So the weather around here, as well as many parts of the country, is -- delightfully -- frigid, but apparently Hell is suffering the same Arctic air mass. That's right, according to the New York Times, Democrats and Republicans have finally come together to work on solving some of this nation's problems! Or have they?
More below
Oh wait, no, Republicans did not actually finally agree to work with the Democratic majority; they agreed to talk to them. Well I suppose that's a start.
My icy heart skipped a beat when I saw the headline that the Grand Olde Party had crossed party lines to pass a $15 Billion job creation bill, only to read that all they really happened was a "Cloture Motion [was] Agreed to" according to senate.gov.
Cloture basically means they agreed to vote on the bill. Awesome. We united to vote on whether or not we should vote on a bill, and we agreed...mostly(the noble civil servants from my great state voted Nay and Not Present, go get 'em boys!) The Senate is really moving at breakneck speed to get this slowly recovering economy back on track.
Enough of my cynicism, the bill is really pretty, well, cool. It basically says that any company that hires unemployed workers does not have to file payroll tax on those workers for the rest of the year. Really, I can't see much of an objection to that. I am a fan of taxes paying for useful things like the wonderful interstate highway system (which proudly employees me over the summer) and this great, practically free public college education I get. How is it that I am a fan of this big tax hole? Well the government is not collecting taxes from these workers as is, so it's not a net loss for the government, really its a break even that could jump start things back into motion and hopefully next year when the taxes would have to be collected on these workers the economy will be strong enough from the new employment to keep all these men and women employed. Here's hoping, both that the bill works and that maybe Republicans will finally work with the Democrats on a regular basis to get something done.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The Tea Party Problem
We've all (unfortunately) been hearing about these guys for weeks...months even. They're an enigmatic group to be sure, and they have no real central leadership (unless you count Glenn Beck). But just what exactly are these guys up to? I've been trying to wrap my head around this for days now, simply because something has struck me recently that desperately needs to be answered...where is the progressive response to these loons?
Continued after the jump...
...
The first problem I have with this "grassroots" "movement" is that they are attempting to adhere themselves to the idea from the Revolutionary War of "taxation without representation" and everyone remembers Junior high history and the Boston Tea Party so I do not need to get into that. The thing is, in the colonial days, Americans really did not have any form of representation in Parliament, contrasted to today where quite a few Republicans represent the Tea Party members in the Senate and Congress and even in the Obama Administration.
So given that there is no logical connection to taxation without representation, they need to change their name. But that's the lest of my worries.
They are in love with the abolishment of "entitlement" programs like unemployment, social security, medicare, and medicaid, yet they oppose "Change"ing the nation as they expressed discomfort with Mr. Obama's campaign slogans. Well, most of the programs these people talk about have been in place since the depression, in fact, all of them have, and I'm fairly certain that Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and even ol' Bill O'Reilley were all born AFTER the Great Depression and have personally known someone who benefits from these programs. Like, for example, I don't know, maybe their parents... So they fear change, yet they want to change what helped this nation to survive its greatest financial crisis to date in the midst of yet another financial crisis; brilliant.
So far we can see that these guys are not all there. Unaware of their representation, confused as to the definition of change, but they're hell bent on fixing America's problems though! Right?
Wrong.
My favorite part about the Tea Party is that the do nothing but stand in the doorway to any kind of progress. I have admitted, and will repeatedly admit that I am a liberal, yet I favor the two (or more) party system as it allows us to keep things level. We get too far left and we have Stalin we get too far right and we have Hitler. Both are bad. So the benefit of having Republicans and Democrats, right and left, working to solve the same problems is that we can get all the best and level headed ideas of both groups in a perfect amalgamation that solves all the problems without stepping on anyone's toes. Unfortunately, that utopia requires that the two parties work together in what has often been called a compromise (see The Constitution for further examples of "compromise"). If there is one thing the Tea Party can't stand, it's compromise. The New York Times mentioned this in several articles this week, that many conservatives are facing primary challengers in the upcoming elections by ultra-conservatives for accidentally looking at a democrat without spitting in their direction (okay that's hyperbole, but seriously people are getting mad at their representatives for trying to work with other representatives)
Here you have the "taxation without representation" crew arguing that their representation is not allowed to work with other people's representation to come to some kind of fair agreement on taxation.
Don't worry, my head hurts too.
