This column by award-winning novelist/columnist/journalist Orson Scott Card should be REQUIRED READING for every American--certainly anyone considering casting their vote for Barack Obama. Keep in mind that this piece is written by DEMOCRAT...one who understands the need for truth and honesty in media, and in America in general:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-10-05-1.html
If this information was actually presented to the voters of this nation, and if the truths displayed here were not swept under the rug by the mainstream press, obfiscated by the Obama campaign and congressional Democrats--covered up, in other words--there is no way Barack Obama would still be in contention for (let alone poised to actually win) the Presidency. This is a shameful indictment of the American press, the Obama campaign, and the Democrats who have given us this, the worst financial crisis in American history. This piece exposes the entire reason Barack Obama stands to win--and exactly how America stands to lose if he's elected.
What a shameful thing we are being subjected to in this nation, such deceit as this. What a shameful time we live in, the sunset of the American nation. We--all of us--will have to explain to our children how we allowed America to die on our watch, if we let Obama and his congressional cronies pull this off.
I'm ashamed. I'm deeply, deeply ashamed right now...that we in America could even be considering putting this guy in office.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Yeah, but they still say it's "racist" to bring these things up...
Here's video of an African American BEGGING John McCain to "take it to Obama", literally BEGGING him to get ACORN, Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, Rezko, et al out in front of the American people so they can SEE what Obama really represents--who he really is...
Of course the Obamabots are still calling this ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY EXAMINATION OF THE CHARACTER AND ASSOCIATIONS OF A MAN WHO WOULD BE PRESIDENT some sort of "racism"...does this apply to the African American who is begging that this information be presented to the American people?
Of course the Obamabots are still calling this ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY EXAMINATION OF THE CHARACTER AND ASSOCIATIONS OF A MAN WHO WOULD BE PRESIDENT some sort of "racism"...does this apply to the African American who is begging that this information be presented to the American people?
Monday, October 6, 2008
"Hanging Around" - A Message to my Libertarian Friends
I guess you could say I'm one of those wacky Libertarian types. I'm an extreme fiscal conservative, even more extreme small-government advocate, a social moderate and a distinctly unapologetic defender of the themes of Liberty and Freedom (together with the personal responsibility these things require). I'm not registered as a Libertarian though; I'm a lifetime Republican and you'll learn why in just a few moments.
Before I go into that, I want to paint a bit of an analogy that might help put some of this in perspective. Let's call this "hanging around" theory.
If you've ever been to a slot machine casino you've seen video poker games. These are much more games of skill than their "triple seven" counterparts, and given a bit of knowledge they can be played considerably more profitably. This isn't an article about probability or other mathematics, or about gambling, so I won't go into great detail here. If you've never played poker, or one of these machines, some of this may not make sense to you. If you have, though, you'll understand exactly what I'm talking about. I'll try to make this clear to both those who have played and those who have not.
Video poker machines pay out based upon the strength of the player's final hand. A pair of Jacks or better, on most machines, returns even money. A flush returns 5 or 6 to one, and the scale increases as the hand strength increases, up to the Royal Flush which pays out a "jackpot". The winning strategy on these machines depends entirely on one's ability to make the correct decisions when drawing to his or her initial hand. Often the correct decision doesn't, on the surface, make much sense. Proper decision making on these machines frequently entails foregoing an apparent larger payout opportunity in order to collect a more likely smaller payout. Playing for a pair of jacks, in other words, is usually smarter than playing for a straight or a flush. Why? Because you're not playing for either of those hands--you're playing for the jackpot. Think about that for a moment and it will make sense to you. The whole object of video poker strategy is to "hang around" long enough to win the big one. Each time you get your money back, with a pair of jacks for example, you've "hung around" one more hand. The next deal of the cards could present you with that Royal Flush and THAT'S your actual goal.
Large-scale politics, for a Libertarian, must be thought of in the same way. You may want to go for that flush, but when the odds are severely against you it makes much better sense strategically to make the play that allows you to "hang around" for another deal.
Here is a fundamental truth that Libertarians, and those of their ilk, need to recognize and come to grips with; the movement you support will never, ever, EVER occur from the top down. The defense and resurgence of Liberty will only occur from the bottom up. Libertarianism is a grass-roots movement; that's the only strategy that can ever work. It's the only method by which that larger "payoff" can ever be achieved, and the larger victory can only come after a long period of just "hanging around".
