By ohiodonkeydude

December 4, 2010 7:29 AM | Link to this

how many times have the progressives told conservative voters that a vote for Kasich will be a vote to raise taxes. We will begin to see an onslaught of state cuts leading to higher taxes and levy requests from schools, road projects and police and fire. We will ALL pay for Kasich. Just wait and see. You can say you heard it here!!

By kurt

December 4, 2010 7:32 AM | Link to this

Public(government) schools exist for the main reason of providing high paying, low hour, jobs for teachers and administrators, that they cannot be fired from. There secondary reason is to brainwash kids into how great all things liberal are.

By Ronald Reagan

December 4, 2010 7:46 AM | Link to this

Yo, mulechip. We all pay anyway. Your boy Strickland stood on the sidelines and did nothing about this broken and illegal school funding system. I refuse to vote for another levy! The answer is that they have to suck it up just like all of us do. I’m taxed to death and my pay has been cut like many fellow Americans. I suggest we eliminate year round school (to allow teachers to take their summers off and not pay to air condition buildings), shorten the school year by the same percentage of state cuts but increase the length of daily instruction to the same level it is now. Teachers and administration can make up their lost time by having plenty of summer side job employment. That;s a far better option than many other employees face and the only option for an over taxed Ohio.

By The Sleeve

December 4, 2010 9:59 AM | Link to this

I have found the editorials over the last few days very interesting. yesterday, we have 2 editorials. #1- Is a strike against the pensions systems for the state (STRS to be specific) but it follows a trend of Editorials against the Public Employees pensions systems nd then we have #2- questioning the logic of cutting off unemployment benefits for people who have been on unemployment for nearly 2 years. I find this interesting. #1 (Pensions) is a dual retirement system (by the individual and the municipality as an earned benefit) that provides a retirement for those public employees who have worked a minimum of 25 years of service, or who have sustained career ending injuries as a result of working for the betterment of their communities by providing a necessary service. then we have #2, who have NOT provided a service to the public, but to private industry. #1- works for the State/City, #2 works for private industry. Yet the DDN is ok with those who have NOT paid into the system to draw from it, but wants to work to deny those who have paid into a system their retirement. Hmmm. Now, we have the DDN whining that making cuts in a bloated system is wrong. So, I guess what the DDN is promoting is being against responsiblity and for irresponsibility… typical.

By davidss2

December 4, 2010 10:58 AM | Link to this

For the STrickland loving democrat—you might notice HE FAILED. He didn’t correct the education funding. He didn’t act on reducing the budget deficits coming up—HE SAT ON HIS HANDS. Mr. Pastor, counselor, mediator, did NOTHING. He should have raised taxes more than he did by cutting last step of tax reductions. He should have cut spending to the UNION BUDDIES. … … … … … I wonder where STrickland failed? Heee, hee. Watch Kasick act with direct action. If he has to raise taxes to make up for the TAX and SPEND democrat’s shortcoming after STrickland’s inaction, so be it. Let’s face reality, donkey.

By TRS

December 4, 2010 12:26 PM | Link to this

Donkeydude - are you another progressive who is living an a land where tax increases solve everything and we can afford it all? I truly do believe some folks are living in total denial. Have you been listening to the warnings of the debt commission? Have you noticed Europe?

By guyindayton

December 4, 2010 1:57 PM | Link to this

Gee; 20 years ago or so, the USA had the best education system in the world. Now after all the pay raises and new schools built we are something like 17th in the world; wonder why. Is the problem educational or social in nature? I notice that Mr. Arnie Duncan is even turning to the PTA to get parents involved in the educational correction. Is it a money issue? How much are you/we going to spend to correct a problem when only 9% of a student’s time is spent in school and 91% is spent in non school environment? And, schools won’t enforce rules because of litigation fears. Put Judge Judy in the classroom; demand adherence to the rules.

By The Sleeve

December 4, 2010 2:29 PM | Link to this

The Educational system began to fail when: #1-They took paddling out of the schools and handcuffed the teachers, #2: We started rewarding failure by passing students for failing work and #3-rewarding failure by paying people not to work (Welfare and extended unemploymet). Until these issues are taking care of, we will not exorcise ourselves from the quicksand we are in.