The real problem with this is not that they're completely ignorant of logic, reason, and high on sensation and delusion so much as that NO ONE IS TRYING TO STOP THEM. What happened to the army of donations and volunteers that poured in to turn Senator Obama into President Obama? Why are we just letting these guys spout this nonsense and not rallying back? We out number them! More people want healthcare, more Democrats exist in congress, and even beyond the left more people want a compromise to solve the nation's problems. So why are these guys the only ones we hear from? If you didn't know any better you would think these folks are the MAJORITY. Well they're not. Let's remind them, our leaders, and ourselves of that. These nuts are a minority and what they stand for is in complete opposition of the betterment of this country. Why is it that you have to disagree with the President to stage rallies? We need to start rallying IN FAVOR of the President, if for nothing else, to be sure that the Tea Party does not go unanswered.
I fully admit that I have not done the best I could to fight back against the illogic of the Tea Party, but you know what, you have to start somewhere and I'm starting here.
Continued after the jump...
...
The first problem I have with this "grassroots" "movement" is that they are attempting to adhere themselves to the idea from the Revolutionary War of "taxation without representation" and everyone remembers Junior high history and the Boston Tea Party so I do not need to get into that. The thing is, in the colonial days, Americans really did not have any form of representation in Parliament, contrasted to today where quite a few Republicans represent the Tea Party members in the Senate and Congress and even in the Obama Administration.
So given that there is no logical connection to taxation without representation, they need to change their name. But that's the lest of my worries.
They are in love with the abolishment of "entitlement" programs like unemployment, social security, medicare, and medicaid, yet they oppose "Change"ing the nation as they expressed discomfort with Mr. Obama's campaign slogans. Well, most of the programs these people talk about have been in place since the depression, in fact, all of them have, and I'm fairly certain that Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and even ol' Bill O'Reilley were all born AFTER the Great Depression and have personally known someone who benefits from these programs. Like, for example, I don't know, maybe their parents... So they fear change, yet they want to change what helped this nation to survive its greatest financial crisis to date in the midst of yet another financial crisis; brilliant.
So far we can see that these guys are not all there. Unaware of their representation, confused as to the definition of change, but they're hell bent on fixing America's problems though! Right?
Wrong.
My favorite part about the Tea Party is that the do nothing but stand in the doorway to any kind of progress. I have admitted, and will repeatedly admit that I am a liberal, yet I favor the two (or more) party system as it allows us to keep things level. We get too far left and we have Stalin we get too far right and we have Hitler. Both are bad. So the benefit of having Republicans and Democrats, right and left, working to solve the same problems is that we can get all the best and level headed ideas of both groups in a perfect amalgamation that solves all the problems without stepping on anyone's toes. Unfortunately, that utopia requires that the two parties work together in what has often been called a compromise (see The Constitution for further examples of "compromise"). If there is one thing the Tea Party can't stand, it's compromise. The New York Times mentioned this in several articles this week, that many conservatives are facing primary challengers in the upcoming elections by ultra-conservatives for accidentally looking at a democrat without spitting in their direction (okay that's hyperbole, but seriously people are getting mad at their representatives for trying to work with other representatives)
Here you have the "taxation without representation" crew arguing that their representation is not allowed to work with other people's representation to come to some kind of fair agreement on taxation.
Don't worry, my head hurts too.
The real problem with this is not that they're completely ignorant of logic, reason, and high on sensation and delusion so much as that NO ONE IS TRYING TO STOP THEM. What happened to the army of donations and volunteers that poured in to turn Senator Obama into President Obama? Why are we just letting these guys spout this nonsense and not rallying back? We out number them! More people want healthcare, more Democrats exist in congress, and even beyond the left more people want a compromise to solve the nation's problems. So why are these guys the only ones we hear from? If you didn't know any better you would think these folks are the MAJORITY. Well they're not. Let's remind them, our leaders, and ourselves of that. These nuts are a minority and what they stand for is in complete opposition of the betterment of this country. Why is it that you have to disagree with the President to stage rallies? We need to start rallying IN FAVOR of the President, if for nothing else, to be sure that the Tea Party does not go unanswered.
I fully admit that I have not done the best I could to fight back against the illogic of the Tea Party, but you know what, you have to start somewhere and I'm starting here.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Troop Surge Episode Two: Afghanistan
Yesterday was President Obama's big speech attempting to sell to the nation his decision to increase the United States' military presence in war-torn Afghanistan by 30,000 troops. Many people on both sides of the aisle disagreed with this decision, largely believing that the war is too costly and insurmountable. Mr. Obama did sway a few hearts on the issue, and even though I generally swing for the liberals, I am among those supporting Obama's decision.
