Letters to the Editor
Confidence is hard to restore
By the time you read this, our government will have taken $700 billion, with a B, from the American taxpayers in order to buy bad loans from companies that made poor choices, so they can continue making poor choices.
The main reason given for this “is to restore confidence in our economy”. I don’t know about you, but my confidence in our economy went south when Michigan lost 85,000 jobs. And, a lot of those jobs ended up south of the border.
What I really lack is confidence in the American government. If they want to restore any semblance of confidence, lets start with the government. And, try this on for size…take the 1/3 most risky home loans (you know the people who are working way too many hours and still not making it, because they were sweet talked into some sort of loan it would take a darn good lawyer to understand) and then just plain pay them off. The government let this happen; they were asleep at the wheel. They weren’t GOVERNING ANYTHING.
Then when their friends start to lose some of their money, they come up with weekend deals after hours and tell the senate that if you don’t do it now it will only get worse!
Isn’t that the same kind of sales pitch that was used to get people to sign up for these risky mortgages in the first place? Don’t it make you wonder where Paulson got the bright idea? You don’t think it’s his buddies who he’s helping out do you?
People – we have been complaining about the cost of the war in Iraq. But, I totally expect that by the time you read this, that cost will have been surpassed with one fell swoop of the pen.
We are absolute fools to allow this to take place. Where is the outrage, the passion for what is right? Why are there no protestors? Don’t care that this is costing every American $10,000? Ten thousand to help poor people is one thing, but to line the pockets of people whose pockets are so deep they reach all the way to China, that’s just stupid.
Bailout plan is dangerous
President Bush said nothing to change the fact that this bailout plan is more than dangerous. How many more mortgages are going to fail due to the inflationary factor that it causes?
There must be a plan put in place simultaneously to counter the inflationary factor. Energy will go up again and it will not come down this time, not that it has yet for the most part. They must change their factors on setting interest rates.
The loan rate from the Federal Reserve is two percent. FHA is now loaning at six-seven percent if you have a good credit score. Why is there a four or five percent difference? Should it not be lowered if the additional percentage rate is to pay off foreclosures?
“According to Congressman Ron Paul, in the last three years, the Federal Reserve has created over $4 trillion in new money. The result of all this ‘money-out-of-thin-air’ fraud is never-ending inflation. And the more prices rise, the more the dollar collapses. Folks, this is not sustainable,” said Chuck Baldwin, nominee for President of the Constitutional Party.
If there is the continued insistence on doing a socialist type bailout, how about if we give every legal citizen, over age 18, $20,000? That would cost us about 4 trillion dollars. The money can be deposited for each household into an account that will pay down the mortgage or, if debt free, into a savings account that bears interest for withdraw and can be released timely for a mortgage type loan. In the process of the pay down, re-mortgage all the loans at a three or four percent interest rate fixed for seven years. This will create a trickle up approach and benefit the financial industry as well as the folks.
Get a few dollar coins out of the bank and hide it somewhere, as it may be that no one will be able to break 20’s. Read fairtax.org.
R. George Dunn
Judges were following laws
The last weeks’ papers had letters to the Editor in regard to our two judges going to court to take Mr. Martin off the ballot. I agree with the actions that judges Myles and Bergeron took in bringing the situation to the courts. I am particularly pleased that Judge Bergeron appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. We now have a definite legal ruling on the number of signatures and required dates for nominating petitions.
The earlier court decision that put Mr. Martin on the ballot even though he did not submit the required number of signatures by the required time, because the Secretary of State employees said that he could submit a smaller number, was flawed. If the decision were allowed to stand, then persons could perform illegal acts if they could get state employees to say it was all right. We are told all the time that it doesn’t matter what we are told, but what is written down that applies. Our judges should be honored for upholding the law. Mr. Martin, as an attorney, should not depend on what some office employees tell him, but look at the law. He wanted to run for the position of judge, not for a lesser political position (that is not involved with the Justice system) and I would hope that he would want to strictly obey the law.
What happened to the sky?
One of my favorite things, living out in the country, is admiring the brilliant night sky.
Billions of stars, planets and constellations are there for our education and enjoyment.
For several months now, the skyline has been marred with spotlights from the new casino. I would like to see the spotlights turned off now that the “Grand Opening” has come and gone. I consider them a form of pollution.
I would like that unblemished night sky back please. It’s one of the benefits of living here. How would someone go about asking the casino to please, TURN OFF THE SPOTLIGHTS.
More of the same
To all the republicans out there that like the direction the country is going the last eight years under George Bush, just vote for John McSame.
Martin for me
Let me see if I have this correct. In the United States, we have a democracy. And in this democracy, the Judicial System is a prime part of this. We lean on the Judges to help us with fairness. In fact, we depend on them.
So you can see I am having a hard time seeing the justice in what Judges Ronald Bergeron and William F. Myles have done. Why are they not giving us the opportunity to vote for them against someone else? Do they feel that one of them might lose against Christopher Martin? Is Martin that much better that they do not want him on the ballot?
So he was given wrong information by authorities (the Secretary of State) and he followed this information and did what he believed was right. It was nothing that would hurt any of us except the two named Judges. In fact, having Martin on the ballot seems to me that it would be more of a democracy and let the people really chose the Judges it wants.
That would probably be the incumbents since they have, supposedly, a good record of judging.
But maybe, they don’t. And that is why they did not want Martin to run.
It would seem like the best of my interests, as a voting citizen, is to have a ballot on which to vote among a few, not one that does not. This does not seem like a democracy. Is this a dictatorship, where we have no real vote? Did the two incumbents work hard at seeing that we did not have a vote? We just have to take the two existing Judges?
They have spent much time and I suppose much of someone’s money…and I hope none of mine because they have used court time and monies…to fight this. I am now thinking that they are protecting something of self interest and do not want to run against anyone. And I, personally, do not like this. So I do not want to be a part of it and will be voting for a write-in…Christopher Martin.