Some Very Ugly Economic Stats

Here is the link to an article that really spells out, in statistics, many of the economic problems facing America.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29412777/

Can We Get Out Of This Mess? Part Five

One of the problems that made economic matters worse was that, earlier on, influential people like Bernanke and Paulson*** were unable to get their arms around the economic problem in order to wrestle it to the ground. There’s no doubt in my mind that a large part of this failure to recognize the economic problems and then to act was due to ideology. Conservatives don’t believe in governmental action, unless of course your name is George W. Bush, and you choose a “preemptive war“ against Iraq. But to engage in “preemptive” actions to stave off economic disaster? Hell no!!! You can’t tamper with the “free markets.” Instead of seeing what was becoming obvious to many Americans already battered by high prices for just about everything, stagnant wages, benefit cuts, foreclosure and the like, these folks consistently UNDERESTIMATED (or turned a blind eye to) the mounting dangers to the American economy. Even just last summer, Bernanke and the Federal Reserve continued to harp on the possibility of inflation spiraling out of control. Oh yes, prices had been escalating,^^^ but that “free market” ideology said, “We can’t control prices on ANYTHING, because that’s against free market principles.” Even if those high prices are strangling many American families and thus the American economy?+++ Of course, in order to try to solve a problem, one must first admit that there IS a problem and get the diagnosis of the problem correct. Just imagine if you went to the doctor with a severe headache and the doc said, “The REAL problem you’ve got is that you have corns on both feet.”

The failure to see the mounting problems, and then the misdiagnosis of the problems led the Fed and the Bush Administration to do nothing at first, but it seems that their “free market” minds couldn’t see how severe the problems really were, leaving the severity of the problems terribly underestimated, as well as misdiagnosed (“Take two corn removal pads and call me in the morning!”).


NOTE: I'm working on Part Two of "Why Do We Call Them These Names" for "Word Histories," and it will be posted separately.

*** And even earlier, Greenspan. When the history of this era is written, Greenspan may get a good deal of blame, as halting a problem early on is often easier than letting it fester.

^^^In my opinion, driven much higher by greedy speculative investors with too much money on their hands. I’m telling you folks, you can’t give them more money through huge tax cuts and expect that they’ll suddenly donate their savings to “The Mother Theresa Society” or to the “Mahatma Gandhi School of Non Violent Public Protest.” Currently, many of those who benefited by this speculative behavior are still in the process of defending it by saying that prices were driven higher by “supply and demand,” that good old free market standby. These “free marketers” just seem unable to admit that free market systems have a downside to them. They don’t get it, just like the bankers and officers of many companies now in meltdown who still feel “entitled” to huge bonuses. And the conservatives have the nerve to say that many other Americans have a sense of “entitlement;” and that’s over basic subsistence, not mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money! One part of the “free market” philosophy these folks seem to forget, is that part about “merit based compensation and job retention.” Using their own “principles,” these corporate bigwigs, and also members of the Federal Reserve and the Bush Administration, would have been terminated.

+++For those in need of special medications to help them stay alive, the free market philosophy says, “Sorry to hear that, but we’ll send flowers to your funeral.” Most are too hypocritical to say such a thing openly, because I hope that inside them they know they’re wrong, but their greed overrules any inclination toward humanity. This “never wrong” free market crap has just provided them with an excuse.

Can We Get Out Of This Mess? Part Four

Regular readers: WARNING!!! Hold onto your seats!!!

T. Boone Pickens, a Texas billionaire, deserves a pat on the back. THUD!!! (Hey, I told you to hold onto your seats!) On one issue, this guy has stepped up to the plate and spent his OWN money to inform Americans about energy alternatives and our need to get away from using oil in so many ways. This will protect us from all enemies, foreign (probably his take on it) and domestic (my addition, as some of the most ruthless people on Earth are many, but not all, wealthy American business investors, also known as "the sit on their ass class").

Pickens has been promoting wind and solar power, but also the use of natural gas as a replacement for gasoline or other petroleum products. He makes a lot of sense, as these energy sources have the added benefit of causing far less pollution. Like any advertisement, he's "selling" us something, but in this case an "idea," and he seems sincere, and I've heard him in interviews about the subject on television. Now for the downside. (You can't have an upside without a downside.)

As presented by Pickens, it all sounds good. The problem, however, in my mind is the part about natural gas. He has admitted that natural gas will go up in price if his plan is adopted. I wholeheartedly agree with him, except that I think the price will go up so much, that we might well consider last year's $4.50-$5.00 a gallon for gasoline the "good old days." In my opinion, the wealthy and their money managers will shift HUGE sums into natural gas, driving it sky high. Remember the "Hurricane Katrina" price surge in natural gas? How could you forget when many folks went virtually bankrupt trying to heat their homes that winter. Well, once our wealthy investors get us latched onto natural gas for other purposes.....LOOK OUT!!! Those Hurricane Katrina prices may look low.

Pickens has made a bundle in his life, and he's spent millions of his own money to get us thinking about alternative fuels to replace oil. He's made his money in the "free market," and if that term doesn't scare the absolute hell out of you, after the torture we've been put through lo these many years, and now economic consequences of that torture, then nothing can scare you! Make NO MISTAKE about it folks, part of today's economic meltdown traces back to the run up in the prices of energy and just about anything else the "sit on their ass class" could lay their hands on. The ONLY way to keep the lid on prices is for GOVERNMENT, that's right, GOVERNMENT, to take the lead and keep energy sources OUT OF THE HANDS of greedy, ruthless business people. As I've noted before, our water resources are controlled by governmental entities, usually state or local, and the world has NOT ended because of it. Such control was done to prevent exploitation and abuse by PRIVATE individuals or companies. If we let these greedy bastards keep their hands on natural gas, and Pickens' plan is put into motion, 2008/2009 may look like those $4.50 to $5.00 a gallon prices for gasoline..."The Good Old Days."