First, let's take a look at an early precedent set by Mr. Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. When the situation in Iraq was as stagnant as the one currently seen in Afghanistan, Mr. Bush sold the nation on a much contested troop surge, which despite the negative ramifications, achieved its goal and put Iraq on the road (albeit the slow one) to true and lasting recovery.
It comes as no surprise to me that Obama reached this decision (after much deliberation with appropriate cabinet and staff members) considering the damage being to America efforts in the largely Taliban controlled state. I've been reading about this surge in the New York Times for weeks, and was totally prepared for this announcement.
Lots of liberals take issue with the idea of "escalation" as though adding more troops to the conflict automatically means more fighting and more death. Yes, these are unfortunate side effects of any conflict, however I am convinced that the increased presence will lead to more effective operations and hopefully root out weapons stockpiles and enemy stronghold leading to an overall decline in violence.
It is important to remember that this decision was not reached lightly, and is in fact one Mr. Obama has been stewing over since the campaign trail. I am largely a pacifist and oppose war as a rule. So how can I possibly agree with this increased military presence? Simply put, the alternative would be worse. If we, as a nation, attempted to do the job we're compelled to do in Afghanistan with the force we currently have there we would never be able to reverse the trend of violence, Taliban control, and governmental corruption (an obvious symptom of decreased security). The sad truth of the matter is that we got into this mess, and while I largely disagree with that and the handling of it for the most part, we cannot simply walk away. To walk away would not only tarnish our reputation as a benevolent nation by invading another and leaving it war torn, but it would leave massive holes into which extremists would funnel and only further decrease the security of this country as well as Afghanistan.
President Obama is not sending an imperial army to subdue the nation of Afghanistan for American profit. Let's face it, the only real product Afghanistan has that Americans are interested in is opium, and you can't even tax that. The troop surge is meant to help reign in a conflict that has gotten out of control. More American forces there will mean better containment of weapons and extremists and can only help to speed our exit from the country when the time is appropriate. I will gladly say that I wish we had never gotten into this conflict or the one in Iraq, but now that we are, we need to finish it as effectively and peacefully as possible and I believe this surge is a good way to do that.
To wrap this up, allow me to paraphrase (very roughly) a quote I read in the New York Times this morning, "I am glad Obama is increasing troop presence in Iraq, but I'm unhappy because I know he is not doing it because he wants to, he's doing it to appease Republicans." (Remember, that is a ROUGH paraphrase) First of all, I hope Mr. Obama is not sending troops because he wants to. Who honestly wants to put America's finest young men and women in harms way? Could it be that the President is taking this action, begrudgingly, because that is what the situation calls for? Yes, he may be compromising typically Democratic ideals, but there is a job to be done, and it needs to be done well, and this has worked before, so hopefully it can work again. I, like many others, am cautiously optimistic about this course of action.
-titus
First, let's take a look at an early precedent set by Mr. Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. When the situation in Iraq was as stagnant as the one currently seen in Afghanistan, Mr. Bush sold the nation on a much contested troop surge, which despite the negative ramifications, achieved its goal and put Iraq on the road (albeit the slow one) to true and lasting recovery.
It comes as no surprise to me that Obama reached this decision (after much deliberation with appropriate cabinet and staff members) considering the damage being to America efforts in the largely Taliban controlled state. I've been reading about this surge in the New York Times for weeks, and was totally prepared for this announcement.
Lots of liberals take issue with the idea of "escalation" as though adding more troops to the conflict automatically means more fighting and more death. Yes, these are unfortunate side effects of any conflict, however I am convinced that the increased presence will lead to more effective operations and hopefully root out weapons stockpiles and enemy stronghold leading to an overall decline in violence.
It is important to remember that this decision was not reached lightly, and is in fact one Mr. Obama has been stewing over since the campaign trail. I am largely a pacifist and oppose war as a rule. So how can I possibly agree with this increased military presence? Simply put, the alternative would be worse. If we, as a nation, attempted to do the job we're compelled to do in Afghanistan with the force we currently have there we would never be able to reverse the trend of violence, Taliban control, and governmental corruption (an obvious symptom of decreased security). The sad truth of the matter is that we got into this mess, and while I largely disagree with that and the handling of it for the most part, we cannot simply walk away. To walk away would not only tarnish our reputation as a benevolent nation by invading another and leaving it war torn, but it would leave massive holes into which extremists would funnel and only further decrease the security of this country as well as Afghanistan.