No one from the Libertarian (or Constitution, or any other small) party will ever be elected to major national office--or at least, not in any kind of plurality--until the grass-roots efforts have created huge swells of interest in smaller venues. Libertarians have to move into city council and state house roles IN LARGE NUMBERS before any serious inroads can be made at the national level. This is probably not news to those who have been around the party/movement for awhile, but the central lesson somehow doesn't translate completely to the rank and file and, shockingly, we get a situation where Libertarians and other Liberty-minded folk actually vote in a manner inconsistent with their best interests. They play for the flush, rather than trying to "hang around" long enough to hit the jackpot.
Imagine, for a moment, that you are presented with two and only two life-threatening choices; you can take a bullet to the chest, or you can take a bullet to the leg. Once you're shot, the assailant will disappear for awhile and you are free to do whatever you may to try to survive. The choice, in a situation like this, is pretty clear. What may not be clear is that, for a Liberty-minded individual, that exact choice--and only that choice--is presented every four years...during the Presidential elections. Sometimes the choice may be a shot to the thigh or a shot to the calf (as it was with Bill Clinton/George Bush I) and sometimes it's worse. In any case, we are realistically presented with only two realistic scenarios in any given Presidential election, and the choice we make--or the failure to make one of those choices--determines whether we've ultimately helped or hurt our cause. FAILING TO CHOOSE THE BEST OF THOSE TWO OPTIONS HURTS OUR CHANCES OF "HANGING AROUND" LONG ENOUGH TO ACHIEVE OUR TRUE GOALS.
Ron Paul is, by most definitions, a Libertarian...but there's a reason he isn't registered as one, and why he didn't run as one. Paul understands inherently that to have any chance at all--TO HAVE ANY CHANCE AT ALL--of winning election to a major national post, he must be a Republican or a Democrat. His run for the White House on the Republican ticket had some honor (it no longer does) and brought a great deal of positive publicity to the cause of Liberty. Once it became obvious he could not win, and once the publicity began to ebb, the best thing Ron Paul could do for the long-term success of the policies he champions, is remove himself from the race and throw his wholehearted support behind the candidate who represents the best chance for us to "hang around" for four more years. Likewise, the best thing the Libertarian Party could do for the long-term success of it's stated goals is to drop all pretense of a run at the White House and instead support the lesser of two evils because those are the only choices we legitimately have, and only one of those represents the best possibility that we may "hang around" long enough to strengthen and grow from the ground up so that we may one day actually have a chance at major national office. Running a ticket, and encouraging your supporters to vote for that ticket, when it is absolutely certain that not only will your ticket not win but it will not even make a significant splash is, at best, a self-serving exercise in vanity. At worst it is a step backwards for your movement, and the antithesis of "hanging around". This year in particular, it could spell death for the nation we're trying to put back on-course. The damage done from wasting one's vote this year may be simply irrecoverable.
You will not see the Ron Paul or Bob Barr campaigns ending before this election is over, despite that it would be the best thing that could happen for the long-term success of the Liberty movement. But the short-sightedness of the national party doesn't have to infect your decision-making. An intelligent examination of the situation at hand will conclude that, firstly, the best course of action for our long-term goals to be met is that we "hang around" long enough to create a popular uprising, and that will occur from the ground up in small- to medium-sized offices. Secondly, you should be able to easily conclude that, in this year with these candidates and the financial crisis we currently face, our very possibility of "hanging around" is threatened. I say this with no interest in undue drama--it is entirely possible that the nation we love could come to a literal demise if the wrong choice is made on November 4th this year. Even with the right choice we're in a great deal of trouble...but the wrong choice may absolutely be fatal. We simply may never recover. This year we can choose to be shot in the belly, or shot in the head. A vote for Bob Barr, a vote for Ron Paul, or a non-vote in this environment puts YOUR FINGER on the trigger.
Barack Obama and the overly-liberal congress he is likely to have behind him will spell the death of America as we know it. This is the most government-centric candidate we've seen for office in our lifetimes; he is the ultimate nanny-statist. John McCain may not be the best friend a Libertarian could have, but given the alternative there is no alternative! If we are truly committed to our long-term goal of Liberty in our lifetime, this year we have no choice. We must vote, and we must vote McCain. We have to give ourselves and our cause a chance to "hang around" awhile longer. This year any other decision--including a non-vote--is extremely detrimental to the cause of Freedom and places you squarely at odds with the ideals you claim to represent.