Can We Get Out Of This Mess? Part Three

First, in April 1912 the "unsinkable" Titanic struck an iceberg and sunk. The Titanic had been pronounced "unsinkable" due to an amazing set of 22 watertight compartments built into the structure of the massive ship. The Titanic could remain afloat even if various combinations of watertight compartments were flooded, including, if I remember right, the first five compartments, if the ship were to experience extensive damage to the frontal area. The passengers were segregated by "class;" with some of the world's wealthiest people on the top decks, in "First Class." Below that was "Second Class," and in the lower areas of the "unsinkable" ship was "Third Class," also known as "Steerage." The iceberg punctured or crumpled the metal plates covering the ship, allowing water into the first SIX compartments. With that situation, the ship was doomed, as the weight of water entering the flooding forward compartments pulled the front of the ship down, which then allowed water from the sixth compartment to spill over into the seventh, and then that added weight pulled the ship down further to permit water to spill into the eighth compartment, and so on. A couple of hours later, the ship was gone.

Just a further note: Even though the ship was in such dire straights, the ship's personnel tried to prevent passengers in Third Class from getting up to Second or First Class to escape the rising waters below. Think about it!

Now, with housing prices in the tank and foreclosures mounting, unless those in need of help can be salvaged, others may well be pulled down, too. Here's why:

Once foreclosures began to rise and the housing bubble began to deflate, prices for housing fell. That may sound good (that prices fell), but when prices fell, it also began to endanger other homeowners with mortgages, as prices fell below what they owed on their homes. As foreclosures increased, and credit standards for a mortgage tightened, this general process continued, and in fact, it still continues to the point that at least 25% (some estimates say more) of all Americans who owe a mortgage now owe more for that mortgage than the property is worth. Now you might say, "So! What's that got to do with me?"

Well, if you happen to be one of those with such a situation, and the numbers are increasing, if something happens that your income falls to the point where you can't pay the mortgage, you won't be able to sell your property OR refinance it. Just for the sake of example:

So you owe $100,000 on your mortgage. Let's say your hours are cut at work, or that maybe you lose your job, or that maybe you have health issues with lots of medical bills. Whatever the reason, you can't afford the mortgage payment and you decide to sell your house and downsize to an apartment. When you talk with a real estate company, they tell you that due to foreclosures and the generally poor real estate market, that homes in your neighborhood are selling for $75,000. Now unless you've got 25 grand hidden under your mattress, or unless the "Good Fairy" slips that amount under your pillow tonight, you can't sell the property. The mortgage holder isn't going to eat the $25,000. The same problem is present if you want to refinance; you owe more on the mortgage than the property is worth. Ah, guess whose going to get a foreclosure notice? Then this will further decrease the property values of the homes in your neighborhood, so that Mr. & Mrs. Jones, who are having trouble making ends meet, decide to check into selling their house and are told essentially the same thing you were told. Guess who else is getting a foreclosure notice?

The Titanic sank from the bottom up, but eventually the water reached the top deck of First Class. Just for your information, we're ALL on THIS modern Titanic together.

Why Do We Call Them These Names?

Updated May 11, 2014

As part of English word histories, I thought you might like to know why we call various groups of people certain names. By the title, you probably thought I was going to get into why we call some people SOBs, asses, idiots, and such, but see, I fooled ya! My intention is to come back to this overall subject occasionally and cover terms for other ethnic, nationality, and linguistic groups. For this article, I figured I'd stick with terms more closely associated with English, and since English is a Germanic language, I'll start with terms for various Germanic groups. Remember, Germanic and German are NOT the same thing. Germans are Germanic, but all Germanic people are NOT German. See below why there is common confusion among English speakers for these terms, but stay focused, because it can be a bit confusing and hard to follow. Just a note, I've tried to put Old English spelling/sounds into the equivalent modern spelling, as Old English had some different "letters/symbols" no longer in use to represent sounds of that time.

Dutch-I would say that most Americans have heard of  "Deutsch," (pronounced doytsh) for German. Well Dutch is simply the same word with a slight variation in the way it is pronounced. In many language groups, in a number of cases, the letters/sounds "d" and "t" were used sort of interchangeably. This is certainly true within the Germanic languages, and as you'll see further below, the ancestor of "Dutch" had a "t," not a "d." I believe part of the reason for this is, long ago, the sounds of what developed into our more modern sounds were not as distinct as they are (or "supposed" to be) today. Remember, in more modern times languages have developed "standard" forms that are taught in schools, with generally regular spellings and some general pronunciation guidelines, although that certainly doesn't mean that people pronounce words the same, by any stretch of the imagination. Further, the above mentioned "Deutsch" is also pronounced and spelled in a variety of ways in German dialects, including "Teutsch," "Tüütsch" and "Düütsch" (my grandmother pretty much said "Deitsch" =dytsh, with a "y" or long "i" sound). In more modern times, it is easier to define "dialect" as a variation from the standard, school taught language, although even then, not all speakers of a particular language agree what is standard.

For quite some time in history, the people in what we now call The Netherlands (frequently just called Holland by many English speakers), Germany, Austria, parts of Belgium, a part of northern Italy, eastern France, a large part of Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Liechtenstein were referred to as Germans by English speakers, and indeed, the Dutch and the others just listed were a part of the old German Empire. Initially, during the 12th Century, the word was a general term for all of these "Germans;" however, at some point during the 1600s, a form of the pronunciation we use became identified more specifically to people in Holland, which was actually only a part of what is now The Netherlands. Back then it was usually spelled "duutsch." The term goes back to Old High German "duitisc," which had a meaning "of the people or belonging to the people." This notion of belonging to the people came to be applied to the basic common language of these Germanic speakers. (Please note that they didn't all speak exactly alike, as there were many dialects, but back many, many centuries ago, speakers of these various Germanic dialects, including the Anglo-Saxons in England, could still basically understand one another, although undoubtedly at times with difficulty.) The term went back further to Old Germanic "theudo," which meant "popular, of the same people, national (in the sense of related people)." Old English had "theodisc," which likewise meant "belonging to the people," and also referred to the "common Germanic language." Old English also had "theod," which meant "people, nation (in the sense 'related people')." The Old Germanic term went back to Indo European "teuta," which meant "people." Just for the sake of example, Old Lithuanian, an Indo European language related to English further down the family tree, had "tauta," also meaning "people," and Oscan, also related further down the family tree, had "touto," which had the sense "community;" that is, "sense of people together in common." The term was also picked up by Latin and used at times back in the 7th Century to refer to the language of the area of Mercia,* England; that is, Old English. Then it was used just a short time later in Latin to refer to the broad conglomeration of Germanic dialects on the Continent, excluding the north Germanic dialects (these northern dialects became Danish, Icelandic Norwegian and Swedish). This "dutch/deutsch" term for German dialects then was extended to mean the people who spoke the language, and by the 1200s, the term "Diutisklant" was being used to describe the area where these people lived. In case you didn't notice, "Diutisklant" was the original word for the modern "Deutschland;" that is, "Germany."

