Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
eavesdropper
Participant[quote=CA renter]There is no excuse for homes sitting empty. A home should be empty for no more than 90 days.
The foreclosure process can be made much more efficient. We need a public auction system where all the bidders are pre-qualified through one of the GSEs and each person/entity is assigned a bidder ID number. All transactions/entities should be tracked and audited periodically for irregularities. There should be open bids where the bid amounts, terms, and ID number of the bidder is visible to all other bidders. Mimimum 14-40 day listings on the govt-run site, and highest and best bid wins.
No middlemen, no fraud (it would be fully transparent, with HUGE penalties for anyone caught trying to scam the system), and regular end-users would be on the same footing as flippers/speculators.[/quote]
I like this, CAR. Of course, something this simple, this efficient, and this good at leveling the playing field will never be adopted. Not to mention that it involves a considerable degree of oversight which, I believe, is equated with violation of the Constitution in some circles these days.
Participant[quote=jstoesz][quote]eavesdropper, your NJ Mcmansion is simply gaudy. It’s like an impersonal “cavern” with a few choice “empty” built-ins. It may as well be showcased on “Jersey Shore,” a favorite party-animal show of the current HS set.
CAR, you MUST review the link below. I think you would really appreciate all the love that went into true, authentic mid-century design. This architect is now deceased, but his voluminous works live on in SoCal.
http://www.modernsandiego.com/SimBruceRi…
His first house for his family IS STILL for sale in Pt. Loma:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100031293-97…
I realize this home is not located in your area of interest but Sim Bruce Richards was one of the original “taliesins” of Frank Lloyd Wright (apprentices). There are a few more like him throughout the country but it takes a special buyer to appreciate all the work that has gone into the design of these homes!
Here’s another local link to peruse for local mid-century modern architecture. Enjoy!!
http://www.merceryork.com/
[/quote] I badly want that sim bruce richards house…everything about it is awesome. I have been salivating over that for months, but there is no way that is in my price range!Kind of a stupid thing to comment on but those over-sized door pulls are awesome.[/quote]
Yummy!! What I really find incredible is how “intact” it appears to be. And the door pulls ARE awesome.
It’d be great to get into that place, and spruce it up a bit. The wood would look spectacular with some reconditioning. I’d definitely get rid of the ’80s fluorescent light fixture in the kitchen, and would find a vintage gas range of that era. Some mid-century furnishings in a cohesive design. A landscaping re-do, and that place would take your breath away.
However, the John Mortenson house (1964’s Hyndman residence in La Mesa) captured my heart. I have a real fixation on rooflines – probably as a result of seeing so many of those multiple-roofline monstrosities built since 1995. But his are absolutely stunning. There are any number of his houses that I’d love to have.
Oh, and thanks much, bearishgirl, for sending us those websites!
Participant[quote=jstoesz][quote]eavesdropper, your NJ Mcmansion is simply gaudy. It’s like an impersonal “cavern” with a few choice “empty” built-ins. It may as well be showcased on “Jersey Shore,” a favorite party-animal show of the current HS set.
CAR, you MUST review the link below. I think you would really appreciate all the love that went into true, authentic mid-century design. This architect is now deceased, but his voluminous works live on in SoCal.
http://www.modernsandiego.com/SimBruceRi…
His first house for his family IS STILL for sale in Pt. Loma:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100031293-97…
I realize this home is not located in your area of interest but Sim Bruce Richards was one of the original “taliesins” of Frank Lloyd Wright (apprentices). There are a few more like him throughout the country but it takes a special buyer to appreciate all the work that has gone into the design of these homes!
Here’s another local link to peruse for local mid-century modern architecture. Enjoy!!
http://www.merceryork.com/
[/quote] I badly want that sim bruce richards house…everything about it is awesome. I have been salivating over that for months, but there is no way that is in my price range!Kind of a stupid thing to comment on but those over-sized door pulls are awesome.[/quote]
Yummy!! What I really find incredible is how “intact” it appears to be. And the door pulls ARE awesome.
