The White House wrote a response to a New York Times article that accuses Bush and his governance for the mortgage meltdown. Now, Bush is NOT responsible for the mortgage and credit problem per se. He didn't make the bad loans. But the NYT article is correct in asserting that the Bush philosophy is part of the reason for the current debacle. He IS responsible for agreeing to remove much of the oversight that was meant to prevent gross abuses like this (along with the Republican controlled Congress from 2000-2006). He IS responsible for ignoring all the warning signs early on and sitting on his thumbs. He IS responsible for increasing national debt loads to the point where even U.S. debt spending will not have its usual anti-recession influence. But no one can or should blame him for actually making the bad loans. He helped make the situation easier to fall into. He didn't actually dig the entire hole.
The best part of the White House response was, and I quote, "The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view." Now, if you can't figure out why this is just the most horrific statement ever released by the current administration, then I can't help you. But I will make it easier- Iraq. The administration had plans in place to invade Iraq before the 9/11 incident. They've never made any bones about it. They ignored the evidence pointing to no WMDs. They ignored the people on the ground who best knew the situation. They ignored the domestic voices that questioned the policy and the data it was based on. They ignored the people that stood up and declared this to be a bad war on policy and humanitarian grounds. So the White House can just kiss the fattest part of my ass and I'm glad they will go down in history as one of the worst examples of American 'leadership'.
They've spent the last 8 years ignoring evidence and reaching conclusions they wanted. They've ignored privacy issues, energy issues, climate issues. They've ignored genocide. They've ignored the 70+ percent of Americans that have stood up and declared our national direction and foreign policy is wrong. So I don't want to hear a peep out of them declaring someone else is doing the same thing. Until you get your own house in order, you have no right, no basis, and no ethical ground to make these kind of accusations against someone else. Absolutely disgusting.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
Wow...just wow
I want to get away from politics, but it keeps dragging me back. I saw this headline and almost had to change my underwear (not in a good way): Confiscating toy guns part of US mission in Iraq.
Let's make this quick or I might suffer death by idiocy.
1) We'll take away toy guns from children in other countries but raise ours to believe guns are the answer to problems - witness laxer rules about guns in national parks, war as a solution to political problems, and unflinching adherence to poor readings of the 2nd amendment, protections for gun manufacturers from lawsuits, and allow concealed weapons (possibly on college campuses soon).
2) We fought an entire revolutionary war because of rules handed down by external authorities abridging personal freedoms- now we are telling Iraqis what their kids can and can't play with. Next comes a sugar tax.
3) We are, ostensibly, aiming to make Iraq a less violent place by reaching out to the kids - at home sell all manner of guns aimed at children: cap guns, air rifles, compressed air guns, BB guns, and paintball guns.
One of the more violent nations (and the nation with the highest per capita rate of privately owned gun deaths) telling another nation not to let their kids play with guns is the epitome of hypocrisy. When people ask why the rest of the world doesn't like us, remember stuff like this. Also remember that the U.S. was one of only two countries that refused to sign the ban on cluster bombs and munitions this past month. Hooray for violence!
Let's make this quick or I might suffer death by idiocy.
1) We'll take away toy guns from children in other countries but raise ours to believe guns are the answer to problems - witness laxer rules about guns in national parks, war as a solution to political problems, and unflinching adherence to poor readings of the 2nd amendment, protections for gun manufacturers from lawsuits, and allow concealed weapons (possibly on college campuses soon).
2) We fought an entire revolutionary war because of rules handed down by external authorities abridging personal freedoms- now we are telling Iraqis what their kids can and can't play with. Next comes a sugar tax.
3) We are, ostensibly, aiming to make Iraq a less violent place by reaching out to the kids - at home sell all manner of guns aimed at children: cap guns, air rifles, compressed air guns, BB guns, and paintball guns.
One of the more violent nations (and the nation with the highest per capita rate of privately owned gun deaths) telling another nation not to let their kids play with guns is the epitome of hypocrisy. When people ask why the rest of the world doesn't like us, remember stuff like this. Also remember that the U.S. was one of only two countries that refused to sign the ban on cluster bombs and munitions this past month. Hooray for violence!