I'm not a huge fan of McCain either, but I'm going to do what's right. I urge you to do the same.
Before I go into that, I want to paint a bit of an analogy that might help put some of this in perspective. Let's call this "hanging around" theory.
If you've ever been to a slot machine casino you've seen video poker games. These are much more games of skill than their "triple seven" counterparts, and given a bit of knowledge they can be played considerably more profitably. This isn't an article about probability or other mathematics, or about gambling, so I won't go into great detail here. If you've never played poker, or one of these machines, some of this may not make sense to you. If you have, though, you'll understand exactly what I'm talking about. I'll try to make this clear to both those who have played and those who have not.
Video poker machines pay out based upon the strength of the player's final hand. A pair of Jacks or better, on most machines, returns even money. A flush returns 5 or 6 to one, and the scale increases as the hand strength increases, up to the Royal Flush which pays out a "jackpot". The winning strategy on these machines depends entirely on one's ability to make the correct decisions when drawing to his or her initial hand. Often the correct decision doesn't, on the surface, make much sense. Proper decision making on these machines frequently entails foregoing an apparent larger payout opportunity in order to collect a more likely smaller payout. Playing for a pair of jacks, in other words, is usually smarter than playing for a straight or a flush. Why? Because you're not playing for either of those hands--you're playing for the jackpot. Think about that for a moment and it will make sense to you. The whole object of video poker strategy is to "hang around" long enough to win the big one. Each time you get your money back, with a pair of jacks for example, you've "hung around" one more hand. The next deal of the cards could present you with that Royal Flush and THAT'S your actual goal.
Large-scale politics, for a Libertarian, must be thought of in the same way. You may want to go for that flush, but when the odds are severely against you it makes much better sense strategically to make the play that allows you to "hang around" for another deal.
Here is a fundamental truth that Libertarians, and those of their ilk, need to recognize and come to grips with; the movement you support will never, ever, EVER occur from the top down. The defense and resurgence of Liberty will only occur from the bottom up. Libertarianism is a grass-roots movement; that's the only strategy that can ever work. It's the only method by which that larger "payoff" can ever be achieved, and the larger victory can only come after a long period of just "hanging around".
No one from the Libertarian (or Constitution, or any other small) party will ever be elected to major national office--or at least, not in any kind of plurality--until the grass-roots efforts have created huge swells of interest in smaller venues. Libertarians have to move into city council and state house roles IN LARGE NUMBERS before any serious inroads can be made at the national level. This is probably not news to those who have been around the party/movement for awhile, but the central lesson somehow doesn't translate completely to the rank and file and, shockingly, we get a situation where Libertarians and other Liberty-minded folk actually vote in a manner inconsistent with their best interests. They play for the flush, rather than trying to "hang around" long enough to hit the jackpot.
Imagine, for a moment, that you are presented with two and only two life-threatening choices; you can take a bullet to the chest, or you can take a bullet to the leg. Once you're shot, the assailant will disappear for awhile and you are free to do whatever you may to try to survive. The choice, in a situation like this, is pretty clear. What may not be clear is that, for a Liberty-minded individual, that exact choice--and only that choice--is presented every four years...during the Presidential elections. Sometimes the choice may be a shot to the thigh or a shot to the calf (as it was with Bill Clinton/George Bush I) and sometimes it's worse. In any case, we are realistically presented with only two realistic scenarios in any given Presidential election, and the choice we make--or the failure to make one of those choices--determines whether we've ultimately helped or hurt our cause. FAILING TO CHOOSE THE BEST OF THOSE TWO OPTIONS HURTS OUR CHANCES OF "HANGING AROUND" LONG ENOUGH TO ACHIEVE OUR TRUE GOALS.
Ron Paul is, by most definitions, a Libertarian...but there's a reason he isn't registered as one, and why he didn't run as one. Paul understands inherently that to have any chance at all--TO HAVE ANY CHANCE AT ALL--of winning election to a major national post, he must be a Republican or a Democrat. His run for the White House on the Republican ticket had some honor (it no longer does) and brought a great deal of positive publicity to the cause of Liberty. Once it became obvious he could not win, and once the publicity began to ebb, the best thing Ron Paul could do for the long-term success of the policies he champions, is remove himself from the race and throw his wholehearted support behind the candidate who represents the best chance for us to "hang around" for four more years. Likewise, the best thing the Libertarian Party could do for the long-term success of it's stated goals is to drop all pretense of a run at the White House and instead support the lesser of two evils because those are the only choices we legitimately have, and only one of those represents the best possibility that we may "hang around" long enough to strengthen and grow from the ground up so that we may one day actually have a chance at major national office. Running a ticket, and encouraging your supporters to vote for that ticket, when it is absolutely certain that not only will your ticket not win but it will not even make a significant splash is, at best, a self-serving exercise in vanity. At worst it is a step backwards for your movement, and the antithesis of "hanging around". This year in particular, it could spell death for the nation we're trying to put back on-course. The damage done from wasting one's vote this year may be simply irrecoverable.
You will not see the Ron Paul or Bob Barr campaigns ending before this election is over, despite that it would be the best thing that could happen for the long-term success of the Liberty movement. But the short-sightedness of the national party doesn't have to infect your decision-making. An intelligent examination of the situation at hand will conclude that, firstly, the best course of action for our long-term goals to be met is that we "hang around" long enough to create a popular uprising, and that will occur from the ground up in small- to medium-sized offices. Secondly, you should be able to easily conclude that, in this year with these candidates and the financial crisis we currently face, our very possibility of "hanging around" is threatened. I say this with no interest in undue drama--it is entirely possible that the nation we love could come to a literal demise if the wrong choice is made on November 4th this year. Even with the right choice we're in a great deal of trouble...but the wrong choice may absolutely be fatal. We simply may never recover. This year we can choose to be shot in the belly, or shot in the head. A vote for Bob Barr, a vote for Ron Paul, or a non-vote in this environment puts YOUR FINGER on the trigger.
Barack Obama and the overly-liberal congress he is likely to have behind him will spell the death of America as we know it. This is the most government-centric candidate we've seen for office in our lifetimes; he is the ultimate nanny-statist. John McCain may not be the best friend a Libertarian could have, but given the alternative there is no alternative! If we are truly committed to our long-term goal of Liberty in our lifetime, this year we have no choice. We must vote, and we must vote McCain. We have to give ourselves and our cause a chance to "hang around" awhile longer. This year any other decision--including a non-vote--is extremely detrimental to the cause of Freedom and places you squarely at odds with the ideals you claim to represent.
I'm not a huge fan of McCain either, but I'm going to do what's right. I urge you to do the same.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
The increasingly-apparent literal Civil War
I've been busy with other things and I've all but abandoned trying to do meaningful writing lately. Unfortunately I have to actually take some time right now to do this piece. I can't avoid this because I think this needs to be put out there, even by someone as "unimportant" as me.
This is painful for me to say. I wouldn't have believed it but then, given the events of the last three or four months, nothing in America should surprise me or anyone else any longer. I'm not going to "qualify" my remarks except to say that those who have read my writing know both what my intelligence level is and how my brain works (I'm exceptional at "puzzle building", a particularly useful skill when taking bits of information from different sources and putting them all together in an effort to recognize the "big picture"). That's what I do, it's what I'm good at, and I've come to trust these instincts when I have to call upon them. I have to do that now.
There is a Civil War coming in this country. I'm not talking about a simple war of words or ideologies, but a real, live shooting war. It's going to take place in the streets, starting in either the cities or outside of them (but not both), probably starting in the next thirty to ninety days. It's going to eventually involve exceeding numbers of ordinary citizens doing what they feel they must, and unlike the war of the 1860s, this one will leave this nation shattered. America, as we have come to know it, will no longer be, probably within the next year and definitely within the next five to ten years. I'll write much more on this later, but I just want this dated and out in the open, right now. It's coming, folks. You should prepare for it.
This is painful for me to say. I wouldn't have believed it but then, given the events of the last three or four months, nothing in America should surprise me or anyone else any longer. I'm not going to "qualify" my remarks except to say that those who have read my writing know both what my intelligence level is and how my brain works (I'm exceptional at "puzzle building", a particularly useful skill when taking bits of information from different sources and putting them all together in an effort to recognize the "big picture"). That's what I do, it's what I'm good at, and I've come to trust these instincts when I have to call upon them. I have to do that now.
