entertainment allowances? Isn't that the part of the parents, to provide for their kids? Perhaps, there should be a Morality and Guidance Wing under the Common Sense Department?

For sure, we do need the Dept. of Common Sense soonest. Great, great hub, CMeritt!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

@b malin, Thanks for commenting, I'm not 100% sold on Perry as of yet, but he at least appears to have some common sense, which whould be so much better than what we currently have. I'm looking forward to seeing more of him.

and YES, there has been some great comments...I appreciate you stopping by.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

@ MonetteforJack, well you fit right in (the DoCS) if you are willing to utilize your moral and spiritual values...it seems to be some basic attributes for obtaining common sense...lol.

Your personal testamony regarding your view is very much appreciated, and your input on this subject is deeply appreciated.....you have a different angle than many of us do, but yet the results of loving this country are the same.

Thank you for commenting, and I look forward to seeing you around hubpages...

Chris


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I voted you Up, Useful, and Funny; great hub CMerritt and great satire. Even though you and I travel different roads to get to a better America, there isn't a word in your Mission Statement I can disagree with.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@hyphenbird - who needs Ross Perot, bring back Clinton, he balanced the budget, remember?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@Caltex - because FEDEX and UPS aren't required to deliver mail to towns on a daily basis that may have 100 people in them and are located 80 miles from a town that has 5000. The USPS is. If your FEDEX and UPS and the same requirements as the USPS did, they would be losing money as well; just not as much maybe. Either that, or you would be paying $1.50 to mail a first class letter.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@Oldpoolman, you said "When individuals can get tax refunds when they never paid taxes, our system is broken." I have seen this comment many times before and thought I would take this opportunity to address it.

The fact that exists doesn't mean our system is broken, it simply means that was one method Congress chose to provide welfare to the "working" poor with an emphasis on the "working".

People who do not work, cannot receive this credit for they have to file an income tax form and show earned income to qualify. There is no question this is a form of welfare, but, it is a form of incentivized welfare that encourages people to work.

Would you rather they not work so that they don't qualify for the credit?


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

My Esoteric - That is a darn good question. No, Of course I would not not prefer they don't work. I truly wish there was a good paying job available for all those who want to work for a living. My objection is only that this is called a refund, when the recipient receives more in return than he paid into the system. If it is welfare, call it welfare, not a tax refund or earned income credit. This falls right in with all those who claim that no corporation pays income tax when most of them do.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"Would you rather they not work so that they don't qualify for the credit?"

I would rather that Congress and the president adhere to the delegated powers actually enumerated/granted by the Constitution, and wealth redistribution is not authorized.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@WillStarr - please point out to me where, in the U.S. Constitution that it prohibits, or even suggests, that wealth redistribution is not authorizied. Show me where that is even a topic of coversation in the Constitution. Remember, I can show you where, in the Constitution, Congress (the President doesn't really have a dog in this particular fight) is given broad latitude to do all those things necessary to 1) establish Justice, 2) provide for domestic Tranquility, 3) provide for the common defense, 4) promote the general Welfare, and 5) secure the Blessings of Liberty (the capitalization is correct, btw).

If you can, then maybe we will have a basis for discussion.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@Old Poolman, I understand your point on semantics; clearly, the tax code doesn't call it what it is, but then, when has any politician, left or right, ever called anything by its proper name. I fall of my chair laughing at some of the disingenuous names the Democrats, Republicans, and Conservatives come up with for their bills.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

@My Esoteric - Thanks for coming back. It is getting increasingly more difficult to determine what is really being said with all the new buzz words. We now call government "spending" government "investing" and that makes it OK. I wish someone would write a hub with definitions for all the new words that replace the old words that are now viewed in a negative fashion. Tax is tax, spending is spending, welfare is welfare, and corruption is corruption. You are so correct, it is not just one party who is mastering this new use of the English Language, it is all of them.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"@WillStarr - please point out to me where, in the U.S. Constitution that it prohibits, or even suggests, that wealth redistribution is not authorizied"

Sure. It's in the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So where was the power to redistribute wealth delegated? (Don't bother to look, because it's not there!)

The whole purpose of the Constitution was to grant the new federal government certain LIMITED powers, while still protecting the rights, liberties, and freedoms of the people. Since it did not grant government the power to redistribute wealth, government is violating the Constitutional rights of the people by doing so anyway.

If government can freely violate the right of the people who have earned money by claiming that those who did not earn it have more right to it than the earners, what good is a Constitution? Where is this Constitutional preamble protection?:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to....secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@WillStarr, I figured you would bring up the X Amendment, a creation of that great liberal James Madison. Yes, you are very right, it said those words, it had to in order to appease the anti-federalists who would not have ratified the Constitution without a promise to pass a Bill of Rights which contained such a phrase.

Having said all of that, the key phrase, and I started writing this in my original response, but decided to wait until this one, is "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution ...". It is that phrase which leads to all of the debate and controversy. In the view of most scholars and Supreme Court Justices, the writers of the Constitution intended to give the central government broad authority when it came to matters that crossed state boundaries. Why do you think the X Amendment wasn't part of the original document? In reading Article 1 of the Constitution, I don't see much that talks about LIMITED government at all and that is where much of the "delegated power" information is located; if it does, can you point it out to me?

What the Constitution does do is direct (delegate?) the government to "promote the general Welfare" and, to me at least, it is an easy jump from that to Congress devising various forms of wealth redistribution (including tax breaks for special corporations) to do so, don't you see.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@Old Poolman. I am not sure I am up to tackling that one but I am, slowing, working on a history of political parties ... now there is something that will make your eyes cross and head spin! I have lost count of how many political party names I would have belonged to since 1797 without having changed my political stance once, lol.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

So now, words mean nothing?

Where in ""promote the general Welfare", do you read 'grant individual welfare'?

Where in the Constitution do you see a declaration that those who did not earn it have more right to it than those who did earn it?

Again, either the Constitution means what it says, or we have moved into an age of leftist tyranny.

(And you know what Jefferson said about tyrants.)


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

BTW, claiming that 'promote the general welfare' means 'income redistribution', is what is so very wrong with liberalism.

To liberals like My Esoteric, words mean whatever they want them to mean, and in their view, the Constitution is a rubber document to be twisted and contorted until they can claim whatever their agenda requires.

Liberals sneer at at the notion of Constitutional restrictions on government and laugh at the individual freedoms and liberties the Constitution promises to protect. To the left, individual freedom is something to be suppressed, and complete government control is something to be admired.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@WillStarr - nope, I read "promote the general Welfare" for exactly what it says, no more, no less. What I am saying is, that, however Congress interprets that wonderous phrase (as it relates to the general meaning of welfare, meaning well-being, and not the particular meaning you give it of "hand-outs to the poor"), the Constitution, X Amendment and all, provides Congress with the power to act on that interpretation, so long as it doesn't violate any rights or powers granted speficically to the States or which the Supreme Court, which has done so on several occassions in the past, determines a particular issue falls within the perview of the States. I make no assumption as to what writers of the Constitution actually meant by "general Welfare".

For my personal view, I don't believe it means "individual welfare, per se", as you put it; nor do I believe they are just throw-away or feel-good words the framers put in there for the hell of it as the Tea Party/Conservatives and what use to be called Bourbon Democrats (Grover Cleveland) appear, at least through their rhetoric, believe. My personal opinion is that it definitely allows for and, in fact, makes the federal government responsible for providing relief in times of great distress to the general populus, or significant segments of it, when that relief is for the good of the whole or is a moral necessity.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

BTW @WillStarr, you have it about 180 degrees backwards on this individual liberty thing; you will be hard pressed to find very many places in history where Conservatives, those that have their roots in the anti-Federalists of the 1790s, those that like to call themselves States-Rightists, actually are shown to favor individual freedoms. It is the freedom of the State from the Central government that is what concerns them most including to dictate what the state religion is going to be; that was a huge part of the fight between Federalists and anti-Federalists back in the day; the States-Rightists were very fearful those damned liberals like George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, et al. were going to take way their right to have a state Christian theocracy.

Your forefathers believed in individual rights so much that you, if you were not a Christian in good standing, were not allowed to hold or be elected to a State office in 12 of the 13 colonies; there were many other such religious based restictions on freedom as well, depending on the state. The only individual right the Conservatives find sancrosanct is the right for an individual to bear arms; all other basic rights of Americans and humans have come under attack at one time or another by Conservatives including the right to a jury, a right to a defense council, the right to a free press, the right to raise your own child, and the list goes on.

The Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights, was drawn up by the Liberals and Progressives of their time, not Conservatives. The Conservatives did their damndest to stop this country from ever being.

Show me in history how, what I just said, is wrong. Try to prove to me the anti-federalist, to whom I can now trace back the Conservatives of today, are liberals and that John Adams and James Madison were individual freedom loving Conservatives.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Sorry, My Esoteric, could not help but to overhear. I wanted to step in and add a word or two, but it is obvious that you have everything under control!


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

The liberals of Constitutional days are the conservatives of today.

In any case, there's no historical evidence that the Founding Fathers supported the far-left nonsense of income redistribution, no matter how much you try to claim they did. They believed in just the opposite...private property rights.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

@ My Esoteric,

As you know, I have 100% respect for you, as you are always a gentleman, and offer your opinions as well written and researched...and I appreciate you stopping by to comment.

But, I know it will not come as any surprise to you as I strongly support the logic given by Will Starr.

The part in particular stating that our government will "promote the general welfare" does not ever remotely suggest that tax dollars should be given to anyone who does not have a job.

