The Confusing Crisis

The whole world economic system is beginning to quiver, as banks in Europe are now in trouble, and at least one, and maybe more have been taken over by the government in Britain. In the U.S., Wachovia Bank is now history, and has been taken over, as the stock price for shares in bank dropped under two bucks.

So, if you think about what's been going on, you'll really have to scratch your head.

We had a plan put forward by a Republican administration that was given more support by Democrats in the House of Representatives than by Republicans. Let me say this again, a Republican plan not supported by a majority of House Republican members. So what's this about?

Well, for one thing, neither political party is really A political party, but rather various groups bound together by some vague principles. After the Civil War, the Republican Party was flying high, and big business, ever mindful of where the power rests, came to be a big part of the Republican Party. They weren't going to become Democrats and not have power! Later, under progressive Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, some elements of the GOP went after big business, and indeed, the title of "trust buster" was bestowed upon Roosevelt. After Roosevelt left office, the far less effective William Howard Taft was seen by Roosevelt as abandoning the progressivism of the GOP. In the next election, Democrats nominated Woodrow Wilson to run against Taft, but then Roosevelt entered the fray as a third party candidate, as head of the progressive Bullmoose Party. Wilson won the election and Taft finished a dismal third. This event left the GOP divided between progressives and conservative business interests. Fast forward to the Great Depression and Republican president, Herbert Hoover, tried to combat the downturn with a variety of measures, before finally turning away from his more progressive roots and returning to conservative orthodoxy of balanced budgets and higher taxes in a depression. In the next several elections, the GOP took a major hit, and many groups, including their most loyal constituency group, black Americans, bolted to the Democratic Party, with others moving to the status of independents. What was left of the GOP was still somewhat splintered and the struggle to control the party continued, with the conservative wing becoming dominant. Former Democrat Ronald Reagan's success within the GOP transformed the party into a solidly conservative party.

Fast forward again (Hey! I'm not trying to write a history book, here!) to circa 1980. The excesses of what came to be called "liberalism," brought a reaction from the country and the election of Reagan as president for two terms. Reagan seemed to be able to unite a resurgent Republican Party, and even more moderate and liberal Republicans liked him immensely. When Bush SR. became president, he was unable to hold the party together as Reagan had done, and social conservative, but economic populist, Pat Buchanan ran against Bush in the 1992 primaries, scarring Bush so badly that it contributed to his loss to Bill Clinton in the general election. Now Republicans were back to where they had been; a large economically conservative wing, and a more populist, but socially conservative wing, which contained many from the Religious Right. You've seen this split in the primaries of 2008, and certainly in this House vote on the bailout package. Not all Republicans favor big business, but I'd like to smack those who went along with this disastrous course set by the big business interests, free marketers, and free traders.

To many Democrats, I understand your desire to be bipartisan in your support of this plan, but you sold yourself to the Devil. You gave up your principles. To vote for a package that delivers money to big bankers and investors, the very people who have trampled on us for eight years (and more!), has me scratching my head. Let's see... give about a trillion... or so... hey, what's a few hundred billion between friends... to the top... it will trickle down... and... low and behold...average Americans might get ninety-nine cents!

We need money injected into the system far, far down from the top income people. They've been given just about everything they've wanted by the Bush Administration, including the business interests' plan to let foreign workers remain in the country. The "un-rich" now need to get the money and let's get this country back on its feet!

How To Attack The Root Problem

The bailout of Wall Street failed to pass the House of Representatives. Whether you were for it, against, disinterested, or what ever is now immaterial. The question is, how to halt the root cause(s) of the problem? Here are some things to think about, and I'm not claiming that I'm right, I'm just throwing them out there:

All sides seem to agree that the main problem is the housing market and foreclosures. Now, I'm NOT an economist, but what if the mortgage holders were forced to take less money from the homeowners, and payments were made affordable for the homeowners? What I'm getting at is, if I owe you $100,000, and I can't pay you back, would you rather get $75,000, and take the $25,000 hit, or would you prefer to foreclose, and when all is said and done, get $35,000 or $50,000? You write off the rest and move on with your life. For those homeowners who can't pay at pretty much any rate (perhaps due to the death or illness of the main income earner, for instance), then there would have to be another solution, including "possibly" some government involvement.