There is a Civil War coming in this country. I'm not talking about a simple war of words or ideologies, but a real, live shooting war. It's going to take place in the streets, starting in either the cities or outside of them (but not both), probably starting in the next thirty to ninety days. It's going to eventually involve exceeding numbers of ordinary citizens doing what they feel they must, and unlike the war of the 1860s, this one will leave this nation shattered. America, as we have come to know it, will no longer be, probably within the next year and definitely within the next five to ten years. I'll write much more on this later, but I just want this dated and out in the open, right now. It's coming, folks. You should prepare for it.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Lunacy
More on this later, if I feel like bothering to correct the mindless drabble of the Left...but I just wanted to mention that every time I think Maureen Dowd of the New York Times couldn't possibly be more of an idiot, she decends even further into idiocy. The only thing that is more amazing than the depth of some people's stupidity is that there's someone else even more stupid willing to give them a place from which to put their lunacy on display. Who on Earth would actually pay good money for the New York Times? What fool is that careless with the dollars he earns? Oh yeah...Congressmen, with our tax dollars. I forgot.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Barack Obama and the victim mentality
I caught part of Barack Obama's rally speech this afternoon in North Carolina. I have about all the reason anyone would need to smack this man in the mouth, but the tripe that came spewing from his lips today made my blood boil.
I'd like to offer a clue to Barack Obama, George Bush, Hank Paulson and the Democrats in congress--PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. Got that? Let me help you to reinforce it by repeating it. PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS!
GOD I'm sick of listening to the Democrats making everyone a victim. Today Obama called for the bailout fiasco that Congress is working on to "help keep innocent Americans in their homes".
That kind of crap makes me puke. Let's start by saying that Barry and the Dems aren't doing a damned thing to keep me in MY home, but they're going to spend MY MONEY to help a bunch of careless idiots keep homes they overextended themselves for? What, they couldn't READ? They didn't understand that if they borrowed $200,000 they were required to pay it back with interest or they'd lose the house they don't actually own until it's paid for?
Let's get something straight--there are people in this world who will take advantage of other people if they can get away with it. Those people should be prosecuted for fraud if they're caught doing such things. CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS OF SELLING AND FINANCING REAL ESTATE HASN'T BEEN CRIMINALIZED YET, and to my knowlege there's no likelihood that it will be. The fact is these people went willingly into mortgages they could not afford and it isn't MY responsibility to pay for THEIR mistake. I'm all for helping my neighbor when things beyond his control affect him...but I'm not even remotely interested in protecting people from their own stupidity and carelessness.
THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT VICTIMS. Neither are the fat cats who profited from the ballooning of the markets and are now suffering losses since those cash cows have come suddenly crashing to Earth. NONE OF THEM DESERVE TO BE BAILED OUT and I'll be damned if I'm going to have Barack Obama telling me how important it is that the government help these "poor victims". Give me a break.
Tell me truly, is THIS the world you want to live in? And if it is, what the Hell are you thinking? I pay my rent every month and the only person who helps me with it is ME. I rent a home I can afford, and I work a job that covers that expense. If the government wants to make payments to people to help keep them in their homes, I'll be happy to provide them with my mailing address. They can send a check to me. But I'm not a victim, any more than the others who will be reaping the reward of a government handout simply because they were too stupid to buy according to their ability to earn and pay.
The only victims here are the innocent taxpayers who are being duped by all involved in this EPIC federal scam. Barack Obama, Congress, George Bush and the asses who got us into this mess--the ones on MAIN STREET, not Wall Street--should all be ashamed of this joke they're perpetrating on America. Every single one of you.
I'd like to offer a clue to Barack Obama, George Bush, Hank Paulson and the Democrats in congress--PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. Got that? Let me help you to reinforce it by repeating it. PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS!
GOD I'm sick of listening to the Democrats making everyone a victim. Today Obama called for the bailout fiasco that Congress is working on to "help keep innocent Americans in their homes".