President Obama is not sending an imperial army to subdue the nation of Afghanistan for American profit. Let's face it, the only real product Afghanistan has that Americans are interested in is opium, and you can't even tax that. The troop surge is meant to help reign in a conflict that has gotten out of control. More American forces there will mean better containment of weapons and extremists and can only help to speed our exit from the country when the time is appropriate. I will gladly say that I wish we had never gotten into this conflict or the one in Iraq, but now that we are, we need to finish it as effectively and peacefully as possible and I believe this surge is a good way to do that.
To wrap this up, allow me to paraphrase (very roughly) a quote I read in the New York Times this morning, "I am glad Obama is increasing troop presence in Iraq, but I'm unhappy because I know he is not doing it because he wants to, he's doing it to appease Republicans." (Remember, that is a ROUGH paraphrase) First of all, I hope Mr. Obama is not sending troops because he wants to. Who honestly wants to put America's finest young men and women in harms way? Could it be that the President is taking this action, begrudgingly, because that is what the situation calls for? Yes, he may be compromising typically Democratic ideals, but there is a job to be done, and it needs to be done well, and this has worked before, so hopefully it can work again. I, like many others, am cautiously optimistic about this course of action.
-titus
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Political Discourse in a World of Hecklers
It's all over the blogosphere by now. Twitter is atweet with messages about it. I even saw a website for it. Last night was President Obama's highly anticipated speech before a joint session of Congress. Amongst all the eloquence and rhetoric that our president is known for, two words have apparently stolen the show. "You Lie," shouted by Representative Joe Wilson from South Carolina in response to the President's promise that universal healthcare will not be extended to people who are in this country illegally. Mr. Wilson has formally apologized to Rahm Emanuel who accepted the apology on Mr. Obama's behalf, but the scenario speaks to the times and the division on this issue and has me wondering about political discourse in a world of hecklers.
First things first. I want to make crystal clear that I am not upset at Representative Wilson's choice to exercise his First Amendment Rights, nor his dissent with the President's ideas. I respect and value the fact that we can, and should do these things in a democracy, and in most circumstances I would be the first to applaud the questioning of authority.
The problem I have is that Mr. Wilson was just making an outburst. There was no argument, no logic and really, no forum for objections. That is what makes it disrespectful. It does not matter if you agree or disagree with the President, the office is one handed over by the voters of the United States and demands respect. The military salutes the President no matter who he or she may be. Not to mention it is just plain rude to interrupt someone who is giving a speech. There is a time and a place for dissent and questioning and I fully support such discourse! The middle of a speech is the wrong time and place.
As I've said, I fully agree with the ideas that we should question and even harbor a healthy sense of doubt over our elected officials, whether or not we agree with them. It keeps us our toes and helps make sure the people we elected to represent us are doing so and have to answer to someone. I am all for forums and debates and town hall discussions to dissect and understand the policies the elected are supporting or opposing. But really, where are these conversations? Lately, we have had nothing but shouting from both sides. What start as attempts to impart information become shouting matches where people leave bitter and more embattled than ever as opposed to open and willing to work. The healthcare issue is a serious one and requires some serious conversation, and we have had little to none on a national level, and probably less on a personal level.
The yelling matches and the heckling have to stop. This issue cannot be solved by the left alone or the right alone; I cannot think of a single political issue that can, or has been. We need an honest an open conversation with each other and with our representatives. Let's stop name calling, fear-mongering and over-simplifying each other. Those on the left are not socialists trying to take away your individual freedoms, and those on the right are not special interest bellboys with dollar signs in their eyes. Both sides want to do something to help resolve this crisis, but we need to talk to each other to fully understand what and how.
Let's have spirited conversations if we have to, let's raise our voices if we have to, but let's do it civilly and over the right channels: blogs, tweets, coffee shops and dinner tables. Not during speeches, not bombastically with nothing but a T.V. camera or a radio mic, and let's try to discuss this without shouting each other down or disrupting the flow of information.
The heckling has already hi-jacked the conversation. I'm blogging about a distraction from the speech not the speech itself; someone made a website making fun of Joe Wilson instead of a website about the finer notes of President Obama's plan. We need to just let the issue of who yelled what die and move on to talking about the issues.