Then we need some kind of further stimulus plan to get money into the hands of the "non rich." No rebates or tax cuts for the rich. They got plenty from this current administration. They will benefit when Americans spend the money at their businesses. Further, there needs to be a beefed up job training/retraining program for people who have lost jobs in industries that are in decline due to technology changes. There needs to be an extensive rebuilding of America: roads, bridges, waterways, the electric supply system, etc. This should help employ many, many people. And let's not forget new and developing energy sources, like wind, solar power and other things. This helps push these new energy sources along, and it diminishes our dependence on foreign sources of energy and in the current environmentally unfriendly energy sources.

When it comes down to it, it will cost a bundle, but it will go to the non rich, initially, at least. We've just seen that most Americans do NOT seem to want to give more money to the rich directly, either in tax cuts, which were proposed by the House Republicans, or in any bailout of big financial interests, which was just proposed by the Bush Administration.

McCain and the Bailout

Below is a link to a story covering John McCain's role in the ongoing negotiations for the bailout, I mean rescue, plan. To those of you who are naive, surprise, surprise, politics is involved in this process, from both sides. One thing needs to be made clear, the process has not been held up by Democrats, but by Republicans. This plan was presented by a Republican president. When first told of the seriousness of the financial condition of the country by Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, members of both parties offered support. There certainly are many questions about the plan, however. I don't blame Republicans for questioning things. The administration wanted this plan plowed through Congress with little or no discussion or amendment. That's baloney! The last I checked, Congress does have the power to discuss and pass or reject laws.

So what's happened? First, Secretary Paulson, while loved by many on Wall Street, has shot much of his credibility with those many millions of Americans who are not involved on Wall Street. The praise of "free markets," the playing down of regulating business and the rejecting of the idea that speculators were one of the main culprits in driving up commodity prices (among which are oil, gasoline, natural gas, and many food stuffs, like corn and wheat, for instance) has left the secretary with a huge credibility gap. Further, Bernanke and Paulson have other credibility problems, namely that when one crisis comes along, they spring into action, then declare things are better, but then another crisis arises, then another, then another. You can only reassure us so many times, before we say, "Do these guys know what the hell they're doing?" Judging by the public sentiment, the resounding answer seems to be "NO!" Now, I'm not that harsh (that should surprise you!). These are real human beings trying to deal with a potentially cataclysmic economic downturn. One of the problems, however, has been their "reacting" to events, rather than being pro-active. "Hey! Somebody close the barn door, the horse got out!" It should give them and others a sense of what the Hoover Administration went through as the economy collapsed around them; that is, one crisis after another. Of course, Paulson and Bernanke finally cried "UNCLE!" And then cried "UNCLE SAM! Help us!" So much for the whole bunch of crap called the free markets.

In my opinion, John McCain opened the door to criticism with his shenanigans. But this is a political year, and he thought he could put one over on us. The idea that he or Obama, neither of them on the Senate Banking Committee, should be so publicly involved was nonsense from the start. There are members of both parties' delegations far better versed in this complex subject than either of these men. McCain said he wouldn't debate if there was no bailout plan. Well, there's no plan, but he debated. He went to the meeting at the White House and essentially sat there, only giving cover to House Republicans by saying he didn't support the plan. House Republicans then refused to attend further negotiations. If you're a die hard Republican, you need to get your head out of the sand and quit blaming Democrats for this part of this situation. You're in denial! The plan is a Republican plan! If you don't like it, fine, but then don't turn around and say that Democrats are holding it up. You're trying to have it both ways!

