I'm frustrated. I don't even know where to start. I think Washington hates change. it seems like they're doing everything possible to preserve the current systems that have destroyed the country. Life changes, circumstances change, and you have to adjust, or else you're screwed. I think we're getting closer and closer to "screwed".
So much of our way of life is unsustainable, but it seems like our politicians are trying to preserve all of it. As if they think a lifestyle based on importing chinese crap, exporting weapons, moving our manufacturing to Mexico, building McMansions on farmland, running our lives on credit, saving zero dollars as a nation, shrinking the middle class, letting our cities rot, and leaving our healthcare up to insurance companies instead of doctors, is something we should be fighting
for.
I thought we had finally hit bottom, but now I'm not so sure. Corruption runs deep. There are a lot of people making money off of our misery. I was hopeful that we'd finally see some progress now that the people on top are hurting too, because of the Stock Market. But these bailout proposals look like free cash for Wall Street.
And why the hell does big business think they're entitled to free cash and aid from the government without penalty? Oh, right, cause there's no such thing as a free market, we always bail out the fat cats, that's the way it's always been.
two big issues are bugging the shit out of me. Healthcare and the Economy. I've decided to start with the Economy.
2 Opinions about the economic problem
There seems to be two general opinions on what the problem is in the Stock Market.
1) the first opinion is the Tim Geitner, Paulson, Wall Street perspective
2) the second opinion is the Krugman, Stiglitz, Robert Shapiro, Richard Freeman, and dcoffee perspective. Along with all the others who support wasting as little money as possible, protecting the public, and letting the lying gamblers on Wall Street who got us into this mess go broke.
1) the first opinion;
The main problem is that investors are scared. There is too much instability in the market, and nobody has confidence that they can make money. But things are fundamentally sound, the assets and most of the companies are OK, they're just undervalued because nobody is buying right now. But eventually things will go back to normal.
2) the second opinion;
Some of the money that people had on paper never existed, or it was grossly inflated because of the crazy housing bubble and other bundled debt that was sold. So actually there are 2-3 trillion dollars missing from the stock market, and it's not coming back.
these two ideas are not really compatible. Sure there is a crisis of confidence, that is obvious, but the money either exists or it doesn't. And if it doesn't exist, we'll have to find out what's worthless sooner or later. Or we can let the government buy the trash and save Wall Street's ass.
1) the first opinion supports the idea of giving 'aid' and 'relief' to financial institutions to help them get through this troubled period. Everything will go back to normal eventually, but right now the usual investors are just acting irrational. Maybe the government could buy the worst assets that nobody really understands, and nobody wants. Then it's our problem, instead of Wall Street's, and wall street can at least go back to normal.
2) the second opinion says that, there was a lot of gambling going on in the market, there was a lot of deception, and everybody lost money in the end. Now the public as a whole is in danger because our money was in that corrupt system. The government is the only one who can stabilize the market for the sake of protecting us all. This involves firing the people who got us into this mess, taking control of all the assets from that institution, not just the 'toxic assets'. The government reestablishes confidence by figuring out what all that stuff is really worth, and sells it back once we've made sense of it. We've done this in the past, in the 80's during the savings and loan crisis, maybe you forgot about that crisis, cause the nationalization plan worked damn well.
1) you might call the first option, cash for trash. Or a Bailout.
2) you might call the second option, detox. Or Nationalization.
The fundamental disagreement is weather the money exists or not. Call me crazy, but I don't think people on Wall Street can't accept that the money is gone. If you're on Wall Street you cannot be objective, because you want that money, you expected it, and the fact that it's gone is just impossible, no matter how much research you see to the contrary.
What happened to the money? A lot of it was based on mortgages and other debt. Everyone assumed that housing prices could only go up. So you got a big mortgage, and bought an amazing house. Your house was like a huge credit card that not only had a big credit limit, but its value went up, and eventually you could sell it and make a profit, or at least pay off a chunk out of the debt you owed on it. You wanted an expensive house, so even lame houses became expensive, and you didn't care, cause the value could only go up. At least, that's what everyone said.