That kind of crap makes me puke. Let's start by saying that Barry and the Dems aren't doing a damned thing to keep me in MY home, but they're going to spend MY MONEY to help a bunch of careless idiots keep homes they overextended themselves for? What, they couldn't READ? They didn't understand that if they borrowed $200,000 they were required to pay it back with interest or they'd lose the house they don't actually own until it's paid for?
Let's get something straight--there are people in this world who will take advantage of other people if they can get away with it. Those people should be prosecuted for fraud if they're caught doing such things. CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS OF SELLING AND FINANCING REAL ESTATE HASN'T BEEN CRIMINALIZED YET, and to my knowlege there's no likelihood that it will be. The fact is these people went willingly into mortgages they could not afford and it isn't MY responsibility to pay for THEIR mistake. I'm all for helping my neighbor when things beyond his control affect him...but I'm not even remotely interested in protecting people from their own stupidity and carelessness.
THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT VICTIMS. Neither are the fat cats who profited from the ballooning of the markets and are now suffering losses since those cash cows have come suddenly crashing to Earth. NONE OF THEM DESERVE TO BE BAILED OUT and I'll be damned if I'm going to have Barack Obama telling me how important it is that the government help these "poor victims". Give me a break.
Tell me truly, is THIS the world you want to live in? And if it is, what the Hell are you thinking? I pay my rent every month and the only person who helps me with it is ME. I rent a home I can afford, and I work a job that covers that expense. If the government wants to make payments to people to help keep them in their homes, I'll be happy to provide them with my mailing address. They can send a check to me. But I'm not a victim, any more than the others who will be reaping the reward of a government handout simply because they were too stupid to buy according to their ability to earn and pay.
The only victims here are the innocent taxpayers who are being duped by all involved in this EPIC federal scam. Barack Obama, Congress, George Bush and the asses who got us into this mess--the ones on MAIN STREET, not Wall Street--should all be ashamed of this joke they're perpetrating on America. Every single one of you.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Political football
I have long believed, and continue to do so, that our economy is not in near as bad a shape as the fear-mongering Democrats would like you to believe. Much as the Republicans own the issue of terrorism and national security, Democrats have (entirely through the timing of cyclical economic trends which, fortunately for the Dems, run in patterns that favor their rare ascendance to the White House) been able to successfully lay claim to economic issues. Just as the Republicans want to drive national security fears for political purposes, so do the Democrats drive economic fears. People won’t vote for Barack Obama unless things look really dire economically. The Democrats know this, which is why they clearly cheerlead the economic bad news that has been assailing us lately. When businesses fail leaders in the Democrat party go home with hard-ons. That’s a sad but incontrovertable truth. Could the same be said for the Hawks in the Republican party? Probably…but we haven’t had a grave national security threat in seven years so at the moment that’s a non-issue. Even the police action in Iraq isn’t in the American consciousness anymore, it would seem.
In any case, Democrats NEED to negatively drive the economic issue to win elections. This is why you see so many of them complaining about the next “Great Depression” every time McDonalds raises the price of a cheeseburger. This is also why you should essentially ignore these dire words at almost every utterance.
Almost.
The crisis facing us now is, quite possibly, the leadup to an economic meltdown of exactly Depression-like proportions. If you ask any Republican they (we) are going to point to the idiotic policies of the Democrats in charge, and if you ask any Democtrat they’re going to point to deregulation supported by many Republicans as the reasons for this situation. Both arguments have some merit and I would discuss the mechanics of the breakdown if the blame game would be useful at this point. Fact is, though, it wouldn’t be. More to the point, it would be counterproductive at this juncture to bother pointing fingers because, right at this moment, we’re at the mouth of the chasm and our footing is giving way underneath us. It’s time to find a solution, even a temporary one, and worry about how we got here later.
While it’s important that we make progress toward the salvation of our economic engine, and do it quickly, it’s also important that we assure ourselves that the cure doesn’t ultimately lead to greater disease. $700 billion is a pretty big bandaid, but if the wound festers underneath it will be exactly that–a covering that disguises what’s actually happening, with more and worse consequences on the horizon. Let’s be real here; this “bailout” amounts to a $2300 check from every man, woman and child in the United States, due and payable TODAY. The actual dollars will be added to the national debt, and as we all know that is a burden that could be passed down to our children. It’s also a crushing amount that could spell ruination for this country–and you should make no mistake about that. Just as these banking institutions are failing due to too much debt and not enough money, so could the U. S. Government reach a critical tipping point where our assets are not enough to cover our debts and the “value” of those assets–the value of our government itself–will plummet. Other countries have the potential to buy up the United States if that happens, and it doesn’t take a genius to understand that owning the government, literally, means owning the country. I don’t speak Chinese well enough to feel comfortable with that scenario.