Now, on the other side, some Democratic spokesmen have acted as if McCain should not be permitted to speak his piece. That's more nonsense. Discussion, whether you agree or not with the other person, should not be squelched. On the other hand, if John McCain truly wants to be heard on the subject, all he (or Obama, for that matter) has to do is call a news conference and say, "I'm against this plan, and I intend to vote against it, and I urge other Republicans in Congress to do the same, and like minded Democrats," or to say, "I support this plan, and I intend to vote for it." Determining which side to take may be a difficult one, but getting a forum to announce his decision is not a tough one.

So, what do I think? I'll be damned if I know what to think about the whole thing! To me, to claim that the government taking over the bad mortgages will help banks to lend to other people/businesses, I'm not so sure of that. Further claims that the plan will solve the foreclosure crisis (by CNBC's Jim Cramer) is another one I can't figure out. How? I've not heard a credible answer to that question. Some economists have said that the government is just reacting to symptoms, rather than the root causes, and there I might agree. The problem is and has been that the money went up the ladder to the highest income people in the land. They used their ever growing bank accounts to bid up the price of everything from oil to toilet paper. As more and more Americans got squeezed, guess what happened. What do you think would happen if the government said, "We're going to give a trillion or two to the taxpayers; that is, to taxpayers making less than say, 200 grand a year." First, we'd hear from the Wall Streeters and the free marketers how this would bankrupt the country (of course, giving it to them won't bankrupt the country). Then we'd hear how unfair the whole thing is (of course, the huge and growing income gap has been so totally fair to tens of millions of Americans). What a bunch of scum bags! If this economy goes into the tank, these bastards will be lucky to get away with their very lives, in my opinion. They may need that expensive toilet paper!

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/26/1450959.aspx

What A Collapse Could Bring

No matter what your beliefs, just for a few moments, let's say that Secretary Paulson's and Fed Chairman Bernanke's dire economic scenario is right, and the economy suffers a large number of bank failures, business closings, and millions more unemployed, on top of what we've already got. What might happen?

These aren't predictions, but rather some things to think about. First, the stock market would plunge. Folks, you may think that you don't have money in the stock market, but if you have a pension fund or 401K, or even insurance policies of various types, chances are you're in the stock market, like it or not. With stocks much lower, that means not as much money for you at retirement. If companies actually go belly up, it could mean that much of your retirement money will disappear.

Further, if you think foreclosures are bad now, and they are, if an economic collapse takes place, things will get far worse; that is, if the mortgage holders still around have the wherewithal to even try to take back your home.

With falling revenues, government at every level, federal, state or local, will have to cut back. Chances are that we'll have to pull out of both Afghanistan and Iraq, as the expense of keeping troops there will be prohibitive. With the U.S. gone, will these governments survive?

With the Federal Government already on the hook for about 10 trillion dollars (and closer to 11 trillion, if the bailout plan is adopted), what will the government do to try to stop the downturn? During the Great Depression, the government didn't owe all that much, and the country ran, what were for those times, big deficits. With the country in such debt now, people from other countries won't want to take a chance on getting their money back and will no doubt give up financing much of our deficit, as they have been doing. Of course, the government has one thing they could still use... a printing press.

The point is, no one's life will be unaffected. It may well be the end of the United States as we've known it. Keep in mind, these "might" happen. They are not givens, but if they do happen, just remember, this is what they (the wealthy/big business interests) have done to us.

With all of this in mind, there was a joke years ago from the days of the Depression. A man was standing on the corner selling apples.*** He had a sign posted, "Apples-$100,000 each."### A guy walked over and said, "Hey buddy, ya think you're gonna sell many at that price?" The man answered, "I only have to sell one."

*** For those unaware, during the Great Depression of the 1930s, people frequently sold apples to earn some money. The caricature of a man selling apples became a symbol of those times.

### If I remember the joke right, the amount was more like $10,000, but that was in the 1930s, so I upped the amount to make the point.

