Moving upward from a decade

[John Adams]

Excerpt here, full link below. I applaud Peggy's optimism and will try to adopt it in the New Year.

 

The accomplished and sophisticated attorney was asked what attitude he was bringing to the new year. "Stoicism and mindless optimism," he laughed, which sounded just about right. He meant it, he said, about the stoicism. He had immersed himself in that rough old philosophy after 9/11, and had come to adopt it as his own. But he meant it about the optimism, too: You never know, things get better, begin with good cheer, maintain your equilibrium, don't lose your peace.

 

We're at the clean start of a new decade, and it wouldn't be bad if the national watchwords were repair, rebuild and return, with an eye toward what is now our central project, though we haven't fully noticed, and that is keeping our country together. So many forces exist to tear us apart. We have to do what we can to hold together in the long run.

 

We have been through a hard 10 years. They were not, as some have argued, the worst ever, or even the worst of the past century. The '30s started with the Great Depression, featured the rise of Hitler and Stalin, and ended with World War II. That's a bad decade for you. In the '60s we saw our leaders assassinated, our great cities hit by riots, a war tear our country apart.

 

But the 'OOs were hard, starting with a disputed presidential election, moving on to the shocked pain of 9/11, marked by an effort to absorb the fact that we had entered the age of terror, and ending with a historic, world-shaking economic crash.

 

Maybe the most worrying trend the past 10 years can be found in this phrase: "They forgot the mission." So many great American institutions—institutions that every day help hold us together—acted as if they had forgotten their mission, forgotten what they were about, what their role and purpose was, what they existed to do. You, as you read, can probably think of an institution that has forgotten its reason for being. Maybe it's the one you're part of.

 

We saw an example this week with the federal government, which whatever else it does has a few very essential missions to perform that only it can perform, such as maintaining the national defense. Our federal government now does 10 million things, many of them not so well. Its attention is scattered. It loses sight of the essentials, which is part of the reason underpants bombers wind up on airplanes.

 

Wall Street the past 10 years truly and profoundly lost sight of its mission. It exists to be the citadel of American finance. Its job is to grow and invest and enrich, thereby making the jobs possible that help family exist.

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405..._share_facebook

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Excerpt here, full link below. I applaud Peggy's optimism and will try to adopt it in the New Year.

 

 

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405..._share_facebook

The undie bomber proves the Federal governmat has drifted from its mission?

 

Why does wall street exist? Is she serious? I thought it was their to make money.

 

And the Catholic Church only got caught in this decade, its been doing that stuff for, well, decades.

 

How about giving the Feds some credit for helping wall street not drag us all down the Depression hole? I'd say that's a bigger deal than an undie bomber who didn't hurt anyone.

 

[Magox]

The undie bomber proves the Federal governmat has drifted from its mission?

 

Why does wall street exist? Is she serious? I thought it was their to make money.

 

And the Catholic Church only got caught in this decade, its been doing that stuff for, well, decades.

 

How about giving the Feds some credit for helping wall street not drag us all down the Depression hole? I'd say that's a bigger deal than an undie bomber who didn't hurt anyone.

 

This is beginning to be a pattern here, you post something silly, than I correct you.

 

Gving the Feds credit for helping us avoid a depression?

 

You mean the same government that expanded the role of Fannie and Freddie, which we are now in the hole for $265B and rising. If it wasn't for the expansion of Fannie and Freddie, things would of never have been as bad as they are today. You mean the same government that repealed the GLass-Steagall act in 1999, which allowed depository institutions to partake in risk taking that they should of never of been involved in.

 

Are we talking about the same government under both Paulson and Bernanke that both tried reassuring markets that the "Subprime mortgage markets were contained"?

 

Or are we talking about Geithner who was the chief orchestrator in bailing out AIG, who thanks to him our government will never see the $165B we lost in that dingy black hole.

 

Or how about the $50 B that was given to GM, we will never see at least half that money.

[PearlHowardman]

If it wasn't for the expansion of Fannie and Freddie, things would of never have been as bad as they are today. You mean the same government that repealed the GLass-Steagall act in 1999, which allowed depository institutions to partake in risk taking that they should of never of been involved in. Are we talking about the same government under both Paulson and Bernanke that both tried reassuring markets that the "Subprime mortgage markets were contained"? Or are we talking about Geithner who was the chief orchestrator in bailing out AIG, who thanks to him our government will never see the $165B we lost in that dingy black hole. Or how about the $50 B that was given to GM, we will never see at least half that money.

 

U nailed it!