In English, by the 1600s, the term began to be applied more specifically to "people or things" of  the Netherlands, as that area had become a separate state, independent of the Old German Empire by that time, and a very major rival of England for trade and for colonies in the New World. Remember, New Amsterdam was established in the New World by the Dutch, after breaking bread with the local Indians and offering them some trinkets and beads. New Amsterdam later became a part of what is now New York City. I guess the Indians learned the meaning of eating and "going Dutch." Stop me from laughing too hard!!! To confuse matters more, the people in Holland, in order to show their independence of the German Empire, no longer used the term for themselves or their language (they use "Nederlanders" and "Nederlands"), but continued to apply the term to the people of Germany. This sense was picked up in English, and we still say "Pennsylvania Dutch," who weren't "Dutch," but "Deutsch" from western Germany in the Rhineland area. Hey, even I'm getting confused! Anyway, eventually English speakers settled on "Dutch" for people in Holland/The Netherlands.

German-Having gone through the history of "Dutch/Deutsch," this word should be easier....I hope. The term "Germani" was used by Julius Caesar in his historical writings about a group of related people (tribes) in northwestern Europe. It is assumed that one of those tribes had a similar name for itself, and that Julius just used that "latinized" term for all of these people, but some linguists feel that the term may have come from Celtic, a part of the Indo European language family, and related to Germanic, and thus also to English. Latin speakers back then referred to the Germanic speaking areas collectively as "Germania" (English took this on as "Germany"). In English long ago, the Germans were referred to either as "Almain" or "Dutch." The first is from a Germanic tribe called the "Alemanni," the second, "Dutch," is.....I'm NOT going to get into that again. (Just a note: the Alemanni tribal name gave French their words for Germany and German.) The Germans do NOT use the word "German" for themselves or their language, but rather Deutsch(e) (see above). Further, the Germans do not use a form of the word "Dutch" for the people and language of  the Netherlands, but rather they use "Holländisch" (pronounced "hole-lend-ish), which we English speakers do not use, but of course, we do use "Holland" interchangeably with The Netherlands for the name of the country. German does use the adjective "germanisch" for "Germanic;" that is, relating to all of the Germanic peoples, languages and dialects.

Teuton-This term is not as extensively used as it once was, and I guess I should be glad, because it can also be confusing, because English speakers have frequently used it interchangeably for German or Germanic, but it really means the latter, Germanic. It came from the Teutones, a Germanic tribe from the time before Julius Caesar, but who were called Teutonicus in Old Latin. Linguists feel that it is just another form of "teuta," which meant people (See "Dutch," if you dare, above), from Indo European. In English, it was used to refer to the Germanic languages and the various Germanic tribes; however, just to muddy the waters, from the mid 1800s on, it was also used just for "German." I guess turn about is fair play, as many German speakers mess up the difference between English and British; frequently using British (including the Irish, as the Irish are British, in the sense that they inhabit one of the British Isles) when they mean English, and using English when they mean British. I can attest to this, too. One time years ago in Frankfurt, Germany, I was sitting in the barroom of my favorite restaurant there. The bar had several types of draft beer, including "Guinness Stout" (which is from Ireland, in case you don't know). A German guy at the bar was talking with another German guy seated at a small table near the bar. In Germany, beer glasses almost always have the name of the beer you're being served on the glass, as I believe the various breweries supply them to advertise their products. The guy at the table was drinking Guinness and the other guy asked him what kind of beer it was. He quickly replied, "Englishes Bier." Of course, this means "English beer." I'm sure the Irish would NOT be amused.

Saxon-This comes from Old Germanic "sakhsan," which seems to have meant "someone skilled with a knife or sword, swordsman," as many of the Germanic dialects had a form of the root "sax" to mean a knife, sword or dagger. The belief is that it may ultimately go back to the Indo European root word related to "saw," the cutting instrument. In Old English is was usually spelled "Seaxe." The Saxons were one of the Germanic tribes (and probably the largest contingent) that migrated from NW Europe to Britain in the 400s A.D., and who, along with their other Germanic allies, eventually subdued most of the area now known as England. Many Saxons stayed behind on the Continent, however, and Germany still has two states in existence to this day, called Sachsen-Anhalt and Sachsen, as well as another, "Niedersachsen," or Lower Saxony. Sachsen is translated into English as "Saxony." The Low German dialect of northern Germany is often referred to as "Saxon." The Saxons of England referred to their relatives in northern Germany as "Ealdesaxe;" that is, "Old Saxons." Many English place names bear reference to the Saxons: Sussex, Middlesex, Essex. In many Celtic dialects to this day, a "Saxon" means Englishman. And in Finland, their term for Germany literally means "Land of the Saxons."