The money was based on all of our debt, and we had a shitload, we still do. But we're not so sure we can pay it back, and neither are the banks, cause unemployment is rising. When you take out a 20-30 year mortgage at 4% - 5% you end up paying double, that's right, double, go ahead do the math. So that means the banks, as soon as they gave you that mortgage, they acted like they had cash in their hand. They figured about a quarter of the overall money they were owed wouldn't be paid back. So you get a $200,000 loan, they double it to $400,000, and subtract a quarter, and they guess they're going to make $100,000 from the interest over time. so they took that money, and used it on the stock market.
Add our consumer debt to that pile. And you realize this money is not coming back.
There's a hole in the market, that money is gone. The part that bugs me is that this problem was created on Wall Street, and they expect the taxpayer to bail them out. We should bail ourselves out, and put the greedy crooks who crashed the system in jail.
(e:dcoffee) - just for the record, most of the soldiers that I've known have seen combat but I didn't mention them because they were drafted. My stepfather was a veteran of World War 2. Many of my neighbors when I was growing were veterans of the Korean War. And many of my friends older brothers were drafted to fight in Vietman. Some of them even returned alive but a litte worse for the wear and tear on their souls. The only people I know who served in the first Gulf War were Reservists who unfortunately died in Kuwait.
Over the years, I've known a lot of soldiers.
By the time they have seen combat, I agree, most soldiers are selfless.
Whatever occupation you choose, money really shouldn't be your first concern. We have different talents, and we should do what we're good at, that's what makes us happy. And that's how we live up to our full potential.
But I'm kind of focusing on the idea that, taxes are always bad, and that keeping 'my money' will magically make life better. I can definitely understand the idea of cutting wasteful spending, and reducing the deficit and our national debt.. I really think Obama understands that too. But to cut Social Security and Medicare? Sure they need to be more efficient, but life without them would be terrible.
I could have talked about all the offensive signs about socialism, and fascism (these people obviously have no clue what fascism means) but I wanted to talk about the central argument, Taxes, and weather or not life would be better without them.
I think this anti-tax stuff is a symptom of our rabid individualism, and I think Americans need a little more "We're in this thing together, and we're going to have to cooperate to to make life better for all of us" And it matters how people are doing, not just myself.
Tax money should absolutely be spent wisely, but we NEED to pool our resources, we need to work collectively. I think this anti-tax thing is also an impulse because people don't trust government. Fix the government, don't starve it to death.
Alright, here's the solution, I should write a post on this. Ready..
Democratic Taxation, Instead of handing over a lump sum to the government, you prioritize your values. Say there's 20 different funds, education, war, environment, healthcare, retirement, assistance to the poor, etc. You chose your own priorities, 20% here, 30% there, 50% for that. I spend my money like I'm voting. I do this every day when I go to the local restaurant, not applebees or burger king. Why not do taxes the same way?
about Soldiers. Most of the ones I've met are at weddings, and they've been in combat. They get married and ship off again in a few weeks. Why they joined may have been motivated by many things (cash, education, direction), but what they do, is selfless, and you see care and dignity on their faces. Don't get me wrong, I think those in power like to keep us poor and desperate so we might end up in their war machine. But my point is that we all value selflessness, the hardest right winger will say "thanks for your service" and they honor the idea that this person has sacrificed something for all of us. Being selfless is human. This individualistic stuff sounds good, but it's not as valuable as selflessness.
I'm focusing on the idea that taxes are always bad, and that keeping 'my money' will magically make life better. I can definitely understand the idea of cutting wasteful spending, and reducing the deficit and our national debt.. I really think Obama understands that too. But to cut Social Security and Medicare? Sure they need to be more efficient, but life without them would be terrible.
I could have talked about all the offensive signs about socialism, and fascism (these people obviously have no clue what fascism means) but I wanted to talk about the central argument, Taxes, and weather or not life would be better without them.
I think this anti-tax stuff is a symptom of our rabid individualism, and I think Americans need a little more "We're in this thing together, and we're going to have to cooperate to to make life better for all of us" And it matters how people are doing, not just myself.
Tax money should absolutely be spent wisely, but we NEED to pool our resources, we need to work collectively. I think this anti-tax thing is also an impulse because people don't trust government. Fix the government, don't starve it to death.
Alright, here's the solution, I should write a post on this. Ready..