By A critic

December 4, 2010 2:52 PM | Link to this

Mr. Kasich is quite definitely vague about what he plans to do with community colleges. He should cut our much of the administrative deadwood as a start and mandate an increase in the number of full time faculty positions. especially in the liberal arts and sciences so that our students will have the best preparation possible when they trasfer to a four year school.Invest in the faculty and use AAUP guidelines as THE guideline. Our community colleges have become corporate bureaucracies.

By overtaxed

December 4, 2010 3:21 PM | Link to this

The facts provided are a little incomplete to say the least. The OH budget website puts the spending at $13.8B out of $55B in 2010. Then, you have to see how it breaks down to what goes to the school districts. $8M goes to the Arts Council $8M to the Historical Society Who knows what it’s really spent on? http://obm.ohio.gov/SectionPages/Budget/FY1011/Appropriations.aspx?Link=3&Cat=EDU

By Kevbo

December 4, 2010 6:14 PM | Link to this

Fire teachers. It will never happen, but it’s pretty simple. A modest increase in class size won’t hurt student performance a bit if the teacher is any good. They’ll never admit it, but let’s face it: a fourth grader should be able to teach third grade…… (Hmmmmm)

By cutawaybaby

December 4, 2010 6:54 PM | Link to this

The adminsitration and union have got to give a little…my god we are in a recession. I always here…”Do it for the children”. Except when its them, huh. Every taxpaying American has finally become aware of what parasites these people are. The tax levy in my district went down big…and it will go down big again. They threatened to take busing away from the children. Never happened!!! Our communities cannot withstand this out of control spending by the schools and these parasites unions. I LOVE KASICH.

By Phil

December 4, 2010 7:28 PM | Link to this

I HAVE CANCELLED MY WEEKLY SUBSCRIPTION TO DDN FOR IT’S CONTINUED BAN ON ARTICLE COMMENTS>

By getoverit

December 4, 2010 8:24 PM | Link to this

And the new jobs are supposed to come from WHERE??? All I have heard so far is take from the working class so the wealthy class can save a buck. The Republican party does not represent you!! Your quality of life is being drastically cut as it is. Keep it up. Fewer and fewer people will have a living wage, benefits, social security, safe cities, basic necessities, education, and accessible cultural enrichment. Enjoy. I seriously hope that all of you regressives do not represent the next generation.

By kurt

December 4, 2010 8:46 PM | Link to this

Hey getoverit, are you on some sort of welfa?? If it is so easy, you——you run a business and pay your people $30.00 a hour plus benefits, and a pension, how about that??

By The Sleeve

December 4, 2010 9:54 PM | Link to this

Kurt, guys like this getoverit doofus will never get it. They whine and cry about people who worked hard to get where they are, and demand they share the wealth by imposing harsh taxes so that the people who dont work hard will be taken care of. BTW, the econ was running just fine until Pelosi and Reid took over the House and Senate…

By Tax Payer

December 4, 2010 10:56 PM | Link to this

Amazing to see the rampant greed. We’re like ‘crabs in a bucket’. Those of us who ‘have’ forget what it means to sacrifice for the good of the country. Yes, it can mean something more than just going off to war. The greed I see is absolutely sickening - e.g. the push to allow for the continuation of costly tax cuts for the wealthiest yet push for seriuos cuts in programs that aid kids, needy and seniors? I hope folks don’t really think this is a ‘Chrisitan’ nation. Okay Im not at the 6 figure salary level but I -and the wealthiest can afford to pay a few more dollars in taxes if it will help my fellow Americans in need now and in the long-run, the survival of my country. I’m a Christian but its sad when others show more compassion.

By The critic one more time

December 5, 2010 1:05 AM | Link to this

I would like Kevbo to share with me his record of teaching and or administrative experience at any level. Then I might be willing to say his comments are credible. Right now he has no facts to substantiate what he is saying. Teaching is both an art and a science and is not for everyone.

By kurt

December 5, 2010 7:25 AM | Link to this

Dear tax payer—although i doubt you pay anything in federal taxes, probably on some sort of welfare like most dumbama voters, Being a Christian means you freely choose to help the poor, Being a Communist—like the present day democrat party, means you use the police powers of gov. to seize someone’s else’s money, to give part of it to you—-to vote a democrat—back in power—it is just that simple.

By Ronald Reagan

December 5, 2010 9:07 AM | Link to this

Dear Christian Tax payer - why don’t you just give more at the offering plate where there is some chance that it won’t all be skimmed and feel good about yourself. As for me - I’m taxed enough and I know that only a small fraction actual gets where its intended due to a bloated bureaucracy full of don’t give a damns.

By Ronald Reagan

December 5, 2010 9:15 AM | Link to this

I further suggest you and every knucklehead that votes for a school levy go ahead and send your fees in to them even if the levy is defeated - at least these “poor children” can continue to receive the finest education a labor union can buy.

By getoverit

December 5, 2010 11:37 AM | Link to this

I have been self-employed twice. Once in college, and once as a professional. Your right, it’s not easy, and I prefer a paycheck with benefits. In addition, it is appropriate to make government more efficient. But now is not the time to eliminate positions that can be saved, at least until the private sector starts hiring again. But you are the one who believes in the miracle of capitalism. The Bush tax cuts/budget cuts/war profiteering has been in place since 2003. WHERE ARE THE JOBS??

By getoverit

December 5, 2010 11:42 AM | Link to this

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that even Ronald Reagan was a nihilist.

By tax payer

December 5, 2010 5:43 PM | Link to this

Dear Kurt, No I’m not a welfare recipient - I earn $97,000 a year and have worked hard all my life. Its because I’m a Christian (and know my Bible) that I have my beliefs and mention the rampant greed.

By Ronald Reagan

December 5, 2010 5:45 PM | Link to this

My namesake was the opposite of a nehilist - to the extreme contrary, RR was the greatest optimist this country has offered in my generation (the past 50 plus years). Although democrat politics play in to the Nietzsche theory who claimed that its policies would destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and bring about world war III. Sounds like the exact opposite of R.R. and fiscal conservative policies to me.

By Ronald Reagan

December 5, 2010 5:54 PM | Link to this

97K a year - “THERE YOU GO AGAIN” another Liberal who feels guilty.

By tax payer

December 5, 2010 5:58 PM | Link to this

I forgot to add, no, I’m not on a union job but an engineer who received my bach degree years ago. Its because I plan, can budget, held off on having kids, etc that I can afford (as do the wealthiest) to be able to pay a bit more in taxes. Of course not everone can afford to - and most of you who are complaining are not likely in the top wealthiest bracket. I’m sure there are folks who abuse the system - but thats on both sides - welfare, corp welfare. etc. I believe most Americans want to work, not be unemployed without a job. Again, I’m willing to sacrifice a little on my part. I truly believe its the best move for the country.

By Riverdog

December 6, 2010 7:10 AM | Link to this

These comment blogs seem to always turn on each other rather than sticking to the issue. We are taxed to death,schools are the issue here, last Novemeber Montgomery County voters could not stop themselves from voting for the Human Services Levy.This pool of money is a bigger fraud than the teachers union telling us “do it for the kids”.As a laid off government employee I can see now the absolute elitism coming from every agency at all levels of Government.I say stand up and wake up;cut off the money to the machine ,we will make OUR government better !

By I am rich

December 6, 2010 8:27 AM | Link to this

$97k a year?? Sure you do welfare dog…

By getoverit

December 6, 2010 9:23 AM | Link to this

Again, whoever you are. WHERE ARE THE JOBS?? Where is any sign of growth tied to drastic cuts?

By A critic

December 6, 2010 11:07 AM | Link to this

If this Kasich is going to make cuts in education on all levels, even though jobs may be created in the private sector, the balance sheet will still be negative. Did his aides ever tell him that? They should. He will be at best a one term governor. He did not get my vote in November and he will not in 2014 at the rate he is going.

By Dan E

December 6, 2010 12:12 PM | Link to this

So I am having a hard time with some of your comments….I am a brand new teacher. We learned in school that other surrounding states don’t do school levies but rather when a district needs more money they have to work thru the state Dept of Ed to get it, and that dept manages its budget. In Ohio, the schools have to go to the voters. I am not sure why you think that teachers are your enemy or something. Will putting a whole bunch of teachers out of work help the economy or the students? I am seeing the big picture or trying. Why are you so bitter toward the schools and teachers? It looks to me like the laws here that we have in Ohio are the problem but if I am missing something could you help me understand? Thanks.

By Mike R

December 6, 2010 12:17 PM | Link to this

@The Sleeve—The Education system began to fail with the creation of the Dept. of Education, back in the 1970’s. We need to get rid of that bloated bureaucracy and give the money back to the states! @Tax Payer—-So, there’s “rampant greed” and those of us that make comfortable livings “have forgot” to make sacrificies?? First of all, since this article is about Ohio’s local school districts please give us examples of that “rampant greed” that affects us here locally. Second, “sacrifices?” A sacrifice is an offer to VOLUNTARILY give something up. If you are truly a Christian who are you to judge other people about their sacrificies?? As Jesus said, Don’t judge lest you be judged. As far as you feeling you can pay more, the IRS does take donations. @getoverit, the earlier tax cuts helped pull the nation out of the recession in the early 2000’s. Remember the Internt bubble and resulting correction?? Those lower tax rates helped us through the after-effects of 9-11, the Technology IPO bust, and eventually led to lower undemploment rates, and economic growth. Businesses are forward looking, they have to be, and right now the see storm clouds on the horizon with the potential ObamaCare and HIGHER tax rates—for everyone! You’re not going to see new job creation as long as the future looks clouded.

By paul

December 6, 2010 3:18 PM | Link to this

Its pretty obvious they need to cut out those individuals who do not directly teach the children. Cut back the administrators; then teacher pay should be cut until the budget recovers. Or, ask teachers to contribute more toward their health insurance benefit. Unions need to get real. Unions are nothing but “middle-men” who take money out of teachers’ pockets and from schools, taxpayers. Unions ran manufacturing out of this country with their ridiculous cadillac benefits, wages and pensions. Now they’re hurting the states with public employee cadillac benefits and pensions.

By getoverit

December 6, 2010 3:58 PM | Link to this

The facts don’t lie. Clinton inherited a defitict, and created a surplus. Bush inherited a surplus and created another huge deficit. If Bush had done a better job (the Republicans spent plenty), emergency bailouts and the stimulus would not have been necessary. Bush did nothing to create new jobs, in fact most of the new jobs under his administration were in the government, not the private sector. http://politifact.com/ohio/statements/2010/jul/25/sherrod-brown/sherrod-brown-touts-job-grown-during-clinton-presi/. And now you want to cut everything that doesn’t directly affect citizens over 65 (which is why you don’t want healthcare touched). When is the real world going to start expecting solid results from YOUR leaders. It is none of your business if workers unionize and pay dues. It’s a free market, and they are free to bargain for the real value of their work, and a living wage. The market is free to ask them to be more qualified and work longer hours, which it has. Why do you still insist that healthcare is a luxury? You’re the one who wants workers to bargain on the open market for it. Make up your mind.

By Mike R

December 6, 2010 5:48 PM | Link to this

The issue with deficit differences between Bush and Cliton are multifacted, and without understanding the complexities it’s a moot point. President’s don’t create jobs—nor does Congress. It’s up to the Gov’t to promote and foster a positive environment for businesses and entrepreneurs to CREATE net new jobs. Unless your sitting in Russia, some other place outside the boundries of the U.S., or an Alien from outer space, our leaders are your leaders too, and vice versa. A lot of people are demanding different results—hence the outcome of Nov. 2, 2010. If you truly believe in free markets then I ‘m sure you believe in a Right to Work state, which Ohio is not. People should have the right to associate, or work, for any company they so choose without coercion to join a union. As far as bailouts go, GM was going down no matter what—It was just a question of when. The seeds of impairment were sown long ago. But you’re right, Bush should have let ‘em crash and burn. Eventually a totally new company would rise from the ashes—Once the market was ready.

