I've been thinking about this idea ever since Palin was announced as McCain's running mate and made her utterly transparent stab for disaffected Hillary supporters. The ensuing "respect" for Senator Clinton from the right was unabashedly insincere, as was much of the following week's RNC, with its odd calls for "change." But the last two weeks have pushed this rant to the breaking point.
Here's the big one--last week's Wall Street debacle and the proposed bailout. $700 billion to prop up financial institutions that had made incredibly bad business decisions, paid obscene CEO bonuses (to what does obscene apply more readily in that phrase--the bonuses or the CEOs?), and in essence reaped what they had sown over the past 20+ years with rampant deregulation and the Bush II administration's gradual undoing of the major advancements of the New Deal?!
When I first heard about this proposal I thought, "wow, that's a serious move by the federal government." As I've thought about it over the past few days (and read pieces like this one in Slate and some insights from my favorite ESPN writer), I've become convinced that this is the apex of the current administration's reckless approach to spending, the sort of thing stereotypical "tax & spend" liberals would do, only here the philosophy is "tax cuts & spend," a disgusting approach to fiscal policy.
If Obama or any other Democrat were to suggest nearly one trillion dollars in spending for the poor, "conservatives" (Can they really be called conservative if they favor this kind of radical approach to government intervention in the free market? Could it be that conservatism has finally died, and is taking Wall Street with it? Who would have thought that I'd miss it?) would call for their old standby, impeachment (apparently fooling around with an intern is the greatest misdeed of all time, but completely undermining both the Constitution with abuses of executive privilege and the market-based economic system of capitalism is okay?).
I am convinced that this sort of favoring of the rich is not only financially inequitable but also spiritually iniquitous, and that this sin is far greater than most of the things social conservatives care about so much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Amen brother. or should I say comrade? This administration has done everything short of getting a sponsorship deal for the White House. Somehow I'm reminded of the day and age of the robber barons. Can't for the life of me imagine why. What gets me most is how there's not an outcry from the fiscal conservative/balance budget crowd against the recklessness of Bush II's policies. Do they honestly think that McCain will be one of their own when he's done nothing to show himself as more than a Bush clone? They're the one branch of the Republican party for whom I have any respect and their voices have been uncomfortably mute against the excesses and criminality of this administration.
Jon and I have discussed the big bailout to no end! When we bought our house we got approved for alot more than what our house cost, and now we wish we would have bought a nice huge house because hey, the government woulda just bailed us out!
This is exactly one of the reasons I, as a conservative, no longer identify with the Republican party. The mindless, short-sighted approach to the "free market." That, and it seems like the whole idea of smaller government was thrown out the window the moment Bush took office. And if McCain and Palin are to be the new face of the party then, by comparison, I'm a bleeding heart liberal.
On the other hand, I hear that this bailout is an attempt to prevent another Great Depression. Not knowing enough about the details of the economic machine, can someone explain (or point to an article since I'm just too lazy to look it up myself) what the fallout would be without the bailout? I mean, other than a culling of bad businesses and their shady practices. Would there be a major downturn?
Wow! I don't think I've ever seen you use an exclamation point!!
I enjoy reading your posts...but disagree with a lot of what you say - because I am very "conservative". But I think we all would all agree that there has been a complete meltdown of accountability, responsibility, and integrity from all parties involved. The Administration - that would be mainly republican and democrat-controlled Congress. What have they been doing???? (Oh yeah, the use of drugs in baseball is a HUGE compared to this.) I am ready to through them ALL out. I am pushing for Sarah Palin for President in 2012. Because regardless of who is elected this time around, the next four years, at a minimum, are going to be ugly. (But I would be thrilled if I was wrong.)
Thanks for writing a political blog because it makes me motivated to write my own. I have a much different view, but don't want to be write "negative" comments on your blog.
I get very frustrated when anyone (both sides of the party fence) blames the current president and "his" administration for the economy. There is very little a sitting president can do to affect the economy. The economy is much bigger than any president and with our new world economy of the last 10 years has gotten even bigger. If you think a single president can make drastic changes to the economy you need to go back to high school economics.
I've read articles that blamed Ronald Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II for the economy during and after their individual times in office. The economy is like a huge train slowing down and speeding up at its own pace. Yes, there are small swings that affect some portions of the economy such as taxation and business dealings with foreign affairs but they are like mole hills on the big track.