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

This is beginning to be a pattern here, you post something silly, than I correct you.

 

Gving the Feds credit for helping us avoid a depression?

 

You mean the same government that expanded the role of Fannie and Freddie, which we are now in the hole for $265B and rising. If it wasn't for the expansion of Fannie and Freddie, things would of never have been as bad as they are today. You mean the same government that repealed the GLass-Steagall act in 1999, which allowed depository institutions to partake in risk taking that they should of never of been involved in.

 

Are we talking about the same government under both Paulson and Bernanke that both tried reassuring markets that the "Subprime mortgage markets were contained"?

 

Or are we talking about Geithner who was the chief orchestrator in bailing out AIG, who thanks to him our government will never see the $165B we lost in that dingy black hole.

 

Or how about the $50 B that was given to GM, we will never see at least half that money.

I actually agree with much of that. The Feds should have taken a stronger role in regulating Wall Street, but when Wall Street got what it wanted, who had to come to the rescue?

 

And a question. You Tea Bagger people, why are you crying now when we are spending money to prop up our domestic institutions, but all the billions and billions we were dumping into Iraq went totally unchallanged by you? No Tea Parties for that. Why?

[Jim in Anchorage]

I actually agree with much of that. The Feds should have taken a stronger role in regulating Wall Street, but when Wall Street got what it wanted, who had to come to the rescue?

 

And a question. You Tea Bagger people, why are you crying now when we are spending money to prop up our domestic institutions, but all the billions and billions we were dumping into Iraq went totally unchallanged by you? No Tea Parties for that. Why?

What a incredibly ignorant statement. Is Goldman-Sachs now responsible for national defense?

[Magox]

I actually agree with much of that. The Feds should have taken a stronger role in regulating Wall Street, but when Wall Street got what it wanted, who had to come to the rescue?

 

And a question. You Tea Bagger people, why are you crying now when we are spending money to prop up our domestic institutions, but all the billions and billions we were dumping into Iraq went totally unchallanged by you? No Tea Parties for that. Why?

"You Tea Bagger people" ok

 

I'm a staunch fiscal conservative, always have and always will and anything I see as wasteful spending I will criticize, just as I did in during the last administration. If the whole premise for the war would of been accurate, which I and many others including many democrats were to have been true, then I would of supported it, but since it was not, I believe the whole war was a mistake.

 

Now I'm not speaking for the Tea Partiers, but I would imagine that the movement is inspired by wreckless deficit spending from the Bush and Obama administration and also there is a movement against big government.

 

Also, you say it went totally unchallenged, no it didn't, there was a referendum against Bush in this last election, and this is the main reason that BO won.

[IDBillzFan]

And a question. You Tea Bagger people, why are you crying now when we are spending money to prop up our domestic institutions, but all the billions and billions we were dumping into Iraq went totally unchallanged by you? No Tea Parties for that. Why?

One more time (though no matter how many times it's answered honestly, the question keeps getting asked because it's all mindless dolts like you have got): most of us currently pissed about the ridiculous amount of spending were asleep before, okay? Most of us were mindless sheep who followed a party because the alternative was simply too embarrassing to consider. Then most of us saw the current administation take what was, in relative terms, a million dollar sexual harassment and turn it into the gzillion dollar gang-rape of a 12-year-old honor student, and we're no longer asleep. It's just that simple.

 

But you keep asking that question, okay? You keep calling people "tea baggers," because it really puts them in their place and makes them want to go quietly into the night. And make sure you keep using Iraq as part of your talking point: it never gets old watching libs like you trot out an example of hypocrisy by referring to a war that had you dragging Cindy Sheehan in front of every MSNBC camera, screaming how war is bad...right up to the moment your lib president sends 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.

[RkFast]

knockout punch by LAB.

 

Well played.

 

Oh...and Dave.. Its teabagger , BIRTHER, RACIST.

 

If you going to throw ignorant intolerant put downs at us...at least use the correct vernacular.

[Magox]

it never gets old watching libs like you trot out an example of hypocrisy by referring to a war that had you dragging Cindy Sheehan in front of every MSNBC camera, screaming how war is bad...right up to the moment your lib president sends 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

btw, why hasn't Sheehan been getting lots of airtime on MSNBC lately?

[/dev/null]

btw, why hasn't Sheehan been getting lots of airtime on MSNBC lately?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...-enough-already

[Magox]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...-enough-already

"Enough already.",Yeah, enough already, Cindy. Thanks for helping us get Obama in the White House. Now shut up.

pretty much