The Anger Level Is Rising

As the economy teeters and Congress and the administration negotiate, the anger in the country has been rising noticeably. I've had this anger for years, and I express it here often, and to be quite honest, I've been perplexed that many others haven't been openly furious, too. When I've talked one-on-one with many folks, they have been angry, but seemingly dispirited, with comments like, "They've got us and we can't do anything about it." Now, however, the suppressed anger is showing itself, and people are getting FURIOUS. It's about time, folks! Don't be dispirited! Take this country back from these ruthless greed mongers. We can do it!!!

Wall Street doesn't understand our anger. They don't get it. They don't understand, they can't fathom, how so many Americans don't want tax money used to bail out Wall Street, to shore up the bastards, only to let them come roaring back to step on us again, and get huge salaries to do so. There's that old saying, "Don't get mad, get even!" Right now, Americans want both!

Will A Bailout Pass?

What's been happening in Washington the last couple of days? Well, first and foremost, these folks are politicians; many up for re-election this November. According to most reports aired so far, members of Congress say that they are receiving phone calls and emails to the tune of about 9 to 1 against passing the $700 billion bailout... I mean "rescue plan." Further, President Bush called a meeting at the White House yesterday, Thursday, and it was then that several Republican lawmakers offered that they did NOT support the plan offered by the Bush Administration. That made Democrats step back and say that without Republican support in a bipartisan effort on the bailout... I mean rescue, that they could not go forward. The Dems aren't stupid. They aren't going to sign on and become totally responsible for the plan, if it doesn't work.

So, you've got a bailout... I mean rescue plan offered by a Republican administration being pummeled by several Republicans in Congress; perhaps the best known being Senator Shelby of Alabama. You've got Democrats offering to support the basic plan, with modifications. Folks, you can't make up this kind of stuff.

Tough Times For Next Prez

Here is a link to an article about what the next president will face. FDR was lucky, in the sense that Hoover had struggled with the Depression for nearly four years prior to Roosevelt's taking office. Roosevelt and his astute advisers saw how Hoover's attempts to halt the downturn had failed, but they also saw, especially in Hoover's RFC (Reconstruction Finance Corporation), programs that had potential. Further, by the time FDR took the oath of office, the vast majority of the American people were ready to try something, ANYTHING, new. This gave Roosevelt great leeway. Now, a new president will take office in January 2009 and the outlook is not good. The economy has been teetering on recession, with some segments of the economy already in recession, if not outright depression. The free traders' beliefs that global trade would save our behinds is now being called into question, as virtually all economists say that there is a GLOBAL slowdown. Fasten your seat belts, folks!!!


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26854154/

Are We Trapped By The Crisis?

Some food for thought folks: The Bush Administration has offered a plan to Congress and has asked for a quick vote with little discussion and no add ons. Does this scenario sound familiar? Like the lead up to the invasion of Iraq?

Back then, we were told that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program and lots of biological warfare weapons, and that if we didn't act quickly, he could wreak all kinds of havoc by passing such weapons on to Al Qaida. The weather also played a part, as we were told that we had a small window of time before the Iraq weather would make it virtually impossible to conduct military operations for like 6 or 8 months, a time in which Saddam could further his weapons' programs, or get chummy with Al Qaida. Congress voted the authorization and the American public approved in huge numbers, including me. No need to go into what happened then, but suffice it to say that no such weapons or weapons' programs were found after the invasion.

Now congressional leaders of both parties were called together the other night and told that the country is on the verge of a financial meltdown and that the soon to be presented administration program needs to be implemented quickly, as we are only days away from an economic Armageddon. Congressional leaders, and it seems, most members of Congress have agreed to support the plan, in principle. A few have expressed concern that the banking system is essentially being nationalized, and they are pretty much on target. Others wonder how we can use hundreds of billions of dollars, when the budget deficit is already expected to be the highest in history. Others, mainly Democrats, want unemployment benefit extensions and help for homeowners facing foreclosure. Of course, at this point, the administration wants nothing to do with such measures, as they might actually help middle income people, something they always seem loathe to do. No, they want the bill to pass so they can help only the bankers and other wealthy interests. Remember my saying, Bush is awfully worried about the plight of millionaires and billionaires; and as to the rest of us...the hell with us!