It’d be great to get into that place, and spruce it up a bit. The wood would look spectacular with some reconditioning. I’d definitely get rid of the ’80s fluorescent light fixture in the kitchen, and would find a vintage gas range of that era. Some mid-century furnishings in a cohesive design. A landscaping re-do, and that place would take your breath away.
However, the John Mortenson house (1964’s Hyndman residence in La Mesa) captured my heart. I have a real fixation on rooflines – probably as a result of seeing so many of those multiple-roofline monstrosities built since 1995. But his are absolutely stunning. There are any number of his houses that I’d love to have.
Oh, and thanks much, bearishgirl, for sending us those websites!
Participant[quote=jstoesz][quote]eavesdropper, your NJ Mcmansion is simply gaudy. It’s like an impersonal “cavern” with a few choice “empty” built-ins. It may as well be showcased on “Jersey Shore,” a favorite party-animal show of the current HS set.
CAR, you MUST review the link below. I think you would really appreciate all the love that went into true, authentic mid-century design. This architect is now deceased, but his voluminous works live on in SoCal.
http://www.modernsandiego.com/SimBruceRi…
His first house for his family IS STILL for sale in Pt. Loma:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100031293-97…
I realize this home is not located in your area of interest but Sim Bruce Richards was one of the original “taliesins” of Frank Lloyd Wright (apprentices). There are a few more like him throughout the country but it takes a special buyer to appreciate all the work that has gone into the design of these homes!
Here’s another local link to peruse for local mid-century modern architecture. Enjoy!!
http://www.merceryork.com/
[/quote] I badly want that sim bruce richards house…everything about it is awesome. I have been salivating over that for months, but there is no way that is in my price range!Kind of a stupid thing to comment on but those over-sized door pulls are awesome.[/quote]
Yummy!! What I really find incredible is how “intact” it appears to be. And the door pulls ARE awesome.
It’d be great to get into that place, and spruce it up a bit. The wood would look spectacular with some reconditioning. I’d definitely get rid of the ’80s fluorescent light fixture in the kitchen, and would find a vintage gas range of that era. Some mid-century furnishings in a cohesive design. A landscaping re-do, and that place would take your breath away.
However, the John Mortenson house (1964’s Hyndman residence in La Mesa) captured my heart. I have a real fixation on rooflines – probably as a result of seeing so many of those multiple-roofline monstrosities built since 1995. But his are absolutely stunning. There are any number of his houses that I’d love to have.
Oh, and thanks much, bearishgirl, for sending us those websites!
Participant[quote=jstoesz][quote]eavesdropper, your NJ Mcmansion is simply gaudy. It’s like an impersonal “cavern” with a few choice “empty” built-ins. It may as well be showcased on “Jersey Shore,” a favorite party-animal show of the current HS set.
CAR, you MUST review the link below. I think you would really appreciate all the love that went into true, authentic mid-century design. This architect is now deceased, but his voluminous works live on in SoCal.
http://www.modernsandiego.com/SimBruceRi…
His first house for his family IS STILL for sale in Pt. Loma:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100031293-97…
I realize this home is not located in your area of interest but Sim Bruce Richards was one of the original “taliesins” of Frank Lloyd Wright (apprentices). There are a few more like him throughout the country but it takes a special buyer to appreciate all the work that has gone into the design of these homes!
Here’s another local link to peruse for local mid-century modern architecture. Enjoy!!
http://www.merceryork.com/
[/quote] I badly want that sim bruce richards house…everything about it is awesome. I have been salivating over that for months, but there is no way that is in my price range!Kind of a stupid thing to comment on but those over-sized door pulls are awesome.[/quote]
Yummy!! What I really find incredible is how “intact” it appears to be. And the door pulls ARE awesome.
It’d be great to get into that place, and spruce it up a bit. The wood would look spectacular with some reconditioning. I’d definitely get rid of the ’80s fluorescent light fixture in the kitchen, and would find a vintage gas range of that era. Some mid-century furnishings in a cohesive design. A landscaping re-do, and that place would take your breath away.
However, the John Mortenson house (1964’s Hyndman residence in La Mesa) captured my heart. I have a real fixation on rooflines – probably as a result of seeing so many of those multiple-roofline monstrosities built since 1995. But his are absolutely stunning. There are any number of his houses that I’d love to have.