The term "promote"...by it's meaning tells us to encourage and advance....."general" means a non-specific group...."welfare"..the well-being and health.

It does not mean to redistribute money from one group or groups of Americans and give it to another group who may be less fortunate.

That is charity, if that is what the forefathers intended, they would have stated so.

Americans at one time were extremely charitable and it was an unwritten and accepted responsibility to take care of your neighbor...to take care of the "least of these".........we now have a group who should be called the "free for these".

Part of this Dept of Common Sense would be to overlook who is receiving funds that are fraudulently abusing such monies.

at least that is the way that I clearly see it.


PegCole17 profile image

PegCole17 5 years ago from Dallas, Texas

Whew! That was a long string of comments, but definitely worth the read. What a great country we have where we can all have our points of view and be able to freely debate the issues.

The DoCS has long been overdue and definitely a department we need to have in place. Trouble has always been that common sense is all too uncommon. Your proposed candidates for office sound like reasonable citizens.

What I think we need is more clarity and simplicity with the bills that are being passed. Too much pork is being hidden in the folds of legislation that may have orignally been a good thing until this one or that one added "their part" to a good thing and the scratching each other's back comes into play.

I like what was said earlier about Ronnie Reagan who in his speaches at least gave us a ray of hope for a better world view, not just more mud slinging at the other party - as if a President should have a party. How can someone lead when it's always about Us against Them?

What Monette said really brings it home about baby factories who expect the government to support their children when their own baby daddies won't. The principle stands: what gets rewarded gets done. If there is a reward for having another baby, then there is the incentive.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Peg,

Thanks for your comments.....you gave some great examples of what this whole common sense thing is to be about..

:)


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

In reading these comments, a question came to mind. Could it be that voluntary forms of charity decline as redistribution of wealth is enforced? Many who don't mind helping others would view this as paying twice?


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

OP, I think it may very well be the case for many folks.

I think the abuse by many of gov handout recipients has left a bad taste in many mouths of those who at one time was eager donors to helping the "least of these".

And maybe it is just an excuse not to give, but the harsh reality is, many folks are tired of having a good portion of their paychecks given to the government with a sizeable chunk given to "entitlement" programs.

I also think today's CHURCH has passed on it's main responsiblities in caring for the poor because of the governments intervention....many church's (in my opinion)have become MORE interested in building "country clubs" than tending to the "least of these" as commanded.

just my observation of course.


rachellrobinson profile image

rachellrobinson 5 years ago from Southwest Missouri

CMerritt, I don't mind helping out the poor, but a few years back this lady started bragging to me how she didn't have to get a job because she knew how to work the system, she got foodstamps, help out at the food banks, had the State helping her with her electric and phone... etc. and it made me mad. I have a harder time giving donations now to the food bank knowing that someone like her who doesn't need it because she is quiet capable of getting a job is taking advantage of a taxed system. Perhaps that is just me, and I am not a good charitable person, but I think if there was a way to monitor and keep the fraud out of even the food banks people would be more willing to donate.

Rachel


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"Could it be that voluntary forms of charity decline as redistribution of wealth is enforced?"

That's exactly what has happened, but mostly among the left! Contrary to common belief, conservatives are far more generous than liberals in giving of their own money:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conserv...

Liberals often cite government 'charity' as their reason for not giving.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Rachel,

I agree with you, I know there are so many out there that truly need help, but the bad apples have spoiled the cart. Liberals has found this a way to keep votes in their back pockets, by keeping people under their thumb.

Thanks for your comments


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Will, I know for a fact that many close and personal friends of mine that are conservative are amazing supporters of those less fortunate...and I know some very liberal acquaintances of mine who are of the mind that charity is the governments role, not theirs.

On a personal level, I have decided NOT to give money to those who approach me for food, but I have and will continue to buy them groceries or a sandwich if they ask me, and convince me they are honestly in need of food.

With a family of my own, I have to be as frugal as possible, but I cannot turn down someone who IS hungry.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Chris,

Sometime back, I watched a network piece on life in the ghetto. One young man of less than 21 years was bragging on how many children he had fathered. When asked how he could possibly support so many children, he looked at the interviewer in surprised amazement. He then said, "I don't support them! That's what government is for!"

He was obviously very sincere in that belief, and that's why ghetto life is perpetual, from generation to generation.

And they all vote for Democrats.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

I too, have heard of similar stories and have witnessed some obvious abuse. Will, it is stories like such that only makes me believe that Common Sense MUST be re-installed into our government. This whole hub was partial in jest, but a large part of me feels this is something that is long over due...and if we don't get a handle on it soon, it will be our demise.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Contrary to the predominent opinion here, problems in this society of poverty and depravation are not created by the left and Democrats. In this vaunted free-enterprise, capitalist system, there are a lot of losers, particularly now. Charity alone is not going to address the multitude of problems. Where there is abuse in how the programs are administered is should be corrected promptly. So who is against that?

The opinion of one inner city kid is not the rule for millions of other people on the dole at this time. It is dishonest and disegenuous to suggest otherwise.

As a tax paying citizen who happens to be Black, I have plenty of reasons to vote against the GOP outside the fact of whether or not people are receiving hands out, you can trust me on that!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Credence....this is NOT just about ONE inner city kid...and YOU know as well as I do, this problem is huge.

I am not saying that all liberals are trying to capitalize off of the poor, but I am without doubt, sure, that the very ideology of this entitlement mentality that is strongly supported by many liberals is creating a negative atmosphere in many neighborhoods and household across this nation.

There is NOTHING dishonest or disegenuous of those who want this mentality and form of corruption to go away. It is wrong to continue to pump taxpayers dollars into these systems.

I also say, that if 100% of foodstamps was to come to a grinding stop tomorrow.......not ONE person would starve to death, without government intervention.

I'm also not suggesting that is must be stopped, because it has and can be very detrimental to many, many needy folks....but it is HIGH time that some real measures be taken to end the abuse of some good things that are being done.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

The current crisis is the direct result of leftist Democrats meddling with the housing market, using Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA to create an inflated price bubble that finally collapsed. Bush, of course, took the blame, but it was actually leftist Democrats.

Barack Obama declared that he was going to 'fundamentally transform' America, and he certainly did. We are now downgraded as a borrower, headed for third world status, and openly mocked by tyrannical regimes, all thanks to his socialistic methods and weak leadership.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Greetings C.Merritt OK, quoting you: "I also say, that if 100% of foodstamps was to come to a grinding stop tomorrow.......not ONE person would starve to death, without government intervention".

Really, I am not so confident of that

I believe in social security and temporary social welfare as justified and warranted unless you want to return to a pre-New Deal America. Barack Obama did not invent all these things, it is odd to me that 75 years of policy as seen as negative by the right is put at his doorstep, very suspicious indeed.

America's image of the problem with social programs is always focused on the inner city ghetto kid, that is not the big picture but the attitude does paint a picture for many of us on the left as to the true nature of this disaffection with Government from many on the other side.

For heavens sake, C, I want no abuse in this area no more than I want it in defense expenditures, corporate tax breaks and everything else

Thanks Cred2


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Cred, I am quite certain you do NOT want abuse either, but the ramifications of these Big Government programs are indeed, abuse and corruption. Our government was not designed to be a big business. It was designed to ba a limited government with limited powers.

This goes for all government ran agencies, NOT just the entitlement programs.

I also want to make it clear that I am not singling out black, inner city kids as the soul culprits...as I can point out probably MORE cases of white people who have "Milking the System" to an art.

thank YOU cred2 for your continued input.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

C, As always I appreciate your considered responses and dialogue.

"soul cuprits" nice pun or is it a just a typo?


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Credence, it is a 100% typo by a person who is not an accomplished writer, but one who is prone to making too many typo's...I sometimes get in too big of hurry.

That would make a good pun, but I did not do it with a pun intended...

:)


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

You know I have to throw my two cents in on this one. There is no single race or class of people who milk the system, but individuals from every race and class. Most government run programs are so large and unwieldy, that control of the system is lost at an early stage. Employees within the system even coach applicants on how to best answer the questions so they can be "entitled" to the maximum benefits. Why do they do this? Because this is their rice bowl so to speak. When people quit applying for welfare, they are out of a job.

There are families who have been on welfare programs for so long, they even teach their children how to maximize their benefits rather than teaching them a good work ethic.

But, this is no worse than those who live in Manhattan or other large cities who have figured out how to get farm subsidies. Almost every government run program is riddled with waste and corruption. It is just too darn big to control.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

OP, as always your wisdom comes to the forefront. Nobody likes a bum, freeloader, regardless of from where they come. I really believe that if we tightened the belt on the abusers a great deal more of the profligate spending and appropriations for such spending would go away.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

My, my, go away for a day or two, and the comments doubled, see what happens when you are away, CMerritt, lol. Starting from the latest and working backwards.

Generations of welfare recipients used to be the buzz-word and whipping boy of the Right, and rightly so, even though the number of them were miniscule when compared to the whole. However, I no longer think those anecdotes work anymore, not since the compromise between Clinton and the Conservatives on welfare reform in the late 1990s; the best I can tell such cases are now pretty rare.

We always talk about government waste and corruption and it absolutely exists, it will in any large organization private or public; my own company has a lot of waste in it which I could get rid of if I had perfect managers and enough money to spend on oversight, but, I don't, so I have to tolerate waste and some corruption of my employees; btw my company is only 40 people big, not a few million. What I never hear from the Right is all of the corruption in the private world such as we experienced in the financial industry from 2005 - 2009, in Enron, in all of those companies who poisoned Lake Erie, in the tobacco industry who purposely lied to the government and the People which resulted in countless "you pick a very large number" of avoidable deaths, and my list goes on and on. How come the Right NEVER gets upset or complains about that?