Credit to the New York times for the back story to this blog.
First things first. I want to make crystal clear that I am not upset at Representative Wilson's choice to exercise his First Amendment Rights, nor his dissent with the President's ideas. I respect and value the fact that we can, and should do these things in a democracy, and in most circumstances I would be the first to applaud the questioning of authority.
The problem I have is that Mr. Wilson was just making an outburst. There was no argument, no logic and really, no forum for objections. That is what makes it disrespectful. It does not matter if you agree or disagree with the President, the office is one handed over by the voters of the United States and demands respect. The military salutes the President no matter who he or she may be. Not to mention it is just plain rude to interrupt someone who is giving a speech. There is a time and a place for dissent and questioning and I fully support such discourse! The middle of a speech is the wrong time and place.
As I've said, I fully agree with the ideas that we should question and even harbor a healthy sense of doubt over our elected officials, whether or not we agree with them. It keeps us our toes and helps make sure the people we elected to represent us are doing so and have to answer to someone. I am all for forums and debates and town hall discussions to dissect and understand the policies the elected are supporting or opposing. But really, where are these conversations? Lately, we have had nothing but shouting from both sides. What start as attempts to impart information become shouting matches where people leave bitter and more embattled than ever as opposed to open and willing to work. The healthcare issue is a serious one and requires some serious conversation, and we have had little to none on a national level, and probably less on a personal level.
The yelling matches and the heckling have to stop. This issue cannot be solved by the left alone or the right alone; I cannot think of a single political issue that can, or has been. We need an honest an open conversation with each other and with our representatives. Let's stop name calling, fear-mongering and over-simplifying each other. Those on the left are not socialists trying to take away your individual freedoms, and those on the right are not special interest bellboys with dollar signs in their eyes. Both sides want to do something to help resolve this crisis, but we need to talk to each other to fully understand what and how.
Let's have spirited conversations if we have to, let's raise our voices if we have to, but let's do it civilly and over the right channels: blogs, tweets, coffee shops and dinner tables. Not during speeches, not bombastically with nothing but a T.V. camera or a radio mic, and let's try to discuss this without shouting each other down or disrupting the flow of information.
The heckling has already hi-jacked the conversation. I'm blogging about a distraction from the speech not the speech itself; someone made a website making fun of Joe Wilson instead of a website about the finer notes of President Obama's plan. We need to just let the issue of who yelled what die and move on to talking about the issues.
Credit to the New York times for the back story to this blog.
Friday, September 26, 2008
$700,000,000,000
It's been about a week since the news of George Bush's proposed government buy out of a large sum of failed mortgage securities currently in the hands of the now defunct Lehman Brothers and AIG banking and insurance firms, and it's time PooB took a stance on this issue, so without further adieu, I will present our avid readers with my take on this exceedingly grave issue.
Let's start with the basics. Lehman Brothers (a mortgage bank) and AIG (an insurance and investment firm) recently went belly up due to the failure of their most significant investments: sub-prime mortgages. Now for those who are unaware, a sub-prime mortgages are home loans made to people who have less than perfect credit or less than enough income to actually merit a loan in the amount of a house. Most firms make these loans aware of the fact that at least 2% of the mortgages will default, so they charge astronomical variable intrest rates to make up for this fact. Well with an economy going bad due to high oil prices, low wages, rising food costs, and a steadily declining dollar many more than 2% of these loans defaulted, and the banks were unable to make them back because the houses that end up in the banks' control lost their value. Long story short, banks took huge risks with these loans. With huge risks there are huge chances for gains, and equally huge chances of loss, unfortunately for us and them, the latter was the result.
Now here's where my opinion begins. As "socialist" as I tend to be on matters like healthcare, education, and government involvement in the economy by way of energy regulation I am opposed to this buy out because it destroys free market capitalism. The basic tenet of which is, as I said above, big risks lead to either big pay offs or big losses. If we buy out these failed banks, it means that capitalism no longer has the aspect of huge loss and effectively encourages banks and other large companies to make horrendously foolish investments because they would no longer be a risk for losing, just gaining or breaking even. This buy out sends the message that you can invest in whatever you want, however you want, and if you mess up the government, and the tax payers will just assume your losses so you can get on with your life. Quite possibly the most burdensome, and detrimental act a government could impose on it's people. It's one thing to tax people to send people to school or take care of them when they get sick, but to save a handful of companies and their CEOs with tax dollars without much of a benefit to anyone but those being saved is offensive and should be illegal.
