Thank you, Marc, for sharing your concerns and I'll try to focus my response in 4-5 areas as you jumped around a bit (that's not a criticism, sir). :) I must disagree with you as to the accuracy of the statements that I presented on my earlier response to you. Should you wish to cite alternative data, I'm all ears. Anyway, please spend some time with these thoughts as I have again devoted a fair amount of time to what you posted.

Unions: I believe unions have been an essential way for individuals to have power collectively in a way that the individuals could not acquire it on their own. During the 50s, union membership was about 35% of the workforce and it's now down to about 11%. Unfortunately, this decline correlates in almost lockstep with the decline in the middle classes share of income. In a time increasing wealth inequality, we need more union membership, not less of it. Globalization has crushed the ability of blue collar workers to secure living wage jobs and it's only going to get worse. Have there been excesses in union benefits? Yes, and many cities and towns are going to have to reduce the overly generous pensions/health care benefits that were granted to municipal workers. Detroit's situation perfectly illustrates this fiscal reality. And remember, when these extravagant benefits were negotiated, management was on the other side of the table from the unions and management agreed to them. Your talk of your concern for "average Joe" and your railing against the wealthy bankers, etc. seems to conflict with your disdain for unions and the average Joes and Janes that they represent, Marc. I don't see how you can be against each side.

Inefficiency of Government: Those who intensely dislike government (Grover Norquist being the most extreme example) need to remember the innumerable success stories: social security (in an earlier post I've offered a way to shore it up for decades to come), medicare (ditto), military, National Institute of Health, CDC, interstate highway system, EPA, Internet, GI Bill (mom and dad went to college on that one), FAA, National Weather Service, and there are of course many more. Are there examples where cuts could be made, of course, and they should be publicly debated and subject to the democratic process like anything else. Inefficiencies will always be present, always, but that doesn't mean programs should not be in place. Perfection should not be the enemy of the good. Are there lessons to be learned from private sector practices, you bet. I just can't abide the ignorant chants of government is bad, cut government, etc. etc. It replaces thoughtful debate, is insulting, and can hurt those most vulnerable, Marc. Again, these are the folks you say you care about. And I don't doubt your concerns, sir.

Wall Street: I totally agree that it's scandalous that many in the banking/financial services sector haven't been tried, convicted, and sentenced. As I posted earlier, too big to fail institutions have to be broken up. Elizabeth Warren has been a strong, vocal advocate in this area and I'm sorry, but the tea partiers generally don't side with this senator. She is truly looking out for the most vulnerable.

Gun Rights: You seem fixated on the left's plan for what you call "total disarmament". SCOTUS has ruled and the second amendment isn't going away, Marc. The paranoia on the right has been frankly shocking. Doesn't this crowd read the papers? Do they only talk amongst themselves in their insular little Internet bubble? You guys won the firearms debate. And the statistics I posted recently on per capita firearms deaths by country attest to this. It's not that Americans have better aim when it comes to killing their fellow citizens, it's that so many Americans are packing such lethal heat. Boggles my mind it does.

Bad Parenting: I have taught for ten years now, Marc, and typically, I've observed that roughly 25% of my students have behaviors that range from mildly to greatly challenging. Now, I'm not in a city where I know that percentage would increase, and possibly dramatically. Over the 15 or so years I've been on this board, I've often mentioned that out-of-wedlock-birth are an enormous problem in our country. These children are far more likely to grow up in poverty, struggle in school, and not achieve social mobility. I've had the helicopter parents that you refer to and yes, they are a problem and can stifle their child's growth. Still, I think their kids do a lot better than those from one-parent households. And I'm not saying there aren't success stories from single moms and dads, it's just that it's so much more difficult. So where to go? I think we need a sustained national conversation on what good parenting really looks like. It needs to be stressed that it means putting your child's welfare FIRST. Too many parents do not do this, and I see the effects in my classroom all of the time. It's a damn shame. On a personal level, my wife and I bought a very small house, below actually what we could have afforded, so I could be home with our daughter for her first eight years. We saved and saved and gladly didn't "keep up with the Joneses" in order to do what was best for our child. There just isn't enough of this. We need public service announcements, and we need the president talking a hell of a lot more about this (he knows what a single family household was like), and we need CONTRACEPTION available to all for free! I share your concern for the culture of dependency, Marc. I only fear that the children will suffer even more if benefits are ended. I mean, we're not going to put millions of children in government custody, right? It's an incredibly vexing issue and very troubling for our future.

Peter T.