By kurt

December 6, 2010 6:17 PM | Link to this

new teacher, please tune in to 95.7 and listen to Neil Bootz—then you will learn, $97,000 a year huh-got to be a stick a pencil in your year all day, gov. job. Folks, better wake up, after four full years of total democrat control of gov. we now have 17%unemployment, 19 trillion in debt, no GNP, a soon crashing stock market, and the glories of Marxism coming soon.

By getoverit

December 7, 2010 10:58 AM | Link to this

Mike R. and Kurt: here is the point. According to you, government should be more business-friendly. It is not possible to be more business-friendly than the Bush administration was for eight years. WHERE ARE THE JOBS YOU ARGUE THESE POLICIES WERE SUPPOSED TO CREATE? The proof is in the pudding. Also, it took time for Clinton to turn things around. We are still sliding, and you want to bring back failed policies. Here is the problem we face now. The “players” at the top of the heap like the scenery, and do not want any change right now. Ironically, the classic communist theory you claim to despise predicts the downfall of capitalism due to overreaching and collapse. TA-DAAAH! The people at the top have already succeeded in killing the golden goose for short-term gain (ultimate greed). YOU are threatening capitalism more than any dem who is trying to make it really work. If you want peace, work for justice.

By Mike R

December 7, 2010 1:03 PM | Link to this

There sure as heck can be a more business-friendly climate. A 67,000 page tax code isn’t friendly. Sarbanes Oxley’s onerus requirements aren’t friendly. EPA’s duplicate and triplicate procedures aren’t biz friendly. On and on it goes… Most of this crap comes for our “great socitey” engineering from the 1970’s (accept for Sar-OX). Go back and look at the unemployment rates…As I told you earlier, businesses are forward looking. Under Bush unemployment was relatively stable at healthy levels. There was certainty out on the horizon. Businesses aren’t hiring now (and haven’t for 2 years now) because they see more social engineering that is NOT business friendly by the Obama admin. Marx claimed Capitalism would fail due to workers no longer believing in the system. Since the Fascist and Communist regimes of WWI & WWII other socilaists have claimed the collapse of Capitalism—and just like Marx they were wrong too. The American Dream isn’t dead, and other than you, getoverit, most people still feel this is the best system and the one they want to live in—It just needs a good leader at the helm.

By paul

December 7, 2010 1:49 PM | Link to this

This administration despises business, and, the so-called rich. Instead of solving banking and Wall Street problems and punishing the offenders… they do nothing but condemn the entire freemarket system instead. The new 1099 form requirement from ObamaCare will make businesses fill out this form for every transaction over $600! This is proof Democrats are clueless, inept, ignorant when it comes to business. They’re harming this country.

By getoverit

December 7, 2010 5:37 PM | Link to this

Paul, we learned under Bush that Wall Street/corps need ground rules. Again where are the jobs created by corps after huge tax cuts/ budget cuts. They can simply choose not to invest in America w/o penalty, and that’s what they want right now. They have the money they wanted, so now they will simply opt for what is most profitable and build enormous/generational wealth. As for action regarding Wall Street, he passed reform in July of this year. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-21/politics/finance.reform1consumer-financial-protection-bureau-financial-crisis-financial-firms?_s=PM:POLITICS. As I said, the dems are doing more to make capitalism actually work. What are the R’s proposing by the way?