Speaking of the CEOs, when this buy out is passed (I do not want it to be, but I know it will) it MUST include pay caps for these "business men." This is America, the land of oppurtunity, not the land of oppurtunism. In this country, you work hard and you get ahead, you work smart and you get a raise. These CEOs clearly made bad choices that have harmed the American people, the American economy, and their companies, how do they possibly merit multi-million dollar incomes? They don't, and I have no problem with the government telling these people that if they want the taxpayers to bail them out they need to contribute by having there salaries slashed, permanently.
Finally, the most outrageous aspect of this buy out is the price tag, seven hundred BILLION dollars. Think about that number for a minute, there are about 7 Billion people in this world, so to pay for this, EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD would have to contribute one hundred dollars. Well, we can't tax the world to make up for our mess ups, so let's go just look at America. If we divide the check for this "Rescue Plan" amongst every single one of the over 300 Million Americans it would mean $2,333.33 per person. Do you have that much extra money? I sure don't, and I'm sure 90% of the people you know don't have that much money, and those that do would not be willing to use it to donate to save a few stupid Wall Street Execs. Our government has no where near enough money for this disaster, and we should NOT be spending it. We will be borrowing the money from the likes of China and Europe and even further devauling the dollar. We are already in a era of deficit spending thanks to the grossly incompetant leadership of the current administration and the wars and "national security" programs it has begotten. We simply cannot afford this. The only possible recourse would be if the Fed used the money to buy stock which will one day turn a profit for the tax payers instead of simply buying the bad stuff which will never profit.
...Read more
Let's start with the basics. Lehman Brothers (a mortgage bank) and AIG (an insurance and investment firm) recently went belly up due to the failure of their most significant investments: sub-prime mortgages. Now for those who are unaware, a sub-prime mortgages are home loans made to people who have less than perfect credit or less than enough income to actually merit a loan in the amount of a house. Most firms make these loans aware of the fact that at least 2% of the mortgages will default, so they charge astronomical variable intrest rates to make up for this fact. Well with an economy going bad due to high oil prices, low wages, rising food costs, and a steadily declining dollar many more than 2% of these loans defaulted, and the banks were unable to make them back because the houses that end up in the banks' control lost their value. Long story short, banks took huge risks with these loans. With huge risks there are huge chances for gains, and equally huge chances of loss, unfortunately for us and them, the latter was the result.
Now here's where my opinion begins. As "socialist" as I tend to be on matters like healthcare, education, and government involvement in the economy by way of energy regulation I am opposed to this buy out because it destroys free market capitalism. The basic tenet of which is, as I said above, big risks lead to either big pay offs or big losses. If we buy out these failed banks, it means that capitalism no longer has the aspect of huge loss and effectively encourages banks and other large companies to make horrendously foolish investments because they would no longer be a risk for losing, just gaining or breaking even. This buy out sends the message that you can invest in whatever you want, however you want, and if you mess up the government, and the tax payers will just assume your losses so you can get on with your life. Quite possibly the most burdensome, and detrimental act a government could impose on it's people. It's one thing to tax people to send people to school or take care of them when they get sick, but to save a handful of companies and their CEOs with tax dollars without much of a benefit to anyone but those being saved is offensive and should be illegal.
Speaking of the CEOs, when this buy out is passed (I do not want it to be, but I know it will) it MUST include pay caps for these "business men." This is America, the land of oppurtunity, not the land of oppurtunism. In this country, you work hard and you get ahead, you work smart and you get a raise. These CEOs clearly made bad choices that have harmed the American people, the American economy, and their companies, how do they possibly merit multi-million dollar incomes? They don't, and I have no problem with the government telling these people that if they want the taxpayers to bail them out they need to contribute by having there salaries slashed, permanently.