Oh, and thanks much, bearishgirl, for sending us those websites!
Participant[quote=jstoesz][quote]eavesdropper, your NJ Mcmansion is simply gaudy. It’s like an impersonal “cavern” with a few choice “empty” built-ins. It may as well be showcased on “Jersey Shore,” a favorite party-animal show of the current HS set.
CAR, you MUST review the link below. I think you would really appreciate all the love that went into true, authentic mid-century design. This architect is now deceased, but his voluminous works live on in SoCal.
http://www.modernsandiego.com/SimBruceRi…
His first house for his family IS STILL for sale in Pt. Loma:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100031293-97…
I realize this home is not located in your area of interest but Sim Bruce Richards was one of the original “taliesins” of Frank Lloyd Wright (apprentices). There are a few more like him throughout the country but it takes a special buyer to appreciate all the work that has gone into the design of these homes!
Here’s another local link to peruse for local mid-century modern architecture. Enjoy!!
http://www.merceryork.com/
[/quote] I badly want that sim bruce richards house…everything about it is awesome. I have been salivating over that for months, but there is no way that is in my price range!Kind of a stupid thing to comment on but those over-sized door pulls are awesome.[/quote]
Yummy!! What I really find incredible is how “intact” it appears to be. And the door pulls ARE awesome.
It’d be great to get into that place, and spruce it up a bit. The wood would look spectacular with some reconditioning. I’d definitely get rid of the ’80s fluorescent light fixture in the kitchen, and would find a vintage gas range of that era. Some mid-century furnishings in a cohesive design. A landscaping re-do, and that place would take your breath away.
However, the John Mortenson house (1964’s Hyndman residence in La Mesa) captured my heart. I have a real fixation on rooflines – probably as a result of seeing so many of those multiple-roofline monstrosities built since 1995. But his are absolutely stunning. There are any number of his houses that I’d love to have.
Oh, and thanks much, bearishgirl, for sending us those websites!
Participant[quote=CA renter] Eavesdropper,
What in the world are the planning commissions thinking when they allow these horribly ugly monstrosities?
We have the exact same problem here, although they are tearing down post-war bungalow or ranch-style homes here, not the nice, historical buildings you have. Nice neighborhoods with simple, comfortable, single-story homes and tree-lined streets are giving way to tiny lots devoid of any established vegetation and ugly, intrusive, boxy structures. I wish they’d do something about this trend. Maybe the end of the bubble can mean the end of destroying old neighborhoods for the benefit of spec builders. We can hope![/quote]
You’re assuming that the people on the planning commissions are not only folks of aesthetic taste and refinement, but are incapable of taking bribes. And I think there was a bit of that going on during the housing boom.
As for your post-war bungalows vs. our nice historical buildings, I think we’re probably on the same page in believing that there can be beauty in any structure, regardless of the cost, just as we’ve learned how much bad taste money can buy. Some of my favorite neighborhoods here are in the small peninsulas that line the Chesapeake Bay. You can drive thru the streets, and see these delightful cottages from the 30s, bungalows from the 40s, and ranchers from the 50s. They’re anywhere from 650 to 1100 square feet, and the 50s and early 60s houses are sometimes painted in their original hues of aqua blue or salmon pink. They were built as homes for some of the workmen in the fishing and boating industries in these parts, or as modest summer weekend getaways for harried DC lawyers and white-collar government workers. They’re not going to be featured on the pages of Architectural Digest, but many of them have simple lines that, paired with the mature landscaping and the rock jettys, driftwood, and beaches of the Bay hearken back to a time when a house was shelter for your family, and not an exercise in trying to impress your family and outspend your friends.
There were so many of these charming little communities in these parts prior to the boom, before everybody and his brother decided they just had to have a beach house. Planning commissions stood by idly (or else they were counting their money) while horrendous oversized McMansions went up on teeny little beach lots beside the jury-rigged do-it-yourself structures that were erected by guys who fancied themselves weekend home construction warriors.
I’m with you in feeling that the one blessing of the housing bust was the cessation of this indiscriminate building in some of our most naturally beautiful areas.