So what do our Democrat friends (and, in this case, our lame duck Republican President) want to do with this money? They want to buy up all the bad debt that is out there causing the economic engine to sieze up in the first place. They want to take ownership of paper that investors have deemed WORTHLESS, and with it assume ownership of real estate assets that back those securities. They want you to believe that this will solve, at least temporarily, our problems and that those assets and securities will climb in value in the coming (what, months? years? DECADES???).
If you believe that, there’s some swampland in Florida and oceanfront property in Arizona I’d like to sell you. The deeds on that are worth about as much as the ones Congress wants to buy with your $700 BILLION today.
So what does this magnanimous bit of generosity buy, exactly, besides worthless paper? Well, it greases the wheels of credit–we all know how productive credit is in this country, right?–and it “saves” a few financial institutions that played fast and loose with our money once before. What it DOESN’T do is hold anyone accountable for this mess, or take any of the money back out of the pockets of those who got rich while this crisis was simmering. It also, rightly or wrongly, offers a lifeline to the lot of us–and it’s a lifeline we absolutely must take advantage of. The collapse that would otherwise come is far worse than the one the Democrats keep harping about…this time.
So we’re left with a shitty resolution to an immediate problem that must be solved, yes?
No.
REPUBLICANS in congress have a better idea, and ironically it’s the one that is supported by the vast majority of Americans who want nothing to do with this whole bailout thing in the first place. Yes, it is the Repubs who want to protect the taxpayer (and their constituents who, like me, have called and written to express our deep opposition to this idiocy). Republicans want to halt the mass giveaway of taxpayer dollars, scuttle the idea of buying up worthless paper, and instead offer a real-dollar “crutch” to Wall Street in the form of low-interest loans and other options that still grease the wheels but without assuming ridiculous risks and iffy payback plans. Republicans want to hold banking and brokerage institutions accountable for their stupidity by making them foot the bill for their own bailout. Additionally Republicans want to create financial incentives to bring money back into the marketplace naturally, by–among other ideas–cutting the capital gains taxes that stifle economic growth to begin with.
To use the football analogy, Democrats and the President want to go with the “when all else fails, punt” philosophy. I, and (thank God) a majority of the congressional Republicans want to run the fucking offense. It may be fourth down and ten to go, but let’s remember that we have a $12 TRILLION dollar guard up front and a pretty fleet-footed jackrabbit in the backfield who has sprinted us to the goal line many times before. We just have to get the ball in his hands.
The reality is that this DOES have to be done now, and it DOES require the input of whoever our next President is because, frankly, this mess will dominate his entire administration for years to come. Once again congressional Democrats are the ones trying to play political football (except that their idea of football is to give the ball to the other team and hope nobody breaks one deep) and blame Republicans for the holdup. Republicans (and John McCain) want to make sure that, with the game on the line, we’ve got the best play called.
A resounding majority of the Americans in the stands agree with the Republicans. It’s time for the President and the Democrats to lead the charge, or get the hell out of the way. The clock is running out, we’re out of time outs, the game is on the line and I’m sorry to say to Barney Frank, but PUNTING IS NOT AN OPTION.
In any case, Democrats NEED to negatively drive the economic issue to win elections. This is why you see so many of them complaining about the next “Great Depression” every time McDonalds raises the price of a cheeseburger. This is also why you should essentially ignore these dire words at almost every utterance.
Almost.
The crisis facing us now is, quite possibly, the leadup to an economic meltdown of exactly Depression-like proportions. If you ask any Republican they (we) are going to point to the idiotic policies of the Democrats in charge, and if you ask any Democtrat they’re going to point to deregulation supported by many Republicans as the reasons for this situation. Both arguments have some merit and I would discuss the mechanics of the breakdown if the blame game would be useful at this point. Fact is, though, it wouldn’t be. More to the point, it would be counterproductive at this juncture to bother pointing fingers because, right at this moment, we’re at the mouth of the chasm and our footing is giving way underneath us. It’s time to find a solution, even a temporary one, and worry about how we got here later.
