Third Party & Independents Archives

Eat Your Cats and Dogs

Nations come and go, rise and fall as elites and the wealthy make victims of most citizens and plutocracies prevail. Current dogma is that we live in the greatest nation on Earth. Perhaps in terms of ideals there is some truth to that. But with another trillion dollars that we now must borrow at higher costs because of the meltdown of the financial sector, solidifying our position as the greatest debtor nation, Americans have little to be proud of.

Our government and politicians as well as the corporate state have failed us. What do our young people and future generations have to look forward to? Be prepared to eat your cats and dogs.

Still more lies and deceptions will surely hit us as the fear-selling two-party plutocracy works hard to convince us prior to the coming election that things have turned better. In reality, there is no reason whatsoever for thinking that the nation is back on the right track. Of all the many narcotic delusions filling people’s heads the most dangerous and self-defeating is that we can vote our way out of this mess. Everyone needs to understand that Democrats in Congress have played a major role in delivering the nation into the abyss we now find ourselves in.

If Barack Obama had an ounce of honesty and courage he would have boldly told his first debate audience that he was going to modify his spending plans and focus on reducing the nation’s debt. And why did he not express deep sadness that the current bailout was repeating a long history of making a mockery of capitalism, with government refusing to let most large companies fail? When corporate fat cats know that they can continue to rape the country and walk away with tons of money, all we really have is corporate socialism. So why did we not hear Obama talk about his commitment to put corporate criminals in prison? Not dozens, but hundreds of Wall Street thieves and lying bank officials should be dragged publicly in handcuffs into the justice system. Why can’t Obama talk this way?

Don’t get me wrong. John McCain is even worse. Newsweek has reported that McCain, in his last mission before becoming a prisoner of war, ignored the warning that an enemy missile had locked onto his plane and instead of taking evasive action decided to keep flying straight ahead to complete his mission. Is it not clear that McCain will fly the nation straight into oblivion if he thinks his conception of our national mission should be adhered to, no matter what the costs are?

Back to my point: Americans cannot vote their way out of this mess. Their only real opportunity this year is to vote AGAINST the two-party plutocracy by voting for any of the four third-party presidential candidates. We need the world to see tens of millions of votes protesting the failures of both major parties. This electoral rebellion would keep faith with Thomas Jefferson’s correct view that America would need a revolution every generation or so. To keep voting for Democrats and Republicans just makes gullible and delusional citizens co-conspirators in the vast criminal conspiracy that is our political system.

Keep that sickening image of Americans, many sleeping in the cars, unable to afford pet food and their own food in mind when you go to vote. We are not merely on the wrong track. We are on track for people being forced to eat their cats and dogs.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at September 29, 2008 11:46 AM
Comments
Comment #264944

How gross. Surely you don’t believe this abomination will attract people to your cause? Eat their cats and dogs? Please. I will now go throw up.

This will be the last post of yours I bother to read.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 29, 2008 11:55 AM
Comment #264949

Got Ya Joel ,Senator schumer came up here last year and asked property owners to let hunters shoot deer on private land, I’m not a hunter the reasons were sound we are swarming with deer and the extra income to fish and game helps the area and a lot of folks can fill there freezers and eat meat again. Just Don’t shoot the white deer on my land !

Posted by: Rodney Brown at September 29, 2008 12:07 PM
Comment #264959

This post flew over both your heads. *WHOOSH*

He’s not saying eat your cats and dogs, it’s just an analogy to an extreme that’s silly but makes a good point.

Posted by: Jon at September 29, 2008 12:42 PM
Comment #264960

Good post, but you are wasting your time, Joel. No matter how unqualified, partisan or insincere he is, people will vote Obama no matter what.

Posted by: kctim at September 29, 2008 12:45 PM
Comment #264961

Joel, Obama DID in FACT say that if elected, he may have to modify his tax cut and spending plans in light of the current potential increase of next year’s deficit by a minimum of a quarter trillion dollars.

Perhaps it would be helpful to research what those you critique actually say, instead of projecting upon them what you wish they had said in order to keep your article consistent.

When your article’s facts are wrong, its opinions are even more suspect.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2008 12:48 PM
Comment #264971

My mother lived in a tent for a while (as a child during the Great Depression). She thought her family was on a long camping vaction in the mountains. Years later, she learned that they were camping in the mountains because they had no house to live in. My grandfather fished and hunted for birds, rabbits, squirrels, etc.

Joel wrote: Still more lies and deceptions will surely hit us as the fear-selling two-party plutocracy works hard to convince us prior to the coming election that things have turned better.
No doubt about it. Congress is going to do its best to delay the pain until the election in 36 days (on 4-Nov-2008) is past, in which case many Congress persons will be re-elected for 2-to-6 more years.
Joel wrote: Americans cannot vote their way out of this mess. Their only real opportunity this year is to vote AGAINST the two-party plutocracy by voting for any of the four third-party presidential candidates.
True, but better late than never, and repeatedly rewarding bad politicians with perpetual re-election isn’t working, is it?

Are voters feeling enough pain yet to oust a majority of Congress (as in 1933 when the voters ousted 206 members of Congress)?
Probably not.

The $700 Billion bail-out may delay a melt-down for a while (perhaps 6-to-12 months or less), but $700 Billion is a drop in the bucket compared to $53 Trillion -to- $66 Trillion of nation-wide debt (which is not all only mortgage debt), because:

  • (1) 80% of the population now only owns 17% (or less) of all wealth in the U.S., which has been worsening since year 1976.

  • (2) The INTEREST alone on the $9.7 Trillion National Debt alone is $429 Billion per year ($36 Billion per month). Consider $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt at only 4.0% INTEREST. That comes to $177 Billion in INTEREST per month.

  • (3) No one can answer the one simple question:
    • Where will the money come from to pay merely the INTEREST on $53 Trillion -to- $66 Trillion of nation-wide debt, when that money does not yet exist? Borrowing and creating more money out of thin air will erode the U.S. dollar more. Already, a 1950 U.S. Dollar is now worth less than 11 cents (or less, if using the pre-1983 inflation measurement method, in which current inflation is really 15.6% instead of 5.4%)

  • (4) All pyramid schemes fail eventually (video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279). Especially when new money is created as debt at a 9-to-1 ratio, creating far too much new money, debt, and inflation.

  • (5) There were millions of foreclosures between JAN-2005 and AUG-2008. Foreclosures are not going to suddenly stop now. Foreclosures for AUG-2008 are up 111% from AUG-2007.

  • (6) Hundreds of banks have negative or close-to-zero net assets.

  • (7) Congress only cares about delaying the pain long enough to get elected another 2-to-6 years. Congress will pass this bail-out with the hope that it will delay the inevitable, but allow them to get re-elected in 36 days on 4-NOV-2008.

Congress says the consequences of not passing this $700 Billion bail-out is worse than the risk of passing it?

Realistically, it will only delay things. There may be both some pros and cons. Pros if anyone can find a better way out of this mess, but that isn’t likely. Cons if it simply grows the problem larger, which is very likely, and could crash the U.S. Dollar, taking down everyone, including a lot of people who don’t even have much (or any) debt at all.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2008 1:24 PM
Comment #264976

Joel -

D’ya really think either candidate doesn’t want to fix the budget mess?

Often, it’s not a matter of what needs to be done, but what can be done. For example, look at Universal Health Care - I don’t know your personal opinion of UHC, but let’s just pretend - pretend, mind you - for now that it’s a good thing. Hillary’s plan was better, period. Her plan covered everyone with better quality health care…and Obama’s didn’t.

But why was her plan less likely to succeed than Obama’s? Because his plan worked with the insurance industry and included some facets that would be more palatable to the Republicans than Hillary’s would.

In other words, no matter how much better her plan was, his plan was the more likely to actually come to fruition. Hers was more likely to self-destruct in the Congressional merry-go-round due to the full-court lobbying press on which the insurance and pharmaceutical giants would surely spend billions in order to ensure their continued existence.

And so it is with the budget mess America’s in - the way in which we pull ourselves out of it is not found in the set of options of what we think should be done, but only in the set of options of what can be done.

And that’s Obama’s strength - pulling both sides together to agree on what can be done, rather than pandering to the extremists on either side. The solution found may not be pretty, and it will make few truly happy, but unlike the plans put forth by the extremists on either side, it can be successfully implemented, whereas the other plans - no matter how intelligent or well-planned - could never make it that far.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 29, 2008 1:35 PM
Comment #264982

Doesn’t look like the bail-out is happenin’ (2:02 EST):

Bail-out BILL H.R. 3997
_____YEA___NAY___NoVote
DEM: _141 _ 94 __ 0
REP: __66 _132 __ 1
TOT: _207 _226 __ 1

DOW: down 450
S&P: down 66
Gold: up to $909
Oil: down $9

Posted by: d.a.n at September 29, 2008 2:01 PM
Comment #264985

Dow is now down 638 points. 401K’s are dropping like a rock, 6 and 7% so far.

Let the bad times roll!

401K investors, DO NOT remove your funds from stocks at this time. If you move funds out of stocks in your 401K fund, you incur these losses. If you are invested for the long term, do not sell stock positions at this time. You don’t lose until you sell, and there will be higher points in the market going forward as volatility in stocks up and down takes place.

Congress cannot afford to let this decision stand, and go home. They will attempt to modify the bill and bring it back for another vote.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2008 2:14 PM
Comment #264996

Well you can only cry wolf so many times until no one believes you. Hopefully the Congress decides to call it until after the election.This vote went as the people of America wanted it to go. We should now prepare for getting what we asked for.
This will be a trial by fire for the free market and deregulation crowd as they are now claiming the dems speech caused the vote to turn negative. I say good for them, either deregulation works or gets exposed for the lie that it is.
One good thing is the parallel’s to 1930’s when Americans voted out of office over 200 representatives in one election as a result of similar events, perhaps this is the match that lights that fire this November.