Can someone please point out the verbage in the Constitution where the government "shall be limited"! It simply doesn't do that, the writers of Constitution didn't want the government to have "limited" powers. It was a mantra of the anti-federalists, those colonialists who DID NOT WANT there to be a United States of America as envisioned by the framers of today's Constitution, in their campaign to defeat the ratification of the Constitution and it is the mantra of the Conservatives and the Tea Party today. Show me where James Madison, George Washington, John Adams, hell, even Thomas Jefferson proponents all of the Constitution, ever talked of "limited" government in the sense the Conservatives speak of it today.

Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA and almost insignificant impact on the housing bubble and even less of an impact on the actual 2008 Bush recession. Just read the first 100 pages, it is an easy read, of "Financial Crisis Inquiry Report" (you can find it on my hub on recessions) and you will see that the finger points directly at a greedy and out of control PRIVATE financial sector and a Conservative Alan Greenspan not believing his beloved philosophy wasn't actually working and being blind to all of the red flags waving around him.

I suppose it is possible that if foodstamps stopped as well as any other government intervention (Grover Cleveland would love you), not one person would actually starve to death, although I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it, the misery index in the country would definitely go skyhigh. And if you think the private sector would jump in and replace what was just lost, think again; they won't, they can't; if they had in the past, effectively, there wouldn't have been government programs in the first place. I know Conservatives would have rather left the people of Joplin, MO to fend for themselves and hope some private organization might stop by to help, but I can't accept that, even though in 1893, that is exactly what President Grover Cleveland believed as he let most of the Texas farmers wither away and go bankrupt by denying federal aid during the worst depression America has known until then while in the middle of one of the most devastating droughts Texas has seen.

Sometime back, I heard the President and CEO of Enron bragging, not in so many words of course, about how much money he earned screwing investors and vendors and employess out of everything they had ... so what is your point @WillStarr?

@CMerritt - government alone can never solve problems of those in need, it has never pretended that it could; it requires the active involvement of private individuals, such as you describe, social orgainzation, religious orgainzations, philanthrophists, corporations all across the nation; it is that huge of a problem. But likewise, all of those individuals and organizations can't do it alone either. Without government providing the backbone of the support system, there is no coordination, no continuity, no fairness, no nothing other than a multitude of good-hearted people and organizaions trying to do the right thing; often getting in each others way, being redundent here and leaving holes there. My point is, it doesn't work leaving it up to the private sector; it can't work because the problem is too huge.

OK, Finally, back to where I left off, "general Welfare." CMerritt, respectfully, you are putting words in the framers mouths, so to speak (write?), when you try to define what they meant or didn't mean by the term "general Welfare." All the Constitution says regarding that is that the government must promote it. The rest of the Articles in the Constitution then define how they do that with Sections 1, 8, and 9 of Article I; and Article III are the parts that are pertanent; with Article III being the rules regarding the judiciary. Section 8, Article I is the most important and while it lays out a whole bunch of specifics, it ends with this statement "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper in carrying into Execution the forgoing Powers, AND ALL OTHER POWERS vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. That doesn't sound like "limited" to me and we are still left with the Supreme Court having to decide what the framers meant by "general Welfare"; presumably they will take into account your interpretation as well as mine.

Whew!


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

The left always claims the exclusive right to define terms. Therefore, according to them, 'provide for the general welfare' becomes 'confiscate earned wealth and redistribute it to those who did not earn it, in exchange for Democrat votes'.

The entire recession was initiated by the collapse of Democrat created, Freddie, Fannie, and the CRA, with their ludicrous mandates to banks to make risky, sub-prime loans to those who could not afford to repay the loan.

Denying that is either appallingly ignorant or appallingly dishonest


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@WillStarr - Then explain to us why is it you, whom I presume to be on the Right, is the only one doing the defining??

Have you actually read the "The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, Authorized Edition: Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States"? I have read a good bit of it and know of what I am talking including having access to all of the references they use, so, I am neither "ignorant" nor "dishonest" regarding these issues; do you have such an authority to back your claims? I suspect not, else you would have produced it by now instead of making wild accusations which is normally the tacked taken by one who has run out of facts and knows he isn't speaking the truth, but only repeating what he has been told to believe.

As to being dishonest, I suggest you go back and read the string of comments very carefully to see who is defining what "general Welfare" is or is not; I certainly haven't, as you are CLEARLY aware. The only ones providing a definition are you and a few others by presuming that I mean "general Welfare" definitely includes, as you put it " 'confiscate earned wealth and redistribute it to those who did not earn it, in exchange for Democrat votes'." You, my friend, are the ones who are making those assumptions, not me. To me, "general Welfare" means whatever the courts finally determine it to mean within the context of the Constitution where, as I also pointed out doesn't define it either! The courts, both Conservative (which most in the history of the US have been) and Liberal, have done this on many occasions now, mostly going against your point of view.

So, I will try to make it simpler for you; all the Constitution does is provides the means and Power for Congress to "promote the general Welfare". How Congress wishes to interpret that is up to them, the Supreme Court, and the People who elect the Representatives to Congress. Ultimately, if the People WANT it to mean 'confiscate earned wealth and redistribute it to those who did not earn it", then that is what it will mean, if the People DO NOT WANT it mean that, then it won't.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"Have you actually read the "The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, Authorized Edition: Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States"?

The conclusion voiced by the 6 Democrats or the ones by the dissenting Republicans?

Gee, the Dems exonerated themselves! Imagine that!

"The fourth Republican-appointed commissioner, Peter Wallison, released his own dissenting opinion, blaming the crisis on the U.S. government's promotion of homeownership via quasi-governmental mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Wallison, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, criticized the panel's work as biased."

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/27/business/l...


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@WillStarr, I actually, I didn't use the conclusions of the report, (can you give me the exact count of dissenting Conservatives, btw?) I just simply read the report AND the dissenting opinion, including Wallison's. THEN I formed my OWN conclusion based on the FACTS, ALL of the facts, presented; so what the Democrats or the Republicans, if there were any, or the Conservatives thought was not relevant.

I must say, I did get some good giggles out of Wallison's arguments and "logic", which works, when you consider ONLY the facts he chose to analyze; he conviniently missed a few. The total data shows that Freddie and Fannie simply didn't have enough clout to cause what happened; they ended up being, what, 20 to 25% of all the subprime mortgages out there by 2008 (don't quote me on those numbers but I think they are close to being right) with them having the LOWEST default rate of those making subprime loans. You need to find the right boogy-man ... private, predatory sub-prime lenders, hedge-fund managers in for the quick buck, and unethical banks and financial institutions successfully ripping the government and the public off for billions.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

I too read the report and formed my own conclusions. Of course the Democrats did not take responsibility for Freddie, Fannie, and the CRA! Did anyone really think they would?

And BTW, perhaps you can explain to us why anyone, including so-called "predatory lenders' would loan their good money to those whom they knew could never pay it back! They only did it because they thought they could bundle all that toxic stuff and sell it to Freddie and Fannie. But then, both Freddie and Fannie went belly up when the housing bubble burst, and the banks were left holding the bag. That's why we had to bail them out!

But you know all this. You just don't want to admit it.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Freddie and Fannie were the brainchildren of Democrats, created to put those who could not afford a home into a home they could not afford. They then, vote for Democrats!

When they eventually default, the taxpayer picks up the tab. Neat, huh?

In the meantime, lenders made a fortune (until the whole thing collapsed!)

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4264060n


Twilliams 5 years ago

Your thoughts are good and pure. But, sadly stuck in the 18th century. The US government does do things it should not, but that is just a matter of downsizing. If you turn everything back to the states, use move the corruption there too. We end up with a massive lack of coordination across the board. This the the United States of America, not the Aligned States of America. Look at the EU today, that is what would happen.

Your goals are good, but outdated for the 21st century.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Huh?


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

@Twilliams

I would like to follow up with Will Starr's rebuttal, with my own.....

HUH?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

and that, Will, is where you have it wrong, so very wrong in your facts. First, a little edumacation -

Freddie and Fannie's original purpose was to stimulate the mortgage industry back before sub-prime was even a concept in anybody's mind. The goal was to provide a ready market for lenders to sell their mortgages, fully backed mortgages with people of wonderful credit, in order to raise more capital to make more mortgages; with one caveat though; those lenders kept an interest in those mortgages; if they went south, it wasn't Freddie and Fannie left holding the bag, it was the original lender. Consequently, the original lender had every incentive in the world to make good, solid loans.

With deregulation, all of that changed; but not relative to Freddie and Fannie, most of those rules stayed the same but were definitely relaxed. What did changed in a BIG way was that banks could become investment agencies, risking their borrowers money (with the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act) and financial institutions could become banks and originators of loans.

Here is the greatest kicker, Will. Conservative deregulation no longer required the originator of mortgages to keep a financial interest in the mortgages they made!!! THAT, Will, is why the disreputable banks (read that as the BIG banks) really didn't give a damn whether the borrow even had a job; the Conservative government no longer required them to check and they could bundle their mortgages away until they disappeared into thin air and have NO RISK if they defaulted.

Now, back to these bundles. Yes, Fannie and Freddie bought some, a small percentage of those and because of the standards they still held, there record on defaults was BETTER (which I noticed you ignored earlier) than any of your vaunted private financial institutions; it still is better, whether you like it or not or want to believe it or not.

