Mike Harris did nothing wrong.

[cybercoma]

wealthy pay more only in absolute terms from their unconscionable acquisition of more than their just share of the economic pie.

Someone who works hard and spends enough time and money educating themselves so they may some day become wealthy is lacking conscience?

Sometimes I really can't stand the things you say.

[cybercoma]

Of course I would be more than pleased if the poor were removed from poverty and were paying more of their share of the services they consume, but the onus is on them take the actions necessary to remove themselves out of poverty.

You use the word "unconscionable". Again, this is subjective. Who are you to determine that the wealthy don't deserve their wealth?

Personal responsibility is part of the Conservative platform, not the Liberal one. Liberals believe only the rich are respnsible and what they're responsible for is handing over their money.

[Guest eureka]

Let me put this in a short historical perspective.

The world has undergone many revolutions both liberal and socialist in the beliefs that I have put forth. Time and again it has happened. And, the classes (?) you support with your economic theorising have staved off revolution in some societies only by recognizing the justice and economic sense.

Yet, always there is a reaction by a Liberal view that forgets the past and begins the process of overvaluing itself and using force - economical or physical - to regain its privilege.

In those interregnums where ideas of social justice have prevaied, the world has progressed economically. In the dark years of Liberal dominance, there has been a lessening of prosperity for all except the heads of the class.

We are now in one of those dark times and the New Liberals have an effective propaganda supporting machine in those who claim to be economists but who really are just theoreticians.

[BHS]

The smog problems come mostly from Ontario Hydro coal-fired emissions with a majority of such coming from Ohio valley coal-fired emissions.  Harris reduced the regulations on Hydro generating plant emission standards - allowing the old coal-fired plants to keep going and ignore required emission standards.

I'm a little confused here. Harris is responsible for emmissions eminating from the US? That sounds unlikely. It also sounds unlikely that Ontario Power Generation went out of their way to make their emmissions dirtier after the laws were changed. I'm familiar with the way the company works, and this sounds like a PR nightmare that they'd want to avoid at all costs.

Yes, a reasonable job of explaining your position.  But the bottom line is that Harris was a mediocre premier that did great damage to the political environment with his confrontational tactics contributing to an environment of distrust that persists to this day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Total BS. I remember 1995 very well. The public sector unions were chomping at the bit for a fight before Harris introduced his first piece of legislation. They walked out on illegal strikes to protest the Harris government in toto. The simple fact of the matter is that burgeoning public employment can't be sustained forever. The cuts had to happen at some point, and Harris was the man who did the job. If the unions are still smarting, too damn bad.

[Renegade]

Let me put this in a short historical perspective.

The world has undergone many revolutions both liberal and socialist in the beliefs that I have put forth. Time and again it has happened. And, the classes (?) you support with your economic theorising have staved off revolution in some societies only by recognizing the justice and economic sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

eureka, this is one area I agree with you. In their own best interests the wealthy classe have motivation to provide social benefits for the poor. By doing so they will minimize revolution and violence and thus maintain the status quo. Hungry people will revolt easily. However there is a point of diminishing returns, at some point the level of benefits provided to the poorer classes does not substantially decrease the chance of revolution or violence, and as such there is no economic reason to increase benefits. In our society the chance of revolution is minimal given the level of benefits provided along with the opportunities to increase one's position.

The incidence of people not meeting basic needs for food and shelter are few and far between in our society. When they are not met, many times it is not because of the lack of the level of benefits, it is for other factors. (Like mental health issues on the part of the reciepient, or the reciepent's addicitons)

[Guest eureka]

However there is a point of diminishing returns, at some point the level of benefits provided to the poorer classes does not substantially decrease the chance of revolution or violence, and as such there is no economic reason to increase benefits. In our society the chance of revolution is minimal given the level of benefits provided along with the opportunities to increase one's position.

I am not quite sure that you are saying what you mean here. If the chances of revolution, or social unrest, are not decreased, then there is every reason to increase benefits. In our society, it is a complacency to suggest that it cannot happen and it is a blindness to the world beneath you to think that there is the opportunities to "increase one's position."

There is no such opportunity for many. The simple reality of human differences and limitations dictates that there will always be a proportion of the population that lacks the capacity to seize opportunity. It is like the lower half of a Bell curve and that distribution is an immutable reality of human nature.