Posted by: j2t2 at September 29, 2008 2:43 PM
Comment #265001
Joel, Obama DID in FACT say that if elected, he may have to modify his tax cut and spending plans in light of the current potential increase of next year’s deficit by a minimum of a quarter trillion dollars.

Which means that he ALSO didn’t see this coming while he has been touting this plan for the entire summer…

So, why are we to believe that he had the good judgement to see it coming when this pretty much proves that he didn’t?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2008 2:52 PM
Comment #265004

Selling your 401ks now is patently stupid.

Fact: At no time in history has the dow not been higher than it was 10 years previously.

401ks and other retirement plans are for the long term, not the short.

Now, BUYING now would not be a bad idea, I know I will be increasing my contribution into my 401k in the next couple of weeks.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2008 2:58 PM
Comment #265005

Rhinehold, his crystal ball is no clearer than yours or mine.

Reading the future is not a matter of judgment. Judgment is based on empirical data and evidence.

Besides, you know as well as I the political calculus of ANY presidential candidate, forecasting doom and privation does not get elected. McCain said across the board spending cuts, and his polls dropped immediately thereafter.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2008 3:00 PM
Comment #265008

Rhinehold, That is insane. THIS IS NOT a buying opportunity. The downside risk to this market is another 2,500 Dow points if Congress can’t get something done and PDQ. Do you not watch Cramer? Follow Wall Street analysts running commentary. If not, don’t give horrible advice as if your comments knew what they talking about.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2008 3:04 PM
Comment #265010

I don’t know, David, I think the right Doom and Gloom at the right time in the right area works wonders. Look at what is going on now, we are being told of the emminent complete collapse of the US Society (if we don’t do ANYTHING). Do you agree with that? Obama seems pretty used to using the Depression line, even though he is wrong often about it.

The answer, of course, is that Democrats can’t win without trashing the economy. As Luskin pointed out in a piece in Sunday’s Washington Post, in Obama’s famed anti-Iraq war speech back in 2002, the then-Illinois state senator suggested the war was waged “to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.”

In fact, the stock market had four bigger one-month drops since the Great Depression, but facts don’t matter. The winning candidate in 2008 may well be the man who can say the worst things about the American economy. That’s how he shows he really cares.

It’s all about selling who cares about YOU to the people, and that means badmouthing the economy whenever, however. And you know as well as I that that WILL turn into scared investors and a drying up of capital, especially right before an election, that normally would be inconsequential, but with the housing collapse it is really hurting us this time.

Words mean things.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2008 3:08 PM
Comment #265013

Rhinehold said: “we are being told of the emminent complete collapse of the US Society (if we don’t do ANYTHING). Do you agree with that?”

I am not listening to the same people as you, obviously. Imminent and complete collapse is not how things change in an enormous economy such as ours. Those shorting oil stocks are making a killing at the moment.

Who are you listening to regarding imminent complete collapse? We face a cascading failure of banking institutions, a few at first, more a bit later, and even more after that, and so on, to the point that a percentage of the total banks is dramatically reduced, consolidated, merged, and acquired to a stable level of contracted banking services.

In the meantime, if that process takes place, jobs are lost, FDIC is required to cover more losses than our government can borrow cheaply, and the borrowing from overseas continues as does the escalation of our deficits and debt. It is a process. It does not occur overnight, just as the Depression did not occur overnight following the 1929 stock market crash.

So who are these historically uneducated folks you are listening to saying there will be an imminent and complete collapse?

As long as there are people of industrious, there can never be a complete collapse.

I suggest you find some more learned folks to listen to and refer to in your comments.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2008 3:17 PM
Comment #265014

David,

This is a buying opportunity if you see the political side of things. The congress will get something done, unless the Dems are really wanting to tank it for their candidate (that is the only real fear I have). If not, then they will get something done, enough to calm the fears (that they helped create btw) and stocks will start to rise again.

IF you believe that scenario, then you know that this is the where the bottom will go, depending on where you are putting your stocks. That are a LOT of valid good strong stocks that are feeling the crunch because of what is going on that as soon as the fears calm will immediately jump back up.

And, if they do drop more, they will still recover (remember my fact that I posted) and while you may have gotten a larger jump by waiting until the rock bottom price, you still will be better off than those who are selling now out of blind fear.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2008 3:17 PM
Comment #265017

David,

Who are you listening to regarding imminent complete collapse?

I’ve heard people staring to equate this to the Russian collapse of ‘89. Both left and right, trying to scare a deal to get done.

I agree with you, it is a process and, IMO, will right itself without too much more hassle and could be done without violating the constitution like is being proposed in congress atm.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2008 3:20 PM
Comment #265018

Rhinehold, and rigor mortis in the lending institutions means something too, regardless of whether anyone speaks of it, or not. The fact is, there is a crisis facing the lending and borrowing institutions. You have the cart before the horse. Obama and Johnny come Lately McCain both agree the economy is in jeopardy. When that fact is evident, it is a fact that SHOULD NOT be hidden from the public, as you seem to imply should occur.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2008 3:20 PM
Comment #265019

Rhinehold, recessions and depressions carry an enormous human suffering toll. Absence of intervention to ameliorate the effects of recession or depression is an ideological fantasy that abandons any regard for human suffering.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2008 3:23 PM
Comment #265029

Why vote for a third party? Don’t ya know they don’t have a chance of winning? A vote for third party candidate is a vote for ————-.
Until folks quit falling for these lies and wake up to the fact that the duopoly is the problem the plutocracy will continue to rape the working folks.
I have to agree that third parties most likely won’t win very many if any seats in Congress this year. And we aint gonna see a third party President anytime real soon. But if enough folks start voting against the plutocracy it just could send the message to them that folks are getting fed up with their lies and corruption. But then I doubt that any of that current bunch up there in DC has enough sense to get it.

I see where both McCain and Obama are taking credit for working out a deal for the bailout. Heaven help us if that’s the best either can do.

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 29, 2008 3:52 PM
Comment #265040

Ron’s right about 3rd parties. What todays events prove is that the american people can have an effect on politics. Congressmen are more vulnerable, senators are a little safer because they are elected every 6 years, and they believe their constituents will forget.

I heard a few minutes ago that BHO said he would “ram” this bailout bill thru. I don’t know how he plans to do this, considering he may loose the votes of the constituents of 94 dem congressmen.

BHO never put his support behind this bill and yet he now plans to help push it thru.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 29, 2008 4:19 PM
Comment #265041

OldGuy, where do you get your misinformation? Obama has said many times over the last week that a rescue plan that protects tax payers, will not reward failed corporation exec’s with golden parachutes, and helps insure Americans can continue to get a loan for a car, a home, college education.

Did you not watch the debate. Or do you just tune out whenever Obama speaks and run to GOP pundits to hear what they said Obama said or didn’t say? Try listening to the source. Not those vested in distorting and lying about what someone else said.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2008 4:23 PM
Comment #265043

Rhinehold -

“Fact: At no time in history has the dow not been higher than it was 10 years previously.”

That is true…but it IS lower than its high point of 11,733 (IIRC) during the last year of the Clinton administration.

You also complained about Obama warning of a depression…have you NOT heard McCain, Palin, and Bush ALL saying the same damn thing? (‘scuse my French). If you’re going to condemn Obama for doing something, then if McCain, Palin, and Bush do the SAME thing, you should condemn them, too.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 29, 2008 4:27 PM
Comment #265049

As ill-advised and petty as Pelosi’s politically motivated comments were, it doesn’t change the fact that a majority of Republicans voted against the bailout. If the Republicans complaining about Pelosi truly believed that the bailout was in the best interests of the country, partisan banter from Pelosi aside, they should have voted for it. Instead, many Democrats and even more Republicans voted against it because they feared a reprisal in the voting booth. “My job ahead of my country.”

As for Pelosi, the Republicans are using her as a scapegoat to cover their own cowardice. And she was foolish enough to let it happen. Now, the only consolation for the Democrats is that they can blame the Republicans. Beautiful.

And while I can’t help but admire McCain’s chutzpah in blaming the Democrats when his party actually torpedoed the bill, I can’t imagine that many will be fooled by his “best defense is a good offense” ploy.

Oldguy, who is the BHO you speak of? Baltimore Harmonic Orchestra? Bill “Halitosis” O’Reilly? Bigots Hating Others? Who?

Posted by: Sam McD at September 29, 2008 4:35 PM
Comment #265054
Rhinehold, recessions and depressions carry an enormous human suffering toll. Absence of intervention to ameliorate the effects of recession or depression is an ideological fantasy that abandons any regard for human suffering.

Bull. Just because it isn’t being provided at the point of a gun doesn’t mean that human suffering increases, nor does it decrease because the gun is used. And you accuse me of ideological fantasies.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2008 4:41 PM
Comment #265057
If you’re going to condemn Obama for doing something, then if McCain, Palin, and Bush do the SAME thing, you should condemn them, too.

Which I have done.

There are 100 senators. While we understand that 3 senators of the 100 will be away for many votes and discussions during a campaign they are in, wouldn’t you want them all there representing their country during something as serious as this, something the left has been saying is the worst economic crisis since the Depression?

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/006206.html#264232

Sure, both candidates could continue to stump and debate and take shots at each other (all the while adding to the fear that is being spread about our economy at precisely the wrong time) and be available via phone if need be.

Or they could recognize that a few days down from a campaign is no big deal in the scheme of things.

The left, who has been using the fear tactic that they rightfully excoriate the right for when it comes to terrorism have helped create the perception that this is the worst crisis ever and our very existence is on the line (I disagree). If that is true, though, I would rather see the candidates take a few days off and help be a fix to the problem, not undermine what is going on by politicizing it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2008 4:48 PM
Comment #265059

Sam McD,

If every DEM had voted for the bill it would have passed. The fact is that this is not across party lines, it is bipartisan against this particular bill. They are going to have to work harder to resolve this, in an election year, so close to the election, in order to pass an unconstitutional law.

The people are watching, and they are not happy in the least.

Though, it seems silly to be worried, the majority of incumbents are polling as winners, there are going to be very few changes in reality.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2008 4:51 PM
Comment #265060

Rhinehold, your comment’s total and complete lack of compassion for human suffering is the strongest defense of your claiming the Libertarian Party as your choice. Thank you, for your remarkable candor.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2008 4:55 PM
Comment #265062

David,

Your ignorant statement about my lack of compassion is the most used tactic of those seeking a totalitarian state. Which explains your statist view of the world, that the government must intervene as the only way possible to sustain life. One wonders what limits that presents when human suffering and a lack of compassion is the tool for increased power?

Just because someone isn’t taken care of by the government doesn’t mean that they aren’t taken care of by the people. Once you learn to separate the two you might see that one can exist without the other.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2008 5:01 PM
Comment #265064
‘If a detailed, factual study were made of all those instances in the history of American industry which have been used by the statists as an indictment of free enterprise and as an argument in favor of a government-controlled economy, it would be found that the actions blamed on businessmen were caused, necessitated, and made possible only by government intervention in business. The evils, popularly ascribed to big industrialists, were not the result of an unregulated industry, but of government power over industry. The villain in the picture was not the businessman, but the legislator, not free enterprise, but government controls.’”

This is true of the Great Depression and our current ‘crisis’, no matter how much the ones with the guns wanting to take your freedom try to convince you other wise.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2008 5:07 PM
Comment #265069


Joel: These people aren’t interested in hearing what you have to say. Hell, they won’t even admit their own guilt, let alone the guilt of their politicians.

Let’s just blame this on the socialists or the communists. That way, the capitalists are off the hook, the liberal and conservative politicians are off the hook and most important, the bourgeoisie enablers are off the hook.

Posted by: jlw at September 29, 2008 5:31 PM
Comment #265071
So who are these historically uneducated folks you are listening to saying there will be an imminent and complete collapse?

You mean I can quit listening to jlw on this issue then? Great!

http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/006208.html#265034

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2008 5:36 PM
Comment #265073

Rhinehold-
Sixty percent of Democrats voted for the bill. Thirty percent of Republicans did. Sure, a hundred percent of Democrats COULD have voted for it, but if more Republicans had voted for it, it would have passed.

The feelings are mixed here. Wasn’t too certain of the good coming from results either way. But I’m going to say that Barney Frank had it right when he said that if anybody voted the other way because of a mild but critical speech, then they just punished the country for a politician hurting their feelings. Putting your own sentiments ahead of the good of the country is just being a crybaby.

Why don’t these people just admit it, or pretend to admit it: they could not stand by and let the taxpayer subsidize bad business decisions. But instead, Boehner gets up and blames Pelosi’s speech. Maybe he doesn’t want others to ask uncomfortable questions about his lack of ability to deliver on promised votes.

This move will not look good for the Republicans. First, McCain was quick-too quick-to take credit for the success. Second, the Democrats can say that however imperfect the problem, at least they were trying to do something. Third, it was a Republican administration that tried to put the bailout on them.

The massive crash will be a liability to any Republican who tries to claim that voting against the bill was a good thing. Though conceivably, Republicans can make an argument for the Bill’s problematic nature, they can only take credit for their opposition if they materially participate in the solution to the problem. They have to work in a bipartisan way to pass something better than they just voted down, or otherwise they get scapegoated, fairly or unfairly, for derailing the solution.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 29, 2008 5:41 PM
Comment #265075

Oldguy
I aint heard anything about Obama being against the bailout. In fact he’s like every other idiot up there in DC and can’t wait to put this country even deeper in debt by rewarding the crooks that have created this mess.

Well this bailout bill didn’t make it. Now it’s gonna to be interesting to we what they come up with next.
Reckon there wasn’t enough pork or something attached to this bill for it to pass?
I’m not really looking for anything to get done until after the election. That way both parties can blame each other for this bill failing.

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 29, 2008 5:50 PM
Comment #265078
Sixty percent of Democrats voted for the bill. Thirty percent of Republicans did.

So, again, you use the argument that your party sucks less? (I, for the record, am against this in total).

I’m sorry Stephen, but your party has the majority and does not need the Republicans to pass this bill, but they can’t even agree that it is the right thing to do and now you want to blame the Republicans for torpedoing it?

You don’t think that people are going to see it as there was a deal and then Pelosi screwed it up by trying to score political points on what was supposed to be an agreed upon bipartisan action, one that would not try to do exactly that?

Come on Stephen, quit trying to make the Dems look like they are perfect angels only concerned about the citizenry of the states (who overwhelmingly do not want this plan) and cast everyone’s eyes to the evil slinking Republicans who are using all means of deceit and skullduggery to sink the last chance the country has to avoid total collapse.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2008 5:59 PM
Comment #265079

Rhinehold -

I see you pointing a finger at McCain and Obama in the same statement…though you never mention McCain’s name…but when it comes to naming actual names about fear-mongering, you point out Obama…but NOT McCain.

Looking at your exchange with David, I must ask if you’re a member of the Ayn Rand Society. The rest of this post goes on the assumption that you do agree with her. If you don’t, then please ignore the rest and accept my sincere apology.

Y’know, the concept she put forth in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is every bit as idealistic - and every bit as impossible - as its polar opposite: communism. Both are flatly impossible. Why? Simple human nature - greed, want, love, hate, courage, cowardice…. Some will share your view, but the majority never will. Even if you held sway over all the world, you would NEVER realize the dream of total responsibility of the individual.

Like most other sets of polar opposites - good and evil, tall and short, every bell curve you can imagine - the real answer lies somewhere in the messy middle.

I would advise you to understand the impossibility of such a concept, and to work with the possible, the ‘messy middle’ to which the great majority of humanity belongs.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 29, 2008 6:00 PM
Comment #265082

Glenn wrote, “And that’s Obama’s strength - pulling both sides together to agree on what can be done, rather than pandering to the extremists on either side.”

Glen, care to back up his compromise bonafides with any evidence? Pandering to his extremists supporters is Obama’s strength.

Perhaps someone who has a lot of time and interest could determine how many of the 94 Dems who voted against this horrendous bill are first-time legislators from 2006. My guess is that many are and they joined with the many conservative Reps who killed this God-awful bail-out.

As for selling one’s stock and seeking safety, that was done by most of us who used our brains, rather than listen to oratory, before the bail-outs began.

I phoned my congressperson and congratulated him for keeping his conservative hat firmly placed on his head.

Posted by: Jim M at September 29, 2008 6:07 PM
Comment #265085


Is it just me or are others wondering where Showboat John McCain is at. Ive been waiting to hear he is suspending his campaign and heading back to DC to finish the job he claimed he did last week?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 29, 2008 6:21 PM
Comment #265086

Glenn,

That wasn’t the only comment, just the first one I found. Another says that McCain was doing the right thing when he pointed out the fundamentals are sound (they are) and then when the Dems, including Obama, jumped on him for that he quickly did a 180 and became the lead scaremonger, helping push even more fear and uncertainty into the market.

I’m sorry you are unwilling to accept that I find fault with both candidates in this area, but I am not in a position to spend a couple of hours combing through all of my comments to find them all that include using McCain’s name, though I’m curious why you think that it is important? Do you think the people reading here are not able to ‘decipher’ who I meant?

As for Ayn Rand, there is a difference in agreeing with someone’s philosophy and embracing it completely. We can discuss my views, but basically I think that it is imperative that government not tell individuals how to live their lives, if they are not directly impacting others. Jefferson was an idealist too, but knew to break with that when it was a no-brainer (Louisiana Purchase). That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to strive for the ideals that we believe in, and for me that is the protection of individual liberty over complacency, ease and forced control by the majority over the minority.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 29, 2008 6:22 PM
Comment #265087

Jon Said , This post flew over both your heads. *WHOOSH* not mine pal , my point was that folks are strapped and a hell of a lot of rustling and illegal hunting is going on up here, right now as I’m writing this Canadian geese are flying over and i hear gun shots it’s not season yet and have you bought a steak lately?

Posted by: Rodney Brown at September 29, 2008 6:24 PM
Comment #265094

Rhinehold, you have no compassion because you refuse to acknowledge the soon to be senior citizen who just lost $15,000 from their 401K this afternoon after working and putting away for taking care of them self in retirement. Their government, these Republicans, just cost this middle class wage earner trying to avoid a government handout in retirement, $15,000.

Your ideological position that there should be a separation of government and business is what accounts for the Chinese sending us lead poisoned toys, and toxic fish stocks. If you are so in love of separation of markets and government, you might be interested in a plane ticket to China where government can’t possibly hope to oversee the markets and business of 4 times our population’s enterprise.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2008 6:51 PM
Comment #265098

DR
I just took a page from the dem playbook. I just make things up and hope everyone will believe it.

There is no need for me to include a source because when I do, I am told “they are just part of the neocon movement”.

O’S DANGEROUS PALS
BARACK’S ‘ORGANIZER’ BUDS PUSHED FOR BADMORTGAGE
Shttp://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm

SD
“But I’m going to say that Barney Frank had it right when he said that if anybody voted the other way because of a mild but critical speech, then they just punished the country for a politician hurting their feelings.”

Is it possible that some republicans were on the fence concerning the bailout, with their constituents applying pressure and Pelosi just sealed the deal? What possible reason would she have had for questioning their patriotism and throwing accusations? People on this site would have their rights curtailed if they spoke to others on watchblog with that same tone.

RB
BHO has not made a stand, one way or another; he is simply waiting to see which way the political wind will blow, although, he is encouraging others of his party to vote to pass the bill.
I believe this gives the republicans the upper hand to push for a bill that does not pursue a socialist involvement by the government. It will be interesting.