Lombards-The Lombards were a Germanic tribe that had a major impact on Italy. They settled in the northern part of Italy, and one of the Italian provinces is named after them, "Lombardia," which English has as "Lombardy." The Old Germanic name of this tribe was "Langgobardoz," which was passed onto Old English as "Langbeardas." Many linguists have taken this to mean "long beards," assuming that they were so named from having extensive facial hair. Other linguists feel that the compound name comes from "lang," which also meant "tall" in times past, but standard English doesn't use it that way anymore (it still has the duel meaning, "long and tall," in German), plus "Bardi," which they assume was the name of a particular Germanic tribe. The idea was that some of these "Bardi" were taller than their contemporaries, and thus the "lang" was added, and it remained as the name for the entire tribe. So, take your pick. When you hear people say about blond Italians in northern Italy, this is because the more commonly dark-haired Latins mixed with various Germanic and Celtic people long ago, and these groups "tended" to have lighter colored hair from what seems to be known of them. Anyway, later in time, a good number of people in the Lombard part of Italy got involved in financial matters, and the term "Lombard" came to mean "bankers, loan dealers and pawnbrokers," besides the original meaning for the particular Germanic tribe or person from the Italian province. This meaning was picked up by French, and from French it was picked up by Low German, Dutch and English, although I dare say in modern times that few English speakers would recognize that meaning. London has a "Lombard Street," which supposedly goes back to the 1500s, because of bankers having set up business there. (From my readings, I can't tell if these bankers may have come to England FROM northern Italy, or whether they were just English bankers, and the "financial" meaning of "Lombard" was applied to them and thus to the street.)

Danes-In history, I guess there have been some GREAT Danes! (And don't HOUND me over that remark, either, dog-gone-it! ) Anyway, many linguists believe there is strong evidence that the term goes back to Old High German "tanar," which meant a "sand bank." (If this theory is correct, there's that "t" and "d" situation again.) Since these North Germanic people tended to live near the sea, where sandy areas are common, that is the notion behind the association with "sand bank." In Old English it was "Dene" (this was plural), but it was used by Englishmen as the term for ALL North Germanic groups, in general. (see "Norse," below) Over time (primarily in the 8th and 9th Centuries), the Danes frequently landed in England, subduing and then even settling in large portions of the eastern and northeastern part of the country. Under influence of their own term for themselves, "Daner," English spelling and pronunciation changed to "Dane." (Unlike the other Germanic languages, the North Germanic languages back then had a tendency to end many words in "r." I don't know why that is, but this word itself is a good example, as English had "Dene," then "Dane," but the Danes had the "r" at the end. Likewise, English had "Viking," German had "Wiking," but North Germanic had "Vikingr.") By the 1700s, the term was being used for a large breed of dog. If you're something of a historian, you might remember the "Danelaw." This term came about in the 9th Century for that part of England under Danish rule. While many Danes had settled in England prior to the Norman Invasion, most remained behind on the North Sea and Baltic Sea coasts, and the area became known as Denmark, which of course has the "e" spelling, while in German it is "Dänemark," Low German "Deenmark, Danish itself has "Danmark," as do Norwegian and Swedish, but Icelandic has "Danmörk."

Norse-This term is derived from "north." An Old English word, "Nordman/Nort(h)man" was used for what we now call "Norwegians." The North Germanic term was "norsk." The Dutch used "Noorsch" for Norwegian. The Old English term "Nordman/Nort(h)man" was borrowed by the French dialect spoken along and near the NW coast, across the Channel from England, as "Normand." When the "Northmen" raided into that area in the 8th Century, the Frankish king gave them the territory to settle in, as a sort of ransom payoff to get them to stop raiding into the Paris area (they were sailing up the rivers from the coast). Thus the area became known as "Normandy" and the people became "Normans." Writer Sir Walter Scott seems to be responsible for the term "Norseman," as he used it in his writings, and I therefore take it that there is no record of its use prior to him.

This has gotten more involved than I intended, so I will have to continue with Part Two about various Germanic groups (including the Vandals, the Burgundians, the Franks, the Goths, the Frisians), hopefully in the not too distant future.

* Mercia was "Mierce" in Old English. The word is related to both modern nouns "mark" and to the now rather archaic "march." The latter means "boundary, border." German has the closely related noun (die) Mark, which also means "border area."

Can We Get Out Of This Mess? Part Two

Going back a few years, virtually all of the so called “experts” didn’t see the problems of the truck gathering speed coming down the highway toward the economy. The drum beat of “free markets” seems to have warped their minds. Like fanatics in anything, they put their minds into suspended animation and allowed themselves to be blinded by their total belief in the system that had been concocted in their imaginations. Further, they were so disconnected from what was happening to real live Americans, who were basically unassociated with Wall Street or corporate board rooms, that they couldn’t grasp the hardships that were befalling many of their countrymen.*** When signs of economic trouble began to become more apparent, they chose to hide behind the nonsense of their free market slogans. They said to those who tried to sound the alarm, that they were nothing more than like “Chicken Little,” claiming that the sky was falling. Thus began the “period of denial.”

Denial led many of the “experts” to underestimate what was and is going on. This whole process continues, as, in my own opinion, even the new Obama Administration doesn’t quite get it. They get it more than the Bush Administration, but the sky could have fallen on Bush, and he’d have probably seen it as some new signal from God. Beware of people who claim to hear from God or gods. We can excuse the religious writers from ancient times for claiming to hear from deities, as they didn’t know any better. Folks, today hearing voices and getting secret messages from a deity is called “mental illness.” That’s the name for it. At least when Bush was drinking, he’d have had a better excuse. And Bush claimed to be fighting against “Muslim religious extremists,” which they are, but it also takes one to know one.

So far, Obama permitted the “stimulus package” to be crafted outside of his own oversight. While I understand the big picture, it doesn’t mean that the Republicans and some Democrats didn’t have some very valid points about some silly parts to this package. For such an important piece of legislation, and one that may well go a long way towards defining his presidency, Obama let this one get away from him. The idea that $10-$15 more a week in most people’s pay (due to tax cuts) will somehow save the Republic from the catastrophe we’re in, is nonsense!!!^^^ And to get the tax cut, you have to have a paycheck; something millions of American workers no longer have!!! Do you want to smack Pelosi and Reid, or do you want me to do it?

Obama’s basic premises are correct, in my opinion; that is, rebuild American infrastructure, give a major boost to renewable energy sources and expand this energy segment into a major job producer, upgrade the electric grid, provide financial aid to states so that they don‘t have to layoff workers and cut services.+++ The bill that went through Congress was pretty much lacking in imagination, except for pet projects by many Democrats in Congress. There needed to be far MORE money, for example, for infrastructure, as most of the folks who have made studies of America’s infrastructure problems say that it will take 2 to 3 TRILLION dollars to bring the country up to some acceptable standard.