The incidence of people not meeting basic needs for food and shelter are few and far between in our society. When they are not met, many times it is not because of the lack of the level of benefits, it is for other factors. (Like mental health issues on the part of the reciepient, or the reciepent's addicitons

This is, unfortunately, just not so. You have only to look at Food Bank usage: homeless statistics (I believe I posted somewhere the figures on the breakdown of the causes of homelessness in New York).

Hunger is a growing fact in Canada as is homelessness. Ooverty is rampant - ask any Landlord how many tenants he has to evict or turn away because they cannot afford rent.

Poverty is rampant and is not well understood because it is a political embarassment for it to be front and centre of our concerns. One side of the political spectrum benefits by the denial of the humanity as well as existence of the poor -read Geffrey's learned drivel. The other side likes the hidden nature as it can avoid the need to address the problem.

The one party that does want to do something protests too much and, is demonised by those who cry about "taking my hard earned money."

[Mad_Michael]

The smog problems come mostly from Ontario Hydro coal-fired emissions with a majority of such coming from Ohio valley coal-fired emissions.  Harris reduced the regulations on Hydro generating plant emission standards - allowing the old coal-fired plants to keep going and ignore required emission standards.

I'm a little confused here. Harris is responsible for emmissions eminating from the US? That sounds unlikely. It also sounds unlikely that Ontario Power Generation went out of their way to make their emmissions dirtier after the laws were changed. I'm familiar with the way the company works, and this sounds like a PR nightmare that they'd want to avoid at all costs.

What's confusing. Ohio valley is the number one source of smog in Ontario. Ontario Hydro is the second primary source.

And avoiding bad PR is what investments in PR and media management is all about.

Total BS. I remember 1995 very well. The public sector unions were chomping at the bit for a fight before Harris introduced his first piece of legislation. They walked out on illegal strikes to protest the Harris government in toto. The simple fact of the matter is that burgeoning public employment can't be sustained forever. The cuts had to happen at some point, and Harris was the man who did the job. If the unions are still smarting, too damn bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No different than now with public sector unions threatening to strike. That is all public sector unions are capable of apparently - threatening to strike. They were doing that in 1995, they were doing it in 2000 and they're doing it in 2005. If I remember correctly, public sector unions have been striking and threatening to strike pretty much constantly since the early 1970's.

But the fact is, general apathy and hatred of the Ontario government seemed to have hit a high note under Harris and has never recovered it seems. This is Harris' most long term contribution to Ontario politics - a culture of extreme partisanship of the American variety.

[Renegade]

I am not quite sure that you are saying what you mean here. If the chances of revolution, or social unrest, are not decreased, then there is every reason to increase benefits. In our society, it is a complacency to suggest that it cannot happen and it is a blindness to the world beneath you to think that there is the opportunities to "increase one's position."

If you look at it from the persepctive of the wealthy classes, the justification to pay for social services such as welfare, is to maintain the status quo and prevent social upheval and revolution. It is not really in their self-interest to pay any more than necessary to achieve that aim. You suggest that it "complacency" to suggest that it cannot happen. I'm not suggesting it is an absolute impossibility, however the chances of a revolution due to the lack of social benefits in our society are so negligible that they can be ignored. Yes I do agree that there are a small percentage of people who are so severely handicapped that they cannot better their position, however this is not true for the majority.

There is no such opportunity for many. The simple reality of human differences and limitations dictates that there will always be a proportion of the population that lacks the capacity to seize opportunity. It is like the lower half of a Bell curve and that distribution is an immutable reality of human nature.

There is always be a percentage of the population considered "poor". Until very recently, poverty was a relative measure, based upon the median income. That meant that no matter how rich a society got, there would always be poor. You say that there is no opportunity for many. I disagree. I would say there is very much opportunity for the majority and only a few are so hampered by their condition that they have no opportunity for self-betterment. Perhaps you and I disagree on the shackles which keep someone in poverty. For me, if someone abuses drugs or alcohol, that is a situation caused by their own actions and is within their control to resolve, so in my view they DO have opportunities for improving their position in society. It is hard for me to visualize situations outside of people severly disabled who cannot improve their situation.

[Epictetus]

Governments are all the same.