Monday, December 8, 2008
Thank You Thank You Thank You
Thank you, GM. Thank you. Thank you.
Finally, someone from one of the Big Three was willing to step up and take the blame for the financial collapse of their operations.
Meanwhile, the CEO of Ford is still flogging the dead bison, swearing that Americans really do want F-150s more than they want fuel-efficient sedans. Yet if asked why Hyundai’s sales didn’t plummet 41% in November, he has no answer.
Meanwhile, this jackass from Kelly Blue Book is blaming Government itself for the failure of the Big Three because rather than block foreign auto-makers from selling cars in America, they had the audacity to give Americans more choice and the Big Three a little competition. Now, maybe he is correct on some points: perhaps in 1975 the federal government did institute “byzantine regulations that required American manufacturers to build (or at least market) fuel-efficient cars.” And perhaps “American car companies were not geared up to build small, fuel-efficient cars, but foreign manufacturers were.”
So the hell what? That’s like demanding your neighbors buy only from your son’s lemonade stand even though he charges $15 for a lemon wedge in gutter water, while around the corner another kid sells real lemonade for a buck. Even worse: it’s like demanding that even though your child has been told about 30 times that it’s not customary to stir the lemonade with his nose-picking finger.
But even that jackass hit the hammer on the head about Americans being exposed to import vehicles: “Many American consumers liked what they found.” What they found were cheaper, more reliable cars that were cheaper to fill, cheaper to fix, and came with better warranties. How dare our government give us the option of having that?
At any rate, I take any shoulder-patting of the US auto industry with a giant grain of rock-salt: these are the same companies that intentionally bought up technology for, and buried research into, electric cars and alternative fuels for decades because they couldn’t see the writing on the wall until about 3 months ago when it read “only Congress can help you now (again).”
Like many business models in many industries, the Big Three are dinosaurs that deserve to die, or at the very least be replaced by something with a few feathers. They’re the record companies destroying the singles format with the internet on the horizon. They’re the banks giving loans to people who shouldn’t have loans, and offering credit to people who have shown no inclination to use credit responsibly.
On some level, I tie it to the “experience” argument barely cold now from the Presidential election. According to so damn many people, when you have a choice to make, you always go with experience. Yet it was experienced auto industry execs that couldn’t see what any college-age student could: that if you’re not a farmer or construction worker, why in the fuck do you need a giant truck? Experienced record execs are still scratching their heads and trying to figure out why CD sales have dropped, and how to make money from this “internet” fad they’ve heard about. And wasn’t it an experienced cabinet that walked us into an illegal war and the biggest deficit in history?
Experience does not always equate with common sense—in fact, quite the opposite sometimes. My grandma falls asleep watching Law & Order and has long conversations with Ice T. My girlfriend’s grandpa thinks that sharks are, quote, “out to get us.” Nearly 200 years of combined human experience, and that’s the best they’ve got.
The people who put together iTunes were not experienced, but record labels just couldn’t seem to realize that people wanted music digitally. The guy who started Facebook was not experienced (though he’s now the youngest billionaire in the world), nor the guys who started World of Warcraft or Netflix. But what those people did have was foresight and a good idea: use the internet to revolutionize the way we consume, which is something virtually no executive with a mutil-million dollar salary and a fancy desk could see.
Their experience was telling them things would be fine--no need to be alarmed-- just as when the comet hit, T-Rex waved his bony arms in the air and thought “It’s all good, I’ll just walk toward this tar pit and look for something to eat…”
Finally, someone from one of the Big Three was willing to step up and take the blame for the financial collapse of their operations.
Meanwhile, the CEO of Ford is still flogging the dead bison, swearing that Americans really do want F-150s more than they want fuel-efficient sedans. Yet if asked why Hyundai’s sales didn’t plummet 41% in November, he has no answer.