By Mike R

December 8, 2010 1:41 PM | Link to this

Oh My Goodness!! Please, read the bills and understand them before linking to a biased media outlet and then going on to espouse how it’s good for capitalism!! The Fin Reg bill, all 2,315 pages, will make what we take for granted today obsolete in the future. Already we’re seeing the effects of the Durban Interchange Amendment, which was added at the last minute. In fact BoA eliminated free checking 90 days after Obama signed into law the FinReg bill. In July I wrote an article how and why that would happen. You’re going to see many more changes, and services YOU take for granted will be taken away. So, don’t blame your Credit Union or Bank and label them as evil greedy capitalists! Your “good for capitalism” bill will hurt the smaller banks, like Liberty, and Credit Unions (Wright-Pat) far more than 5/3 or Chase. That bill also created the BCFP which off all things will regulate the origination of Student Loans. Guess who the sole originator of student loans is…The Federal Gov’t!!! Effective July, 2010 under ObamaCare the Fed is the only place to get a student loan! So, now under Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, we have a government bureaucracy policing and monitoring another new government bureaucracy!! Wow! That’s really frickin’ efficient and effective, isn’t it?? Section 342 of the Bill establishes an “Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.” The power of this provision trumps the EEOC and will set QUOTAS for women and minorities at ALL Federal offices and requires ALL contractors and their subcontractors of the gov’t to meet those QUOTAS. So now, under this great bill you love so much the best candidate’s, applicant’s, or most qualified may not get the job/position that requires the trust of the citizenry, but goes to someone NOT qualified but has the “right” skin type or is of the “correct” gender. Just so you know, the FinReg Bill is considered a “generational” bill—it has NOTHING to do with improving our system, but we’ll be saddled with its attempt at social-engineering for decades.

By getoverit

December 10, 2010 11:09 AM | Link to this

Mike, there is no way in heck I am going to read one of those bills. Here is a factual summary. http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/creditcrisis/financialregulatory_reform/index.html. I notice that you don’t cite a source for your crappy, infected take on the situation. If we are not engineering our society, what are we doing? You prefer war lords? The problem with your “no government” scenario is that the country and the gobal economy are governed by a few powerful conglomerates who don’t really even compete among themselves. There are no more small players to give them competition, either. Think mom and pop vs. Walmart. Therefore we need strong regulatory standards to protect the average consumer from wrongdoing and unfair advantage. We need a few more traffic lights.

By getoverit

December 10, 2010 11:19 AM | Link to this

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/creditcrisis/financialregulatory_reform/index.html

By getoverit

December 10, 2010 11:42 AM | Link to this

Okay, this reference is not posting completely. I’m referring to a New York Times online article from November 4, 2010, entitled “Financial Regulatory Reform”.

By Mike R

December 10, 2010 1:20 PM | Link to this

Well, you’re going to get a heck of a lot more than a “few more” traffic lights. You’re going to get over 300. There are 300+ rules and regulations that must be put in place over the next 18 months by federal agencies charged with implementing the law. The biggest problem with the FinReg bill is what’s NOT in it. The housing fiasco got us into this mess and of all the corps., entities, and businesses being regulated Fannie and Fredie won’t be! getoverit, you actually, in part, agree with me. Who do you think helped draft the bill? It wasn’t the small “mom & pop” buiness. It was the big conglomerate, like Wal-Mart, thus disadvantaging the small player even more…Like I wrote above. One of the differences between you and I is you believe all market actors are greedy and that the government keeps everyone honest. I, on the other hand, believe there are many unintended consequnces, with bad results, from legislation passed by ideologues. They create bureaucracies, many staffed with incompetent bureaucrats, that are more about sustaining their creation via taxpayer’s money than they are about doing the right thing. In so doing they interfer with an efficient and effective free market and they take people’s free choices away. I will cite Section 342 of the FinReg Bill for you…It was published in the liberal Huffington Post by Dr. Sasha Galbraith as being a VERY BAD piece of legislation! I picked Huffington Post ‘cause I know you agree with everything they opine! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sasha-galbraith/the-financial-reform-billb670602.html

By getoverit

December 10, 2010 3:40 PM | Link to this

Mike, I have no problem with a discussion of what should be in the bill. I am admittedly not an expert at complex financial instruments, and it seems like UD or Wright State faculty could write guest opinion once in a while to benefit the community. I guess the DDN would have to ask those questions. But I appreciate the cite, and will see if it says what you say it does.