So, if F & F didn't buy most of the bundles, who did? Why the private financial institutions did hoping to make quick profits by slicing-and-dicing them and selling all of these weird sounding derivitives that either bet the package of loans would be good or would be bad. Other people swapped credit on the assumption that housing prices would never fall. How much did these PRIVATE institutions buy? How about 70% of all sub-prime mortgages.

You can huff and you can puff all you want to about Fannie and Freddie; all you are going to do is get faint and never see the truth of the matter.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I think what TT was trying to say was that if the People allow the Conservatives to have their way to it's logical conclusion, the Constitution will be replaced by the more acceptable, to them, Articles of Confederation which was the goal of the anti-federalists, and the United States as we know it today, would devolve down to 50 independent states held loosely and ineffectively together by a weak Constitution who, more than likely would end up going to war with each other.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

(sigh)

Ok, you forced my hand:

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis

By Peter J. Wallison from the February 2009 issue

As opposed to a desperate liberal legend.

Two narratives seem to be forming to describe the underlying causes of the financial crisis. One, as outlined in a New York Times front-page story on Sunday, December 21, is that President Bush excessively promoted growth in home ownership without sufficiently regulating the banks and other mortgage lenders that made the bad loans. The result was a banking system suffused with junk mortgages, the continuing losses on which are dragging down the banks and the economy. The other narrative is that government policy over many years--particularly the use of the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to distort the housing credit system-- underlies the current crisis. The stakes in the competing narratives are high. The diagnosis determines the prescription. If the Times diagnosis prevails, the prescription is more regulation of the financial system; if instead government policy is to blame, the prescription is to terminate those government policies that distort mortgage lending.

There really isn’t any question of which approach is factually correct: right on the front page of the Times edition of December 21 is a chart that shows the growth of home ownership in the United States since 1990. In 1993 it was 63 percent; by the end of the Clinton administration it was 68 percent. The growth in the Bush administration was about 1 percent. The Times itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers--a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks. Can there really be a question, other than in the fevered imagination of the Times, where the push to reduce lending standards and boost home ownership came from?

The fact is that neither political party, and no administration, is blameless; the honest answer, as outlined below, is that government policy over many years caused this problem. The regulators, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, were the enforcers of the reduced lending standards that were essential to the growth in home ownership and the housing bubble.

THERE ARE TWO KEY EXAMPLES of this misguided government policy. One is the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The other is the affordable housing “mission” that the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were charged with fulfilling.

As originally enacted in 1977, the CRA vaguely mandated regulators to consider whether an insured bank was serving the needs of the “whole” community. For 16 years, the act was invoked rather infrequently, but 1993 marked a decisive turn in its enforcement. What changed?

Substantial media and political attention was showered upon a 1992 Boston Federal Reserve Bank study of discrimination in home mortgage lending. This study concluded that, while there was no overt discrimination in banks’ allocation of mortgage funds, loan officers gave whites preferential treatment. The methodology of the study has since been questioned, but at the time it was highly influential with regulators and members of the incoming Clinton administration; in 1993, bank regulators initiated a major effort to reform the CRA regulations.

In 1995, the regulators created new rules that sought to establish objective criteria for determining whether a bank was meeting CRA standards. Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified buyers wasn’t enough. Banks now had to show that they had actually made a requisite number of loans to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers. The new regulations also required the use of “innovative or flexible” lending practices to address credit needs of LMI borrowers and neighborhoods. Thus, a law that was originally intended to encourage banks to use safe and sound practices in lending now required them to be “innovative” and “flexible.” In other words, it called for the relaxation of lending standards, and it was the bank regulators who were expected to enforce these relaxed standards.

The effort to reduce mortgage lending standards was led by the Department of Housing and Urban Development through the 1994 National Homeownership Strategy, published at the request of President Clinton. Among other things, it called for “financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, to help homeowners that lack cash to buy a home or to make the payments.” Once the standards were relaxed for low-income borrowers, it would seem impossible to deny these benefits to the prime market. Indeed, bank regulators, who were in charge of enforcing CRA standards, could hardly disapprove of similar loans made to better-qualified borrowers.

Sure enough, according to data published by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, from 2001 through 2006, the share of all mortgage originations that were made up of conventional mortgages (that is, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage that had always been the mainstay of the U.S. mortgage market) fell from 57.1 percent in 2001 to 33.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2006. Correspondingly, sub-prime loans (those made to borrowers with blemished credit) rose from 7.2 percent to 18.8 percent, and Alt-A loans (those made to speculative buyers or without the usual underwriting standards) rose from 2.5 percent to 13.9 percent. Although it is difficult to prove cause and effect, it is highly likely that the lower lending standards required by the CRA influenced what banks and other lenders were willing to offer to borrowers in prime markets. Needless to say, most borrowers would prefer a mortgage with a low down payment requirement, allowing them to buy a larger home for the same initial investment.

The problem is summed up succinctly by Stan Liebowitz of the University of Texas at Dallas:

From the current handwringing, you’d think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards--at the behest of community groups and "progressive" political forces.… For years, rising house prices hid the default problems since quick refinances were possible. But now that house prices have stopped rising, we can clearly see the damage done by relaxed loan standards.

The point here is not that low-income borrowers received mortgage loans that they could not afford. That is probably true to some extent but cannot account for the large number of sub-prime and Alt-A loans that currently pollute the banking system. It was the spreading of these looser standards to the prime loan market that vastly increased the availability of credit for mortgages, the speculation in housing, and ultimately the bubble in housing prices.

IN 1992, AN AFFORDABLE housing mission was added to the charters of Fannie and Freddie, which--like the CRA--permitted Congress to subsidize LMI housing without appropriating any funds. A 1997 Urban Institute report found that local and regional lenders seemed more willing than the GSEs to serve creditworthy low- to moderate-income and minority applicants. After this, Fannie and Freddie modified their automated underwriting systems to accept loans with characteristics that they had previously rejected. This opened the way for large numbers of nontraditional and sub-prime mortgages. These did not necessarily come from traditional banks, lending under the CRA, but from lenders like Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest sub-prime and nontraditional mortgage lender and a firm that would become infamous for consistently pushing the envelope on acceptable underwriting standards.

Fannie and Freddie used their affordable housing mission to avoid additional regulation by Congress, especially restrictions on the accumulation of mortgage portfolios (today totaling approximately $1.6 trillion) that accounted for most of their profits. The GSEs argued that if Cong


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@Will, I am glad you presented that analysis from Wallison although it looks like some might have been cut off at the end of your post which ended "The GSE's argued that if Cong ..." anyway, you will probably find this surprising, there isn't much in what was presented by Willison that he put forward as fact, that I would disagree with, some of the conclusions he draws maybe, but not the facts themselves, they were all in the basic report. However, none of it point toward Fannie and Freddie as being the cause of all of our ills as you are trying to make us believe; nor does it really make a case that the CRA was sufficiently significant to bring the whole economy down.

Up until your post cut-off, virtually all of the analysis had to do with the situation prior 1998. The only data presented during the period when all of the abuses started and continued is the one showing the decline of traditional mortgages in relation to sub-primes, 2001-2006.

In the last full paragraph, Wallison seems to start to imply that it is the fault of the Democrat’s desire to improve the lives of the working poor via the CRA and Fannie/Freddie policy shifts that allowed predatory lending companies like Countrywide Financial got into business. The logic goes like this 1) IN 1992, AN AFFORDABLE housing mission was added to the charters of Fannie and Freddie, which--like the CRA--permitted Congress to subsidize LMI housing without appropriating any funds (sort of like the Bush No Child Left Behind or Medicare Prescription laws, isn’t it?), then 2) a 1997 Urban Institute report found that local and regional lenders seemed more willing than the GSEs to serve creditworthy low- to moderate-income and minority applicants. After this, Fannie and Freddie modified their automated underwriting systems to accept loans with characteristics that they had previously rejected. Both of these facts are very true. But, then we get this strange, unsupported conclusion: 3) this opened the way for large numbers of nontraditional and sub-prime mortgages.

How Willason comes to this leap of logic is never explained in his analysis, it is just laid out there like it makes all of the sense in the world, which, of course, it does not. It is true of course, large numbers of nontraditional and sub-prime mortgage lenders did enter the market, but, it wasn’t due to Fannie/Freddie changing their policy nor the CRA policy itself which drove the changes; if it were, these lenders would have made CRA loans; they didn’t because the underwriting restrictions were too restrictive. Willason doesn’t tell you this, of course.

The rest I will leave for a hub I am working on.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

The rest of the story:

Fannie and Freddie used their affordable housing mission to avoid additional regulation by Congress, especially restrictions on the accumulation of mortgage portfolios (today totaling approximately $1.6 trillion) that accounted for most of their profits. The GSEs argued that if Congress constrained the size of their mortgage portfolios, they could not afford to adequately subsidize affordable housing. By 1997, Fannie was offering a 97 percent loan-to-value mortgage. By 2001, it was offering mortgages with no down payment at all. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie were required to show that 55 percent of their mortgage purchases were LMI loans and, within that goal, 38 percent of all purchases were to come from underserved areas (usually inner cities) and 25 percent were to be loans to low-income and very-low-income borrowers. Meeting these goals almost certainly required Fannie and Freddie to purchase loans with low down payments and other deficiencies that would mark them as sub-prime or Alt-A.