Participant[quote=CA renter] Eavesdropper,
What in the world are the planning commissions thinking when they allow these horribly ugly monstrosities?
We have the exact same problem here, although they are tearing down post-war bungalow or ranch-style homes here, not the nice, historical buildings you have. Nice neighborhoods with simple, comfortable, single-story homes and tree-lined streets are giving way to tiny lots devoid of any established vegetation and ugly, intrusive, boxy structures. I wish they’d do something about this trend. Maybe the end of the bubble can mean the end of destroying old neighborhoods for the benefit of spec builders. We can hope![/quote]
You’re assuming that the people on the planning commissions are not only folks of aesthetic taste and refinement, but are incapable of taking bribes. And I think there was a bit of that going on during the housing boom.
As for your post-war bungalows vs. our nice historical buildings, I think we’re probably on the same page in believing that there can be beauty in any structure, regardless of the cost, just as we’ve learned how much bad taste money can buy. Some of my favorite neighborhoods here are in the small peninsulas that line the Chesapeake Bay. You can drive thru the streets, and see these delightful cottages from the 30s, bungalows from the 40s, and ranchers from the 50s. They’re anywhere from 650 to 1100 square feet, and the 50s and early 60s houses are sometimes painted in their original hues of aqua blue or salmon pink. They were built as homes for some of the workmen in the fishing and boating industries in these parts, or as modest summer weekend getaways for harried DC lawyers and white-collar government workers. They’re not going to be featured on the pages of Architectural Digest, but many of them have simple lines that, paired with the mature landscaping and the rock jettys, driftwood, and beaches of the Bay hearken back to a time when a house was shelter for your family, and not an exercise in trying to impress your family and outspend your friends.
There were so many of these charming little communities in these parts prior to the boom, before everybody and his brother decided they just had to have a beach house. Planning commissions stood by idly (or else they were counting their money) while horrendous oversized McMansions went up on teeny little beach lots beside the jury-rigged do-it-yourself structures that were erected by guys who fancied themselves weekend home construction warriors.
I’m with you in feeling that the one blessing of the housing bust was the cessation of this indiscriminate building in some of our most naturally beautiful areas.
Participant[quote=CA renter] Eavesdropper,
What in the world are the planning commissions thinking when they allow these horribly ugly monstrosities?
We have the exact same problem here, although they are tearing down post-war bungalow or ranch-style homes here, not the nice, historical buildings you have. Nice neighborhoods with simple, comfortable, single-story homes and tree-lined streets are giving way to tiny lots devoid of any established vegetation and ugly, intrusive, boxy structures. I wish they’d do something about this trend. Maybe the end of the bubble can mean the end of destroying old neighborhoods for the benefit of spec builders. We can hope![/quote]
You’re assuming that the people on the planning commissions are not only folks of aesthetic taste and refinement, but are incapable of taking bribes. And I think there was a bit of that going on during the housing boom.
As for your post-war bungalows vs. our nice historical buildings, I think we’re probably on the same page in believing that there can be beauty in any structure, regardless of the cost, just as we’ve learned how much bad taste money can buy. Some of my favorite neighborhoods here are in the small peninsulas that line the Chesapeake Bay. You can drive thru the streets, and see these delightful cottages from the 30s, bungalows from the 40s, and ranchers from the 50s. They’re anywhere from 650 to 1100 square feet, and the 50s and early 60s houses are sometimes painted in their original hues of aqua blue or salmon pink. They were built as homes for some of the workmen in the fishing and boating industries in these parts, or as modest summer weekend getaways for harried DC lawyers and white-collar government workers. They’re not going to be featured on the pages of Architectural Digest, but many of them have simple lines that, paired with the mature landscaping and the rock jettys, driftwood, and beaches of the Bay hearken back to a time when a house was shelter for your family, and not an exercise in trying to impress your family and outspend your friends.
There were so many of these charming little communities in these parts prior to the boom, before everybody and his brother decided they just had to have a beach house. Planning commissions stood by idly (or else they were counting their money) while horrendous oversized McMansions went up on teeny little beach lots beside the jury-rigged do-it-yourself structures that were erected by guys who fancied themselves weekend home construction warriors.