While it’s important that we make progress toward the salvation of our economic engine, and do it quickly, it’s also important that we assure ourselves that the cure doesn’t ultimately lead to greater disease. $700 billion is a pretty big bandaid, but if the wound festers underneath it will be exactly that–a covering that disguises what’s actually happening, with more and worse consequences on the horizon. Let’s be real here; this “bailout” amounts to a $2300 check from every man, woman and child in the United States, due and payable TODAY. The actual dollars will be added to the national debt, and as we all know that is a burden that could be passed down to our children. It’s also a crushing amount that could spell ruination for this country–and you should make no mistake about that. Just as these banking institutions are failing due to too much debt and not enough money, so could the U. S. Government reach a critical tipping point where our assets are not enough to cover our debts and the “value” of those assets–the value of our government itself–will plummet. Other countries have the potential to buy up the United States if that happens, and it doesn’t take a genius to understand that owning the government, literally, means owning the country. I don’t speak Chinese well enough to feel comfortable with that scenario.
So what do our Democrat friends (and, in this case, our lame duck Republican President) want to do with this money? They want to buy up all the bad debt that is out there causing the economic engine to sieze up in the first place. They want to take ownership of paper that investors have deemed WORTHLESS, and with it assume ownership of real estate assets that back those securities. They want you to believe that this will solve, at least temporarily, our problems and that those assets and securities will climb in value in the coming (what, months? years? DECADES???).
If you believe that, there’s some swampland in Florida and oceanfront property in Arizona I’d like to sell you. The deeds on that are worth about as much as the ones Congress wants to buy with your $700 BILLION today.
So what does this magnanimous bit of generosity buy, exactly, besides worthless paper? Well, it greases the wheels of credit–we all know how productive credit is in this country, right?–and it “saves” a few financial institutions that played fast and loose with our money once before. What it DOESN’T do is hold anyone accountable for this mess, or take any of the money back out of the pockets of those who got rich while this crisis was simmering. It also, rightly or wrongly, offers a lifeline to the lot of us–and it’s a lifeline we absolutely must take advantage of. The collapse that would otherwise come is far worse than the one the Democrats keep harping about…this time.
So we’re left with a shitty resolution to an immediate problem that must be solved, yes?
No.
REPUBLICANS in congress have a better idea, and ironically it’s the one that is supported by the vast majority of Americans who want nothing to do with this whole bailout thing in the first place. Yes, it is the Repubs who want to protect the taxpayer (and their constituents who, like me, have called and written to express our deep opposition to this idiocy). Republicans want to halt the mass giveaway of taxpayer dollars, scuttle the idea of buying up worthless paper, and instead offer a real-dollar “crutch” to Wall Street in the form of low-interest loans and other options that still grease the wheels but without assuming ridiculous risks and iffy payback plans. Republicans want to hold banking and brokerage institutions accountable for their stupidity by making them foot the bill for their own bailout. Additionally Republicans want to create financial incentives to bring money back into the marketplace naturally, by–among other ideas–cutting the capital gains taxes that stifle economic growth to begin with.
To use the football analogy, Democrats and the President want to go with the “when all else fails, punt” philosophy. I, and (thank God) a majority of the congressional Republicans want to run the fucking offense. It may be fourth down and ten to go, but let’s remember that we have a $12 TRILLION dollar guard up front and a pretty fleet-footed jackrabbit in the backfield who has sprinted us to the goal line many times before. We just have to get the ball in his hands.
The reality is that this DOES have to be done now, and it DOES require the input of whoever our next President is because, frankly, this mess will dominate his entire administration for years to come. Once again congressional Democrats are the ones trying to play political football (except that their idea of football is to give the ball to the other team and hope nobody breaks one deep) and blame Republicans for the holdup. Republicans (and John McCain) want to make sure that, with the game on the line, we’ve got the best play called.
A resounding majority of the Americans in the stands agree with the Republicans. It’s time for the President and the Democrats to lead the charge, or get the hell out of the way. The clock is running out, we’re out of time outs, the game is on the line and I’m sorry to say to Barney Frank, but PUNTING IS NOT AN OPTION.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)