The decline in underwriting standards is clear in the financial disclosures of Fannie and Freddie. From 2005 to 2007, Fannie and Freddie bought approximately $1 trillion in sub-prime and Alt-A loans. This amounted to about 40 percent of their mortgage purchases during that period. Moreover, Freddie purchased an ever-increasing percentage of Alt-A and sub-prime loans for each year between 2004 and 2007. It is impossible to forecast the total losses the GSEs will realize from a $1.6 trillion portfolio of junk loans, but if default rates on these loans continue at the unprecedented levels they are showing today, the number will be staggering. The losses could make the $150 billion S&L bailout in the late 1980s and early 1990s look small by comparison.

The GSEs’ purchases of sub-prime and Alt-A loans affected the rest of the market for these mortgages in two ways. First, it increased the competition for these loans with private-label issuers. Before 2004, private-label issuers--generally investment and commercial banks--specialized in subprime and Alt-A loans because GSEs’ financial advantages, especially their access to cheaper financing, enabled them to box private-label competition out of the conventional market. When the GSEs decided to ramp up their purchases of sub-prime and Alt-A loans to fulfill their affordable housing mission, they began to take market share from the private-label issuers while simultaneously creating greater demand for sub-prime and Alt-A loans among members of the originator community.

Second, the increased demand from the GSEs and the competition with private-label issuers drove up the value of sub-prime and Alt-A mortgages, reducing the risk premium that had previously suppressed originations. As a result, many more marginally qualified or unqualified applicants for mortgages were accepted. From 2003 to late 2006, conventional loans (including jumbo loans) declined from 78.8 percent to 50.1 percent of all mortgages, while subprime and Alt-A loans increased from 10.1 percent to 32.7 percent. Because GSE purchases are not included in these numbers, in the years just before the collapse of home prices began, about half of all home loans being made in the United States were non-prime loans. Since these mortgages aggregate more than $2 trillion, this accounts for the weakness in bank assets that is the principal underlying cause of the current financial crisis.

In a very real sense, the competition from Fannie and Freddie that began in late 2004 caused both the GSEs and the private-label issuers to scrape the bottom of the mortgage barrel. Fannie and Freddie did so in order to demonstrate to Congress their ability to increase support for affordable housing. The private-label issuers did so to maintain their market share against the GSEs’ increased demand for sub-prime and Alt-A products. Thus, the gradual decline in lending standards--beginning with the revised CRA regulations in 1993 and continuing with the GSEs’ attempts to show Congress that they were meeting their affordable housing mission--came to dominate mortgage lending in the United States.

FEDERAL HOUSING INIATIVES are not the only culprits in the current mortgage mess--state-based residential finance laws give homeowners two free options that contributed substantially to the financial crisis. First, any homeowner may, without penalty, refinance a mortgage whenever interest rates fall or home prices rise to a point where there is significant equity in the home, enabling them to extract any equity that had accumulated between the original financing transaction and any subsequent refinancing. The result is so-called cash-out refinancing, in which homeowners treat their homes like savings accounts, drawing out funds to buy cars, boats, or second homes. By the end of 2006, 86 percent of all home mortgage refinancings were cash-outs, amounting to $327 billion that year. Unfortunately, this meant that when home prices fell, there was little equity in the home behind the mortgage and frequently little reason to continue making payments on the mortgage.

The willingness of homeowners to walk away from their “underwater” mortgages was increased by the designation of mortgages as “without recourse” in most states. In essence, non-recourse mortgages mean that defaulting homeowners are not personally responsible for paying any difference between the value of the home and the principal amount of the mortgage obligation, or that the process for enforcing this obligation is so burdensome and time-consuming that lenders simply do not bother. The homeowner’s opportunity to walk away from a home that is no longer more valuable than the mortgage it carries exacerbates the effect of the cash-out refinancing.

Tax laws further amplified the problems of the housing bubble and diminished levels of home equity, especially the deductibility of interest on home equity loans. Interest on consumer loans of all kinds--for cars, credit cards, or other purposes--is not deductible for federal tax purposes, but interest on home equity loans is deductible no matter how the funds are used. As a result, homeowners are encouraged to take out home equity loans to pay off their credit card or auto loans or to make the purchases that would ordinarily be made with other forms of debt. Consequently, homeowners are encouraged not only to borrow against their homes’ equity in preference to other forms of borrowing, but also to extract equity from their homes for personal and even business purposes. Again, the reduction in home equity has enhanced the likelihood that defaults and foreclosures will rise precipitously as the economy continues to contract.

Bank regulatory policies should also shoulder some of the blame for the financial crisis. Basel I, a 1988 international protocol developed by bank regulators in most of the world’s developed countries, devised a system for ensuring that banks are adequately capitalized. Bank assets are assigned to different risk categories, and the amount of capital that a bank holds for each asset is pegged to the asset’s perceived riskiness. Under Basel I’s tiered risk-weighting system, AAA asset-backed securities are less than half as risky as residential mortgages, which are themselves half as risky as commercial loans. These rules provided an incentive for banks to hold mortgages in preference to commercial loans or to convert their portfolios of whole mortgages into an MBS portfolio rated AAA, because doing so would substantially reduce their capital requirements.

Though the banks may have been adequately capitalized if the mortgages were of high quality or if the AAA rating correctly predicted the risk of default, the gradual decline in underwriting standards meant that the mortgages in any pool of prime mortgages often had high loan-to-value ratios, low FICO scores, or other indicators of low quality. In other words, the Basel bank capital standards, applicable throughout the world’s developed economies, encouraged commercial banks to hold only a small amount of capital against the risks associated with residential mortgages. As these risks increased b


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@Will - As I said, while Willason's figures are accurate, his analysis and conclusions miss the mark. For example, in Point One above he says 1) " When the GSEs decided to ramp up their purchases of sub-prime and Alt-A loans ... they began to take market share from the private-label issuers ...", it is a minor point, but the REVERSE is actually true, by Willason's own admission earlier, in 1997 studies found the GSEs were falling behind and Congress (it was Conservative at this point in time) pushed a willing GSE to make more loans in the CRA market

2) "First, it increased the competition for these loans with private-label issuers. Before 2004, private-label issuers--generally investment and commercial banks--specialized in subprime and Alt-A loans because GSEs’ financial advantages, ..." Here, Willason, purposefully didn't provide you the figures on which to make your own jugdgement, figures which contract him. Remember, he does say earlier that AS LATE AS 2003, sub-primes accounted for ONLY 10% of the market; keep that in mind for a moment.

Now consider this of the GSEs(Freddie/Fannie), from 1990 to 2003, accounted for about 51-52% of all mortgage funding. Simple math tells you that private-labels accounted for 49-48%; granted the GSEs have a hefty sum. Now to Willason's first DECEPTION. He said the "private-labels specialized in sub-primes ..." because of the GSEs advantage; but, how can this be when sub-primes only made up 10% of the market. By Willason's own figures, if the privates had 100% of the sub-primes, which they didn't, that means they STILL accounted for 39% of all conventional mortgage funding, nothing to blink at.

3) Willason also asserts that "because GSEs’ financial advantages, especially their access to cheaper financing, enabled them to box private-label competition out of the conventional market"; big DECEPTION number 2. The FACTS between 1990 and 2003, the private-label share of the market held CONSTATE at about 38-39%; it DID NOT dicline, as Willason tries to make you believe.

What did happen? In 2003, because of a golden opportunity brought on by DEREGULATION and several other reasons, OTHER TYPE of private-label lenders entered the market. From 2003 to 2008, contrary to what Willason tries to decieve you about, here is what actually happened - GSE market share FELL from 51% to 40%, S&L market share fell from 10% to 5%, Commercial banks share held CONSTANT (yeah, they were really scared of the GSEs) at 30%, and these non-conventional private-label lenders share rose from 9% to 22%!!

That is what REALLY happened folks, because of many other factors, led by deregulation, the GSEs are the ones who took it in the shorts along with the rest of the country while these non-conventional lenders and big-banks scored billions off of your backs and ultimately cost America 14 million jobs ... NOT Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or the CRA; how ludicrous.

Willason is a smart man, no doubt, but he is a smart,Conservative man with an agenda, who like father Limbaugh, twists and turns and leaves out and misrepresents facts until he arrives at his preconceived notions.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

My Esoteric, I will compliment you on ability to explain your opinion on this somewhat confusing fiasco.

But, it seems to me, that it was Bush and republicans that was claiming there needed to be more oversight and some regulations over Fannie & Freddie. Barney Frank and Schummer were the ones who repeatedly claimed that F&F were doing just fine and there were NO finanial issues to deal with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

This explains it in a nutshell.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"This explains it in a nutshell."

Exactly. My Esoteric is welcome to his opinion, but he's in the minority as more and more people realize what actually happened and who caused it.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

BTW, let me also point out, the GSEs, while having lowered their standards, still had standards; standards that requireed borrowers to show they had some capability to pay back the loan, just not as much a capability as they used to need. The private-label, because of deregulation, or, in the case of the shadow banking arena where that huge rise in sub-primes occured, NO regulation at all, they had NO STANDARDS other than the ability to breathe on the day of loan closing; a very big difference. That is why the private-label loan defaults were SO MUCH BIGGER than the GSEs.

Yes, CMerritt, you are right, at least the part about Frank and Schummer supporting F&F. However, I think you missed the mark on Bush and the Conservatives position; they didn't want more oversight/regulation, they wanted the elimination of F&F entirely. That was what Frank and Schummer fought so bitterly to prevent. That said, I do agree with you F&F's standards were reduced in order to purchase/guarantee more loans from conventional loan originators and that more risky borrowers were guaranteed by the government. But, ALL of the data shows that this had little to do with what ultimately happened; did it contribute, of course it did, but I would argue that you could take F&F entirely out of the picture, meaning they never changed their standards and continued to require the same creditworthiness as they always did, and you would have had exactly the same thing happen, except F&F would be much healthier and I would be much richer (I owned stock in them, lol). Why? Because the private-label loan industry was now essentially unregulated and they had a huge market in which to peddle their wares.