Monday 22 June 1998

Mrs Pupatello: “Representing OPSEU workers, the people who have been under OPSEU have watched for some time all the government motions to supposedly create efficiencies in government. I'd like your comment on the efficiency of expending over $700,000 on this particular bill. It essentially began as four sentences in a paragraph, section 73 of Bill 142, which members of the government committee failed to pass at committee last November because one individual was sleeping, another was doing correspondence and another was out of the room. In essence, the opposition members of that committee were able to defeat a particular clause, namely section 73.”

“Now we have Bill 22.”

“That four-sentence paragraph has become a bill in its entirety, receiving eight days of hearings, sent to an inappropriate committee, and with seven hours of debate minimum, which the government costs out at $100,000 an hour, so well in excess of $700,000. This, from the government that purports to be bringing efficiency to the Ontario government.”

http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/committee_d...ustice/j008.htm

You really really don’t want to get me started pulling recorded testimony and citing examples from a wide spectrum of authoritative sources exposing the government of Mike Harris for what it truly was!

A fair and reasonable argument could be made that the Ontario government under Dalton McGuinty is with but a little air-brushing around the edges, exactly the same kind of government.

We have a government at both levels provincial and federal that care not one whit for either the “oaths” they’ve sworn upon taking office, or the “idealism” of the concept that these rogues have a responsibility to the people of Canada.

In case anyone hasn’t noticed….

Canadian government is without anything approaching “leadership”; without anything remotely resembling integrity and honesty, and some would suggest this is exactly what the electorate deserves.

Canadians actually re-elected Paul Martin!

We’re getting the “government” we deserve.

[Mad_Michael]

Seems like some of this is cut'n'pasted.

If I'm wrong, I apologise profusely.

If I'm correct, it is plagarism.

In case anyone hasn’t noticed….

Canadian government is without anything approaching “leadership”; without anything remotely resembling integrity and honesty, and some would suggest this is exactly what the electorate deserves.

Hitler was a strong leader with high charisma. He also had a clear-cut election platform. Would you prefer a strong leader like that?

The history books are filled with examples of countries destroyed by charismatic and strong leaders with vision.

Peace and prosperity is boring. It attracts only dull boring grey men.

I'll take the grey men thank you.

[BHS]

What's confusing.  Ohio valley is the number one source of smog in Ontario.  Ontario Hydro is the second primary source.

So how do Ontario regulations control smog from the US? Did previous governments erect some sort of invisible pollution barrier, that Mike Harris dismantled?

But the fact is, general apathy and hatred of the Ontario government seemed to have hit a high note under Harris and has never recovered it seems.  This is Harris' most long term contribution to Ontario politics - a culture of extreme partisanship of the American variety.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like you see partisanship because of your partisan dislike of Harris.

[Mad_Michael]

What's confusing.  Ohio valley is the number one source of smog in Ontario.  Ontario Hydro is the second primary source.

So how do Ontario regulations control smog from the US? Did previous governments erect some sort of invisible pollution barrier, that Mike Harris dismantled?

1. You asserted that cars were the cause of smog problem in Toronto. I mentioned Ohio coal-generators as they have been identified as the primary 'cause' of smog in Toronto. This has nothing to do with Harris and I never said it did.

2. However, the second largest source of smog-producing emissions is Ontario Hydro. It is the reduced environmental regulations on Ontario Hydro that have contributed to the increased the smog here and that was 100% attributable to Harris's government.

Sounds like you see partisanship because of your partisan dislike of Harris.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like you don't know me very well.

Btw, I'm still paying taxes to pay for the deficit that Harris used to give away his tax cut. Some tax cut if I'm still paying for it with increased taxes.

[Epictetus]

Governments are all the same.

Monday 22 June 1998

Mrs Pupatello: “Representing OPSEU workers, the people who have been under OPSEU have watched for some time all the government motions to supposedly create efficiencies in government. I'd like your comment on the efficiency of expending over $700,000 on this particular bill. It essentially began as four sentences in a paragraph, section 73 of Bill 142, which members of the government committee failed to pass at committee last November because one individual was sleeping, another was doing correspondence and another was out of the room. In essence, the opposition members of that committee were able to defeat a particular clause, namely section 73.”

“Now we have Bill 22.”