Finally, the most outrageous aspect of this buy out is the price tag, seven hundred BILLION dollars. Think about that number for a minute, there are about 7 Billion people in this world, so to pay for this, EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD would have to contribute one hundred dollars. Well, we can't tax the world to make up for our mess ups, so let's go just look at America. If we divide the check for this "Rescue Plan" amongst every single one of the over 300 Million Americans it would mean $2,333.33 per person. Do you have that much extra money? I sure don't, and I'm sure 90% of the people you know don't have that much money, and those that do would not be willing to use it to donate to save a few stupid Wall Street Execs. Our government has no where near enough money for this disaster, and we should NOT be spending it. We will be borrowing the money from the likes of China and Europe and even further devauling the dollar. We are already in a era of deficit spending thanks to the grossly incompetant leadership of the current administration and the wars and "national security" programs it has begotten. We simply cannot afford this. The only possible recourse would be if the Fed used the money to buy stock which will one day turn a profit for the tax payers instead of simply buying the bad stuff which will never profit.
...Read more
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
McCain and the Magic Blackberry
The latest buzz, McCain invented the Blackberry. Now obviously this is a stretch, we all know he didn't. We all know his campaign adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin just meant that McCain, by being on the Commerce committee, had lead to the innovations of cell phones in every hand. My question, did he even manage that feat? No. What he did was vote against the legislation that gave the FCC the authority to auction various used, unused and poorly-used wireless frequency spectrums. Here's the line that gives that specific authority (emphasis added):
The Commission shall, during fiscal years 1994 through 1998, use the competitive bidding process authorized under the amendment made by subsection (b) to grant all radio spectrum licenses for which two or more mutually exclusive applications have been filed, including the 200 megahertz of spectrum made available to the Commission under this subtitle, and including the licenses issued for a personal communications service established pursuant to the proceeding entitled `Amendment to the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services'
The vote for this was 50-50. Obviously it had more in it than just this small piece in it. The 'Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993' was a total budget package that included many things, including various tax increases and reductions. The reason that Republicans voted against it, was because it cut spending and raised taxes. Of course no good politician raises taxes right? Well, this legislation, which Al Gore broke the tie in, is credited by several non-partisan groups for the budget surpluses of the 1990's. It created as much as $141 billion in surplus to offset the projected $360 billion deficit through 1998. It has been argued, that these budget surpluses helped boost the economy in the 1990's.
Not only did John McCain not create the framework for the current cell phone industry, he voted against the bill that created the surpluses that Republicans always dream about, or at least talk about, but never achieve.
...Read more
The Commission shall, during fiscal years 1994 through 1998, use the competitive bidding process authorized under the amendment made by subsection (b) to grant all radio spectrum licenses for which two or more mutually exclusive applications have been filed, including the 200 megahertz of spectrum made available to the Commission under this subtitle, and including the licenses issued for a personal communications service established pursuant to the proceeding entitled `Amendment to the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services'
The vote for this was 50-50. Obviously it had more in it than just this small piece in it. The 'Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993' was a total budget package that included many things, including various tax increases and reductions. The reason that Republicans voted against it, was because it cut spending and raised taxes. Of course no good politician raises taxes right? Well, this legislation, which Al Gore broke the tie in, is credited by several non-partisan groups for the budget surpluses of the 1990's. It created as much as $141 billion in surplus to offset the projected $360 billion deficit through 1998. It has been argued, that these budget surpluses helped boost the economy in the 1990's.
Not only did John McCain not create the framework for the current cell phone industry, he voted against the bill that created the surpluses that Republicans always dream about, or at least talk about, but never achieve.
...Read more
48 days left
Two months from yesterday, people will file into the polls and elect someone who inherits a massive national deficit, a crumbling economy and an unpopular occupation of Iraq. I don't want that job. Several people do, John McCain and Barack Obama are two of them. There are many so called 3rd party candidates, but I will focus on the two main parties since they are the most likely to win the election. I admire all them for wanting to take on arguably the hardest job in America. I just wouldn't want that burden on me. The economy has gotten particularly rough, with the collapse of several financial institutions that now have to be propped up by the federal government and the US tax payers.
Obama has made several speeches over the last few days to talk about what is going on. One point has been repeated often, this should not have happened. His response to this disaster is to increase the oversight and regulation of these banks, in order to make sure that they are not allowed to paint themselves into a corner. By playing fast and loose with the system over the last few years, things have gotten out of hand on Wall Street. This has been made painfully obvious in the last 18 months.
This started with things like Enron. That was small potatoes compared to this week. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said that this was a once in a hundred year event. As regulations have been slowly taken away, mortgage companies are giving over priced loans and convincing people who can't afford them into bigger and bigger homes. Banks all around the country are failing, and some of the biggest are needing federal bailouts to keep our entire financial system from collapsing completely. This could have been prevented, by not ignoring the initial signs, and by holding the CEOs of these companies responsible, instead of letting them go with millions in severance packages.