There is simply no logical connection, such as the one Willason suggests, between people wanting to refinance their house or purchase a new one from a glut of finished ones in an environment that didn't require them to be able to repay the loan and the Democrats desire for low-income people to be able to buy affordable housing (the CRA) or F&Fs lower standards which still required borrows to show an ability to repay the loan. This was the environment from 2003 to 2008, when private-label, non-conventional sub-prime market sky-rocketed.

Show me that connection with data. Willason certain hasn't done it. WillStarr can't do it. What data do you have that refutes mine? I am not sure how opinion enters into it at this point for this particular issue, the numbers clearly tell the story. As to the "more and more people ..." statement, and this IS my opinion, I believe that is also reversed for once you step outside of the 20% of the people in America who are die-hard Conservatives, there isn't much doubt where to place the blame.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Your opinion is not 'data'. It's just your opinion, and it is a minority opinion at that.

Most aware Americans now acknowledge that government meddling in the housing market is the root cause of the bubble, the inevitable collapse, and the current recession.

They also realize that the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Chuck Schummer sought to deceive Americans until it was too late to protect themselves.

All three should be in prison, along with other complicit Democrat liars like Maxine Waters, Gregory Meeks, and Franklin Raines, all of whom resisted Republican attempts to properly regulate Fannie and Freddie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

I admire your grit in standing up for your liberal friends, My Esoteric, and I admire your ability to muddy the waters with your words, but in the end, you know very well that Democrat-sponsored government meddling caused the current recession.

So too does an informed America. That video is very damning evidence, and you know it!


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

More:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVi_Jjxli1o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxKkZVfQZuA&feature...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onINfnn30C8&feature...

And on, and on! Democrats defended their 'housing for votes' scheme right up until it all collapsed, and some, like My Esoteric, still stubbornly defend the indefensible, even today!


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

What a Hub, eh, CMeritt?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

OK, Will, let's take your YouTubes, one at a time; but first a preamble. Consider the source, Fox News is unquestionably the most biased of the five major news outlets going; ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and Fox News (you notice I don't even consider MSNBC as being a major news outlet), second, in all my posts I have presented NUMBERS, not opinion, I have presented FACTS, not opinion, I have presented LOGIC, not opinion; of course, I have also present opinion as well. On your side, you presented Willason whose analysis, as I have shown, is rather faulty and full of holes.

To the first YouTube - The first half of the commentary is quite correct, all agree F&F were getting way to big, I remember that being discussed and actually agree with it; I remember Greenspan saying them defaulting could have terrible consequencse on the economy ... all of that is true; as far as it goes. But then the piece moves off into smoke and mirrors and starts saying things that simply aren't true. For example, F&F didn't offer teaser rates, as the "news" man suggests; the loan originator did. F&F bought those loans, if and only if the borrorers met certain guidelines, even those dasterardly low-incomes. THE FACT IS, F&F required they have the ABILITY to pay back the loan; the problem is, they no longer needed to have as good an ability as they once needed. Even the commentator sort of neglected to mention it, on purpose, I suspect since this is Fox News, after all, is everything he said after "teaser rates" applied to the non-conventional PRIVATE-LABEL lenders who, starting in 2003, well after Alan Greenspan made his prediction regarding F&F, took over the subprime market and whose lending made F&F look like pikers.

As to YouTube number 2 - I don't see your point. Senator Schummer is correct, the Conservatives wanted to shut the doors on F&F, they still do; he disagrees, he believes F&F needs fixing, not dissolution; you disagree with that?

YouTube video number 3 - again, I don't see your point other than to show how biased Fox News reporting is. Alan Greenspan said that F&F were becoming too big and needed stronger regulation; who would disagree with that? Sen. Schummer said the F&F has done great things for this country; also very true and who would disagree with that? Now, the way that Fox News presented it makes it sound like Schummer is against more regulations, however, in the clip you presented just before that, Will, he said he is very much in favor of more regulation, hmmmm, how about that. What Schummer is against, and Greenspan IS NOT suggesting, but the Conservatives dearly want, is for F&F to simply disappear and let the US housing market simply fluctuate wildly as the market wanders to and fro and be subject to the vagaries of predatory unregulated financial institutions like they were in the 1800s where you had a major recession every 10 years or so and then again in 2003 - 2008.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Just a thought, CMerritt, you might copy and paste all the relavant parts of this whole string of comments into a new hub; I think it would make wonderful reading.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"Consider the source, Fox News is unquestionably the most biased of the five major news outlets going; ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and Fox News"

Projecting your own, highly biased opinion as a fact again? You could not be more wrong. FOX is actually the least biased news source, according to a study by the non-partisan CMPA:

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-are-big-losers...

Hasn't anyone ever talked to you about your penchant for ad hom attacks? I'm certainly not impressed.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

In this case, you are right regarding how biased Fox is, it is an opinion as is yours of the other side, examples and analysis coming. And no, nobody has mentioned I use, and the word is, ad hominem logic in my argumentation; show me where I used the disparagement of someones character to prove their claims were wrong; I find that I don't need to.

I looked at your source and found it interesting. Again, the initial source was a very conservative blog who was on a big rant, so I plunged further back to the source of the statistics you cited, CMPA. Here is what I came up with and will let the readers be the judge.

First let me say, it was the considered opinion that for the 33 HOUR sample of airtime they took during the 2008 Presidential election they did find, overall, that Obama/Biden did receive more positive comments than negative comments amongst the 4 networks (CNN was not looked at) than McCain/Palin did; I am not being ad hominem when I observe that may be a function of Sarah Palin herself, she provided so many opportunities for negative comments.

According to CMPA it broke down like this (the percentages are positive reports):

CBS - Obama/Biden (73%), McCain/Palin (31%)

NBC - Obama/Biden (56%), McCain/Palin (16%)

ABC - Obama/Biden (57%), McCain/Palin (46%)

Fox - Obama/Biden (28%), McCain/Palin (39%)

I suspect if Sarah Palin had not been McCain's running mate, the McCain/? ticket would have scored much higher with all four networks, including Fox.

The following are examples of the coverage of each that CMPA offered:

Obama

People in this community say Barack Obama's work inspires them to this day. – Kevin Tibbles, NBC, 10/2 [slightly positive]

I think [Obama] brings a freshness to Washington. – Voter, CBS, 10/14 [slightly positive]

Obama's dollar deluge is possible because he broke a promise to accept public funding. – John Berman, ABC, 10/19 [pretty negative ... broke a promise]

Biden

Joe Biden is experienced and talkative. Critics say too talkative. – Andrea Mitchell, CBS, 10/1 [Neutral]

McCain

McCain has shown that he can work on both sides of the table to help this country. – Voter, ABC, 10/10 [very positive]

Even McCain's own focus group didn't buy [his tax policy]. – Andrea Mitchell, NBC, 10/16 [pretty negative]

What worries people is how John McCain has reacted to this [financial] crisis. – Peter Hart, pollster, NBC, 10/6 [very negative]

Palin

Even come conservatives say that Palin is not ready for prime time. – Andrea Mitchell, NBC, 10/1 [very negative]

Palin's carefully cultivated Joe Sixpack image is now bumping up against a six-figure wardrobe. – Nancy Cordes, CBS, 10/22 [slightly negative]

This is the Sarah Palin that I think voters wanted to see… who is strong on policy, very compassionate, talking about issues that are not political but affect their families every day. – Blogger, FOX, 10/24 [extremely positive]

The opinions in [] are mine. I am not sure why CMPA included these, there was nothing further in their article about them but I give them to you for completeness.

This is why I listen to CNN.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Deny, deny, deny.

You claim Fox is very biased, but provide no study evidence to back it up. I provide a well known study by a reputable organization who is cited over and over as evidence of left wing media bias (except for FOX), and you ignore it.

I think we now know who we are dealing with, and it's obviously not someone of honor.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I will keep this one short and simple for you, how is Fox having only 28% good things to say about Obama/Bidin and 39% good things to say about McCain/Palin not biased toward McCain/Palin? I bet you say the ABC result of 57% Obama, 46% McCain is biased toward Obama or does it work just one way for you, Will?

Now, to these insults you so adroitly throw about, let me offer one of my own ... it concerns your apparent lack of intelligence regarding statistics and logic. You say "I provide a well known study by a reputable organization who ..." Yes you did Will, and I presented that same exact study back to you, did you recognize it, in my response, the difference is, it didn't have some conservative bloggers dribble trying to distort what the study said surrounding it and it presented the details of the study, which your blogger didn't bother to do. Now, you bank SO much on this study as your PROOF that it is ABC, NBC, and CBS who are so biased and it is Fox who is balanced.

Well let's use our intelligence on that one a little bit, if you are able. Now follow me here, it really isn't that difficult, Will.

1. First, I do need to retract my statement on the study size. While 34 hours isn't a whole lot of hours out of the hundreds of hours of airtime, the study did look at 975 stories over a two-month time-frame during the campaign. Without knowing anything else, 975 is a reasonable number of stories stratified over four networks to get a taste; I would like to see the margin of error though.