While I didn’t exactly expect all of that in this bill, it only provides about a cup of water in a five gallon bucket. Now, they can always come back later and say, “The original bill was just a down payment, and we need....(fill in the amount) to do more.” That’s not to let the Republicans off the hook. After the bill passed, a couple of Republican congressmen released statements to their constituents about projects in the package for their own districts, while failing to note that they had voted AGAINST the bill. Talk about having it both ways!!! Okay, these are politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, and that’s what they do, and we shouldn‘t be surprised by it. The idea that somehow politics will be transformed because of economic calamity is wishful thinking. Which brings me to another political situation that has garnered much media attention...bipartisanship.

I think its good that the president tried to court Republicans, but this can only go so far. They were able to peel off the three moderate Republicans in the Senate,~!~* but House Republicans remained united in opposition to the bill. I’m not naive, and there was lots of political positioning by both sides during the whole process. Again, the bipartisan outreach can only go so far, as some Republicans, especially those many on the far right, will NEVER go along with Obama’s proposals. We saw this during the Clinton years. Clinton was far from some leftwing ideologue, and many of his proposals were not what a number of Democrats in Congress really favored, but the Republican rightwing opposed the plans anyway. Polls show that Americans want the politicians to work together, but there are major philosophical differences at times, and bridging that gap, unless absolutely necessary, may cause more problems that what it would be worth.

Anyway, down the highway comes that speeding truck. So far, the response has been “Let’s throw some orange barrels in front of it to stop it.” The Obama Administration is proposing a way to help on foreclosures and another way to help the financial system. It remains to be seen exactly what the proposals are, and their potential to stem the onrushing truck. To me, if they don’t get out of the economic orthodoxy, and quit the free market malarkey, and start thinking outside the box, they may not be able to stop that speeding truck from running over all of us.

The Bush Administration, along with Fed Chairman Bernanke, fooled around with these banks far too long. They ended up taking the step of partially nationalizing some of the most troubled banks, but every time we heard how things were fixed, another crisis arose. The time has come (long since, in my opinion) to nationalize the banks. If the government is just going to keep throwing money at them, take the damned things over!!! Later, when things stabilize (I hope that’s not wishful thinking on my part), they can be sold off again, in whole or in part, to private investors. All of this crap to try to preserve some semblance of free market capitalism has done little to halt that speeding truck. I guarantee the free marketers, if the banks are nationalized, I WON’T wear a little red socialist flag on my shirt. We’ve had this hand wringing by the capitalists before in our history, for instance, when Roosevelt closed the banks in a “bank holiday.” The world didn’t end, and Americans didn’t don little red flag pins then either.

Well, this is going to require a "Part Three," if not "Part Four," (Hey, what can I say? I'm verbose!) but I promise to post the word histories first, hopefully by tomorrow.

***My absolute disdain for these people leads me to offer the opinion that they wouldn’t have cared what was happening to their fellow Americans anyway, as they were/are focused on one thing and one thing only...their self gratification at mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money!!!

^^^I hope I’m wrong, and I’ll be more than happy to admit such in the future when we can evaluate something of the effects of this package.

+++Take note, Obama and his people have basically been careful to say that the package will “create or save” 3 to 4 million jobs.

~!~*There was more political posturing here, in my opinion, as the idea that shaving off about $50billion from the bill will save the country from financial disaster is ludicrous, especially when the income tax cut was lessened. I thought that’s what Republicans wanted, more tax cuts. The original proposal, which was pretty much Obama’s campaign promise tax cut, was whittled down in the final bill. So help me, you can’t take your eye off of them for three seconds, and I mean people in both parties. That’s my bipartisanship for today. Franklin Roosevelt didn't worry much about the discredited Republicans of his time. In fact, as to the wealthy, he made reference to them in a somewhat famous speech where he mentioned how they hated him, but that, "I welcome their hatred!!!" That's the attitude we need now, and I echo FDR's sentiment!!!

Can We Get Out Of This Mess?

Calvin Coolidge was president during much of the era known to history as "The Roaring Twenties." *** Coolidge was a conservative, including in his use of the English language, as he conserved words to the American press and to the American public. As the election of 1928 approached, Coolidge called together members of the press and made a startling announcement. Let's see...do you want me to tell you EVERYTHING he said? Okay, but you asked for it. Let me get my fingers limbered up....flex...flex...flex. Ready? Here we go: "I do not choose to run for president in 1928." And with that, Coolidge walked out of the room. Whew! I'm worn out from typing his statement!

Many Americans wondered why Coolidge had opted out of another term, as he most certainly would have been re-elected. Stories circulated, and I can't tell you with absolute certainty that any of these stories was 100% true, but there's probably some truth to them. One story kind of sums up all of the other stories about Coolidge's choice to step down as president, although the story does make Coolidge something of a prophet, and a pretty accurate prophet at that. This isn't a word-for-word recital, but the gist of the story was that a few months after his announcement that he would not run for president, and his Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, had been nominated on the Republican ticket for president (Hoover too was a likely winner in the election), Coolidge told his wife and a cabinet secretary or two that there was a depression coming. He said that Hoover would have to spend lots of money to combat the downturn, but that he wouldn't spend enough, and that the Democrats would win the presidency, and that they would spend money like water. After that, the country would be ready for him (Coolidge) again. As I said, the story does make Coolidge something of a prophet, but it certainly fits with his general philosophy. "Supposedly" he also told some folks that he had been elected to save money (something he did with great ability), but that the time had come to spend money, and that he did not fit that role. Hmm, if only those modern Republicans had read this info about Coolidge. At least he understood his role, and that the role of the presidency in those times was going to change and that he didn't fit into it, but that his role would return. Thus the ebb and flow of political eras.