Obama has some ideas. One, like the depression of the 1920's and 30's that created the SEC, we need a new oversight commission that will watch over these banks, companies and the new market players, like hedge funds. This will prevent them from just doing whatever they want with their money, because they expect a federal handout if things go south. Second, actually holding CEO's of companies responsible when they allow their companies to do things like this.
Ending the predatory lending practices of banks and mortgage companies who coerce families to buy homes they cannot afford and by offering adjustable mortgages that have their payment skyrockets so they are suddenly unable to be paid, will keep the housing market from being a minefield for the average American. Changing bankruptcy laws that allow families to go through the process and keep a roof over their heads, will keep banks from pulling the rug out from underneath families who fall on hard times. Making it possible to renegotiate loans that were improperly sold, will keep banks from amassing hundreds of thousands of homes that they cannot sell from people who just wanted to get a bigger house for their kids.
McCain has a plan as well. He wants to appoint a committee to look into the problem, and then see what he should do from there. He has been part of the group of people who slowly unregulated the industry which allowed these companies to game the system. The problem with his idea is that it is only a band aid for problem that has to be prevented. This isn't a plane crash. We know why this happened and have been seeing the signs for years now. We need something that will keep this from happening again, a safety net that won't save people who choose to mess with the system, but one that will prevent something like this from creating an avalanche that forces people out of their homes and empties their retirement savings.
We need a plan for the future, to protect our interests. Until McCain comes up with something that will keep this from repeating itself, I can't be sure that he has any idea what is going on. He's said that the economy is strong for the last 10 months, and is now saying there are some issues to be concerned about. Who knows how long it will take for him to come up with a comprehensive plan for doing anything on the economy, he's been too focused on repeating the same stuff over and over.
...Read more
Obama has made several speeches over the last few days to talk about what is going on. One point has been repeated often, this should not have happened. His response to this disaster is to increase the oversight and regulation of these banks, in order to make sure that they are not allowed to paint themselves into a corner. By playing fast and loose with the system over the last few years, things have gotten out of hand on Wall Street. This has been made painfully obvious in the last 18 months.
This started with things like Enron. That was small potatoes compared to this week. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said that this was a once in a hundred year event. As regulations have been slowly taken away, mortgage companies are giving over priced loans and convincing people who can't afford them into bigger and bigger homes. Banks all around the country are failing, and some of the biggest are needing federal bailouts to keep our entire financial system from collapsing completely. This could have been prevented, by not ignoring the initial signs, and by holding the CEOs of these companies responsible, instead of letting them go with millions in severance packages.
Obama has some ideas. One, like the depression of the 1920's and 30's that created the SEC, we need a new oversight commission that will watch over these banks, companies and the new market players, like hedge funds. This will prevent them from just doing whatever they want with their money, because they expect a federal handout if things go south. Second, actually holding CEO's of companies responsible when they allow their companies to do things like this.
Ending the predatory lending practices of banks and mortgage companies who coerce families to buy homes they cannot afford and by offering adjustable mortgages that have their payment skyrockets so they are suddenly unable to be paid, will keep the housing market from being a minefield for the average American. Changing bankruptcy laws that allow families to go through the process and keep a roof over their heads, will keep banks from pulling the rug out from underneath families who fall on hard times. Making it possible to renegotiate loans that were improperly sold, will keep banks from amassing hundreds of thousands of homes that they cannot sell from people who just wanted to get a bigger house for their kids.
McCain has a plan as well. He wants to appoint a committee to look into the problem, and then see what he should do from there. He has been part of the group of people who slowly unregulated the industry which allowed these companies to game the system. The problem with his idea is that it is only a band aid for problem that has to be prevented. This isn't a plane crash. We know why this happened and have been seeing the signs for years now. We need something that will keep this from happening again, a safety net that won't save people who choose to mess with the system, but one that will prevent something like this from creating an avalanche that forces people out of their homes and empties their retirement savings.
We need a plan for the future, to protect our interests. Until McCain comes up with something that will keep this from repeating itself, I can't be sure that he has any idea what is going on. He's said that the economy is strong for the last 10 months, and is now saying there are some issues to be concerned about. Who knows how long it will take for him to come up with a comprehensive plan for doing anything on the economy, he's been too focused on repeating the same stuff over and over.
...Read more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