I’m with you in feeling that the one blessing of the housing bust was the cessation of this indiscriminate building in some of our most naturally beautiful areas.
Participant[quote=CA renter] Eavesdropper,
What in the world are the planning commissions thinking when they allow these horribly ugly monstrosities?
We have the exact same problem here, although they are tearing down post-war bungalow or ranch-style homes here, not the nice, historical buildings you have. Nice neighborhoods with simple, comfortable, single-story homes and tree-lined streets are giving way to tiny lots devoid of any established vegetation and ugly, intrusive, boxy structures. I wish they’d do something about this trend. Maybe the end of the bubble can mean the end of destroying old neighborhoods for the benefit of spec builders. We can hope![/quote]
You’re assuming that the people on the planning commissions are not only folks of aesthetic taste and refinement, but are incapable of taking bribes. And I think there was a bit of that going on during the housing boom.
As for your post-war bungalows vs. our nice historical buildings, I think we’re probably on the same page in believing that there can be beauty in any structure, regardless of the cost, just as we’ve learned how much bad taste money can buy. Some of my favorite neighborhoods here are in the small peninsulas that line the Chesapeake Bay. You can drive thru the streets, and see these delightful cottages from the 30s, bungalows from the 40s, and ranchers from the 50s. They’re anywhere from 650 to 1100 square feet, and the 50s and early 60s houses are sometimes painted in their original hues of aqua blue or salmon pink. They were built as homes for some of the workmen in the fishing and boating industries in these parts, or as modest summer weekend getaways for harried DC lawyers and white-collar government workers. They’re not going to be featured on the pages of Architectural Digest, but many of them have simple lines that, paired with the mature landscaping and the rock jettys, driftwood, and beaches of the Bay hearken back to a time when a house was shelter for your family, and not an exercise in trying to impress your family and outspend your friends.
There were so many of these charming little communities in these parts prior to the boom, before everybody and his brother decided they just had to have a beach house. Planning commissions stood by idly (or else they were counting their money) while horrendous oversized McMansions went up on teeny little beach lots beside the jury-rigged do-it-yourself structures that were erected by guys who fancied themselves weekend home construction warriors.
I’m with you in feeling that the one blessing of the housing bust was the cessation of this indiscriminate building in some of our most naturally beautiful areas.
Participant[quote=CA renter] Eavesdropper,
What in the world are the planning commissions thinking when they allow these horribly ugly monstrosities?
We have the exact same problem here, although they are tearing down post-war bungalow or ranch-style homes here, not the nice, historical buildings you have. Nice neighborhoods with simple, comfortable, single-story homes and tree-lined streets are giving way to tiny lots devoid of any established vegetation and ugly, intrusive, boxy structures. I wish they’d do something about this trend. Maybe the end of the bubble can mean the end of destroying old neighborhoods for the benefit of spec builders. We can hope![/quote]
You’re assuming that the people on the planning commissions are not only folks of aesthetic taste and refinement, but are incapable of taking bribes. And I think there was a bit of that going on during the housing boom.
As for your post-war bungalows vs. our nice historical buildings, I think we’re probably on the same page in believing that there can be beauty in any structure, regardless of the cost, just as we’ve learned how much bad taste money can buy. Some of my favorite neighborhoods here are in the small peninsulas that line the Chesapeake Bay. You can drive thru the streets, and see these delightful cottages from the 30s, bungalows from the 40s, and ranchers from the 50s. They’re anywhere from 650 to 1100 square feet, and the 50s and early 60s houses are sometimes painted in their original hues of aqua blue or salmon pink. They were built as homes for some of the workmen in the fishing and boating industries in these parts, or as modest summer weekend getaways for harried DC lawyers and white-collar government workers. They’re not going to be featured on the pages of Architectural Digest, but many of them have simple lines that, paired with the mature landscaping and the rock jettys, driftwood, and beaches of the Bay hearken back to a time when a house was shelter for your family, and not an exercise in trying to impress your family and outspend your friends.