Today, we seem to be in a quandary; that is, there's a general feeling that government needs to spend money to help the floundering economy, but the fact is, the country is trillions of dollars in the hole already. Bush inherited a surplus and a declining national debt.^^^ As for the surplus, he cut taxes, with much of that money going to the wealthiest Americans, who already had plenty, and who frequently just took the tax savings and invested it in things that drove up the cost of necessary items, like oil and gasoline and various food stuffs. This was a tremendous transfer of wealth from middle and lower income Americans to the wealthy, and in the case of oil, to foreign countries, many of them not known for their loving affection for America. Of course, the greedy bastards were also heavily involved in “mortgage backed securities,” which has proven to be one of the daggers thrust into the heart of the American economy. The “sit on their class” showed how they had become an entire “industry” unto themselves, albeit one that produced nothing tangible. At least the greedy barons of the 1800s and early 1900s produced steel, oil, coal, railroads, ships, etc. Further as to the surplus, we got involved in two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, and they continue to this day, and Bush NEVER asked the American people to help pay to fight those wars, except in the all important category of blood. Add to this the need for “Homeland Security,“ after "9/11," and more money went out the door. Add to that the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and it shouldn’t take a mathematics professor to tell you that the surplus was long gone, but that you might need a mathematics professor to total up the increasing debt. Which brings us to the national debt, it went up by TRILLIONS under Bush and the Republican controlled Congress; more than under ANY other president in American history, and we‘re still counting. Mr. Bush’s legacy will be with us for many, many years to come.

Now we have a new administration, and while it has only been on the job for a few weeks, it seems to me that it, too, is trying to preserve the fantasy of the system being “intact.” In my opinion, this is not going to work. It already hasn’t worked under Bush. Both administrations seem intent on trying to pretend that this is still a free market (crapola) economy. It isn't!!! Bush and his minions took us back in time to try to relive a part of history when there was little regulation of business and industry, but when that very system got into trouble, just like during the Great Depression, these same "free marketers" turned to the government for help, hat in hand, and the Bush "free marketers" offered them billions. That was the end of this free market nonsense. Now we need to return to the reality of 2009, not 1929!!!

End of "Part One." I know many of you like the "word histories," and I will be posting several "word histories" in a separate article either before or after "Part Two." I have much of the work on the word histories already finished.

*** Coolidge was vice president under Warren G. Harding, and they took office in March, 1921 (in those days, presidents took office on March 4th, not January 20th, as they do today). Harding died in office in 1923, and Coolidge became president. He ran for a term of his own in 1924, but chose not to run for another term in 1928.

^^^Without checking on my memory of the facts, the country actually paid DOWN the national debt in the late 1990s (both Clinton AND the Republican Congress deserve credit for this), and this was the first time a substantial amount had been paid on the national debt since.....guess who? Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s! While admirable, both situations also had consequences to the downside, as without government debt for investors to buy up, off they went into other forms of investments, like the stock market in the 1920s and 2000s, and oil and mortgage backed securities in the 2000s.

Are Economic Predictions Worth Anything?

The answer to the title question is, "Yes, to those who get paid to make the forecasts."

Continuing unemployment claims are now at the highest level on record; nearly 5 million. Many, if not most, American workers are scared to death that they may be next to join the unemployment line, followed by potential bankruptcy or foreclosure, or BOTH, or if they rent, that the next knock at the door they hear will be the landlord with an eviction notice in hand. There seems to be little debate that the United States is in the most serious economic crisis since the 1930s, although some are still loathe to admit it. If you go back over the economic forecasts by many economists, both private and governmental, of the last couple of years, you'll find that almost all never predicted that any such thing could happen, let alone would happen. All predictions have been far too rosy, and there are still some who are in denial about what is happening, or where we are headed, at least in the near term. For regular readers here, I hate to tell you, "I told you so," but "I TOLD YOU SO!" I wish with all my heart that I'd been wrong.

Now, I'm not an economist or financial expert. I had a high school class in economics ***, and a few courses in economics in college. That was it! The details of economics and finance can be complex, but the basics are not really all that tough. Just start with an evaluation of what's going on in your own life and in the lives of people close to you, and in the neighborhood or area where you live. That can tell you a lot. Are you having difficulty paying your bills? Are your kids or grand kids struggling? Did your neighbors lose their house to foreclosure? Did the plant a few blocks away just layoff some people? Are prices so high that you have to cut back on things to get by? Well, any one of these things, or even a combination of some of these things may not be a true predictor of where the American economy was headed, as you do have to listen or read some things about other parts of the country too.

In recent years, it didn't take someone with the mind of an Einstein to see that the country was headed in the wrong direction economically, and no one will EVER confuse George W. Bush's mind with that of an Einstein; now with the mind of Einstein's dog? Maybe. Alright, I know that was brutal, so an apology is in order: "I'm sorry for the comparison, Einstein's dog." Income statistics from the U.S. Government, not progressive or liberal groups, showed that the rich were getting richer, and that basically, the rest of us were losing ground at some varying degree. Debt stats also showed that Americans were deeply in debt. The rise of oil, gas, heating oil, and natural gas prices were going to strangle the budgets of many Americans, and that these prices were causing a tremendous transfer of wealth from poor and middle class Americans to the wealthy and to other countries; namely, the oil producing countries. For better or worse, America is dependent on oil and gasoline. When gasoline rises as dramatically as it did during the Bush years, the price of just about EVERYTHING ELSE had to go up, too, as just about everything we do is related in some way to gasoline. Then a few years ago, the foreclosure stats started to tick up; slowly at first. Those economic forecasters I mentioned earlier said, "Bah! This is just a blip. Everything will be fine." Then foreclosures increased even more. "Bah! This is such a small percentage of homeowners that it means nothing significant." As energy costs escalated, those raking in enormous profits couldn't see that the situation could bring down the economy, as they were too dizzy with glee over the many millions they were making (millions I might add, that most could never spend in their entire lives, even if they could start over in the womb). Home prices soared and so did the stock market.^^^ The rich were giddy as one egomaniac tried to make more money than the other egomaniacs. Meanwhile, foreclosure stats crept a bit higher, and there was also a slight uptick in late payments and defaults on other types of credit, like credit cards and car loans.


