We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
While the democratization of Capitalism via the huge increase in investing by the general public over the past 30 years is a wonderful thing, there is also a downside. The downside is that people complain when they lose, and expect the government to do something about it - or to prevent it. They want to privatize gain but socialize risk.
Can someone explain to me how a GSE with implied taxpayer backing exempt from state and local taxes through federal mandate while benefitting from a lower cost of funds is allowed to make campaign/[political contributions to members of congress who are charged with regulating that GSE? This is a perfect example of the 'peoples representatives' acting in their own short term interests rather than the interests of their constituents. Such behavior may not be technically 'illegal' but the rules that allow the blatant, self-serving nature of such arrangements should be. These quasi government agencies are unconstitutional and should never have been created. Our constitution limits the power of government to prevent the potential for abuse inherent to these kind of arrangements. Governmnet is the cause of these difficulties rather than the 'lack of regulation' idea currently being pushed by the left. These brain dead zombies believe the solution to this problem is that additional authority be given to the incompetents responsible for it. Insanity.