It is quite possible that many of the Deseret News readers, as Jay Evensen says, identify Washington, our government, as the enemy. It is also quite possible that those readers of which he speaks are anti-government, anti-people and anti-America.

Many of the ills of our current economy can be laid at the door step of the Banks and other financial institutions who were once the friends of the people and are now rabid dogs tearing at the flesh of our society.

Many letters have appeared here about the evils of the Payday lenders and the fees for cashing checks. Banks created the Payday lenders by refusing to cash checks, even on their own bank, for workers who are paid by check. It was a way to steal a part of the workers paycheck.

While charging 15 to 30 percent interest on credit cards, my bank is offering to renew my IRA for another period at 1/2 percent interest.

The government of the people should protect our economy from unscrupulous businessmen like the current bankers and credit unions. Maybe we need a public option in banking.

In the context of regulation, "independent" always means independent of the industry being regulated, not independent of the White House or other governmental agency.

It is called facism.

This is the same battle waged before we were. Choice. The more the government gets involved the less choice we have. You say the government protects our choice...au contrair monfrair. The banks may be wrong for doing certain things...but they made a choice and we have a choice to use or not use. Get the government involved and all of sudden those choices are your's or mine. Don't forget...the first battle was about choice and it will always be about choice...don't encourage the intervention of choice even if you are Ultra Bob.

@UltraBob: The founding fathers recognized that the a federal government is a necessary evil and did all they could to limit its power. In its current bloated, heavy handed form it is absolutely the enemy of freedom loving people.

How do you think the bankers got to be so powerful? It's because the government allows them to become "too big to fail" by limiting their competition through regulation and favoring only the largest with taxpayer guarantees.

Finally, your suggestion that we need a public option in banking is sadly already the case. What do you call Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, AIG, Citibank and the rest?

Only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans. Federal Reserve Board data show that more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

To Invisible Hand | 12:15 p.m.

“The founding fathers recognized that the a federal government is a necessary evil and did all they could to limit its power“.

Given that when you say the Federal government is a necessary evil, you really mean that all government is a necessary evil. Why is it that government is necessary? To be sure it is to protect us from our common enemies, but are there other things government should do? Could it be that we also want our government to protect us from each other. And be a sort of referee or umpire to control our excess.

Consider a football game where the referee was extremely limited by his age (6 years old) and the player were grown up, really big, professionals with no regulations or rules, able to use clubs, brass knuckles etc. Might be fun to watch, but it wouldn’t be football.

How about a baseball game where the player could punch out the umpire if he didn’t like the call.

Our government is the referee in our game of life, if you prevent him from doing his job, all of us will be the losers.

Only one problem with your analogy,

life is NOT a game,

governing is NOT a game,


When you start creating regulatory agencies,

who or what will the check and balance against them?

power must limited or liberty will be lost.


We are beginning to see the umlimited power these agencies believe they have.

the executive branch was meant only to enforce the laws created by legislative,

not be a power unto themselves.

A game: A competitive activity in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules.

Life is just a game and we are the players.

If you don't understand that, seek help.

If life is a game, then liberals want to make it so nobody wins. They want the referee to be the one with clubs and brass knuckles, and then he can punch out anyone who dares to rise above the lowest common denominator.

The only fair referee is the free market. Get the big bully government out of the way, the free market will police itself, and prosperity ensues.

Borrowers had a choice. No one put a gun to their head and forced them to sign. Everyone points fingers. It was the banks, it was the regulators, it was the democrats, it was the republicans, it was my next door neighbor's dog that barks all night. Whatever.

The real problem looks at us in the mirror everytime we comb our hair.

The people who advocate more and more government oversight and control are fools. Good-hearted fools? Maybe. But fools nonetheless. We must fight them with every fiber of strength we possess. We must do in kindly and civily. But we must do it.

The last thing we need is more government oversight. We need innovation, hard work and freedom. Regulation kills these impulses. We need to be less greedy and self-serving. Regulation merely camolflages these.

Want rules for your game? Try this one: THINK and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF!