John McCain, in his effort to skip out on tomorrow's presidential debate, reminds me of myself (and this would be the first time that has happened). I grew up in the mountains, and when heavy snow was forecast, I would often make a little gamble and "forget" to do my homework. This worked out fine, when school was actually canceled. Unfortunately, all too often my school displayed a rather irritating pioneer ethic: we should all dig ourselves out, get to school, and just be glad we had shovels and central heating, damn it.
Though John McCain's presence does not noticeably alter or aid the debate on the Wall St. Boondoggle, he is desperately trying to convince the public (and possibly himself) that it does, thus relieving him of having to stand opposite an attractive, articulate, and angry Barack Obama. The debates were always going to be a debacle for McCain, and his campaign knows it. There's no way for him to stand on the stage (he's only 5'9, by the way) opposite Obama and not look old and crotchety; no way for him, as well, to not sound halfway senile (and old and crotchety).
The McCain campaign has even gone one better, hoping for not just the day, but the week off of school: suggesting that they'll have the debate next week instead of the Vice Presidential debate, thus getting Caribou Barbie off the hook as well. Joe Biden has been on a tear this week, so even if I didn't think Sarah Palin would resemble that beauty pageant contestant from South Carolina during the debates, I would tune in for fact that here, at last and at least, is a debate where someone is going to go off the rails.
I have some Tiny Little Opinions about this "Look, Ma! Now we're just like all the other banana republics!" bailout scheme, but I'll get to those later. All I can think of right now are the many deposed African dictators hopping on their private jets with millions of dollars stuffed in the hold. Only this getaway will take a lot of jets. Luckily, I think Wall St. has a few Gulfstream IVs stashed away.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Inverted Socialism, or, To Them That Hath Shall Be Given
Let us cast our mind back to two debates. The first was over the State Children's Health Insurance Program, last year. The second was the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005. While these bills were being debated, the Bush Administration took to the podium lo these many times to share gems like these: Bush said that the (SCHIP) plan amounted to a "massive expansion of the federal role" in health care (Baltimore Sun, 7/19/07). He further went on to say that an expansion of the program as outlined by Congress would “expand eligibility” which would “open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government” (Washington Post, 7/18/07). He predicted that the program would entail “a huge tax increase for the American people” (San Francisco Chronicle, 7/18/07) and that, finally, “expansion of government in lieu of making the necessary changes to encourage a consumer-based system is not acceptable” (Washington Post, 7/18/07). This was over a proposal to expand a program that gives poor children health care--by a total of $35 billion dollars over five years.
I'm actually not even going to get into the Bankruptcy Reform Act, because I'm already too close to taking up my pitchfork and torch. Let us just note that there was much bloviating in the general direction of the American People about the need for self-reliance and responsibility. The word “accountability” continued to have its day in the sun. The bankruptcy laws, it was implicitly and explicitly said, allowed people to make poor decisions, run up incredible amounts of debt, and then get away with it scot free. And this kind of thing, My Fellow Americans! cannot be tolerated. First, allowing people to keep their homes even after they default on their medical bills would simply allow the weak to continue to thrive. People would not be taught valuable lessons! Lessons of self-restraint, and honor, and penury. Penury is a very valuable lesson, especially for people who are already poor.
The bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, (and, no doubt, these are but previews of Coming Attractions [hahahaha, I wrote this post five days ago. See how my prophecies come true]) drive home yet further the sharp point that the government fears the wrath of the few and the rich much more than that of the many and the poor. It is true that to allow these banks to fail would have widespread repercussions throughout the global economy. It is true that the American economy is, at the moment, rather like a three-legged millipede, lurching and winding unsteadily along. And yet. These bailouts highlight the desire, more marked on some parts of the political spectrum than others, to have it both ways (no, not both those ways: we’re talking financial issues here, people). The idea that you can leave kids in charge of the candy store and not expect to have your profits voraciously consumed is quaint at best. It ceases to be quaint when those same children who demanded all this autonomy, who promised to be very very good, have eaten themselves sick and now must have a free ride to the hospital. And now this dangerous idea is costing you and me and every other American Taxpayer—we who have been wooed so vigorously and so apparently disingenuously for the past eon or twelve of this presidential campaign—more than it would have cost to nearly pay off the credit card bills of every American. More than it would have cost to help pay the utility bills of people on fixed incomes. More than it would have cost to give every American child a college education.
That is only what it is costing now. What we are also facing, though we do not realize it, is an opportunity cost. We will, in the decades to come, pay the price for bailing out irresponsible, profligate, and short-sighted rich people, and we will pay with an under-educated populace and a technologically illiterate workforce. We will pay with a nation full of people who are very, very ill: with obesity, with diabetes, with easily preventable diseases. In short, we will pay with much more than money. We will pay with lost chances, and what we have lost is unimaginable.
What apparently about to agree to instead is inverted socialism: money going to those who deserve it--namely, those who already have it. Marx could never have seen this coming.
I'm actually not even going to get into the Bankruptcy Reform Act, because I'm already too close to taking up my pitchfork and torch. Let us just note that there was much bloviating in the general direction of the American People about the need for self-reliance and responsibility. The word “accountability” continued to have its day in the sun. The bankruptcy laws, it was implicitly and explicitly said, allowed people to make poor decisions, run up incredible amounts of debt, and then get away with it scot free. And this kind of thing, My Fellow Americans! cannot be tolerated. First, allowing people to keep their homes even after they default on their medical bills would simply allow the weak to continue to thrive. People would not be taught valuable lessons! Lessons of self-restraint, and honor, and penury. Penury is a very valuable lesson, especially for people who are already poor.
The bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, (and, no doubt, these are but previews of Coming Attractions [hahahaha, I wrote this post five days ago. See how my prophecies come true]) drive home yet further the sharp point that the government fears the wrath of the few and the rich much more than that of the many and the poor. It is true that to allow these banks to fail would have widespread repercussions throughout the global economy. It is true that the American economy is, at the moment, rather like a three-legged millipede, lurching and winding unsteadily along. And yet. These bailouts highlight the desire, more marked on some parts of the political spectrum than others, to have it both ways (no, not both those ways: we’re talking financial issues here, people). The idea that you can leave kids in charge of the candy store and not expect to have your profits voraciously consumed is quaint at best. It ceases to be quaint when those same children who demanded all this autonomy, who promised to be very very good, have eaten themselves sick and now must have a free ride to the hospital. And now this dangerous idea is costing you and me and every other American Taxpayer—we who have been wooed so vigorously and so apparently disingenuously for the past eon or twelve of this presidential campaign—more than it would have cost to nearly pay off the credit card bills of every American. More than it would have cost to help pay the utility bills of people on fixed incomes. More than it would have cost to give every American child a college education.
That is only what it is costing now. What we are also facing, though we do not realize it, is an opportunity cost. We will, in the decades to come, pay the price for bailing out irresponsible, profligate, and short-sighted rich people, and we will pay with an under-educated populace and a technologically illiterate workforce. We will pay with a nation full of people who are very, very ill: with obesity, with diabetes, with easily preventable diseases. In short, we will pay with much more than money. We will pay with lost chances, and what we have lost is unimaginable.
What apparently about to agree to instead is inverted socialism: money going to those who deserve it--namely, those who already have it. Marx could never have seen this coming.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Qui tacet consentire videtur
Look, I don't want to get too uppity or anything here, but WTF? with the Sarah Piglin nonsense? Who, exactly, is at the top of the ticket? A woman with a pregnant teenage daughter, a past full of corruption and pork-barreling who shoots wolves and moose and presumably liberals when she can get away with it, or an old crotchety man who doesn't know what teh Google is? Aren't the Republicans the same people who called Clinton a nag, a bitch, and, yes, indeed, a pig-wearing-lipstick? Let's start calling McCain a pussy-whipped pansy who is hiding behind the skirts of some chick from Nowheresville, Alaska. C'mon! Let's make him mad. It's so much fun.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)