My neighbor is a retired banker and he believes the cause of the problem was political, but he thinks it is beyond that point now. But as I watch the politicians, I told him it is still political.

DR
“Rhinehold, you have no compassion because you refuse to acknowledge the soon to be senior citizen who just lost $15,000 from their 401K this afternoon after working and putting away for taking care of them self in retirement. Their government, these Republicans, just cost this middle class wage earner trying to avoid a government handout in retirement, $15,000.”

They don’t have to worry, the dems will take care of them with SS. Oh, I’m sorry, they spent that money already. So Sorry.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 29, 2008 7:26 PM
Comment #265100

Rhinehold,

The point isn’t who killed the bill. The point is that the McCain campaign — and I still respect the man enough to think he has to be uncomfortable with the venom coming from his camp — had the incredible gall to blame Obama and the Democrats for the bill’s defeat. This after some Republicans complained that Nancy Pelosi’s hurtful comments tipped the scales.

Seriously? I know they think the American people are stupid — and why wouldn’t they, as we continually prove ourselves so at the voting booth? — but come on.

I wish I knew enough about our country’s financial inner workings and the current situation to say definitively whether this is as necessary as Bush, Paulson and many in Congress say it is. But I’m enough of a skeptic to be absolutely certain that the majority of those who voted against the bill (both Dem and Rep) did so for fear of losing their seat, rather than on the basis of some kind of ideological stand.

Posted by: Sam McD at September 29, 2008 7:33 PM
Comment #265105

I wonder if Ayn Rand and Upton Sinclair ever met. That would’ve been an interesting conversation. One thing’s for sure, neither would be pleased with current events.

Posted by: Sam McD at September 29, 2008 7:49 PM
Comment #265108

“I wish I knew enough about our country’s financial inner workings and the current situation to say definitively whether this is as necessary as Bush, Paulson and many in Congress say it is.”

Sam I was watching Robert Reich earlier and was left with the impression that it was not as drastic as first made out to be, of course he seemed to be trying to still the panic amongst us.

And make no mistake Sam McD the vote for and against this bill was based upon who was up for re election this cycle, those up for re election voted against this bill and those not up for re election voted for this bill.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 29, 2008 8:41 PM
Comment #265116

Rhinehold,

You clearly never met a depression you didn’t like. It’s always the governments fault, never greed or human sheep like behavior. I know you aren’t an anarchist, but your adherence to beliefs based on arcane, highly disputed economic theory constantly makes me wonder about your life experience. Stupid people get stupid government.

Adam Smith wrote two books, as we’ve all discussed here before, while you always say you are for reasoned leadership, and regulation, I find you never advocating any. You have stated the Fed caused the depression, while most sound economist state they did not do enough, soon enough.

Since your economic theory has never been tested, in your opinion, I find your advocacy of it now most illuminating. You are simply a repeat of the Hooverites belief in bootstraps. It’s foolish, ignorant and callous, IMO. While Austrian economists advocate this repetitive foolishness, I find it interesting that most adults of the depression era are dead. Once again, a government failing to act over entrenched moralism rather than reality based pragmatism, may well be the result. I find it odd as well, that many advocates of this “thinking” breed are also pro-lifers. This worked out so well back then. Invest heartily.

Posted by: googlumpugus at September 29, 2008 10:00 PM
Comment #265117

d.a.n.

(4) All pyramid schemes fail eventually ….well except when you own the printing press and nation.

All nations fail eventually….so we’re doomed anyway right?

Everyone dies, so why do anything?

I understand the dark vision, just not quite seeing the rationality of it.

Posted by: googlumpugus at September 29, 2008 10:42 PM
Comment #265129
And make no mistake Sam McD the vote for and against this bill was based upon who was up for re election this cycle, those up for re election voted against this bill and those not up for re election voted for this bill.

Erm, they are *ALL* up for re-election, this was the House, they all stand every 2 years…

It is true that Pelosi was outplayed by the republicans, they wanted to kill the bill and Pelosi wanted to give some of her more loyals (committee chairmen) a pass so she took the republican’s word that they would vote for it.

So, she played politics and the republicans played back. And they outplayed her.

Perhaps had she not attempted to play politics she could have passed the bill without republican help when the democrats are in charge of the congress?

I love how people say the democrats had no power for six years because the republicans were in power and now that they are in power the democrats are still helpless without the out of power republicans… Tepid acceptance that the dems just don’t get it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 30, 2008 3:20 AM
Comment #265130
You clearly never met a depression you didn’t like.

*yawn*

It’s always the governments fault, never greed or human sheep like behavior.

Well, this is a meaningless statement. ‘always’ is a crutch term and only used when someone doesn’t know what they are talking about, like now.

I know you aren’t an anarchist

Thank you for that at least

but your adherence to beliefs based on arcane, highly disputed economic theory constantly makes me wonder about your life experience. Stupid people get stupid government.

My ‘life experience’ is of no concern to you. If you want to say that I am stupid because I believe in human beings and not force, that’s your issue, not mine.

It is arcane to desire liberty? To embrace the views of those who understood that allowing oppression as a means of convenience is the evil we should be fighting? Whatever.

Adam Smith wrote two books, as we’ve all discussed here before, while you always say you are for reasoned leadership, and regulation, I find you never advocating any. You have stated the Fed caused the depression, while most sound economist state they did not do enough, soon enough.

There is a difference between what caused it and what was not done that could have mitigated the results.

Just like today.

We have lots of things that could be done to limit the fallout of the situation, but they are not the causes of it. And just like then, it is not ‘greed’ or ‘capitalism’ that caused today’s problem. The question is do we prevent the correction of the cause or do we try to manipulate the results of it through making those who weren’t involved in the cause pay for the protection of those who will be hurt.

For example, David says that ‘all retirees just lost 15,000’. Which, on its face is ridiculous, if you play a daily up and down it is true that today’s snapshot was bad, but over the long run there will be no loss because that’s the way things work. But, even if it were a valid statement, how much is he expecting all americans to pay in order to prevent that loss? Do you really think it will cost less than 15,000 per person to pay for this bailout?

Since your economic theory has never been tested, in your opinion, I find your advocacy of it now most illuminating. You are simply a repeat of the Hooverites belief in bootstraps.

This ridiculous statement tells me that you don’t even know what a ‘hooverite’ is. Hoover was one of the most hand-on presidents in our history to that point, he was just really really bad at it. In fact, the New Deal was the fulfillment of Hoover’s plans that he had started to put into place to deal with the mistakes of his administration in managing the economy.

In that regard, Hoover is more likened to a George Bush who just couldn’t stop tinkering for political gain. No regard to the long term outcome. Embracing protectionism. etc…

It’s foolish, ignorant and callous, IMO.

No kidding. Callous. To say that people should be free to fail so that they may have a chance to succeed? Because I don’t want to forcibly take money from someone who did nothing wrong and give it to people who make ignorant mistakes with their own finances, enabling them to keep making those mistakes knowing they are free to keep making them without fear of pain?

While Austrian economists advocate this repetitive foolishness, I find it interesting that most adults of the depression era are dead.

Yup, very interesting…

Once again, a government failing to act over entrenched moralism rather than reality based pragmatism, may well be the result. I find it odd as well, that many advocates of this “thinking” breed are also pro-lifers. This worked out so well back then. Invest heartily.

This entire comment is worth very little.

First of all, most libertarians, which I think you are attempting to libel here, are not pro-lifers. So it is pretty obvious you don’t even know what you are putting down.

The point is, if these ideals were in place this situation wouldn’t exist and we wouldn’t be looking to take money from people who were responsible to give it to people who weren’t. THAT is the definition of progressive politics.

And you mention that my economic policies have never been tried. All I know is that Progressive economics have been tried and have been an utter failure in the damage that it has done not only to the economy, but in society in fostering the view that there are no repercussions to failure and no reward for success.

If for a second I thought you wanted to actually debate the merits, or lack thereof, of differing political philosophies, I would engage. But history has told me different.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 30, 2008 3:45 AM
Comment #265143

Rhinehold,

“Yawn” Ah, boredom. It’s a nice luxury for those who are detached from reality.

A meaningless statement that is true, none the less. I’d love for you to point to an article where you blamed something other than government for anything.

I believe in apple pie and America, too, Rhinehold. Saying you believe in Human Beings while saying it’s OK to fail, and dismissing the real possiblities of the human suffering of a economic meltdown is disingenuous at best.

We have lots of things that could be done to limit the fallout of the situation, but they are not the causes of it. And just like then, it is not ‘greed’ or ‘capitalism’ that caused today’s problem. The question is do we prevent the correction of the cause or do we try to manipulate the results of it through making those who weren’t involved in the cause pay for the protection of those who will be hurt.

Ah, the moral peril. Let’s punish those dirty b*****ds with a depression.

This ridiculous statement tells me that you don’t even know what a ‘hooverite’ is. Hoover was one of the most hand-on presidents in our history to that point, he was just really really bad at it. In fact, the New Deal was the fulfillment of Hoover’s plans that he had started to put into place to deal with the mistakes of his administration in managing the economy.

Well, not exactly, but I won’t strongly disagree, except with economic involvement. Hoover’s interventions were minor. His Laissez faire attitude toward business and Wall Street contributed to the collapse. It was Congress that did the most damage. Except that wasn’t what I was talking about. The bootstrap mentality was prevalent, even into Roosevelt’s administration. It was stupid then and stupid now. It’s moralism, not economic theory.

It isn’t your Libertarianism that I contest, it’s your conservative bent. Although, many conservatives of late use that as a cloak for the return to the good ole days, bootstrap mentality.

Actually many Libertarians do oppose abortion, by the convoluted argument for state rights. They want a return to the days when the well to do could afford to travel for abortions and the less well to do used coat hangers. They claim principal, but the cling to a belief in an idealized past.

I don’t know what “progressive economics” is. I know what Macroeconomics is, and while I agree with many Libertarian values, I do not agree with idealism over pragmatism.