Now, the problem is, can we afford to actually have a debate on this legislation? Or is time of the essence? Are we caught in a fix, real or imaginary, yet again? The problem is, by getting congressional leaders from both parties to "sign on," they now have to go forward, or they'll be seen as dragging their feet in the time of a national (and international) crisis. No one wants that, especially in a major election year. Further, Wall Street has given a big "thumbs up" to any plan that saves their asses, and the stock market reclaimed pretty much all of last week's losses after the idea of a government bailout plan was made public. If the plan isn't approved quickly, Wall Street might go back into the tank, giving us a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the American economy in a major depression (not just recession!). Just some things to ponder.

Note: I'm going to start an English "WORD HISTORY" at the end of each blog. At least I hope I remember to do so hereafter. For today, the word is "VIKING." Of course this word kind of means "pirate," if you will. Old Norse, a North Germanic language, had "vikingr," (many North Germanic words had an "r" as an ending), presumably from "vik," which meant an inlet of water, making "Vikings" people who came from an inlet, or in North Germanic, a fjord, but Old English and its very close relative Old Frisian (both West Germanic languages), had a similar word, which in English was "wic," with a long "i" sound. It existed before the North Germanic word, and it meant "camp." It still exists in English town names ending in "wich" or "wick," as many "camps" then grew into towns. The idea with "Viking" is, they raided the English coast and set up temporary "camps," so the English used that term for them, which these raiders themselves then picked up and used as "vikingr." Whether Old English "wic," (camp) and Old Norse "vik," (inlet) are related, no one seems to know for sure, since people needed water, they may have set up "camps" near inlets, and that could be the connection, as Middle High German has "wich," meaning "bay." Thus the main word would undoubtedly go back to original Old Germanic, called "Proto Germanic" by linguists.

The Free Market Dies, Funeral Pending

"Free Market Capitalism" died this week, after a long illness and the funeral could cost "hundreds of billions," according to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, or even as much as a couple of trillion; that is t-r-i-l-l-i-o-n, according to others. Free Market Capitalism is survived by.... well, it seems that no one wants to claim to be related. The "free marketers" have been discredited, and to prove the point, they all now claim that they didn't mean what they said before.... ah before, well, this week. These folks who claimed that free markets can do no wrong, that government is the enemy, that regulation is the enemy, that health care for ALL Americans is the enemy, that huge bonuses for CEOs, even those overseeing floundering companies, are just fine, well they now say that they are related to someone, and that someone is Uncle Sam. Many years ago on the television series "Get Smart," the main character, Secret Agent Maxwell Smart, would confront an enemy by calling him some nasty name, like "you stupid gorilla." Max would then go at his adversary with a punch to the face, a karate chop to the neck, and a swift fist to the gut. When the "gorilla" barely flinched, Max would put his arm around the guy and say very nicely, "Hey, I hope I wasn't out of line with that crack about you being a stupid gorilla." Well that's where the free marketers are now. They hated Uncle Sam, but now they claim to have been misunderstood, and that they really love their bearded uncle. "Hey Uncle Sam, we hope we weren't out of line with that crack about you being the enemy. By the way, could you spare a few hundred billion?"

While I'm on the television kick, there was another show called "Fantasy Island." The basic premise of the show was that various people would visit the island and get to live out their ultimate fantasy. Often this required turning back the clock to an idyllic time. In the end, the old saying about "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it," came true, and the people got to see the folly of their ways. Well now, we've had these free marketers take this country back in time to an age where there was virtually no law or regulation to stop them from doing anything and everything to make money. The problem with this scenario is, it is NOT a TV show, and millions of Americans have paid a terrible price for these folks' fantasies. And, as I noted above, the costs associated with this "turn back the clock" mentality haven't all come to pass, as yet. Let's just hope that what Uncle Sam has decided to do will now work, and that we avoid an even worse situation.