“That four-sentence paragraph has become a bill in its entirety, receiving eight days of hearings, sent to an inappropriate committee, and with seven hours of debate minimum, which the government costs out at $100,000 an hour, so well in excess of $700,000. This, from the government that purports to be bringing efficiency to the Ontario government.”

http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/committee_d...ustice/j008.htm

You really really don’t want to get me started pulling recorded testimony and citing examples from a wide spectrum of authoritative sources exposing the government of Mike Harris for what it truly was!

A fair and reasonable argument could be made that the Ontario government under Dalton McGuinty is with but a little air-brushing around the edges, exactly the same kind of government.

We have a government at both levels provincial and federal that care not one whit for either the “oaths” they’ve sworn upon taking office, or the “idealism” of the concept that these rogues have a responsibility to the people of Canada.

In case anyone hasn’t noticed….

Canadian government is without anything approaching “leadership”; without anything remotely resembling integrity and honesty, and some would suggest this is exactly what the electorate deserves.

Canadians actually re-elected Paul Martin!

We’re getting the “government” we deserve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm prepared to cut you some slack...I've read what passes for cogent argument from you in previous posts.

If you're referring to particular statements which aren't identified in the link provided, please point them out.

If I continue to participate in this forum, what you'll find is that everything and I emphasize EVERYTHING that comes from a source other than my own thinking is and will always be cited and credit given.

Let's not get into acusations and petty innuendo just yet Mad-M...you might not like the result.

[Epictetus]

Dull boring men who usurp the process of democracy is acceptable is it?

Dull boring men who manipulate systems to enhance their power and facility to re-structure Canadian law and fiscal management to suit their own personal interests is perfectly accpetable to you is it?

It seems you have a flair for the dramatic in your prejudices Mad Michael!

A charismatic leader translates to "Hitler" and the term "leadership" is it seems offensive to you.

Not all charismatic peopl equate to Adolph Hitler Michael and leadership isn't a dirty word.

Thanks for your input though, it certainly clarifies your percpetions.

[err]

I've read tons of newspaper article. I have yet to read an article or paper which proves that the poor are paying their share. I have read lots of opinions that we should do more to help the poor, however these are exactly that, opinions, which are based upon campassion for the poor.

I can understand a compassionate arguement to help the poor. What I'm stating is that there is no economic argument, and in pure economic terms the poor are recieving more than their share.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you read the National Post and the Globe and Mail, perhaps the Toronto Sun, you will not hear that the poor are paying their share. You'll hear about the poor companies, strangled by the burdon of taxation. The business world is going to continue to groan about the unfair burdon because they want to pay less taxes... Just as I've heard you groan about the taxes that you have to pay...

One of the big differences is that business has means of hiding their income, "deferring" (escaping from) taxes, etc...

As an example. In 1982, Shell Oil (Canada) reported income taxes of $152 million on $302 million profit for the year, showing a staggering tax rate of 54%. If you read further into their situation, you'll find that they managed to defer $199 million in taxes that year by writing off investments in plant and equipment at an artificially fast rate (2 yrs). This effectively wiped out the company's tax bill, and we ended up owing Shell $47 Million dollars...

What you'll read in your right-wing press is that Shell paid 54% taxes, and is a huge contributor to our social safety net...

[Guest eureka]

Singer's column in today's Toronto Star is an interesting satire on some of what Harris did wrong.

[Renegade]

If you read the National Post and the Globe and Mail, perhaps the Toronto Sun, you will not hear that the poor are paying their share.  You'll hear about the poor companies, strangled by the burdon of taxation.  The business world is going to continue to groan about the unfair burdon because they want to pay less taxes... Just as I've heard you groan about the taxes that you have to pay...

One of the big differences is that business has means of hiding their income, "deferring" (escaping from) taxes, etc... 

As an example.  In 1982, Shell Oil (Canada) reported income taxes of $152 million on $302 million profit for the year, showing a staggering tax rate of 54%.  If you read further into their situation, you'll find that they managed to defer $199 million in taxes that year by writing off investments in plant and equipment at an artificially fast rate (2 yrs).  This effectively wiped out the company's tax bill, and we ended up owing Shell $47 Million dollars...