BTW, I said YOU believe they have never been tried. Actually, they were tried time and again from the inception of this country with disastrous results over and over again. It wasn’t until the 20th century that we actually had some economic stability.

To me, conservatism is about being prudent. Unfortunately, today it becomes about moral outrage, and faith in a past that never really existed.


Posted by: googlumpugus at September 30, 2008 9:36 AM
Comment #265206

Speaking of pragmatism, a bail-out, and things that increase inflation could make things much worse.
Rampant borrowing, money-printing, and spending could crash the U.S. Currency.
Trying to preserve wealth by trying to prop-up high property values won’t last long.

The tricky part now is to NOT make a severe problem worse.
More borrowing, spending, money-printing, and debt will risk crashing the U.S. Currency, and many more people in cash positions may need a truck-load of U.S. Currency to buy a loaf of bread.
Remember Argentina? In only a few months, you couldn’t by a newspaper for what was previously the price of a newspaper.

Many want a quick fix, but none exist.
Just think of what hyperinflation could mean, when oil is mostly traded using U.S. Dollars today?
If we crash the U.S. Currency with hyperinflation, the current pain and misery can be magnified many times over.
Why create more money out of thin air when we can NOT even pay the interest alone on the nation-wide debt?
The interest alone on the nation-wide debt of $53 Trillion to $66 Trillion (at only 4.0% interest) is $5.82 Billion to $7.24 Billion per day!
That is $19.08 -to- $23.74 per day for every man, woman, and child (for only the interest alone).
For a household size of 2.61 persons, that is $49.80 -to- $61.96 per household, per day for interest alone!
That is $1513.88 -to- $1883.58 per household per month for interest alone!
That is $17,812.00 -to- $22,615.4 per household per year for interest alone!
The point is, the debt is so large, all of it can never be paid off (only some of it, and that depends on whether enough wealthy investors will buy up some assets at a discount).
That is, finding customers is a problem, when 80% of the U.S. population is already deep in debt, only owns 16%-to-17% of all wealth, and savings rates have been negative since year 2005.
There does exist a point-of-no-return, where the debt is finally so large, that it can NEVER be paid off in full.
And that is what is happening now, fueled by falling asset values, of which many were over-valued to start with.
Lots of people have homes that are now worth less than the remaining principal.
Even if foreclosures, which started before year 2005, peaked in AUG-2008, there are millions of foreclosures on the way (One-Simple-Idea.com/Foreclosures.gif).

When the debt finally becomes too large to ever be dealt with, a melt-down is unavoidable (which we are seeing; which was not hard to see coming).
We’ve had positive inflation every consecutive year for the past 58 years.
The nation-wide debt has steadily grown from 100% to almost 500% of GDP since year 1976 (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#NationWideDebt).

There are many things Congress could do to help (below), and could have done a long time ago, but there is NO quick fix now.
Instead, Congress refuses to do those numerous responsible things.

If Congress really wanted to help immediately, it could do the following now, but it still won’t avoid the pain and misery of this huge debt problem:

  • (01) Fix the dishonest, usurious, inflationary, predatory monetary system (nothing more than a pyramid scheme used to extract wealth from the unwitting) now. Stop eroding the currency.

  • (02) Stop these 10 abuses now.

  • (03) Stop rampant usury and predetory loan practices (perhaps limits on some interest rates?) now.

  • (04) Make the tax system fair and less regressive now.

  • (05) Start enforcing existing laws; uphold the U.S. Constitution; stop eminent domain abuse; start putting some real crooks behind bars, now.

  • (06) Stop illegal immigration that is costing tax-payers an estimated $70 Billion to $327 Billion in annual net losses, now (One-Simple-Idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Burdens). That’s a lot of money! Stop despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for voters and profits.

  • (07) Stop the rampant pork-barrel, subsidies, waste, and welfare for the wealthy.

  • (08) Pass a BALANCED BUDGET amemdnent, since 38 states (only 34 required) have submitted 136 BALANCED BUDGET/General Call for Article V Convention applications.

  • (09) Stop starting wars based on false intelligence; bring our troops back from Iraq, since there are probably better ways to make the U.S. safer. Bring our troops home.

And one of the most important things that should come out of all of this is:
  • Voters are culpable too, and government won’t become more responsible and accountable until enough voters do too, and repeatedly rewarding corrupt politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates isn’t the working, is it?

The real danger is whether Congress will make the problem worse, by crashing the U.S. Dollar, by more rampant money printing and growing the debt ever larger, when we can’t even pay the interest alone on the current debt. Congress could make those common-sense changes above, which are based on sound principles. But that’s doubtful. Instead, they are likely to make it worse, despite the majority of Americans that also don’t believe (and rightfully so) that this is the time to abandon all principles by trying to fight a massive debt problem by creating more debt, more borrowing, more money-printing, and bailing-out banks and corporations is going to make things better. Already, the U.S. is creating hundreds of billions of new money out of thin air each year, which is why inflation has been climbing, and the U.S. Dollar has been falling against all major international currencies (One-Simple-Idea.com/USD_Falling.htm). The U.S. has a LOT of money held by foreign nations. That’s a precarious situation. Panic abroad could cause a massive dumping of U.S. Dollars, causing hyper-inflation (like what happened in Argentina due to rampant money printing). Then people would start trying to withdrawn their cash from all banks and financial instititutions. The FDIC does not have enough money to insure all of the money in all the banks nation-wide to the insured limits. Thus, things could get MUCH worse if more debt, money-printing, spending, and bail-outs (things that caused this huge debt problem) are attempted to deal with the already unmanageable debt problem, which would crash the U.S. currency, and make the problem many times worse - not just in the U.S., but world-wide.

Unfortunately, many believe that this debt crisis suddenly warrants an abandonment of sound principles, such as trying to solve massive debt problems with more debt, money-printing, inflation, irresponsible spending, and bail-outs. Strange. Since when did the solution become more of the same? The math doesn’t work. Panic and trust is part of this problem too. Most were against HR BILL 3997. How does it build up trust and confidence now that Congress is making noises like it will try to revive the BILL? Perhaps Congress should listen to the voters this time? If the bail-out is such a wonderful idea, why are most in Congress and most voters against it? Perhaps they all have a valid point:

  • Since when was the solution to massive debt more massive debt, money-printing, borrowing, and irresponsible spending?

If the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve want to help, try to stop inflation (now at 5.4%).
By pre-1983 inflation measurement methods, inflation is now really about 15.6% (One-Simple-Idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#Measurement).
By pre-1998 inflation measurement methods, inflation is now really 9.6%.
It’s not hard to believe when you consider that we’ve had positive inflation for every consecutive year for the past 58 years (since year 1956: One-Simple-Idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#Since1956).

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at September 30, 2008 2:34 PM
Comment #265218

d.a.n.

Agreed the tricky part is not to have either rapid inflation or downwardly spiraling liquidity.

Adressing the US savings rate, to me, is the largest problem. That requires two things. movement away from a consumer society, and raising median income’s expendible income levels. If you’re living pay check to pay check, there’s not much left to save. My grandmother always tried to save some portion of whatever money came in, even through the depression. It’s a lesson many school children should be learning.

Posted by: googlumpugus at September 30, 2008 3:24 PM
Comment #265281

“Yawn” Ah, boredom. It’s a nice luxury for those who are detached from reality.

Another meaningless statement. Exactly how am I ‘detached from reality’ please? Be specific, there will be a test.

I’d love for you to point to an article where you blamed something other than government for anything.

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/profile/rhinehold.html has a whole list of them. What specific would you like to talk about? I talk about individual issues about race, privacy, all kinds of things.

I believe in apple pie and America, too, Rhinehold. Saying you believe in Human Beings while saying it’s OK to fail, and dismissing the real possiblities of the human suffering of a economic meltdown is disingenuous at best.

I am not dismissing it, I am saying that humans will take care of other humans OUTSIDE of the government. Get real and either figure out what I am talking about or ask if you don’t know. Making the assumption doesn’t help your case.

We have lots of things that could be done to limit the fallout of the situation, but they are not the causes of it. And just like then, it is not ‘greed’ or ‘capitalism’ that caused today’s problem. The question is do we prevent the correction of the cause or do we try to manipulate the results of it through making those who weren’t involved in the cause pay for the protection of those who will be hurt.

Ah, the moral peril. Let’s punish those dirty b*****ds with a depression.

*you* are the one predicting a depression. Why? What makes you think ‘there will be a depression’ again? You have an economics degree I take it?

This ridiculous statement tells me that you don’t even know what a ‘hooverite’ is. Hoover was one of the most hand-on presidents in our history to that point, he was just really really bad at it. In fact, the New Deal was the fulfillment of Hoover’s plans that he had started to put into place to deal with the mistakes of his administration in managing the economy.

Well, not exactly, but I won’t strongly disagree, except with economic involvement. Hoover’s interventions were minor.

I about spit my coke out on this on. Minor? His interventions brought about a depression, that should have lasted only a few years, but FDR made worse with his interventions…

Exactly how is doing that ‘minor’?

We had to put in place blocks and protections so that interference by government wouldn’t bring us down like that again and here we are putting in more and more bad legislation and complete lack of oversight to get us where we are today. The President was negligent and congress was negligent in seeing this thing coming sooner and heading it off and instead of mitigating the issue with a change in legislation that exists that is making this much more difficult to get ahead of, we want to go even further down a bad road off of the backs of good people’s money.

His Laissez faire attitude toward business and Wall Street contributed to the collapse.

Except he did not have a ‘laissez faire’ attitude towards business. He was excoriated for expanding government into business for years leading up to the depression. In fact, when he mentioned some of his programs to fix his mess, he was accused of trying to fix too much government with more government.

It was Congress that did the most damage. Except that wasn’t what I was talking about. The bootstrap mentality was prevalent, even into Roosevelt’s administration. It was stupid then and stupid now. It’s moralism, not economic theory.