There were so many of these charming little communities in these parts prior to the boom, before everybody and his brother decided they just had to have a beach house. Planning commissions stood by idly (or else they were counting their money) while horrendous oversized McMansions went up on teeny little beach lots beside the jury-rigged do-it-yourself structures that were erected by guys who fancied themselves weekend home construction warriors.
I’m with you in feeling that the one blessing of the housing bust was the cessation of this indiscriminate building in some of our most naturally beautiful areas.
September 28, 2010 at 8:55 PM in reply to: Government spending is more beneficial than private spending #610372Participant[quote=meadandale]eavesdropper…my post was simply meant as a tongue in cheek response to the original post on this thread: that government is the solution to all of our problems–that money confiscated by the government from the private sector is ALWAYS spent more wisely and more productively by the government than those that it was confiscated from.
CLEARLY this isn’t the case…
However, even as a conservative, I see the danger in unfettered free markets where externalities are ignored.
I do find it ironic, however, that the very people that advocate larger and larger governments seem to dance around events like the gulf oil spill (we had regulations and bureaucrats to enforce them that were corrupt or incompetent) or the continual problems with the food supply (ecoli in spinach and salmonella in eggs, recently) even though IT is also heavily regulated and we supposedly have an army of bureaucrats and inspectors policing the industry. These are examples of this awesome government that some want more of at work. Of course, some will argue “we just need more regulations and more inspectors”; these are the same people that, in spite of every increasing budgets and flat or declining test scores argue that the solution to declining education efficacy is more money…and of course, more laws and government involvement.[/quote]
I can’t find anything here that I disagree with, meadandale. And I concur that we don’t need more government regulation in many places. I think we need more regulation enforcement. It seems to have escaped the attention of those in charge that regulations aren’t any such thing – unless they’re backed up by enforcement.
I was listening to the congressional hearings on the egg E.coli mess last week. Freakin’ unbelieveable. I was thinking that if the Federal and state inspectors don’t want to do their jobs – and that means the entire job, which isn’t simply issuing citations – they should resign. There are plenty of people who are ready, able, and – thanks to across-the-board high unemployment rates – more than qualified to step in their shoes.
And while we’re at it, can we outlaw Congressional hearings? They’re an exercise in vanity, a heaven-sent opportunity for publicity to be used at campaign time, and the way in which Congressional members attempt to show the folks back home how hard they’re working. They waste several days lobbing “tough” questions and disingenuous claims of outrage at whatever poor slob is behind the microphone, and then proceed to do nothing further. Seriously, what do you want to bet that we have another E.coli and salmonella outbreak at another egg producer within a year?
What does worry me these days is the level of polarization among our citizenry. My belief is that most people in this country, when you get right down to the basics, want the same things and are worried about the same things. But that’s gotten lost in all the insane infighting and namecalling and false accusations, which, for the most part, has been incited by those with something to gain from it: politicians who want to stay in office, lobbyists who want something from them, and pundits/political commentators who want high ratings and advertising revenue and worshipful fans. We’re destroying ourselves for the sake of these asswipes.
September 28, 2010 at 8:55 PM in reply to: Government spending is more beneficial than private spending #610457Participant[quote=meadandale]eavesdropper…my post was simply meant as a tongue in cheek response to the original post on this thread: that government is the solution to all of our problems–that money confiscated by the government from the private sector is ALWAYS spent more wisely and more productively by the government than those that it was confiscated from.
CLEARLY this isn’t the case…
However, even as a conservative, I see the danger in unfettered free markets where externalities are ignored.
I do find it ironic, however, that the very people that advocate larger and larger governments seem to dance around events like the gulf oil spill (we had regulations and bureaucrats to enforce them that were corrupt or incompetent) or the continual problems with the food supply (ecoli in spinach and salmonella in eggs, recently) even though IT is also heavily regulated and we supposedly have an army of bureaucrats and inspectors policing the industry. These are examples of this awesome government that some want more of at work. Of course, some will argue “we just need more regulations and more inspectors”; these are the same people that, in spite of every increasing budgets and flat or declining test scores argue that the solution to declining education efficacy is more money…and of course, more laws and government involvement.[/quote]
I can’t find anything here that I disagree with, meadandale. And I concur that we don’t need more government regulation in many places. I think we need more regulation enforcement. It seems to have escaped the attention of those in charge that regulations aren’t any such thing – unless they’re backed up by enforcement.
