If it were up to me, I would address the financial crisis by first looking at what the problems are:
1. Financial institutions made some brain-dead decisions by giving out too many loans to people they probably knew couldn't pay them back, otherwise known as sub-prime mortgages. Assuming that property would continue to soar like it has much of the past 5-8 years, the big banks gambled that even if a lot of people foreclosed, they would still have an appreciated asset in the real estate. Well, lots of people did foreclose, and houses flooded the market and real estate prices went down. Now all the big companies who put all their poker chips into the housing market have lost a big chunk of their principle investment.
2. Too many people took out mortgages they couldn't afford. I'm not sure I buy it, but many people (mostly the Dems) claim that they were tricked into it with "predatory" lending practices. Even if tghat's true they still signed onthe dotted line without understanding the contract, and that leaves a lot of the blame square on their shoulders for their foreclosures.
3. The Fed has printed way too much money not backed by gold, leaving the dollar weak in an increasingly competitive world market.
So, to solve the problem, what does Congress do? Throw a lot of money and power at the treasury. True conservatism just cannot bring me to swallow the pill of throwing $700 billion at one person or department in the government.
One argument I hear from a lot of people, including many conservatives, is that this is actually an investment, not a cost. This is true, since the plan is trying to buy up assets from the companies for way less tah nthey are worth, not simply give them money to get back on their feet. That way the federal government has billions of dollars worth of assets, mostly real estate, that will hopefully appreciate.
This argument, however, leaves a few questions in my mind: First, if this is such a good investment, then why can't private investors buy in instead of taxpayers? Second, if putting so many eggs into one basket killed the financial industry, why wouldn't it do the same thing to the federal government? Remember, the bill proposes that we buy up BAD loans from the companies...doesn't sound like such a great deal to me.
Another argument, which is probably more sound, is that a financial collapse affects everybody. The cheesy phrase they use is "from Wall Street to Main Street." As companies start clamping down on their losses, they will start lending way less money. It will become harder and harder for ordinary people to get credit to buy a car, go to school, buy a home, etc. Probably more devastating is the fact that businesses, especially small businesses, will have a hard time getting credit to buy things necessary to expand their business. Right now much of the economy rests on the ability of people and businesses to buy things on credit. Think about how many fewer cars and houses will sell if half as many people can get the loans to buy them. Think about how many fewer start-up businesses will pop up if no-one will give them a small business loan.
This argument, while sound, doesn't pursuade me. The marketplace is full of risk, and markets fluctuate, sometimes radically. Call me heartless, but I say let the market crash. Let the credit industry seize. Let the grandma's and grandpa's with their 401k's in the stock market loose their retirement. Do we think that our money in the stock market has no risk attached to it? This is one of the risks, so let it be.
I'm convinced that this will be a good thing in the end. Housing prices will go down and more people will be able to afford to buy. Oil is already going down, bringing food prices with it. It may take a few years of recession, but in the end the market will be much more healthy for it.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
More Left-Wing Condescension
If anyone wants to see the heart of the left, read this column in The Week by Robert Shrum, a former advisor to the 2000 Al Gore campaign. I won't go into all the details, but it's summed up in the final paragraph:
In the end, this election will be more than a contest of policy or even personality; it will become a test of America’s character. We'll pass it, I predict...
A test of America's character? So, if you don't vote for Barack Obama, you have bad character? Please explain to me how that isn't condescending...
(By the way, the article also sets out a clear excuse, just in case Obama loses the election. Of course the staple of this excuse is racism and right-wing smear; another example of the lack of accountability from the left. If they lose, its always either the mean, evil, rich Republicans' fault for being unethical or it's the dumb religion-and-gun-clinging voters' fault who don't have enough character or intelligence to vote Democrat.)
In the end, this election will be more than a contest of policy or even personality; it will become a test of America’s character. We'll pass it, I predict...
A test of America's character? So, if you don't vote for Barack Obama, you have bad character? Please explain to me how that isn't condescending...
(By the way, the article also sets out a clear excuse, just in case Obama loses the election. Of course the staple of this excuse is racism and right-wing smear; another example of the lack of accountability from the left. If they lose, its always either the mean, evil, rich Republicans' fault for being unethical or it's the dumb religion-and-gun-clinging voters' fault who don't have enough character or intelligence to vote Democrat.)