And it’s ignorant. No one is suggesting that we leave people to their own devices, we are saying that it doesn’t have to be done at the point of a gun. Something that people today seem to forget, that we used to help each other out without bringing out the jackboots of socialist policies.

It isn’t your Libertarianism that I contest, it’s your conservative bent. Although, many conservatives of late use that as a cloak for the return to the good ole days, bootstrap mentality.

Ah, then you are showing that you have no real clue about what I suggest. I had suspected as much but now that I can point to it, it does make me feel a little easier, I thought it was something I was doing…

Actually many Libertarians do oppose abortion, by the convoluted argument for state rights.

Then they aren’t libertarians. The right to privacy is guaranteed and extends down through the states. People can call themselves anything they want, but that doesn’t make it true.

I don’t know what “progressive economics” is. I know what Macroeconomics is, and while I agree with many Libertarian values, I do not agree with idealism over pragmatism.

BTW, I said YOU believe they have never been tried. Actually, they were tried time and again from the inception of this country with disastrous results over and over again. It wasn’t until the 20th century that we actually had some economic stability.

Funny. Not true, but funny…

To me, conservatism is about being prudent. Unfortunately, today it becomes about moral outrage, and faith in a past that never really existed.

Not being a conservative, I wouldn’t be able to tell you.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 30, 2008 8:02 PM
Comment #265300

Rhinehold,

Exactly how am I ‘detached from reality’ please? Be specific, there will be a test.

I have no idea if you are detached from reality, but this is:

I am not dismissing it, I am saying that humans will take care of other humans OUTSIDE of the government. Get real and either figure out what I am talking about or ask if you don’t know. Making the assumption doesn’t help your case.

Tell me, specifically, who will provide liquidity to “take care of other humans”? Either quit going off on general non-sequiters and platitudes or stop trying to sell me on the good will of man. This is a meaningless statement. Not much different than the faithful christian who says God will provide. It may help to assuage your fears, but it’s treacle to me.

Again point to one article in which you do not blame government, don’t ask me to provide it for you. It’s your theme song. Always was a correct application of the word, but you knew that when you became Mr. grammer to avoid the argument.

*you* are the one predicting a depression. Why? What makes you think ‘there will be a depression’ again? You have an economics degree I take it?

Apparently, you do not think liquidity is a problem, please expand on this theory. I don’t really want to pull out my degrees to see who’s is bigger. I’ll leave that to teenage boys. A sound argument will do.

Minor? His interventions brought about a depression, that should have lasted only a few years, but FDR made worse with his interventions…

We’ve been around this rose bush before, I completely disagree.

Except he did not have a ‘laissez faire’ attitude towards business. He was excoriated for expanding government into business for years leading up to the depression. In fact, when he mentioned some of his programs to fix his mess, he was accused of trying to fix too much government with more government.

There is much debate over the relationship between laissez-faire capitalism and the onset of the Great Depression. Some economists and historians (such as John Maynard Keynes) argue that laissez-faire capitalism fostered the conditions under which the Great Depression arose.

Other scholars, such as Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard, say that the Depression was not a result of laissez-faire economic policy but of government intervention on the monetary and credit system.

Most scholars accept the Great Depression to be a monetary phenomenon.

Rothbard being of the Austrian School of Economics. Freidman’s problem is that he both says the Fed did too much and not enough.

What you state as fact, is actually highly disputed. The Austrian School is famous for rewriting history, being all over the internet, and the being in talking points of Ron Paul. But it is also a rather minor fringe of economic theory.

Ah, then you are showing that you have no real clue about what I suggest. I had suspected as much but now that I can point to it, it does make me feel a little easier, I thought it was something I was doing…

Then by all means, feel free to differentiate yourself.

And it’s ignorant. No one is suggesting that we leave people to their own devices, we are saying that it doesn’t have to be done at the point of a gun. Something that people today seem to forget, that we used to help each other out without bringing out the jackboots of socialist policies.

By your suggestion, and at odds with the main point of this entire post, you suggest liquidity is not a problem that needs to be addressed. Of course, it won’t be your fault if that advice is followed. Government intervention will have conveniently screwed it up, at the point of a gun, no less. Just curious, who’s pointing a gun at Congress, or the voters?

My response was to your cavalier attitude toward David’s bringing to your attention the immediacy of the liquidity problem. “Yawn”. Ho,hum. So What if we spiral into a crisis?

Actually many Libertarians do oppose abortion, by the convoluted argument for state rights.Then they aren’t libertarians. The right to privacy is guaranteed and extends down through the states. People can call themselves anything they want, but that doesn’t make it true.

Of course, you have argued with me about Roe v. Wade being overturned because it is bad law and made the argument then that states should have the right to intervene for the life of a child, and about the beginning of life not being the magic hat argument.
Perhaps you aren’t a Libertarian, then?

BTW, I said YOU believe they have never been tried. Actually, they were tried time and again from the inception of this country with disastrous results over and over again. It wasn’t until the 20th century that we actually had some economic stability.

Not funny and true, but excellent rebuttal (sarcasm)

Not being a conservative, I wouldn’t be able to tell you.

And Rhinehold, the cat, twists and turns and lands on his feet, without rebutting a single thing, except to say, I didn’t say that, when he clearly did.


Ok the format is funky but this is not worth reformatting, I’m going to bed.


Posted by: googlumpugus at September 30, 2008 10:03 PM
Comment #265319

d.a.n, Bernanke completely agrees with you. He is alluding to the hyperinflation on the other side of this economic resuscitation and attempting to make the case that it has always and will always be largely a fiscal policy problem to be resolved by fiscal policy. The Fed’s hands are tied in periods of contracting economic activity and rising inflationary pressures.

The Fed’s tools will exacerbate one or both of those problems. I have to agree with his logic on this. The debt and rising interest on that debt is going to be the single greatest inflationary pressure to be faced by America in the next 8 to 10 years.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2008 11:32 PM
Comment #265353

A good article in the NYTimes this morning

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 1, 2008 7:43 AM
Comment #265358

Another good article: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6033222.html

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 1, 2008 8:15 AM
Comment #265361
By your suggestion, and at odds with the main point of this entire post, you suggest liquidity is not a problem that needs to be addressed.

I never said it didn’t need to be address, I said it didn’t need to be addressed by stealing money from hardworking middle class americans at the point of a gun.

I also presented a way through it, one that David even agrees would work, but you discount it because it isn’t chicken little soundbites of doom. The economy is not going to collapse because we won’t let it. Not ‘government’, we.

Of course, it won’t be your fault if that advice is followed. Government intervention will have conveniently screwed it up, at the point of a gun, no less. Just curious, who’s pointing a gun at Congress, or the voters?

You do realize what a ‘law’ is, right?

My response was to your cavalier attitude toward David’s bringing to your attention the immediacy of the liquidity problem. “Yawn”. Ho,hum. So What if we spiral into a crisis?

No, my response was the chicken little sky is falling rhetoric to scare people to do what you want isn’t going to work on everyone.

Of course, you have argued with me about Roe v. Wade being overturned because it is bad law and made the argument then that states should have the right to intervene for the life of a child, and about the beginning of life not being the magic hat argument. Perhaps you aren’t a Libertarian, then?

Perhaps you are thinking of someone else?

The only way this could be attributed to me is if I said that ‘their argument is…’ before that.

Roe V Wade is a crucial upholding of the 9th amendment, one of the few last ones now that our current political makeup seems to think it is a meaningless part of our constitution now.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2008 9:24 AM
Comment #265399

Rhinehold,

Nope, Im sure it was you. I was gergle back then. It wasn’t your post, but a response to someone else’s post.

I remember because I learned about stare decisis and the magic hat from you.

I agree that Roe v Wade is an important privacy case.

I guess if you feel a gun needs to be held to your head to pay your taxes……of course that is the ultimate power, but some of us feel that living in a modern and social world comes with inherent costs. I don’t like to pay taxes, but I’ve yet to barricade myself in and create a SWAT situation.

Sorry, but I don’t think mark to market changes will create liquidity. It will temporarily resolve banks’ immediate capital requirement issues. I understand that it is now a part of the bailout package.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 1, 2008 1:18 PM
Comment #265475

googlumpugus,

Of course the gun is there. Or, more accurately, the threat of the gun. We pay our taxes because we know if we don’t then that gun will be used.

To prove the point, since you seem to want to think that people pay taxes because they understand the need to pay them, let’s make all taxation voluntary. I will be ok with that because the use of force is no longer in place.

Sound like a good deal?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2008 5:58 PM
Comment #265502
googlumpugus (a.k.a. gergle, eh?) wrote: d.a.n. Agreed the tricky part is not to have either rapid inflation or downwardly spiraling liquidity.
True.

If we try to money-print our way out of this debt problem, our problems could get much worse if it crashes the U.S. Dollar.

The U.S. Dollar has already fallen for every consecutive year since year 1956, but the U.S. Dollar has fallen significantly in value in the last 5 years, and relative to all major international currencies which have substantial inflation of their own. That is, while we’ve had worse inflation in the past, it has rarely (if ever) been so bad relative to most other major international currencies, and we have never had so much nation-wide debt ($53 Trillion, or $66 Trillion if counting the $12.8 Trillion money borrowed from Social Security) as we do today (up from 100% of GDP in year 1976 to almost since year 1976500% of GDP today).

Exacerbating the situation is nearly a perfect storm of economic conditons:

  • (01) Total federal government debt $9.95 Trillion (or $22.4 Trillion if including the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security) has never been larger, both in size and as a percentage (over 160% = $22T / $13.86T) of the $13.86 Trillion GDP (year 2007), when including the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security.

  • (02) $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching (that’s 13,175 new recipients per day).

  • (03) Total personal household debt nation-wide ($13.88 Trillion) has never been larger, both in size and as a percentage (over 100%) of the $13.86 Trillion GDP.