2.If each of these news agencies were balanced, then each would report 50% positive and 50% negative things, plus or minus a percent or so. Let's look at the STUDY, ah yes, we see that none of them are balanced, including Fox, Fox IS biased to the Right while the rest are biased to the Left (which is statistically interesting in and of itself which I will get into later). What can we conclude from this, Fox is not balanced. The other thing you can conclude, which is what the study did, is that based on their 975 story look, ABC and Fox were the most balanced, just in opposite directions and not a lot.

3. This next one is more difficult but just as logical. I hope you can follow this, Will, but I will understand if you can't. It has to do with the distribution of the number of opportunities for reporters to see positive and negative images to report on.

It stands to reason, doesn't it Will, that if a candidate presents a lot of positive images, then reporters are more likely to report higher number of positives than negatives. It also stands to reason for the reverse, if a candidate offers up a lot of negative images ...

Well consider what we have among the four candidates, Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin. Both Obama and McCain are polished candidates and aren't prone to make too many negative images. Biden is also polished but well known for his occasional gaffes, a reason, the Study points out, why the NBC positive Dem rating was low, they had a lot of negative Biden reports.

Then we have Palin. Whether you love her or hate her, she was a news lightening rod and by everybody's estimation, including the McCain staff and most other non-Tea Party conservatives, she was a pocket full of negative images for the McCain/Palin ticket. Her gaffes on the stump were newsworthy in and of themselves and were a godsend to Biden for they took the spotlight off of his. Palin was new to national politics and the rough and tumble of the game and was wide-open for a fall and ripe for mistakes and she made them. (as an aside, even though I think her politics stink, I am in awe of her political abilities, her fortitude, and her strength of character.) But my point is she skewed the number of opportunities for negative reports against the McCain/Palin ticket terribly.

So, Will, I am pretty sure you disagree with that last assessment a steadfastly believe she only threw out positive images during those two months of the study, others know different, and because she skewed the distirbution, even truely unbiased reporting would have probably come up with at least ABC's results. That is simply the nature of statistics.

To simplify it for you Will, of course, the Study came up with those results for ABC, NBC, and CBS; Palin almost single-handedly guaranteed it; maybe not to the degree of bias that NBC and CBS showed, but the skew simply has to be that way because of all of Palin's negatives.

What probably made it worse, is once you are perceived as negative, negative begats negative; look what the LIBERAL media did to Michael Dukakis, the Democratic Presidential nominee way back when. This same study, back then Will, would have shown a distinct Right-wing bias, btw; funny how that works, isn't it.

4. It is a given that most reporters are first amendment supporters and tend to lean left. For most good journalist, however, the job comes first and they try to be as unbiased as possible; I believe this to be true of most front-line reporters of ABC, NBC, and CBS. Go up one level, and the scene changes, at least it has today, not back in Walter Cronkites days, but in today's money driven world. Here politics does come into play more, I believe, mainly at the editors desk and yes, I believe a news orgainzations political bias works its way in at this point to some degree; and you see that in the Study results although it is somewhat masked by the Palin factor. I strongly suspect, although you can't prove it, that if McCain had picked a more seasoned runningmate, those McCain/somebody positives would have been a lot higher and the difference between Fox and the others more stark.

Given the Palin factor I would think it reasonable to conclude that ABC's reporting was relatively unbiased; that they tried to report fairly the number of positive and negative images based on the distribution of positive and negatives between the candidates themselves. To think otherwise, one has to believe that Sarah Palin DID NOT significantly make more campaign errors, gaffes. faux paus and other negatives in those two months than Obama and/or Biden; that she wasn't the talk of the town and SNL because of it.

For those of you who buy into that assumption, that ABC is unbiasid, then how do you explain Fox News results? Even if you accept that ABC is a little biased, how do you explain Fox News' outlier results being totally opposite by a large margin than the other three?

To get those results, Fox News must go out of their way to get those results. If Fox News were simply slightly biase to the Right, then their results should logically be more like 50%/50% or 48%/52%, but they aren't; their results are 28% to 39%; even Fox wasn't immune to the Palin effect, it seems.

I suspect most of this was way above your head, Will, but that is OK, because you will probably take solice in calling me a traitor or an idiot or some such thing as that appears to be the extent of your ability to reason.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"I will keep this one short and simple..."

Right.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

@ My Esoteric,

First of all, you are right, this could have been in a hub all on it's own. Some very intereting comments to say the least.

Second, I will be honest with you, you are on a much higher level of thought than I am on this issue, regarding F&F. I sometimes think that too many American simply over analyze some very obvious problems that we face today. Hence, the reason for this hub in the first place. A restoration of common sense.

I'm am convinced, and you had much to do with me coming to this conclusion, that YES, there are many reason as to why we had a finanial melt down in this country.

The bottom line to all of this is simple.....GREED.

Which leads me to WHY I believe with all my heart that this "Progessive"/"Liberal" mentality is leading us (America) down the provebial drain. It is full of greed. They (the liberal media) has, in my opinion, has demonized Big Business and Corperate America as screwing the middle class and the poor. When common sense has clearly shown me that it was Big Government and the entitlement mentality that they created, that has stuck a huge knife into the back of the hard working, tax paying Ameicans.

Corp America is taking the fall for this. Yes, Greed is rampart in this world too, I'm not saying it has not.

But, once upon a time, it was Greed by these Corperations that inspired free enterprise to explode all across this land. Those corperations had real competion to be the best...and it was the best who got rewarded the most..(that is where the greed came to play)..those who worked hard at providing quality widgets, paid their employees well. Henry Ford proved this. He was the one who started the 40 hour week. He increased the pay to his emoployees so they too, can buy one of his cars.

Then liberalism/socialism/progressivism took root. Government began to cross the line with it's powers. The unions, which at one time was a great thing, began to get political roots and ties. They became GREEDY. Especially the UAW. They changed America from a productive and happy nation to what it is today. Government spending billions and billions creating a "entitlement" nation....esentially "buying" votes from the poor....a poor that they created.

I can go on and on, but to me, it is simple and not all that complexed. It is what it is. Big government....a GREEDY govenrnment.

That is merely the way I see it.

I do appreciate your responses and I have read them and some of them make some sense to me, not that I agree with them.

Will as you know, I am a huge supporter and we line up pretty darn close with our ideologies on what this country needs to do, to restore Common Sense.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@CMerritt, and your comment displays a lot of that agreement; for example, your comments on GREED and the Unions ... I would have written the same thing although the object of the greed would be different). My argument regarding liberism/progressivism (we have never come close to socialism, either definition of it; look it up, by an old definition, you are a socialist, lol) it results, in my opinion, from the more fundemental disagreement we have, and that is how Corporate America has operated when given a free hand.

My basic premis is this, if Corporate America had not abused its freedom in the 1800s, then we would not be having this liberalism/progressive fight in 2011. Teddy Roosevelt in 1904, that great Republican right behind Abraham Lincoln, is the originator of the modern Progressive movement in America with his anti-trust campaign. After that, it all rolled down-hill from there, as they say.

Here, here to Common Sense.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Another thought foryou to munch on, CMerritt. A famous American, Abraham Lincoln, once said that government is "of the People, by the People, and for the People". If you assume Lincoln is correct and that "Government" equals "the People" (math even works for words, sometimes, lol) then look what happens to your statement when you substitute the words "the People" for the word government":

"I can go on and on, but to me, it is simple and not all that complexed. It is what it is. Big government....a GREEDY "govenrnment."

To me, you have a logic box here. Either you no longer believe America is what Lincoln said it was in the Gettysburg address and that our form (representative) of government has fundementally changed or you are saying it is the American People that is the problem.

Food for thought, what say you?


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Well my first thought is this.........during the time of Lincoln, politicians were not making a living at being politicians....the reasons for serving were much more noble than those of today. They DID server FOR, OF and BY the people....today, with the lobbyists and obvious corruption...they no longer hold those words by Lincoln, sacred....they have voted themselves raises and a lifestle that exceed their worth. Big Government is the problem. Thus enters the Tea Party....a true representitive of the American People. Those who are tired of Government abusing our money that WE have given to them to do the business of this nation.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

When Democrats are in charge, government becomes a power unto itself, and it no longer bends to the will of the people.

The people desperately want to develop our energy resources, but the Democrat government refuses.

The people opposed Obamacare all along and now want it repealed, but the Democrat government ignores the people.

The people want the massive debt reduced, but the Democrat government keeps right on spending.

The people want the borders controlled, but the Democrat government ignores them and stomps on any state that tries.

What Lincoln meant was a government of the whole body of the people and not just the ruling elite, but what we now have (admittedly) is a government of the 'political class', who openly despise the whole body of the people.

That's why Obama referred to them as small town and country hicks, 'clinging to their Bibles and guns'.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

OK CMerritt, your points have merit, pun intended. But, let's look at the fundementals. The "representative" form of government which is what, in my opinion, is meant by the "Of, By, and For" phrase means that the People elect representatives to the House and the Senate (after the 17th Amendment) and the President (after the 12th Amendment) to do their, the People's, will. If these representatives do not do the People's will, then they get, or are supposed to get, not re-elected. That is the bottom line and as I see it, there is no way the People can pass the buck to lobbiests, the Democrats, the Republicans or anybody else. The government is simply made of the folks the People put there.

Theory would have it then, that whatever the government is doing, it is because the People want it to, otherwise, the People would vote somebody else in to do something different.

For example, if the People don't want lobbiest effecting their politicians on the Hill and money in the campaigns, they would vote Progressives into the White House and enough of them into Congress such that enough liberal justices will be appointed to the Supreme Court to allow such rulings to take place.