Further, there were many stories about the decline of American manufacturing jobs. Now, some of these jobs were lost due to technology, but others were sent overseas, the result of the ever increasing free trade agreements negotiated by the Bush Administration and approved by the Republican-majority Congress (That's not to say that all Democrats were innocent, however, when the Dems took control after the 2006 elections, Bush had much more difficulty getting his trade agreements approved by Congress). Not only were manufacturing jobs being lost to other countries, but even service industry jobs. Ever had a computer problem or Internet service problem where you had to call for the company for help? If so, chances are you reached a customer service person India, not that I have anything against India.

All the while we heard the continuing mantra from the Bush Administration and many Republicans that there was nothing to be done to solve these problems, because they believed in what can be summed up in this basic philosophy: "The free markets can regulate themselves, and they're never wrong. Government can't interfere. If gasoline prices go so high that you can't go to work, the hell with you! Get another job closer to home, you loser!. Do you think we're going to cut back on the amount of money the TRULY SUCCESSFUL people of this country, the investment class,### can make? With all the mounting statistics and the do nothing philosophy of Bush and many Republicans in Congress, something was going to have to give...and it did.

*** A little side note: Just to point out how the Depression had so traumatized many people, the high school teacher wanted his class to learn the basics about the stock market. He asked that every student give like a quarter (I think that was about the amount, but hey, this was in the 1960s; I can't remember what I did thirty seconds ago....now let's see...what was I doing?), and he would then purchase one share of stock that the class would then follow throughout the school term. At the end of the year, he would sell the share and divide whatever the proceeds were among each of us. My mother had lived through the Depression, and I casually mentioned to her what the teacher was doing. Now, my mother knew absolutely NOTHING (zero, zilch) about the stock market, or how it worked. However, she remembered the "Crash" of 1929, and all I had to do was mention that the teacher was going to buy stock, and she was TERRIFIED. Even my explanation that the worst thing that could happen was that I'd lose a quarter didn't calm her. My dad understood financial matters very well, but his assurances didn't satisfy her either. That's how much fear many people of the Depression era had about events of those times. By the way, if I remember correctly, the stock price didn't change much, and we all got about a quarter back (Hmm, I wonder if the Cleveland Browns should try this...they need a "quarterback"...get it?).

^^^If she were still alive, I'd have to say, "Sorry about that, Mom."

###Known to me as "the sit on their ass class."

Is Unemployment Compensation Failing?

Here is the link to what I feel is a very disturbing article about unemployment benefits and the millions of unemployed Americans who are NOT receiving benefits from the program. Like so many things in life, if you've never had need to file for benefits, you may say, "Ah, there's no problem," or "We can't take care of everyone!" or, if you're one of those great conservative moralists, you might resort to one of those infamous...ah...I mean famous lines like, "Pull yourself up by your boot straps," or "There's no free lunch." Do these lines count for bankers and CEOs, too? Anyway, with the economy in a tumble, just think what could happen to you if your job is terminated. What if YOU can't collect benefits? What will happen to you?

(No word history this time)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29084715/

The President Learns A Lesson (Hopefully)

We're learning more details about how the current situation developed over the "stimulus bill." First, according to many stories on cable news channels, then President-Elect Obama gave Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats an outline of what he wanted in the bill to be submitted to Congress. Pelosi and others then filled in the details, that was "Mistake #1." As I noted in my previous article, a president is the leader of his/her political party. The bill needed to be fully designed by the incoming administration and the economic team that Obama had assembled up to that point. Congressional leaders needed to be put on a leash to support the president's bill when it was introduced in the House. (Again, I understand the "separation of powers," but while civics classes are nice, this is the REAL world of politics, not a classroom.)

What I don't quite understand as yet is, did Obama's economic team "sign off" on the bill that was to be introduced in the House of Representatives? Did Rahm Emanuel, a long time political insider, and the new White House Chief of Staff sign off on it? If so, he especially should have seen the potential red flags in the House bill. If neither the economic team, nor Emanuel gave their blessing to this bill, then they should have told the president of the potential pitfalls, or said, "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" One way or the other, this was "Mistake #2." Legislation that has such a strong attachment to a president needs to be steered through Congress at every turn. The White House let this bill get out of their control.

Congress is filled with 535 egos; 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate. Turn them loose and you can have an absolute mess. The House of Representatives tends to be a bit more partisan than the Senate, and while Democrats included tax cuts more fervently supported by Republicans, the Democratic leaders knew all along that they did not need Republican votes for the package, as Democrats have a fairly substantial majority. By putting questionable items in the bill, like the now infamous millions of dollars for contraceptives, the Democratic leaders opened the whole bill to attack.*** In fairness, Pelosi removed certain items from the House bill, but by then the damage had been done.

President Obama made a major effort to court Republican votes, and polls show that the public likes that. Here again, however, this is not a civics lesson or camping trip where all hold hands and sing songs they know by heart. This is rough and tumble politics, as the new president has now found out. Republicans have taken a real drubbing in the last two elections, and they are looking for a way to right their sinking ship. House Democrats gave them some ammo. The adminstration virtually ceded the stage to Republicans and allowed them to focus attention on relatively small parts and shortcomings of the bill, but it certainly worked, and we in the public paid attention.+++ Republicans really have nothing to lose by making lots of noise about this bill. If the bill passes in some form, and I think it probably will, and the economy is righted within the next year or so, Democrats will get credit, and Republicans will probably not win many elections for quite some time. If it passes with most Republicans opposing it, and the economy still languishes in recession, they'll be able to claim that they were against it from the start and that Democrats are to blame, which will be true!

Now the bill is in the Senate, where at least three Republicans have announced support for a stripped down version of the House bill. While many folks, including me, have wanted the bill to be trimmed of certain things, the question now is, "Did they strip out money that was necessary?" From what has been made public, a great deal of money to aid beleaguered states has been given the ax. Further, money for education has also gone under the knife. I realize that the country will have to borrow the money for whatever amount ends up in this bill when it finally passes, but the idea that perhaps fifty to a hundred billion dollars is going to save the Republic from bankruptcy is nonsense. From various guests on CNBC (a cable business channel), the economy has taken hits to the tune of between like 15 and 20 trillion dollars in the last year or two. When you see it in those terms, 50 or 100 billion pales. Congress needs to get the silly nonsensical things out (and many Democrats agree with that) and get the bill passed and signed into law; with or without major Republican support.