Meanwhile, this jackass from Kelly Blue Book is blaming Government itself for the failure of the Big Three because rather than block foreign auto-makers from selling cars in America, they had the audacity to give Americans more choice and the Big Three a little competition. Now, maybe he is correct on some points: perhaps in 1975 the federal government did institute “byzantine regulations that required American manufacturers to build (or at least market) fuel-efficient cars.” And perhaps “American car companies were not geared up to build small, fuel-efficient cars, but foreign manufacturers were.”
So the hell what? That’s like demanding your neighbors buy only from your son’s lemonade stand even though he charges $15 for a lemon wedge in gutter water, while around the corner another kid sells real lemonade for a buck. Even worse: it’s like demanding that even though your child has been told about 30 times that it’s not customary to stir the lemonade with his nose-picking finger.
But even that jackass hit the hammer on the head about Americans being exposed to import vehicles: “Many American consumers liked what they found.” What they found were cheaper, more reliable cars that were cheaper to fill, cheaper to fix, and came with better warranties. How dare our government give us the option of having that?
At any rate, I take any shoulder-patting of the US auto industry with a giant grain of rock-salt: these are the same companies that intentionally bought up technology for, and buried research into, electric cars and alternative fuels for decades because they couldn’t see the writing on the wall until about 3 months ago when it read “only Congress can help you now (again).”
Like many business models in many industries, the Big Three are dinosaurs that deserve to die, or at the very least be replaced by something with a few feathers. They’re the record companies destroying the singles format with the internet on the horizon. They’re the banks giving loans to people who shouldn’t have loans, and offering credit to people who have shown no inclination to use credit responsibly.
On some level, I tie it to the “experience” argument barely cold now from the Presidential election. According to so damn many people, when you have a choice to make, you always go with experience. Yet it was experienced auto industry execs that couldn’t see what any college-age student could: that if you’re not a farmer or construction worker, why in the fuck do you need a giant truck? Experienced record execs are still scratching their heads and trying to figure out why CD sales have dropped, and how to make money from this “internet” fad they’ve heard about. And wasn’t it an experienced cabinet that walked us into an illegal war and the biggest deficit in history?
Experience does not always equate with common sense—in fact, quite the opposite sometimes. My grandma falls asleep watching Law & Order and has long conversations with Ice T. My girlfriend’s grandpa thinks that sharks are, quote, “out to get us.” Nearly 200 years of combined human experience, and that’s the best they’ve got.
The people who put together iTunes were not experienced, but record labels just couldn’t seem to realize that people wanted music digitally. The guy who started Facebook was not experienced (though he’s now the youngest billionaire in the world), nor the guys who started World of Warcraft or Netflix. But what those people did have was foresight and a good idea: use the internet to revolutionize the way we consume, which is something virtually no executive with a mutil-million dollar salary and a fancy desk could see.
Their experience was telling them things would be fine--no need to be alarmed-- just as when the comet hit, T-Rex waved his bony arms in the air and thought “It’s all good, I’ll just walk toward this tar pit and look for something to eat…”
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Panned for common sense
As a follow-up to my last post, during a radio address, Barack announced a major plan to use public works projects as a stimulus boost to get the economy rolling again. He never once used the word spend. Instead, he referred to the works and money as "investments". He was panned by the media for not saying "spend". To be fair, the truth is that money will be spent. Therefore, it is correct to call this spending. BUT, and this is a big but, these are exactly the kinds of spending projects that need to occur. Why?
1) Governments should spend money and lower taxes DURING RECESSIONS while NOT SPENDING and raising taxes during boom times. It's basic economic theory and good practice. Government spending helps jolt the economy during times when consumers are not consuming and pays for those projects via higher taxes when salaries, income, and spending are up.
2) The things bought with that money will provide services for the U.S. for the next 50 years. We are still using the original interstate system (albeit with normal maintenance and repairs) and much of the original electric grid. Now is the time to spend on getting those systems up to date while also supplying a broadband system (since we are in the information age and economy), better educational facilities, and improve alternative energy resources.
