In other words: the stock market is rallying because stupid rich people won’t have to suffer any consequences for the shitty investments they’ve made over the past decade.
It’s times like these where I start getting pitchfork-and-torches angry. Make no mistake, this bailout plan will have a massive opportunity cost. National health care just became that much more difficult because we’re going to be spending $1 trillion to bail out a bunch of irresponsible Wall Street assholes. The sheer amount of shit that the American taxpayer is about to devour cannot be calculated. Our choice boil down to:
* Borrowing a crapload more money from the Chinese and adding God knows how much to our national debt.
* Paying significantly higher taxes and getting precisely nothing in return except for the knowledge that rich people won’t feel bad about themselves.
Comments
Trackbacks
-
[…] Lou: The time has finally come to see ’socialism’ put in a broader spectrum than just calling democrats… […]
Yep.
And we’ll still hear how Obama is a socialist.
Since we all just bought the insurance industry (I guess. Really, does anyone know what we just bought besides a bunch of shit no one else wanted?), I think we’re all socialists now. The only question is whether some of the eventual profits will be socialized, or whether the Phil Gramms of the world can keep those all private. And don’t forget to set your alarm clocks for about the year 2020 or so, when we’ll do this all over again.
Well, I won’t use the word ‘socialist’, because too many people will simply tune out anything that follows. So, what of the bailout? We just bought out the insurance industry. That bailout is a partnership- between the Bush Administration and the Democratic Congress that is writing the laws and passing the laws that authorize this bailout.
If your party is opposed to the bailing out of the wealthy, they can certainly do something about it, by voting against the bailout.
There was one Republican who was talking about economics on this order: Ron Paul. There is one candidate who opposed the bailouts from the get-go: Bob Barr. Tell me: What is Obama’s position, and how does it differ from fellow Senator McCain’s position?
Hopefully, at the very least, Obama is in favor of attaching strings to the money.
Hey, Ron Paul! Thanks for reminding me of that again, Mike. I’m still pissed he didn’t get any airtime when it would have mattered.
Media is funny that way, Jason. We learn in great detail about the sweetie deal Irsay gets for his stadium after the deal is done, after its’ too late. We get Ron Paul as an expert on the economy, only after the media painted his heavy-on-economic issues campaign as extremist kook fodder, and after his candidacy was toast.
Doug, hoping Obama attaches strings is kind of like Mitch Daniels saying Iraq would cost $50 billion, or whatever low-ball figure he pulled out of thin air. As an agent of change, I’d much rather see him against the rewarding of bad decisions. And, shouldn’t Obama’s supporters want him not to stand for bailing out high net worth people for the reasons “Sadly, No” states? Or, are we at the point that Obama can do anything contrary to his rhetoric and get a free pass from his own, because hunkering down and winning is too important to worry about details?
Well, I proceed from the assumption that the Presidential choice is binary at this point. The primaries are over. Either John McCain or Barack Obama will be President. McCain is more likely to screw over citizens in favor of Big Money and to a greater extent. He was neck deep in the Savings & Loans scandals of the 80s & 90s, a cousin of our current situation. He has pushed for bank deregulation. And, his economic adviser is Phil Gramm.
So, on this issue, the choice is pretty easy for me. “If not X, then Y.”
Right- Not for someone, but against.
This is why we get what we get.
In my mind, primaries (and the activities leading up to primaries) are where you vote *for* someone. The general elections are usually about voting “against” someone, at least in the sense that there are two viable choices. So, it’s a zero-sum game.
The time has finally come to see ‘socialism’ put in a broader spectrum than just calling democrats ‘socialists’ with no explanation needed.Let’s all remember how government had to step in with ‘socialism’ to pay of the huge debt caused by the private sector.If not we would have all greatly suffered. If we had had more ‘socialism’,i.e. government regulations on ‘private money flow'( for lack of a better way of phrasing what happened)we would have all been duly protected by vigilant government regulations on behalf of the people.
I don’t understand world economic entanglements any better than McCain,but it seems we have been headed toward national insolvency brought on by unfettered systematic greed on all levels and a bold government solution was all that would work.