  • (04) Total nation-wide debt of $53.2 Trillion (or $66 Trillion including the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security) has never been larger, both in size and as a percentage of the $13.86 Trillion GDP (4.76 times the nation’s $13.86 Trillion GDP for year 2007).

  • (05) Real median household incomes have fallen since year 1999, and have actually never been lower since year 1978 when also including the fact that that (a)there are now more workers per household; (b) we have more regressive taxation (voters should ask to see the tax curve on gross income, before a myriad of tax loop holes are applied); (c) and the 40-hour work week is disappearing; (d) urban sprawl and high fuel costs are hammering the middle-income and lower-income levels;

  • (06) Illegal immigration has never been worse and more costly, costing American citizens an estimated $70 Billion to $327 Billion annually in net losses. The problem has quadrupled (or more) since the amnesty of year 1986.

  • (07) The wealth disparity gap has never been larger since year 1930. The gap started growing larger, and has not stopped growing larger since year 1976.

  • (08) Taxation has been regressive since year 2000 (or before). We have never had so many different kinds of taxes; many of which are regressive sales taxes. The current tax code is ridiculously complex (by design) with a myriad of tax loop-holes that mostly benefit the wealthy.

  • (09) Home equities have never been lower (below 50%) since year 1945.

  • (10) Home ownership has fallen since year 2006 for low-income and middle-income groups. A study shows that only 59.6% of working class families owned their homes in 2003, lower than the 62.5% in year 1978. That is, home ownership is rising among the wealthy, while falling for most Americans that are losing wealth, losing equity, losing income, and losing their homes at record levels. Currently, home ownership is in a record plunge, and the 4th quarter of 2007 had the biggest one-year drop (1.1%) since tracking began in year 1965. And more foreclosures are on the way.

  • (11) Foreclosures are at record levels: Year 2008: 2.0 million thus far from 1-Jan-2008 to Aug-2008; Year 2007: 2.0 million; Year 2006: 1.2 million; Year 2005: 846,000

  • (12) Average personal savings rates are negative (since year 2005), and have never been worse since 1933.

  • (13) Energy vulnerability: oil and energy prices have never been higher (both in nominal price and adjusted for inflation; worse than the spike in year 1981).

  • (14) Federal government bloat has never been worse, and continues to grow to nightmare proportions. There are now more jobs in government than all manufacturing nation-wide.

  • (15) Global competition has never been stronger. Also, while 6.1% unemployment doesn’t sound bad, it is when the U.S. Population is growing by 5 million per year. So the number of unemployed is growing larger, and the number of unemployed has been growing every month this year as of 31-AUG-2008.

  • (16) Medicare has hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities per year, which are being funded by more borrowing and debt. It is not sustainable; especially with the approaching 77 million baby-boomer bubble. In year 2007, Medicare (16%) and Medicaid (7%) combined were 23% of the $2.7 Trillion federal budget (Year 2007: $432 Billion = 16% of federal budget).

  • (17) Two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, costing over $10 Billion per month (excluding non-monetary costs), and have cost about $600 Billion to date (if not more).

  • (18) Healthcare costs have skyrocketed, driving up Medicare and welfare costs drastically.

  • (19) The tax system is regressive, as evidenced by Warren Buffet (who agrees) who paid 17.7% in total federal taxes while most (if not all) people in his office paid about 30% in total federal income taxes.

googlumpugus wrote: Addressing the US savings rate, to me, is the largest problem. That requires two things. movement away from a consumer society, and raising median income’s expendible income levels. If you’re living pay check to pay check, there’s not much left to save. My grandmother always tried to save some portion of whatever money came in, even through the depression. It’s a lesson many school children should be learning.
Yes. While Americans’ saving habits can be one root cause (due to too much irresponsible spending), a lack of savings can also be a symptom due to:
  • (01) shrinking or stagnant incomes;
  • (02) rising inflation eroding savings, incomes, and entitlements;
  • (03) rising unemployment;
  • (04) excessive and regressive taxation;
  • (05) a housing bubble with initially inflated and unaffordable home prices, followed by falling home prices and difficulting selling, a foreclosure bubble, 18.6 Million vacant housing units as of 31-MAR-2008 (14.4% of all 129.4 Million housing units in the U.S. with only 110.8 million occupied; 75.1 Million by owners and 35.7 Million by renters);
  • (06) lower tax revenues for all levels of government;
  • (07) government and corporate corruption (which is a huge factor in this current cycle, and the 1999 boom-bust cycle);
  • (08) massive losses due to rampant illegal immigration causing an estimated $70 Billion -to-$327 Billion in annual net losses (One-Simple-Idea.com/Costs1.htm); also, an estimated 3% of votes are by illegal aliens (see video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=On4jctZLlc8)
  • (09) energy vulnerability and rising fuel costs;
  • (10) unaffordable and dangerous healthcare;
  • (11) i.e. these 10 abuses: One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm
David R. Remer wrote wrote: d.a.n, Bernanke completely agrees with you. He [Bernanke] is alluding to the hyperinflation on the other side of this economic resuscitation …
Good. The possibility of a run on the U.S. Dollar and hyperinflation is not far-fetched. Not when many in Congress seem to think the only solution to massive debt, borrowing, spending, and money printing is more of the same!

Both Bernanke and the Federal Reserve should be making the possibility of hyperinflation very clear to everyone, and that the risk of crashing the U.S. Currency will have FAR WORSE results than what we are facing now. Trust is part of the problem too, and if the governemnt and Federal Reserve continue to erode the U.S. Dollar, it could (next) trigger a world-wide run on the U.S. Dollar, as people flee to more stable currencies (which ain’t hard to do these days: One-Simple-Idea.com/USD_Falling.htm). Also, remember, by pre-1983 Inflation-Measurement methods, the 5.4% inflation today is actually 15.6% .

David R. Remer wrote wrote: d.a.n, Bernanke completely agrees with you. He [Bernanke] is alluding to the hyperinflation on the other side of this economic resuscitation and attempting to make the case that it has always and will always be largely a fiscal policy problem to be resolved by fiscal policy.
Yes, it can only be resolved by responsible fiscal policy. Not abandonment of principles and more debt, borrowing, money-printing, and spending.
David R. Remer wrote wrote: The Fed’s hands are tied in periods of contracting economic activity and rising inflationary pressures.
True. Yet, Bernanke and Paulson proposed a plan to try anyway to grow the debt by another $700 Billion (and it’s highly likely they would be back in a few months asking for a lot more money).

Strange, becaue we are currently unable to merely pay the interest on the National Debt and the nation-wide debt, and Bernanke and Paulson want to make the debt larger with more borrowing, money-printing, and spending, which will increase inflation.

Some will say that the problem is so large that we should abandon existing principles and make the huge debt even larger.
That sort of logic is dangerous.

If voters want government to do something, then how about stopping these 10 abuses (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm) which have been hammering the middle-class for 30 years ? Instead, Congress thinks the solution to every problem is to grow the debt and government ever larger. Literally, to nightmare proportions. A lot of people are going to be having nightmares if the federal government and Federal Reserve crash the U.S. currency. Inflation is destabilizing; something we don’t need more of now. Especially when a lot of Americans are now in cash posistions!

David R. Remer wrote wrote: The Fed’s tools will exacerbate one or both of those problems. I have to agree with his logic on this. The debt and rising interest on that debt is going to be the single greatest inflationary pressure to be faced by America in the next 8 to 10 years.
I agree that more borrowing and money-printing would be a serious mistake, because that would compound the problem and risk hyperinflation and a complete melt-down due to a run on the U.S. Dollar, when we currently are unable to even pay the interest on the National Debt and nation-wide debt (i.e. we are currently borrowing and printing the money to merely pay the interest on the National Debt). I do not see how Bernanke can reconcile his rhetoric and his actions. He acknowledges the risk of more debt, borrowing, and money printing, but then recommends that very thing (along with Henry Paulson).

It boggles the mind that all of these so-called financial expert and wizards are making these recommmendations that contradict basic and long held principles.
How could Congress, the Treasury, and the federal administration be “so asleep at the wheel” for so long (years)?
Not only were they all telling us things were sound and safe, but they were making rosy predictions.
Were they really that clueless or lying?
What’s up with this video of the IN-PARTY stone-walling and the OUT-PARTY not doing much to overcome it?: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Unfortunately, the previous IN-PARTY was so fiscally irresponsible, whose going to listen to them now?
They’re both either liars, incompetent, or both.
Either way, the credibility of Congress, Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson, and most in the Bush(43) administration is so shot-to-hell now, we should be very careful about ANY of their so-called expert advice, because they have proven themselves to be so utterly incompetent, that anything they recommend is likely to be just as disastrous as what they done these past few years.

The only person in the federal government that consistently and repeatedly warned us for many years about the growing debt (www.youtube.com/watch?v=25_APRkrXeY&feature=related) and fiscal irresponsibility is the former U.S. Controller General of the U.S. (head of the GAO), David Walker (now the president and chief executive officer of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which promotes sound fiscal policy).

David Walker even helped make the movie: I.O.U.S.A.: www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBo2xQIWHiM
Unfortunately, he was not only largely ignored, but criticized as being an “alarmist” and a “doom’s day” “chicken little” by many.
Well, David Walker was right.

Perhaps we should now find out what David Walker’s position is on this bail-out.

David Walker said the Bush bail-out package must come with “oversight, transparency, and accountability.”
Ha!
What are the chances of that!
What is it Bush(43) said ?

  • “Fool me once, shame on, umhhmm, shame on you. Fool me, can’t get fooled again!” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A).

So, what makes anyone think there will be “oversight, transparency, and accountability” now?
Besides, there are so, so many reasons why this is a bad idea, it would fill volumes:

  • (01) NO CHECKS and BALANCES: There are insufficient checks-and-balances. This bail-out would mask imbalances in credit markets and in the U.S. economic public policy. The plan props up irresponsible, crooked, and reckless, failed banks by buying “troubled assets” instead of focusing on real solutions and principles. It would fail to go after government-sponsored culprits such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and perpetuate unsustainable policies that caused the problem in the first place.