*** Understand, I'm not attacking contraceptives, or lawn seed for the D.C. Mall, or any of the other provisions that have been under attack in this bill. Many or all may be worthy causes, but they didn't belong in this bill.

+++ Then again, this is how it works. Republicans showed us the nonsense.

Word History:
Thug-noun-This is an interesting word, and I'll bet you didn't know that it is NOT an original English, or even a Germanic, word, but its roots do seem to come from Indo European. It came to English from India!!! India was a British colony for a couple of hundred years, and Hindi (an Indo European language related to English much, much further down the family tree) had "thag," (I believe the "a" sound is like "ah," and thus we have the closely pronounced "thug" in English) which means "cheat, swindler." During British rule in India, there was a large gang of these "thags" who robbed and murdered their captives by strangulation. The word caught on in English. It is believed by many linguists that the Hindi word goes back to Sanskrit (an ancient Indo European language) "sthaga," which meant "cunning or fraudulent," perhaps from the verb "sthagayati," which meant "to cover, conceal." This in turn went back to Indo European "steg," which meant "cover." The "s" sound died out, or perhaps because it wasn't prominently pronounced anyway. When I mention that a sound died out, don't forget, we do it all of the time in spoken English. For example, we have "appreciate," but it is not uncommon to hear folks give the retort for a favor as, "Thanks, I 'preciate it." Further, don't forget, at one time we pronounced the "k" in a number of words like, "knock" and "knight" (the "k" sound is still pronounced in close English relative German "knock/knack" and "Knecht," which are the same words).

What About The Stimulus Bill?

First, a president is the head of his (or at sometime in the future, her) respective political party. As such, President Obama is going to have to show that he is indeed in charge of his own party, and that major bills submitted to either house of Congress have been largely crafted by his administration, with input from congressional leaders. This president and his administration should never have permitted the bill that just passed the House of Representatives to be advanced by congressional Democrats. Since that bill passed, I've seen the White House and the president talk about the changes they expect to be made by the Senate. I certainly hope so!!!! Now, I realize that there is a separation of power between the president/the executive branch, and the Congress/the legislative branch, but this whole episode seems to tell me that the administration did NOT have its ducks in a row. Contraceptives, lawn care for the D.C. Mall, etc....come on now House leaders!!! Let's get with the program!!! THE ECONOMY, STUPID!!! After all the touting of infrastructure repair, there really wasn't much in the House bill!!! Much more is needed. The president needs to smack some folks up side the head!!! I'd like to know how much Treasury Secretary Geithner and economic advisor Summers had to do with this House bill. I have a feeling, it wasn't much.

Myself, I'm of the opinion that there needs to be a larger amount of money spent to help fix the economy.*** Now, to be fair, the stimulus package now being discussed in the Senate will only be a part of any recovery plan for the economy. From everything I've heard, many of the banks are still unsound and they will require much more bailout money. Further, until the housing and credit situation is stabilized (notice I didn't even say "fixed"), I can't imagine the economy advancing much at all. Keep in mind folks, this mess has now spread over much of the world!With more people losing their jobs, do you seriously think that foreclosures will somehow go away? Or that credit card bills will get paid by magic? They need to start throwing lifelines to those folks who are drowning, not just keep giving money to bankers and rich folks.

Further, states and local government entities are in terrible financial shape, and that situation isn't getting better either. For years, when the economy turned down, we saw many hardships in cities. Now the problems that had for so long been associated with cities have spread into suburbs, which really are nothing more than extensions of cities anyway: unemployment, foreclosures, food pantries, closed businesses, lack of money for resident services. The mess is going to take years to fix, IF we can even fix it.

There are some who feel that the country can't spend its way out of this economic situation, but I find it interesting that I frequently hear some saying things like, "The New Deal didn't stop the Depression." (True, but it helped many people, and unemployment did come down substantially, although nowhere near to the level needed to reverse the Depression.) Then some of these same people say, "The big spending for World War Two ended the Depression." You can't have it both ways, "Spending doesn't stop economic downturns, but World War Two spending ended the Depression." Duh!!! Further, while I hate the comparison, but there's certainly evidence that Hitler's (the SOB) infrastructure spending and military buildup in Germany during the 1930s ended the Depression there.

*** The link provided will take you to my REAL overall beliefs about what needs to be done to fix this mess we're in, but I'm not naive, the wealthy and business interests will NEVER let anything like this happen, as long as they have any say in things.

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2008/11/bailout-money-no-questions-asked.html

Note on Word History:
In the last posting for "one," I should also have noted that the indefinite articles "a" and "an" (as in "a pear," or "an apple") both developed from our word for "one," which at one time in English was spelled "an," and pronounced with a long "a" sound.

Harry-(not the name)-verb-This word is probably more familiar to most people in the past tense form, "harried," as in, "Our aircraft harried the enemy troops as they tried to withdraw." The word goes back to Indo European root "koro," which meant "war" (Lithuanian^^^ still has "karas," meaning "war). The Old Germanic noun offshoot was "kharjaz," which meant "a force armed for war;" that is, "an army." The Old Germanic verb form was "kharohan." The "k" sound died out, leaving the "h" sound, and giving Old English "hergian," which meant "to make war, ravage, or plunder." It also took on the meaning of "raiding enemy positions," and eventually also meant "to harass, cause distress." The noun in Old English was "here," and meant "army, armed force." Close English relative German has "Heer" (pronounced like "hair") for army, which developed from Old High German "har." Old Norse had "herr." In English, "harrow" also developed out of the same word, and we say, "I had a harrowing experience."

^^^ Lithuanian is also an Indo European language related to English, but further down the family tree. Many linguists feel that it is the closest "living" language (that is, still in use) to Indo European.