Now, you and I both know, that will never happen, not in our lifetimes anyway because, at this point in time, that is not what the People really want; progressives that is, I suspect they would like to see the demise of lobbiests, etc. Consequently, the lobbiest will keep on lobbying and the money will keep on flowing because a conservative court believes they have no right to stop it from happening regardless of the damage to the country.

Don't be fooled either on this corruption thing. In my research, corruption was rampant at all levels of government from the get-go; there were many a good scandles in the War Department in every conflict we have been in. Politicians from both sides of the aisle have been in cahoots with lobbiests since John Adams was president.

If you look back to the headlines throughout the 1800s, you will see the People crying about Big Government abusing our money; problem is, back then there were no liberals or progressives to point the finger at. Effectively they died with John Adams and didn't really revive in any meaningful way until 1905 with Teddy Roosevelt.

@Will, expain to me a couple of things.

1) why is it the only time between 1980 and 2009 we didn't have a sktrocketing debt was during the Clinton administration?

2) who put the Democrats in power? Aliens or the American People?

3) ok, three questions, if Conservatives want the border controlled so badly, why are they not letting Congress provide the funding to do it, or do you think it can be done for free? You do realize that Homeland Security is going to take big funding cuts along with everybody else, don't you, in the Conservatives drive to slash the budget with no revenue increases.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Deny, misdirect, blame others, and change the subject.

This administration will not allow drilling for new energy in the US, will not stop deficit spending, will not secure the borders, and willfully ignores the people's hatred of Obamacare.

Do try to stay on topic.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

WIll, I am guessing then that you don't know the answers.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

I do know that you are trying to divert attention from my factual statements with your 'questions':

"When Democrats are in charge, government becomes a power unto itself, and it no longer bends to the will of the people.

The people desperately want to develop our energy resources, but the Democrat government refuses.

The people opposed Obamacare all along and now want it repealed, but the Democrat government ignores the people.

The people want the massive debt reduced, but the Democrat government keeps right on spending.

The people want the borders controlled, but the Democrat government ignores them and stomps on any state that tries.

What Lincoln meant was a government of the whole body of the people and not just the ruling elite, but what we now have (admittedly) is a government of the 'political class', who openly despise the whole body of the people.

That's why Obama referred to them as small town and country hicks, 'clinging to their Bibles and guns'."


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I was going to ignore honorable and honest @Will, but thought, what the heck, I might as well do what he just accused me and all Democrats (I am a disaffected Republican (who is agast at what has happened to my Republican party) turned independent, btw, Will), and change the subject, sort of.

@Will said, among many other things: "The people want the massive debt reduced, but the Democrat government keeps right on spending.

I resposnded with a question, since presenting facts is apparently lost, or at least ignored by @Will, to wit: "1) why is it the only time between 1980 and 2009 we didn't have a sktrocketing debt was during the Clinton administration?"

@Will is in a dilemma here, of course, because it is only during the Conservative Administrations where government kept spending and spending and it was only during the Democratic administration where spedning was actually brought under control thereby showing the falsehood of @Will's claim.

@Will's answer is where I get off topic folks and comment about something entirely different, classic Right-wing Authoritarian (RWA) follower behavior. @Will's answer to my simple question was "Deny, misdirect, blame others, and change the subject. ... Do try to stay on topic"

RWA behaviour (go ahead and Google it), which I have written on occasionally in other hubs, is a pyschological/ socialogical set of behaviour characterists that attempts to define the class of individuals who are prone, to one degree or another, to blindly follow authority figures. The study of this behavior type started after WW II when people tried to figure out why so many otherwise rationale people followed Hitler.

Folks, what @Will displayed here and in much of his other responses to me, is a classic symptom of this type of RWA behavior, "maintaining your stance, without questioning it, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In this example, and I will change it slightly to make it more starke, @Will said that the Democrats always turn the Sun Blue, implying it is the Conservatives who keep it Yellow. I clearly show him where he was wrong and that in the last 29 years, the ONLY times the Sun was Blue was during a Conservative administration.

@Will's response was a classic signal that you are dealing with an RWA in that I avoided answering his assertion, when it is obvious I had not, and instead had met it head on. He has to act this way, of course, or admit he is wrong and high-scoring RWA's cannot do this/ To question their authority figure causes too much internal conflict and threatens their entire belief system which is why RWAs fight so strongly to maintain their position regardless of the truth of it; to RWAs, facts and truths do not matter much, unless happen to actually support their point of view.

So, folks, if you find you are arguing with a RWA, you might as well quit, because all your going to get is what I got which is a repritition of the RWA's playbook of soundbites and no substance.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Oh, brother!

Talk about ad hom attacks!

I'm done. There's no point in debating a weasel.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

My point exactly, lol. It is ad hominem, btw.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"It is ad hominem, btw."

True, but those of us who are constantly subjected to such attacks by angry liberals usually just abbreviate it to 'ad hom'.

It saves time.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

@ My Esoteric,

your statement to:

"1) why is it the only time between 1980 and 2009 we didn't have a sktrocketing debt was during the Clinton administration?"

MY response would be easy as that was when we (the republicans) had control of the house AND the senate, and controlled the spending, along with the "contract with America" led by Newt and company. Clinton was smart enough and polished enough to go along with this and stradle the fence, so he came out smelling like a rose....

Yes, the republicans ALSO deserve much blame under George W, because THEY acted NOT in behalf of their constituents and became very wreckless with spending.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Hi, Chris,

We angrily criticized Bush for having 'lost his veto pen' after the Democrats took over Congress in 2006, a fact that the left conveniently forgets.

The point is, any criticism of Obama is immediately misdirected by the left by pointing to Bush:

"Don't look at Obama! Let's talk about Bush instead! Pay no attention to the current, big-spending disaster behind the presidential curtain! Let's dwell in the past instead!"

That's why I view the leftists as dishonest, disingenuous, and without honor.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@CMerritt, I will go part way toward your point, see how this works @Will, because there is no question the Conservatives changed the dynamics in Congress and they did a very good job of toeing-the-line spending-wise. Where I disagree with you, however, is that the plan was already in place in Clinton's first two years.

One of the key ingredients, although I suspect you won't agree with this, but most economists do, is the tax hike on the wealthy, a follow-on to the one President Bush 1 put in place earlier; a move that cost him the support of the Conservatives. If Clinton had waited until the Conservatives were in power, that tax increase would never have happened and the recovery/debt reduction, while still occuring, would have been nowhere near as robust.


Allen Williams profile image

Allen Williams 5 years ago from Pennsylvania

Great job! Enough said, I voted up! I love it!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thank you Allen! It was kind fun writing this one...I got lot of great comments.


poetvix profile image

poetvix 4 years ago from Gone from Texas but still in the south. Surrounded by God's country.

This will be the first governmental agency I have ever approved of 100%. I propose the following bill be passed:

All legislation from this day forward shall be limited to no more than one single page proposing one single law in plain simple language that everyone can understand.

I propose this because the devil is in the details as they say. The more pages the more evil it is.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

poetvix,

Boy do I ever agree with you on the no more than one single page proposing one single law in plain simple language that everyone can understand...That is just plain and simple common sense!

Thanks for your comments!

Chris

:)


platinumOwl4 profile image

platinumOwl4 3 years ago

CMeritt, I find you article extremely interesting. I am attempting to discover when did thecountry get so far away from common sense. The school system have completely destroyed some section of the countries children as to common sense. Their major concern is sexual advice not math science the subject of which we are failing dismally.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 3 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Hello platinumOwl!

This was one of the hubs that was partially written for fun, but yet about half serious.........we really do have a lack of common sense in this Nation...and somehow, we need to bring it back to our kids so this next generation may figure out, that it is not rocket science, but just common sense to restore this great country of ours.

I appreciate you stopping by and your comments.

Chris


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 3 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

"Department of Common Sense"? Sounds good but a Democrat President would probably change the name to "Department of Common Cents", dedicated to spreading the wealth...might be better to just create another Czar - The Common Sense Czar...wait a minute, would they be able to find anyone in Washington with enough common sense to fill the position? I doubt it.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 3 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Hello tsadjatko!

The Dept of Common CENTS....lol! That is probably an accurate prediction!!

Without a doubt, we would have to go someplace besides Washington to find anybody with a lick of common sense....but, there are some good folks out there that could do this job. We really do need it.


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 3 years ago from Texas

Who would run it? ~ WB


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 3 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

I think it would be easy to find some ex military, ex CEO's, ex Farmers who would LOVE to server their country once again and utilize plain old fashion common sense....

Folks like your self Wayne! You are exactly the kind of person I have in mind.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

I'll second that nomination.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 3 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

SEE!!

Btw Will, I still think YOU would be a great person to sit next to Wayne.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

And I'd be honored!


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 3 years ago from Rural Arizona

I'll cast my vote for Wayne and WillStarr.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 3 years ago from Rural Arizona

And I believe the author of this Hub should have a seat at the table.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 3 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

I would just like to be a fly on the wall with the three of you sitting around a table, implementing policies to straighten this country up!

and without being a tad bit sarcastic, I truly believe that YOU guys are exactly the kind of folks that CAN do this.


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 3 years ago from Texas

I appreciate the vote of confidence but the "man in the Oval Office" does not hold me in such high esteem. I suspect he would pick a good marxist for such a position...he has so many to choose from it seems these days.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 3 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

"so many to choose from" Yeah he can just pick any of the minions from the department of HHS, DOJ, the IRS or the State Department who should be fired but are waiting for their reward - promotion!

"The man in the Oval Office"? Enter "The Department of common CENTS"

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working