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Liberal Media
I've read the argument that there is a lot of press that favors the political right, but I remain convinced that the mainstream media leans very heavily to the left. By mainstream media I mean the standard newsources that regular people rely on to be informed such as major newspapers, TV news, and major internet news outlets. (Fox News may be the exception, although I still think that they are just outside of mainstream, with CNN having quite a bit more name recognition as a news source). On that note I just had to post this example of seemingly objective news sources printing blatantly partisan babble. This came from Yahoo News, and it reports that McCain is suspending his campaign until this credit crisis is solved and Obama is not. Click here to read the entire article.
The part I found most interesting (or should I say appauling) is the tenth and elevent paragraphs:
Even as McCain said he was putting the good of the country ahead of politics, his surprise announcement was clearly political. It was an attempt to try to outmaneuver Obama on an issue in which he's trailing, the economy, as the Democrat gains in polls. He quickly went before TV cameras minutes after speaking with Obama and before the two campaigns had hammered out a joint statement expressing that Congress should act urgently on the bailout.
And while McCain's campaign said he would "suspend" his campaign, it simply will move to Washington knowing the spotlight will remain on him no matter where he is.
This is not an opinion, editorial, or column. It is supposed to be a report. But this author implies, if not outright accuses McCain of making this decision purely out of political ambitions. That is not reporting.
In an attempt to seem objective, the author references Obama's political calculations in much less critical terms:
Obama, too, made a political calculation by rejecting McCain's challenge while trying to still appear on top of the problem. Obama repeatedly stressed at his news conference that he called McCain first to propose that they issue a joint statement in support of a package to help fix the economy as soon as possible. He said McCain called back several hours later, as Obama was leaving a rally in Florida, and agreed to the idea of a statement but also said he wanted to postpone the debate and hold joint meetings in Washington.
Embedded into this analysis is yet more criticism of McCain: "McCain called back several hours later as he was leaving a rally in Florida," implies that McCain wasn't interested in talking with Obama but rather in campaigning. "Obama repeatedly stressed...that he called first to propose that they issue a join statement" is clearly not a criticism of Obama but a praise. Somehow calling Obama on political calculations amoutns to pushing his message for him, but calling McCain on his is an expose' on McCain true, evil intentions.
The part I found most interesting (or should I say appauling) is the tenth and elevent paragraphs:
Even as McCain said he was putting the good of the country ahead of politics, his surprise announcement was clearly political. It was an attempt to try to outmaneuver Obama on an issue in which he's trailing, the economy, as the Democrat gains in polls. He quickly went before TV cameras minutes after speaking with Obama and before the two campaigns had hammered out a joint statement expressing that Congress should act urgently on the bailout.
And while McCain's campaign said he would "suspend" his campaign, it simply will move to Washington knowing the spotlight will remain on him no matter where he is.
This is not an opinion, editorial, or column. It is supposed to be a report. But this author implies, if not outright accuses McCain of making this decision purely out of political ambitions. That is not reporting.
In an attempt to seem objective, the author references Obama's political calculations in much less critical terms:
Obama, too, made a political calculation by rejecting McCain's challenge while trying to still appear on top of the problem. Obama repeatedly stressed at his news conference that he called McCain first to propose that they issue a joint statement in support of a package to help fix the economy as soon as possible. He said McCain called back several hours later, as Obama was leaving a rally in Florida, and agreed to the idea of a statement but also said he wanted to postpone the debate and hold joint meetings in Washington.
Embedded into this analysis is yet more criticism of McCain: "McCain called back several hours later as he was leaving a rally in Florida," implies that McCain wasn't interested in talking with Obama but rather in campaigning. "Obama repeatedly stressed...that he called first to propose that they issue a join statement" is clearly not a criticism of Obama but a praise. Somehow calling Obama on political calculations amoutns to pushing his message for him, but calling McCain on his is an expose' on McCain true, evil intentions.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Compromise?
When I first started this blog, a close friend of mine pointed out something that was in no way a secret to me, but it really got me thinking. I can't remember the exact terms, and I'm too lazy to go back to the commetn threads and look it up, but he mentioned that my blog, and myself in general, are too combative. Me? Combative, competitive, picking fights? Never! But all joking aside, his comments got me thinking about why I am, along with many conservatives, so defensive and battle-oreiented when it comes to politics.