3) Invest is the correct word. Spending now in order to reap the economic benefits when the world economy picks up again is, by definition, investing. Investing in improved infrastructure is a good start. We also must invest in our human capital and resources- education and health care being the two biggest areas ripe for improvement.
4) At the end, when the spending is done, WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING TANGIBLE TO SHOW FOR THE EFFORT. We will have roads, bridges, hospitals, solar energy stations, fiber-optic connections, and schools. These are things that make life better for everyone now AND in the future. For comparison- nearly $1 trillion will ultimately (estimated as of today) be given to the financial sector. What will this bailout give? Tangibly...very little. The money being pumped in HAS NOT improved capital flows to the people that need it. If it had, Ford and GM would not be banging their tin cups on the Capitol steps. Maybe, eventually, at some unspecified time, the money will flow. But remember...hundreds of billions of that WILL NEVER BE SEEN BY US because it was used to pay off the people that lost the money. We subsidized their losses so they would have lower losses. We didn't subsidize our losses. That was left up to banks, mortgage holders, and insurance companies.
5) Public works projects provide employment. Giving money to Wall Street does not. At least, not in a direct proportion. These projects keep companies in business and keep people employed.
6) The subsidies already given to energy companies, telecoms, tobacco growers, farmers, and big business (typically in the form of tax breaks, but often via direct cash injections) are worth HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS over the life of the subsidies. Therefore, the government is already handing out this kind of money. Why not let some of that flow to the people at the bottom that are the people that will be employed on these projects? You can't give money to certain people and then tell others that giving them money would be socialism.
So yes, it's spending. Ultimately, it's good spending. Compared to 8 years of bad spending, this seems downright reasonable.
1) Governments should spend money and lower taxes DURING RECESSIONS while NOT SPENDING and raising taxes during boom times. It's basic economic theory and good practice. Government spending helps jolt the economy during times when consumers are not consuming and pays for those projects via higher taxes when salaries, income, and spending are up.
2) The things bought with that money will provide services for the U.S. for the next 50 years. We are still using the original interstate system (albeit with normal maintenance and repairs) and much of the original electric grid. Now is the time to spend on getting those systems up to date while also supplying a broadband system (since we are in the information age and economy), better educational facilities, and improve alternative energy resources.
3) Invest is the correct word. Spending now in order to reap the economic benefits when the world economy picks up again is, by definition, investing. Investing in improved infrastructure is a good start. We also must invest in our human capital and resources- education and health care being the two biggest areas ripe for improvement.
4) At the end, when the spending is done, WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING TANGIBLE TO SHOW FOR THE EFFORT. We will have roads, bridges, hospitals, solar energy stations, fiber-optic connections, and schools. These are things that make life better for everyone now AND in the future. For comparison- nearly $1 trillion will ultimately (estimated as of today) be given to the financial sector. What will this bailout give? Tangibly...very little. The money being pumped in HAS NOT improved capital flows to the people that need it. If it had, Ford and GM would not be banging their tin cups on the Capitol steps. Maybe, eventually, at some unspecified time, the money will flow. But remember...hundreds of billions of that WILL NEVER BE SEEN BY US because it was used to pay off the people that lost the money. We subsidized their losses so they would have lower losses. We didn't subsidize our losses. That was left up to banks, mortgage holders, and insurance companies.
5) Public works projects provide employment. Giving money to Wall Street does not. At least, not in a direct proportion. These projects keep companies in business and keep people employed.
6) The subsidies already given to energy companies, telecoms, tobacco growers, farmers, and big business (typically in the form of tax breaks, but often via direct cash injections) are worth HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS over the life of the subsidies. Therefore, the government is already handing out this kind of money. Why not let some of that flow to the people at the bottom that are the people that will be employed on these projects? You can't give money to certain people and then tell others that giving them money would be socialism.
So yes, it's spending. Ultimately, it's good spending. Compared to 8 years of bad spending, this seems downright reasonable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)