Tame The Greedy!

I'd say that most Americans aren't particularly fond of regulations, until we get burned. That's what's happening now. LOTS of people have been burned, and many more fear they might get burned...SOON! In the end though, most people probably prefer stability. There's an old saying about people taking action on any given matter; "It depends on whose ox is getting gored." Unfortunately, all of us probably fall into the category of not caring enough about others because, "Our ox isn't getting gored." Well now, "Our ox is getting gored." We want action! The age of turning over the country to greedy business people, who care only for themselves seems to be ending. Hopefully, before we allow more jobs to be shipped out of the country to line the pockets of many people who are already wealthy, we will look at what is in the best interest of the "un-rich" Americans.

Letting the greedy take charge has left a deep mark on America. When they drive the agenda, even business people who aren't as greedy and ruthless BECOME greedy and ruthless to compete with the bastards. Let's all hope that "The George W. Bush Wild West Show" will now end, and that security and stability for Americans will return to the forefront of our concerns.

THANK YOU George W. Bush!

THANK YOU Mr. President! For what? For your administration's stewardship of the American economy for nearly eight years. To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, "Never in the field of human endeavor, has so much been mismanaged, by so few, in such a short time!" We've had millions of manufacturing jobs lost. Does Bush intend to cede manufacturing anything and everything to other countries completely? I thought you were for national security. Thank you for protecting us against terrorism, except that you forgot some of the biggest terrorists in the world; that is, the greediest segment of American society. Thank you, too, Mr. President, for more uninsured Americans; after all, who the hell cares about people who don't have health insurance, anyway? We know you don't! That's obviously that "compassionate conservatism" you talked about. Thank you for wage and benefit cuts for so many American workers. Without you, it probably couldn't have been achieved. Thank you, especially, from the wealthiest Americans who have benefited so much from your tax cuts and policies. They know you've tried hard to "make the tax cuts permanent," so that every billionaire and millionaire will know where their next million is coming from. And thank you for the ballooning budget deficits that threaten the very heart of this country. Thank you for sky high oil, gasoline and natural gas, and the transfer of wealth to the countries who oppose this nation in so many things. We know that the free markets really work, and that speculators have nothing to do with driving up prices just for money! Oh, and let's not forget the soaring cost of just about anything you want to mention, including food. And finally, thank you for trying to do for Social Security, what you've done for the American economy!

If you agree with thanking this Republican president for all of the above, make sure you vote for John McCain in November.

Will We Avert Financial Collapse?

Below is the link to an article about the crisis in the financial world. Unfortunately, the "financial world" is NOT separate from the world the rest of us live in. About six weeks ago, I was watching some analysts on CNBC (a cable business channel). Most of these folks are pro-business, and often anti-government. Across the wires came news of how President Bush, in regards to the housing crisis and the ensuing financial crisis, had made a comment to the effect that "Wall Street got drunk and is now going through the hangover." One of the analysts noted, "The problem with the president saying this is, he was the head bartender and he kept serving up the drinks." The panel went on to express their feelings that the government, under Bush, had not watched and regulated the mortgage and financial industries as well as it should have. This brings me back to how many pro-business folks decry government regulation, until their butts get into trouble, then it becomes Uncle Sam's problem; that is, the taxpayers' problem. In effect, these folks are getting to have it both ways, as they fought regulation that may have averted some or all of these serious problems, but now their butts are being bailed out by the the very government they scorned. Of course, the Bush Administration's philosophy has been, and continues to be, little concern for non rich folks who may have to wonder where their next meal is going to come from, but huge concern with where billionaires and millionaires will get their next million.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26709927/

Uncle Sam To The Recue?

Here's a link to an article that says the government has developed a plan to take over mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26567533/

More Jobs Lost

The government reported that unemployment jumped dramatically in August and now stands at 6.1%. Further, job losses in June and July were worse than first reported. Here's the link to an article giving the disquieting statistics, as well as the two presidential candidates' response to the government report:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26546938/