By The critic

December 11, 2010 6:35 PM | Link to this

This Kasich had no trouble spending 5.7 million on HIS election which will do nothing for the people of Ohio. At the same time, the same Kasich is willing to make cuts in education on all levels which will cost K-12 teachers their jobs and some full time college faculty their jobs as wll. Kasich is all out for Kasich and not for the great majority of people who supported him. I voted for Strickland and I am and was happy with my choice. More people should have made that choice. This Kasich has already worn out his welcome in Ohio.

By The critic

December 11, 2010 6:36 PM | Link to this

This Kasich had no trouble spending 5.7 million on HIS election which will do nothing for the people of Ohio. At the same time, the same Kasich is willing to make cuts in education on all levels which will cost K-12 teachers their jobs and some full time college faculty their jobs as wll. Kasich is all out for Kasich and not for the great majority of people who supported him. I voted for Strickland and I am and was happy with my choice. More people should have made that choice. This Kasich has already worn out his welcome in Ohio.

By getoverit

December 13, 2010 11:43 AM | Link to this

Okay, the article does not say that the whole legislation is “bad”. It refers to the bureacracy created by creation of the affirmative action entity the OMWI. People aren’t sure how it will work. I could see the creation of an office to develop strategies and register complaints, like the EEOC for individual employees. I don’t see recreating the same agency several times over with varying results. You have to remember that there was a lot of corruption under Bush for government contracts, such as the Haliburton fiasco, and the Katrina contracts, both shockingly ineffectual and noncompetitive. Bush also suspended federal regs like minimum wage requirements for the Katrina contracts. I agree about unintended consequences, but hard work looks messy from the outside. Thoughtfully regulating the financial industry is messy, as opposed to simply deregulating it, doing nothing, and pasting a weasley grin on your face.

By Mike R

December 13, 2010 10:20 PM | Link to this

getoverit, I have read the bill. I need to understand bills like that for my job. Section 342 isn’t the only “bad” part of the bill. Granted, there are some parts of the bill that are good, like a “readable and understandable” credit card statement. The gist of the bill is to create transparency so that not only regulators can react, but that policy makers won’t be caught off guard and preparations to overt the next financial crisis will be put into play. That’s all good and well and should have been done in less than 2,315 pages. That’s where unintended consequences come into play. That said, in aggregrate, more “bad” will come out of this than good. There are quite a few experts in the financial field that don’t believe how the bill is written could have even prevented the 2008 melt down—And it probably won’t prevent future melt downs. Google it. Also, don’t believe for a second this bill will overt any further corruption. We’ve had laws against corruption and financial shenanigans for the vast majority of our Republic. Have those laws on the books prevented the taxpayer from fraud? No. One last thing, getoverit, no party is saintly and corruption at the Federal level doesn’t take time off when a Dem is President. And, not all hard work looks messy from the outside. On the contrary, hard work appears obvious to the onlooker and the result of such works is proven over time.

By getoverit

December 23, 2010 11:43 AM | Link to this

If you have expertise and would actually like to summarize the substantive financial reform portions of the bill, be my guest. If you have read the whole bill as you say, you should be able to discuss it. I can tell from skimming secondary sources that these are the strongest regs since the 1930’s, and I’m not buying YOUR party lines either. You’re “in the business” and you don’t think stronger regs were required after the 2008 stock market crash? The president is dealing with fannie and freddie separately. Otherwise, y’all would just complain about too much, too soon again. A crime is a crim at any level, but the Bernie Madoffs and the Ken Laytons of the world deserve a special place in hell. No one is a saint, that is why TRANSPARENCY and meaningful policing is necessary. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Obama is continuing to accomplish as much as he can in a bipartisan way. I would hire a Obama in a heartbeat to work for my company or to represent me as a lawyer. “W” I wouldn’t hire to cut my lawn. In this country, legislative work is extremely messy. But you are an expert and you have a crystal ball, so what should we be doing differently? Nothing is not a plan. “W” should repay whatever salary/benefits he received from taxpayers — talk about welfare fraud.