Let me get straight to the point. We don't trust liberals. It's a very simple, maybe overly simple statement. I can't think of any examples of when liberal thinkers conceded a point to conservatives. Right-wingers are constantly coming out in favor of global warming legislation, or "admitting" that overturning Roe v. Wade would bring American girls to the alley-ways for coat-hanger abortions, or that marriage is a right that ought to be offered to gays and lesbians, or that citizenship ought to be offered to anyone living in America, or that people and companies out to be limited in how much they give to political campaigns, or that universal health care would solve a lot of problems. Sometime soon I will edit this post and put names of republicans next to each of these concessions.
But when was the last time you saw a pro-life Democrat? When was the last time a liberal admitted that global warming is a guess, at best? Never. The constant pressure in today's society is not to move toward traditional values but toward "open-mindedness" and "tolerance," and to admit everyone and everything into the mainstream of our culture.
That is why it's a fight and that is why we are in battle, not in discussion. The left is only open-minded and tolerant toward ideas that battle the mainstream, and they are increasingly hostile to those of use that believe that some mainstream ideas are good. They have offered no olive branch that I can see, and I have no reason to believe that if I stop fighting and start discussing then my opinions will be respected. For example, let's say we "compromise" on abortion, and we agree that keeping aboriton on the table makes the practice safer. Now what? We've given an inch to the left, but what have we done to actually prevent abortion or promote the idea that it is a last resort in extreme cases? Nothing. They will take the compromise and let it settle in until it is the mainstream, then take another inch. Next thing you know, abortion is no longer a terrible thing, but a right women have to get them out of tough situations. Next thing you know, homosexuality is no longer a sinful practice, but just as normal as chewing gum or writing an email. That is the true goal of liberalism - that everything and everyone is welcome into the mainstream of our society, and that every practice is acceptable.
The left has never done anything to defend the true values that this country was built on, and I have no reason to believe that they have any interest in starting soon.
I know that if I ever run for office then someone will dig up this post and wave it around, but oh well.
Let me get straight to the point. We don't trust liberals. It's a very simple, maybe overly simple statement. I can't think of any examples of when liberal thinkers conceded a point to conservatives. Right-wingers are constantly coming out in favor of global warming legislation, or "admitting" that overturning Roe v. Wade would bring American girls to the alley-ways for coat-hanger abortions, or that marriage is a right that ought to be offered to gays and lesbians, or that citizenship ought to be offered to anyone living in America, or that people and companies out to be limited in how much they give to political campaigns, or that universal health care would solve a lot of problems. Sometime soon I will edit this post and put names of republicans next to each of these concessions.
But when was the last time you saw a pro-life Democrat? When was the last time a liberal admitted that global warming is a guess, at best? Never. The constant pressure in today's society is not to move toward traditional values but toward "open-mindedness" and "tolerance," and to admit everyone and everything into the mainstream of our culture.
That is why it's a fight and that is why we are in battle, not in discussion. The left is only open-minded and tolerant toward ideas that battle the mainstream, and they are increasingly hostile to those of use that believe that some mainstream ideas are good. They have offered no olive branch that I can see, and I have no reason to believe that if I stop fighting and start discussing then my opinions will be respected. For example, let's say we "compromise" on abortion, and we agree that keeping aboriton on the table makes the practice safer. Now what? We've given an inch to the left, but what have we done to actually prevent abortion or promote the idea that it is a last resort in extreme cases? Nothing. They will take the compromise and let it settle in until it is the mainstream, then take another inch. Next thing you know, abortion is no longer a terrible thing, but a right women have to get them out of tough situations. Next thing you know, homosexuality is no longer a sinful practice, but just as normal as chewing gum or writing an email. That is the true goal of liberalism - that everything and everyone is welcome into the mainstream of our society, and that every practice is acceptable.
The left has never done anything to defend the true values that this country was built on, and I have no reason to believe that they have any interest in starting soon.
I know that if I ever run for office then someone will dig up this post and wave it around, but oh well.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Democrats Need to Learn Some Respect
I read a blog this morning that hit the nail right on the head. Please read it. It explains many things that I have been thinking for a long itme but haven't gotten to commenting on.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f1984d88-7cd5-11dd-8d59-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
The FT makes you register to read the entire article, so here is the full text if you don't feel like registering:
This article is not the first to note the cultural contradiction in American liberalism, but just now the point bears restating. The election may turn on it.
Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.
Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.
It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest). Curiously, whereas the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral.
Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.
Because it was so unexpected, Sarah Palin’s nomination for the vice-presidency jolted these attitudes to the surface. Ms Palin is a small-town American. It is said that she has only recently acquired a passport. Her husband is a fisherman and production worker. She represents a great slice of the country that the Democrats say they care about – yet her selection induced an apoplectic fit.
For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads and much of the media too. The idea that “this woman” might be vice-president or even president was literally incomprehensible. The popular liberal comedian Bill Maher, whose act is an endless sneer at the Republican party, noted that John McCain’s case for the presidency was that only he was capable of standing between the US and its enemies, but that should he die he had chosen “this stewardess” to take over. This joke was not – or not only – a complaint about lack of experience. It was also an expression of class disgust. I give Mr Maher credit for daring to say what many Democrats would only insinuate.
Little was known about Ms Palin, but it sufficed for her nomination to be regarded as a kind of insult. Even after her triumph at the Republican convention in St Paul last week, the put-downs continued. Yes, the delivery was all right, but the speech was written by somebody else – as though that is unusual, as though the speechwriter is not the junior partner in the preparation of a speech, and as though just anybody could have raised the roof with that text. Voters in small towns and suburbs, forever mocked and condescended to by metropolitan liberals, are attuned to this disdain. Every four years, many take their revenge.
The irony in 2008 is that the Democratic candidate, despite Republican claims to the contrary, is not an elitist. Barack Obama is an intellectual, but he remembers his history. He can and does connect with ordinary people. His courteous reaction to the Palin nomination was telling. Mrs Palin (and others) found it irresistible to skewer him in St Paul for “saying one thing about [working Americans] in Scranton, and another in San Francisco”. Mr Obama made a bad mistake when he talked about clinging to God and guns, but I am inclined to make allowances: he was speaking to his own political tribe in the native idiom.
The problem in my view is less Mr Obama and more the attitudes of the claque of official and unofficial supporters that surrounds him. The prevailing liberal mindset is what makes the criticisms of Mr Obama’s distance from working Americans stick.
If only the Democrats could contain their sense of entitlement to govern in a rational world, and their consequent distaste for wide swathes of the US electorate, they might gain the unshakeable grip on power they feel they deserve. Winning elections would certainly be easier – and Republicans would have to address themselves more seriously to economic insecurity. But the fathomless cultural complacency of the metropolitan liberal rules this out.
The attitude that expressed itself in response to the Palin nomination is the best weapon in the Republican armoury. Rely on the Democrats to keep it primed. You just have to laugh.
The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the liberal reaction has made it a huge success so far. To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.
It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.
Send your comments to clive.crook@gmail.com
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f1984d88-7cd5-11dd-8d59-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
The FT makes you register to read the entire article, so here is the full text if you don't feel like registering:
by Clive Crook
This article is not the first to note the cultural contradiction in American liberalism, but just now the point bears restating. The election may turn on it.
Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.
Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.
It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest). Curiously, whereas the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral.
Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.
Because it was so unexpected, Sarah Palin’s nomination for the vice-presidency jolted these attitudes to the surface. Ms Palin is a small-town American. It is said that she has only recently acquired a passport. Her husband is a fisherman and production worker. She represents a great slice of the country that the Democrats say they care about – yet her selection induced an apoplectic fit.
For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads and much of the media too. The idea that “this woman” might be vice-president or even president was literally incomprehensible. The popular liberal comedian Bill Maher, whose act is an endless sneer at the Republican party, noted that John McCain’s case for the presidency was that only he was capable of standing between the US and its enemies, but that should he die he had chosen “this stewardess” to take over. This joke was not – or not only – a complaint about lack of experience. It was also an expression of class disgust. I give Mr Maher credit for daring to say what many Democrats would only insinuate.
Little was known about Ms Palin, but it sufficed for her nomination to be regarded as a kind of insult. Even after her triumph at the Republican convention in St Paul last week, the put-downs continued. Yes, the delivery was all right, but the speech was written by somebody else – as though that is unusual, as though the speechwriter is not the junior partner in the preparation of a speech, and as though just anybody could have raised the roof with that text. Voters in small towns and suburbs, forever mocked and condescended to by metropolitan liberals, are attuned to this disdain. Every four years, many take their revenge.