What you'll read in your right-wing press is that Shell paid 54% taxes, and is a huge contributor to our social safety net...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This example does not support the case that the poor are paying their share. I have already stated that I support the view that there is an inequity between corporate and individual taxes which allows corporations and self-employed individuals dedcutions and deferral opportunities the indivdiual taxpayer does not have. I would support removing this inequity by either making those deductions and deferral opportunities available to all or to none.

The middle-class and the rich individual taxpayer shoulder the bulk of the tax burden. Giving an example of a corporation which manages to avoid taxes in no way proves that the poor are paying their share.

BTW, I read newspapers with many different biases, including the Toronto Star which is very left-leaning, so if you think I am getting a narrowly biased view of the world, you are incorrect.

[Epictetus]

The rules we live by.

It seems that Greg Farries who calls himself the “administrator” here has difficulty understanding the English language. This forum posts a list of “rules” which declares that personal attacks and insults aren’t allowed.

Apparently if you’re “in the know” with Mapleleafweb “administration” that rule can be ignored.

A participant leveled a personal accusation at me with respect to plagarizing.

Mr. Farries perspective is:

“Mad_Michael questioned whether the material you

posted was plagiarized, and you successfully defended yourself. I'm not

sure what else you would like me to do?”

Essentially “It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions.”… Rule Number two in the listed forum rules doesn’t apply.

Instead the rubric is you can say anything you like, level any accusations and bersmirch the character of others on this forum and as long as the person being insulted can “defend” themselves, everything’s just wonderful!

Absolutely pathetic, but what can you expect from a Canadian “forum” website these days?

The world’s full of wannabe “journalists” and “administrators”….who come complete with their own prejudices and set of “rules”…..

I have no interest in participating in a “let’s pretend our word…our “rules” have any meaning…kind of website.

Mapleafwebweb.com is microcosm of the same failure in integrity and honesty as the very government we’re discussing.

[err]

This example does not support the case that the poor are paying their share. I have already stated that I support the view that there is an inequity between corporate and individual taxes which allows corporations and self-employed individuals dedcutions and deferral opportunities the indivdiual taxpayer does not have. I would support removing this inequity by either making those deductions and deferral opportunities available to all or to none.

The middle-class and the rich individual taxpayer shoulder the bulk of the tax burden. Giving an example of a corporation which manages to avoid taxes in no way proves that the poor are paying their share.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The example I provided was one in... thousands... Canadian companies pay about 20% of all taxes collected in this country.... and we pay the rest... It used to be 50-50....

The poor may not always be able to carry their entire weight, and I accept this. I don't need proof. I am not, at the same time, going to tell them to go starve... "You're poor because you're lazy", etc... I am glad that we live in a country that helps its weakest. Sure, there may be some percentage abusing the social assistance services, but I'd rather keep all of our social services intact for those who really need it....

The amount of money spent on abuses of our social services pales in comparison with the revenue lost due to corportate tax evasion... (and by those rich people you like so much)

[Renegade]

The example I provided was one in... thousands...  Canadian companies pay about 20% of all taxes collected in this country.... and we pay the rest...  It used to be 50-50.... 

The poor may not always be able to carry their entire weight, and I accept this.  I don't need proof.  I am not, at the same time, going to tell them to go starve... "You're poor because you're lazy", etc...  I am glad that we live in a country that helps its weakest.  Sure, there may be some percentage abusing the social assistance services, but I'd rather keep all of our social services intact for those who really need it....

The amount of money spent on abuses of our social services pales in comparison with the revenue lost due to corportate tax evasion... (and by those rich people you like so much)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again you seem to believe I am a proponent of corporate tax avoidance. I am not. So you may have one example, you may have a thousand, there is no need to convince me of this.

At least you are honest enough to admit that the poor do not carry their weight. That was consistant with my original comment. Perhaps I'm more blunt in my comment than you, however it doesn't change the fact of the matter.

You may be glad to live in a country which is socialists, however I resent being forced to pay for services which I don't benefit at all.

BTW, its only corporate tax evasion if it is illegal. If it is legal it is called corporate tax avoidance.

[err]

Again you seem to believe I am a proponent of corporate tax avoidance. I am not. So you may have one example, you may have a thousand, there is no need to convince me of this.

Quite the contrary... You seem like you've got a "mad-on" for the poor, struggling people who may rip the country off for a few hundred bucks here and there, but don't seem to mind huge corporate tax avoidance... billions of dollars worth...