I was listening to the congressional hearings on the egg E.coli mess last week. Freakin’ unbelieveable. I was thinking that if the Federal and state inspectors don’t want to do their jobs – and that means the entire job, which isn’t simply issuing citations – they should resign. There are plenty of people who are ready, able, and – thanks to across-the-board high unemployment rates – more than qualified to step in their shoes.
And while we’re at it, can we outlaw Congressional hearings? They’re an exercise in vanity, a heaven-sent opportunity for publicity to be used at campaign time, and the way in which Congressional members attempt to show the folks back home how hard they’re working. They waste several days lobbing “tough” questions and disingenuous claims of outrage at whatever poor slob is behind the microphone, and then proceed to do nothing further. Seriously, what do you want to bet that we have another E.coli and salmonella outbreak at another egg producer within a year?
What does worry me these days is the level of polarization among our citizenry. My belief is that most people in this country, when you get right down to the basics, want the same things and are worried about the same things. But that’s gotten lost in all the insane infighting and namecalling and false accusations, which, for the most part, has been incited by those with something to gain from it: politicians who want to stay in office, lobbyists who want something from them, and pundits/political commentators who want high ratings and advertising revenue and worshipful fans. We’re destroying ourselves for the sake of these asswipes.
September 28, 2010 at 8:55 PM in reply to: Government spending is more beneficial than private spending #611004Participant[quote=meadandale]eavesdropper…my post was simply meant as a tongue in cheek response to the original post on this thread: that government is the solution to all of our problems–that money confiscated by the government from the private sector is ALWAYS spent more wisely and more productively by the government than those that it was confiscated from.
CLEARLY this isn’t the case…
However, even as a conservative, I see the danger in unfettered free markets where externalities are ignored.
I do find it ironic, however, that the very people that advocate larger and larger governments seem to dance around events like the gulf oil spill (we had regulations and bureaucrats to enforce them that were corrupt or incompetent) or the continual problems with the food supply (ecoli in spinach and salmonella in eggs, recently) even though IT is also heavily regulated and we supposedly have an army of bureaucrats and inspectors policing the industry. These are examples of this awesome government that some want more of at work. Of course, some will argue “we just need more regulations and more inspectors”; these are the same people that, in spite of every increasing budgets and flat or declining test scores argue that the solution to declining education efficacy is more money…and of course, more laws and government involvement.[/quote]
I can’t find anything here that I disagree with, meadandale. And I concur that we don’t need more government regulation in many places. I think we need more regulation enforcement. It seems to have escaped the attention of those in charge that regulations aren’t any such thing – unless they’re backed up by enforcement.
I was listening to the congressional hearings on the egg E.coli mess last week. Freakin’ unbelieveable. I was thinking that if the Federal and state inspectors don’t want to do their jobs – and that means the entire job, which isn’t simply issuing citations – they should resign. There are plenty of people who are ready, able, and – thanks to across-the-board high unemployment rates – more than qualified to step in their shoes.
And while we’re at it, can we outlaw Congressional hearings? They’re an exercise in vanity, a heaven-sent opportunity for publicity to be used at campaign time, and the way in which Congressional members attempt to show the folks back home how hard they’re working. They waste several days lobbing “tough” questions and disingenuous claims of outrage at whatever poor slob is behind the microphone, and then proceed to do nothing further. Seriously, what do you want to bet that we have another E.coli and salmonella outbreak at another egg producer within a year?
What does worry me these days is the level of polarization among our citizenry. My belief is that most people in this country, when you get right down to the basics, want the same things and are worried about the same things. But that’s gotten lost in all the insane infighting and namecalling and false accusations, which, for the most part, has been incited by those with something to gain from it: politicians who want to stay in office, lobbyists who want something from them, and pundits/political commentators who want high ratings and advertising revenue and worshipful fans. We’re destroying ourselves for the sake of these asswipes.
-
AuthorPosts