Democratic Taxation, Instead of handing over a lump sum to the government, you prioritize your values. Say there's 20 different funds, education, war, environment, healthcare, retirement, assistance to the poor, etc. You chose your own priorities, 20% here, 30% there, 50% for that. I spend my money like I'm voting. I do this every day when I go to the local restaurant, not applebees or burger king. Why not do taxes the same way?
about Soldiers. Most of the ones I've met are at weddings, and they've been in combat. They get married and ship off again in a few weeks. Why they joined may have been motivated by many things (cash, education, direction), but what they do, is selfless, and you see care and dignity on their faces. Don't get me wrong, I think those in power like to keep us poor and desperate so we might end up in their war machine. But my point is that we all value selflessness, the hardest right winger will say "thanks for your service" and they honor the idea that this person has sacrificed something for all of us. Being selfless is human. This individualistic stuff sounds good, but it's not as valuable as selflessness.
When people start bringing straw man arguments to the table, and ridiculously lazy thinking such as calling it sour grapes, or using bumper sticker slogans, it isn't about desiring an intellectual discussion. People who shit on these protesters don't want to understand the other side or their concerns - they just want to ridicule and play make believe about the nature of their own counter argument.
Now, I'm not going to criticize it any further than that, because I used to shit on the burnouts at Bidwell all the time, and the same thing applies to how I treated them. If you want to simply make fun of them, have at it. Nothing wrong with it. I didn't attend a tea party because, like the war protesters, if you're not in power you don't get to make the rules. Tough luck. Obama won't listen to the Tea Party protesters any more than Bush listened to the war protesters. I just think in most cases it's pointless other than to blow off some steam.
I think there is a difference between what America IS, and what America COULD or SHOULD be. I think there is some confusion about America being a fan of collectivism to the extent that the European Socialists are. We're not, and that's not who we are today. E Pluribus Unum has nothing to do with this.
If you decide to be an elementary teacher, instead of a developer, you know in general the amount of money you make will likely be less. I don't understand how that's cruel, or unlucky for the teacher who weighs this when choosing what to do with his life.
If you're the taker instead of the giver overall, it's easy to think of yourself as having more freedom. Of course you do, in the example of a society where education costs nil to students, you are free to not have to pay for your own education. That's someone else's burden. I'm sure it would be liberating. I'd love if I could saddle some other asshole with my student loans.
It sounds like all I'm doing is criticizing, but the bottom line is this - I agree with you to an extent that it is our obligation to look after each other. We are in this together. I do agree that the current model of health care needs to be modified. I do believe in taking care of your brother man. What we have in America is a love of mocking and shitting on your brother man instead of listening to them. Who is immune? Nobody! =(
What I don't agree with is the idea of government taking the money you would normally donate, and deciding for themselves what's appropriate. That's not freedom. I do not agree with creating an even bigger bureaucracy than already exists, and giving the government more control of my life cheaply or freely. I do not agree with the baby boomers saddling us with ongoing expenses that we can't afford, and not talking about how we're supposed to sustain this level of government long-term without saddling the common man with a bigger tax burden. Howard Zinn has an idea - get rid of the DoD, and get rid of capitalism. It always comes down to getting rid of capitalism for that guy.
Now, I already know one of the questions I'm going to get because it's always the first one when I debate this stuff - "So Jason, what about Boooosh?" Yeah, I hated the bank giveaways too. I know the *real* Libs are upset by Obama's continuation of this stuff. Which by the way, we are going to have to all pay for eventually. We're all going to be eating freaking health pellets by the end of all of this.
I'm with (e:jenks) on soldiers. I, personally, known people who joined the military so that they could get:
1. technical training while in the service
2. college educations with the G.I. bill afer they leave the service
3. avoid jail (joining the military was part of a plea bargain)
4. be a musician in an Army band
5. get away from an abusive home situation
6. a job after being laid off
7. a job after high school with no prospects of a job in their hometown.
Of course, this was inbetween wars, so they probably didn't expect to see combat.
Perhaps it is different now, but I don't think so. Alternet.org has good (imho) discussion of why young people join the military: :::link:::
just to play devil's advocate- I'm not sure that everyone that joins the military does so out of a simple pure desire to help people. I know plenty who have joined b/c either they 1- couldn't do anything else, or 2- just wanted the perks, and were betting that they'd never actually have to serve. Felt like it was an 'easy' way to a 'free ride'.
OH those teabaggers! I like what your father and law said.