The irony in 2008 is that the Democratic candidate, despite Republican claims to the contrary, is not an elitist. Barack Obama is an intellectual, but he remembers his history. He can and does connect with ordinary people. His courteous reaction to the Palin nomination was telling. Mrs Palin (and others) found it irresistible to skewer him in St Paul for “saying one thing about [working Americans] in Scranton, and another in San Francisco”. Mr Obama made a bad mistake when he talked about clinging to God and guns, but I am inclined to make allowances: he was speaking to his own political tribe in the native idiom.
The problem in my view is less Mr Obama and more the attitudes of the claque of official and unofficial supporters that surrounds him. The prevailing liberal mindset is what makes the criticisms of Mr Obama’s distance from working Americans stick.
If only the Democrats could contain their sense of entitlement to govern in a rational world, and their consequent distaste for wide swathes of the US electorate, they might gain the unshakeable grip on power they feel they deserve. Winning elections would certainly be easier – and Republicans would have to address themselves more seriously to economic insecurity. But the fathomless cultural complacency of the metropolitan liberal rules this out.
The attitude that expressed itself in response to the Palin nomination is the best weapon in the Republican armoury. Rely on the Democrats to keep it primed. You just have to laugh.
The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the liberal reaction has made it a huge success so far. To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.
It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.
Send your comments to clive.crook@gmail.com
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The Sexism Card
Here we go again...the sexism card. First Hillary was whining about not being accepted into the all boys club and now McCain/Palin surrogates are crying foul in regards to recent criticism aimed at Governor Palin. Let's get to the bottom of this...
I think it is completely within the rules to ask how Governor Palin plans on giving her family ample attention as a mother (if elected)...IF one also asks Barack Obama how he plans to give his family ample attention as a father (if elected). Or any other male candidate, for that matter. It's not like Palin is the first parent of young children to ever run for office; Barack Obama's girls are younger than most of Palin's kids. Why haven't we held the same amount of scrutiny to all candidates and claimed that in order to hold such a high office one cannot also have parenting committments? The answer is simple: Sarah Palin is a woman, and to treat someone differently based on their sex is, by definition, sexism. I never thought I'd be playing the sexism card, but there it is.
Criticism of a woman is not, in and of itself, sexist, however, like many are claiming now. It's not sexist to question her affiliation with the Alaskan Independence Party, or her husband's DUI arrest, or even her daughter's pre-marital pregnancy (although some claim that such investigations are irrelevant and "out of bounds," a poisition I disagree with). It's not sexist to question her true stance on the bridge to nowhere or her foreign policy experience.
It IS sexist to say that because she's a mother she will have any more duty to her family than Barack Obama will to his family. After all, Obama has been the one claiming that more American fathers need to be a part of their children's lives. Doe she think the White House will give him more time to be a part of their lives? Will he take them with him to talk with Ahmadinajad, Kim Jong Il, or Vladamir Putin? Or will he leave them where they "belong," with their mother? Sexist?
I think it is completely within the rules to ask how Governor Palin plans on giving her family ample attention as a mother (if elected)...IF one also asks Barack Obama how he plans to give his family ample attention as a father (if elected). Or any other male candidate, for that matter. It's not like Palin is the first parent of young children to ever run for office; Barack Obama's girls are younger than most of Palin's kids. Why haven't we held the same amount of scrutiny to all candidates and claimed that in order to hold such a high office one cannot also have parenting committments? The answer is simple: Sarah Palin is a woman, and to treat someone differently based on their sex is, by definition, sexism. I never thought I'd be playing the sexism card, but there it is.
Criticism of a woman is not, in and of itself, sexist, however, like many are claiming now. It's not sexist to question her affiliation with the Alaskan Independence Party, or her husband's DUI arrest, or even her daughter's pre-marital pregnancy (although some claim that such investigations are irrelevant and "out of bounds," a poisition I disagree with). It's not sexist to question her true stance on the bridge to nowhere or her foreign policy experience.
It IS sexist to say that because she's a mother she will have any more duty to her family than Barack Obama will to his family. After all, Obama has been the one claiming that more American fathers need to be a part of their children's lives. Doe she think the White House will give him more time to be a part of their lives? Will he take them with him to talk with Ahmadinajad, Kim Jong Il, or Vladamir Putin? Or will he leave them where they "belong," with their mother? Sexist?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