At least you are honest enough to admit that the poor do not carry their weight. That was consistant with my original comment.  Perhaps I'm more blunt in my comment than you, however it doesn't change the fact of the matter.

I don't think it was ever a question... The people whom I call poor are the ones who can't carry their weight...

You may be glad to live in a country which is socialists, however I resent being forced to pay for services which I don't benefit at all.

and you've never ever benefited from our social programs... or education system.... or health care.... Wow... you're really an incredible example for the rest of us...

BTW, its only corporate tax evasion if it is illegal. If it is legal it is called corporate tax avoidance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep... and our governments haven't had the moral fortitude to fix the injustices in the system.... They, like you, want to blame all of our financial woes on the little guy.... Because the little guy doesn't have the resources to fight back.. (It's sort of a bully tactic).

[Renegade]

Quite the contrary... You seem like you've got a "mad-on" for the poor, struggling people who may rip the country off for a few hundred bucks here and there, but don't seem to mind huge corporate tax avoidance... billions of dollars worth...

Not at all. I despise corporate welfare as much as individual welfare. I don't have two sets of standards regardless of the dollar amount. If you can find one statement in any of my posts which suggest I don't mind corporate tax avoidance, I challenge you to show it. If not, back off accuations when you don't know my position.

I don't think it was ever a question... The people whom I call poor are the ones who can't carry their weight...

It probably wasn't you, it was eureka who suggested it.

and you've never ever benefited from our social programs... or education system.... or health care.... Wow... you're really an incredible example for the rest of us...

Of course I have used some our social programs, it has just never been worth anywhere near the tax dollars which are forcibly extorted from me to pay for those systems. Many others I have never used, nor forsee ever using. What's your point here, that if I minimially use one system that I should be forced to over pay for it all?

Yep... and our governments haven't had the moral fortitude to fix the injustices in the system.... They, like you, want to blame all of our financial woes on the little guy.... Because the little guy doesn't have the resources to fight back.. (It's sort of a bully tactic).

Since you don't think much of government policy either, so I'm sure you would support me when I advocate that the government should minimize its interferrence in our lives.

[mirror]

Reversing another terrible Mike Harris decision:

Hospitals much better off apart

[Greg]

The world’s full of wannabe “journalists” and “administrators”….who come complete with their own prejudices and set of “rules”…..

I have no interest in participating in a “let’s pretend our word…our “rules” have any meaning…kind of website.

Mapleafwebweb.com is microcosm of the same failure in integrity and honesty as the very government we’re discussing.

You're free to leave anytime. In the future, don't waste everyones time and our resources with your complaints. If you've got a problem, contact me directly.

[err]

Not at all. I despise corporate welfare as much as individual welfare. I don't have two sets of standards regardless of the dollar amount. If you can find one statement in any of my posts which suggest I don't mind corporate tax avoidance, I challenge you to show it. If not, back off accuations when you don't know my position.

One would wonder, with all of your huffing and puffing about "proving that the poor carry their weight", what you have against the poor... When, as we have already discussed, corporate and wealthy people are able to "legally" avoid paying huge sums of money... yet you have not once commented on a need for tax reform... just that the poor don't carry their weight, and that they get too much... Your protestations (above) seem rather hollow..

Of course I have used some our social programs, it has just never been worth anywhere near the tax dollars which are forcibly extorted from me to pay for those systems. Many others I have never used, nor forsee ever using. What's your point here, that if I minimially use one system that I should be forced to over pay for it all?

Would you rather pay for all services as you use them... supposing you need a pacemaker... and just have to come up with $20,000 to pay for it... or die... You say that you like choices, which one would you choose ??? And what if you didn't have the $20K... Then what's your choice... I like the fact that I live in a system that I may pay more into than I receive... if I'm lucky.... that I don't have to be the recipient of such services....

Yep... and our governments haven't had the moral fortitude to fix the injustices in the system.... They, like you, want to blame all of our financial woes on the little guy.... Because the little guy doesn't have the resources to fight back.. (It's sort of a bully tactic).

Since you don't think much of government policy either, so I'm sure you would support me when I advocate that the government should minimize its interferrence in our lives.

I would suggest a brief course in reading comprehension... I think we need more government... not less...