  • (02) FOX IN THE HEN HOUSE: It is a blatant, greedy power grab. The bail-out raises Constitutional concerns by dramatically expanding the power of the current and future Treasury Secretaries, giving the government agency power to directly purchase assets from for-profit financial and non-financial firms. A huge problem in this country is too many people trying to make money by playing with money, instead of creating real value. It’s not working. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the architect of this bail-out plan, was formerly the head of Goldman Sachs, one of the firms responsible for the mess and a direct beneficiary of the bailout. Also, the people managing the bailout will be Wall Street firms and will likely receive billions of tax dollars in fees. Cha Ching!

  • (03) THE DEBT IS ALREADY TOO BIG: The $700 billion bailout figure is as much money as the combined annual budgets of the Departments of Defense, Education and Health and Human Services. It amounts to $2,295 for every man, woman, and child in America. For the average household of 2.61 persons, that’s $8793 per household. Of course, the people that got us into this problem and didn’t see it coming are also the ones telling you it won’t cost you much, and you may even make a profit. And I’ve got some beach-front property for sale in Arizona. Yeah, right. Also, if Congress is going to borrow all of that $700 Billion, how will that free up credit markets? And if the Federal Reserve is going to print most (or all) of that money, how will we pay the interest on the debt when we can’t even pay the current level of interest on the National Debt? That is, the government has been borrowing and printing new money to merely pay the interest on the National Debt for years. The National Debt and nation-wide debt is already too large.

  • (04) IT WILL BAILOUT FOREIGNERS: The plan includes taxpayer purchases of distressed assets from foreign banks. Americans are losing their homes by the millions, and the federal government is going to take your tax dollars and purchse distressed assets from foreign banks. Cha Ching! If voters fall for this, then the voters really do deserve the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect.

  • (05) IT PUNISHES RESPONSIBLE AMERICANS: The plan punishes responsible Americans and banks by keeping reckless, insolvent investment banks in business. There are still many good banks and responsible Americans who have little to no debt, and this bail-out is primarily a bailout of poorly run financial institutions. Badly-run competitors should fail. Funny how the free-market zealots are suddenly looking for a bail-out. What a bunch of hypocrits.
  • (06) BY WALL STREET, FOR WALL STREET: The idea that taxpayers will make money on the bailout is not credible. There are other buyers for the troubled assets. Merrill Lynch sold its entire portfolio of mortgage backed securities in July. If a profit is truly possible, then allow private speculators would buy these troubled assets.

  • (08) $700 Billion isn’t enough to accomplish the goal. Look at this list of 186 banks (bankimplode.com/list/troubledbanks.htm) with negative or small net assets. Now consider the fact that the 6 million foreclosures since 2005. That isn’t going to instantly stop now. There will most likely be millions of more foreclosures. If there are 6 million more foreclosures, 6 Million x $159,000 median home price = $954 Billion , which is already 254 Billion more than the $700 Billion , and there are already 18.6 Million vacant housing units on the market now.

  • (09) WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM?: Where will the money come from to merely continue to pay the interest on the current National Debt and the nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the principal debt and keep the principal from growing ever larger, when that money does not exist yet, and 80% of all Americans owns only 16%-to-17% of all wealth in the U.S.?

  • (10) MORALLY OFFENSIVE: The bail-out violates basic, long-held, and widely accepted principles of American capitalism and honest governance by creating a system of “private profits and socialized losses”, which transfers money from taxpayers directly to the banks. Free market capitalism only functions if individuals and corporations are held accountable and are allowed to both succeed and profit, and also to sustain losses and even fail. Also, the people managing the bailout will be Wall Street firms and will likely receive billions of tax dollars in fees. Cha Ching! Most polls show most Americans are against a bail-out, or whatever imaginative name someone wants to give to this plan to funnel billions to the people that created the problem. Everyone and their dog will be lining up for a bail-out, including auto-makers and airlines.

  • (11) TOO RISKY: Growing the National Debt and nation-wide debt any bigger is risky, because even if the federal government was able to borrow all of the money (instead of printing new money), it would raise the National Debt and the interest on the National Debt, which the federal government is already unable to pay ($429 Billion in year 2007, which the federal government borrowed and printed out of thin air to pay). Growing the debt and the money-supply risks crashing the U.S. Dollar, which has already been falling significantly for over 5 years, and consistently every consecutive year since year 1956: One-Simple-Idea.com/InflationRates1780-2007.jpg

So, let’s play Monopoly, Federal Reserve/Federal Government style:

  • STEP #01: Develop a plan for a huge bail-out for the people that caused the problem and touted less regulation and unfettered free-market capitalism, but tell everyone it is necessary to save the economy.

  • STEP #02: Try to rush the decision, like a high-pressure salesman, so that few have time to think it through, because if they do, the scam will fail. Time the game so that it falls right before Congress’ adjournment, and 6 weeks before an election, so that the players will feel pressured, pre-occupied, and distracted.

  • STEP #03 Fear-monger to create confusion. Combine it with rushed deadlines. Tell people that you need $700 now, or the whole world economy will collapse into another Great Depression (despite the fact that could happen anyway, with or without a bail-out).

  • STEP #04 Change the rules as you go. Abandon principles where convenient. Hide from the public and probing questions. Communicate to the public through leaks. Limit open Congressional hearings and inquiries. Communicate with the two parties separately in order to provide a partisan slant for those communications. Treat everyone else condescendingly, as if they are too stupid to understand the complex economic conditions. Make everyone think we must rely on their superior understanding. Try to obscure and distract from the irresponsibility of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, who up until now, were painting a relatively rosy picture, and now, all of a sudden, out of the blue, say we are now on the verge of the next Great Depression.

  • STEP #05 Privatize gains for a few, and Socialize losses to the many tax payers. Besides, those tax payers are very likely to continue to repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates anyway. Cha Ching!

  • STEP #06 Ignore fraud, cooking the books, and pretend there will be no more of it from this point forward.

  • STEP #07 If the first bail-out fails, don’t give up. Ignore the fact that most Americans were against it. Rename it to a “rescue” and try to sweeten it up with some pork-barrel. Here’s a winner. A tax exemption for certain types of wooden arrows:
    • SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN.

    • (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 4161(b) is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as sub301 paragraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph:

    • ‘‘(B) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROW SHAFTS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means of enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold separately or incorporated as part of a finished or unfinished product) of a type used in the manufacture of any arrow which after its assembly—

    • ‘‘(i) measures 5/16 of an inch or less in diameter, and

    • ‘‘(ii) is not suitable for use with a bow described in paragraph (1)(A).’’.

    • (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to shafts first sold after the date of enactment of this Act.

  • STEP #09 If all else fails, simply continue to print money like crazy. Before too long, the banks have all the money, and everyone else is broke or deep in debt. Cha Ching!

  • STEP #10 Ignore the numerous common-sense reforms that have been hammering the middle-class Americans for 30+ years.

  • STEP #11 Don’t worry about the voters. They will probably still continue to repeatedly reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates (One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm). Dismally low approval ratings for Congress (as low as 9%) is nothing but voter whining and rhetoric, that is rarely (if ever) backed up with action on election day, as evidenced by Congress’ cushy re-election rates and THEIR party’s high seat-retention rates.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 1, 2008 8:47 PM
Comment #265510

Rhinehold,

I think in your idealized world that would work just fine. Let me know when you find never-never land and Tinkerbell.

Glad to know you aren’t an anarchist. Tell me, is force ever necessary in Liberty Land? I mean I can’t see jack booted thugs making you libertines do anything, can you? Is there manna to eat?

Lessee, you don’t believe in taxes, force, too much government or anarchy. And everyone is free. Where is this place again? Can you pin it down a bit for me, it seems a bit ameoba-like.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 1, 2008 10:22 PM
Comment #265517
I think in your idealized world that would work just fine.

how’s yours working out for you?

Are you going to tell me you don’t have an ideal that you work towards? Please…

We strive for it but understand we always get there. Even Jefferson abandoned his libertarian ideals to make the Louisiana Purchase.

But you can continue to dismiss someone else’s ideal and embrace your own while claiming to be different all you want, like I say, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Tell me, is force ever necessary in Liberty Land?

Yes, in self defense.

Lessee, you don’t believe in taxes

wrong

force

non-defense, yes

too much government

Correct

anarchy

Again, you are right, I do not believe in anarchy.

And everyone is free

by definition, correct

Where is this place again?

Nowhere at this moment, unfortunately. There is an effort to get it going again in New Hampshire, but now I hear some republicans trying to move into the Libertarian’s territory, not one for inventive ideals of their own they have to steal other’s.

Can you pin it down a bit for me, it seems a bit ameoba-like.

I sure could, if you want to go through the process…

People should be free to live their lives as they see fit as long as they don’t violate the right of others to the same. Rights are things we have by default, they cannot be anything that is provided to them by someone else. When it comes to things that people must interact upon, that is when government comes into play, as long as those laws do not violate individual rights, and are paid for with duties and fees, property taxes, etc. Income taxes would be unconstitutional, as they used to be in the US.

If you want some further literature, I’m sure I can make some.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 1, 2008 11:03 PM
Comment #265544

Rhinehold,

O.K.

As long as we know that we’re pursuing Nirvana, I’ll play along.

Let’s say that only fees and duties you believe in, as president, include a whiskey tax. I decide that you are unfair in the way you levy this tax, and begin a moonshine operation. Will you do anything, or say that’s OK? Will you use force?
Am I free to produce my moonshine tax free, and at a distinct cost advantage to my competition? Would you send Revenuer’s to collect your tax?

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 2, 2008 5:13 AM
Post a comment