Virgil

I've read a littl Bradbury way back when and he's not so much science-fiction as a writer about people that just happen ot have the trapping sof sci-fi. I think oyu would enjoy The Martian Chronicles and The Illustrated Man. Personally I've outgrown him and if I had to choose would rather read Arthur C. Clarke.

Well, I committed myself to at least on Bradbury novel. I was thinking of Fahrenheit 451 since that seems to me the best well known. Which one would you recommend if you had to choose one?

What strikes me about this post as about so many other political commentary in the public realm is how vehement it has become, perhaps on both ends of the spectrum but primarily, in my view, on the right. Obama may be wrong or lethargic or incompetent in some or even many areas, but can he really be the arch-demon that the right so often paints him? And what does the right really stand for besides less government? If government is not there to protect the citizenry from foreign threats and even from each other - witness the sub-prime mortgage stampede and the harm it did to the economy - then what is it there for?

Personally, I think everyone should read Fahrenheit 451, Something Wicked This Way Comes, and The Martian Chronicles.I think you will enjoy them, Virgil.

From what I've witnessed both the Right and Left are in favor of granting the government more power. It is in what areas that power is granted that differs.

Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin

What strikes me about this post as about so many other political commentary in the public realm is how vehement it has become, perhaps on both ends of the spectrum but primarily, in my view, on the right.

It's always vehement in my experience, especially in difficult times. The right is more vehement because they are in the minority. The side in minority is always more passionate. Just look at the left during the George Bush years. And probably you notice the vehemence of the right because you are on the left. I certainly noticed the vehemence of the left while Bush was president.

Obama may be wrong or lethargic or incompetent in some or even many areas, but can he really be the arch-demon that the right so often paints him?

I can't speak for the politics in other nations (I just don't know) but in the US making the leader of the opposition an arch-demon is common practice for both sides. Good God, what the left said of George Bush was appalling. But the right did that to Clinton, the left did that to Papa Bush and to Reagan, and the right did that to Carter. This is how politics is done in the US. That's why I always say that the rest of the world has a distorted view of our politicians and life in general here.

Now as to Obama, his problem besides bad policy is that he really is inexperienced (and therefore incompetent) and frankly the root of his problem is that he doesn't understand the American people. He's a Harvard law professor. That's about as far removed from real people as you can get.

And what does the right really stand for besides less government? If government is not there to protect the citizenry from foreign threats and even from each other - witness the sub-prime mortgage stampede and the harm it did to the economy - then what is it there for?

Well, you can say the opposite for the left - can they offer a solution to any problem without creating another government agency and sucking more taxes to feed it? The size and scope of government is modern life's central question, either more or less. I'm willing to help the poor and the elderly. Everything else requires self sufficiency. There isn't enough money in the world to address all the desires that people want, not without leaving nothing in people's pockets for their self determination. Isn't self determination meaningful, if not the most meaningful thing when it comes to freedom?

As to protecting people, yes there are some things that we have to protect the general population from. What's reasonable is always part of the legislative debate. I push for less, others push for more.

As to the sub-prime mortgage issue, government had as much to blame in that as the banking executives. This is way too hard for me to explain in detail, but part of the problem was caused by politicians pushing mortgage banks to lower their requirements for poor people who wouldn't under most circumstances have received loans to buy homes. The means of politicians doing this was through what is called here Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, semi-private/semi gov't banking entities. Here's what wikipedia says about Fannie Mae:

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (OTCBB: FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, was set up as a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1968 as a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), but founded in 1938 during the Great Depression. The corporation's purpose is to expand the secondary mortgage market by securitizing mortgages in the form of mortgage-backed securities,[3] allowing lenders to reinvest their assets into more lending and in effect increasing the number of lenders in the mortgage market by reducing the reliance on thrifts.[4]

These banking entities were intertwined between gov't and private. Now i'm not excusing the private banks from trading and exchanging suspect loans (certainly their greed was mostly to blame) but the situation occurred because it was felt the gov't would gurrentee any bad loans. And they did. If the gov't had not been involved, banks would have had to take on the risk of bad loans. And they probably would not have made them, or most of them. The gov't placed the kindle from which the fire was lit.

Originally Posted by Psycheinaboat

From what I've witnessed both the Right and Left are in favor of granting the government more power. It is in what areas that power is granted that differs.

What government is the right in favor of increasing? I'm not disputing that it might be so, but what specifically did you have in mind?

Prince - I hope you come back to see this. Here's something I found this morning where super Liberal Barney Frank pretty much acknowledges the Government's contribution to the whole mortgage lending mess:

For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession. But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.

“I hope by next year we’ll have abolished Fannie and Freddie,” he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that “it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it.” He then added, “I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie.”

When I asked Frank about a long-term phase-out plan that would shrink Fannie and Freddie portfolios and mortgage-purchase limits, and merge the agencies into the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) for a separate low-income program that would get government out of middle-income housing subsidies, he replied: “Larry, that, I think, is exactly what we should be doing.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/21/ba...#ixzz0xFIeSY8k

It's not always clear cut that government always helps. Let the free market take care of itself. With controls for oversight, I grant you.