That said I think everyone has to agree that all play a part in the current problems. The entire government (republicans and democrats) take donations and entertain the lobbyists and introduce and vote on the legislation that has some affect on the workings of Wall Street. They've all played a part in the positive effects and the problems.
From a consumer viewpoint without getting into the numbers, I've seen the good times and I'm now seeing the bad times. But I'm not stupid enough to jump on high risk loans. I'm just glad I don't have to retire next week. The bottom line is that the economy will eventually recover based on historical trends, thankfully, NOT based on who is in office.
However, I don't agree with a government bailout simply because I don't agree government should be controlling our banking institutions. But I haven't heard of any other good plans and the plan seems to make the stock market go up, so why not?
Which brings my blathering to another note. Jay Leno touched on this in one of his monologues last week. Obama is quick to criticize McCain's ideas for the economy but yet doesn't have any of his own ideas to deal with it. So I'm waiting for any ideas he might have, just one... anything... otherwise I have to follow someone who might not have the best ideas but at least he has an idea.
TTFN
Great comments, all. I get such a kick out of reading these comments by family, many of whom I know disagree with my own political views. But it seems that we are seeing two interesting phenomena at work simultaneously. First, the increasing polarizing of political affiliation according to residence—people living in towns and counties and congressional districts where one political ideology rules nearly exclusively. (A similar thing, by the way, happens online, where we tend to read blogs and such that we would agree with and ignore contrasting views and the work of solitary loons in cyberspace.) The second—and opposing force—has to do with the kinds of sentiments I am reading from Bill, the idea that many people’s long-held partisan affiliations are crumbling. This is most evident in the form of Democrats who voted for Hillary and refuse to vote for Obama or Republicans who find McCain unappealing and will vote for Obama in protest. One term that got some traction during Obama’s primary campaign was that he represented a post=partisan politics, and while a closely contested general election threatens that idea, this may be one of those historical moments when political parties undergo a serious reimagining. More on this when I finally get around to my abortion-themed entry (this may take a few weeks to finish up, but I promise it’s coming). For now, thanks for the thoughts. And Scott, I’m working on another economics-based entry by way of reply to your comment.
So what do you think now? This reported on Yahoo...
"John McCain roared into Washington yesterday and reportedly broke up an agreement on the bailout deal. In doing so, he went against not only Democrats but the Republican president, the panicked Republican Treasury Secretary and Fed Chairman, and Republican Congressional leaders. Instead, he sided with a small band of outraged Republicans grousing about violation of free-market principles.
So was this idiotic McCain self-destruction, as most people are suggesting? Or was it a brilliant populist move?"
My personal suspicion (and lest you all say "What does she know?" I'll say it myself...what do I know?")is that John McCain is trying desperately to get himself elected. The most obvious sign of his grasping at straws was his Palin choice. Now he is 'suspending' his campaign and running off to Washington to save the country. I am not entirely convinced that this is not a ploy on his part to make it appear as if he is 'doing something' about the economic meltdown and hopes in the process to make himself look good. His gamble may or may not pay off. The powerful on Wallstreet have been running another sort of gambling activity with money lending that the government has chosen not to regulate for some time now. Chairman Greenspan, some time ago, warned of the pending doom if more regulation was not put into place by lawmakers with regard to lending practices. In hindsight, we see the merit in his warning. The Republicans came up with a regulatory plan and the Democrats refused to pass it. The reasons behind this are uncertain. Were the Democrats fearful that it would make the Republicans look good? Were they upset that it wasn't their idea? Did they not want the Republicans to succeed knowing the elections were looming in the future? Were they power hungry, having the majority vote? Did they truly not see the merit in the plan? I don't know the answers there. There is undoubtedly plenty of blame to go around for the fix we are now in ~ those leaders who truly understand economics and who did not lead through voicing their concerns loudly and sufficiently and encouraging the lawmakers to deal wisely with the problem and those who could have done more to befriend and include the opposing party so that it might have stood a chance of being effectively dealt with. All of this seems a bad dream where lack in fostering good relationships and lack of integrity may have played a crucial part. There is much to be said for the two party system, but we as a people certainly must feel the need to make it work better. Sometimes we can truly know the motivations of others and sometimes we are clueless about them and can only hazard wild guesses. Some of my opinions are just that...wild guesses, based on what little I know and am privy to. One in a while, however, my take on a situation turns out to be quite right.
Post a Comment