Bailouts and pain medication

Sometimes the general "wisdom" of the people is astoundingly stupid. I could rail for hours about how dumb the idea of every single bail-out proposal we've heard in the last month is, and I'd still have more material left. The problem is that I consistently can't believe that anybody is really stupid enough to think that they're a good idea. I haven't come across one, not one person in my daily life who thinks that it'll work. A few examples of colossal genius have actually told me that no, they don't think it'll work but yes, they think it's a good idea. Ummm. Well, that's a whole new level of stupid, but at least they're aware that it won't work. Unfortunately these mental masters are at least as smart as our congress and media, and likely smarter. Folks in congress either think it WILL work, or agree that it's a good idea anyway.

Alas, I may be shouting into the hurricane here, (or preaching to the choir... I'm not sure which metaphor is more appropriate. Perhaps peeing into the wind?) but I'm going to go ahead and point out some simple reasons that this is really stupid.

For starters, there's historical precedent. The "Great Society" didn't pull us out of the depression, it prolonged it. If WWII hadn't come about, who knows how long it might have taken to get our economy back. I'd like to think that if it hadn't, it would prove undeniably that socialism and government programs don't work, but socialists and liberals don't respond to facts anyway, so... never mind.

Ignoring historical precedent, let's look at the fact that we're rewarding poor performance. If Detroit is paying millions of people not to work, and can't figure out why they're losing to imports, it's not my responsibility to give them more money through the government. It's the equivalent of just charging twice as much for the cars they're already selling, and it's wrong. Their manufacturing model is obviously inefficient, and supporting inefficiency will NEVER improve an economy. It's simply using manufactured "crisis" as an end-run around government directly paying for the retirement and medical benefits for swaths of people who were obviously guaranteed more compensation than their work was worth.

• "But don't I deserve a good living wage, retirement, and medical plan for my 30 years of service to the auto industry?" Answer: No. You deserve what the market says your labor is worth, not what your union forced the company to accept. Wanna know why so many American jobs go overseas? Unions.

Incentives. In order to receive this government "bailout" money, do you realize that there is an incentive for me to not pay my bills? Every version of the plan that I've seen for bailing out lenders includes "helping" home-owners to stay in their homes by lowering the interest rates and/or the principal on their homes, but only if they're at least 90 days delinquent on their payments. So what you're telling me is that you're going to take more taxes from me and the "rich" (slowing the economy further), run them through a government agency (losing money along the way), give those taxes to companies that deserve to fail (promoting and extending inefficiency), and then give more to people who don't pay their bills (and aren't going to start), while finally expecting me to go on paying the higher amount... just because? Awesome. That'll fix things.

Crisis. Who, other than the Obama campaign and our media (but I repeat myself), decided that this was a crisis in the first place? It seems to me that this was really only a crisis for some banks. Again, those were the bad banks anyway, so who really cares if they fail? Oh, I'm sure their stock-holders do, but hey stocks are a risk in the first place. If you bet on the wrong horse, too bad. Don't bet if you can't afford to. And don't go telling me about how horrible it is for people to have their houses forclosed on. A bunch of those people were investors, and even if they weren't, so what? Ever heard of apartments!? Besides, the banks will just turn around and sell those houses for less, thereby lowering the costs of housing for whoever now does qualify for a loan. Who knows, maybe it'll be the people paying low taxes who invested in good banks buying cheap houses and renting them back to the same people. Voila! Market forces. But instead it's talked up into a crisis, and markets being what they are, people got scared. Others saw this as an opportunity to get some cash themselves and talked down they're own industry (auto, home-builders, etc) and extended the appearance of crisis. And now it becomes real. Panic sets in, the goverment destroys wealth, and a real crisis arrives.

The whole situation is akin to going to the doctor for an ingrown toe-nail and dying from a morphine overdose. Sure, it was going to hurt a little, but we've skipped local anesthetic for a lethal overdose of pain-killer.

A socialist?

Patriot Girl links to an article here by Donald J. Boudreaux that asks the question "Is Barack Obama really a Socialist?" It was a worthwhile article about the dangers of "Socialist-lite", but he's wrong when he answers his own question:

• No. At least not in the classic sense of the term. "Socialism" originally meant government ownership of the major means of production and finance, such as land, coal mines, steel mills, automobile factories, and banks. ... A principal promise of socialism was to replace the alleged uncertainty of markets with the comforting certainty of a central economic plan.

The author's first point is wrong for two reasons. First, while there may be a scholastic definition of socialism that fits the one he presents, I'm unconvinced that it has such a narrow and specific meaning. Socialism can be what he says, but it can also refer to the entire left wing of the political spectrum. In my understanding, Marxism, Chinese Communism, Socialism (with a capital S) and Social-Democracies all fall under the broader category of socialist since they are based on a concept of wealth distribution and equality of results rather than equality before the law. The second reason I think he's wrong is that even if I give him the first point - that socialism is based on government ownership of the means of production - I still think Obama qualifies. When the Government gets an "Ownership Stake" in the private market, it does own and control the means of production. I've heard this argument before, and it sounds pretty lame. Just because Obama isn't quoting directly from Marx and Engels (currently) it doesn't mean that he - and most of congress for that matter - isn't advocating socialism.

Now let's take on his second point, that socialism tries to "replace the alleged uncertainty of markets with the comforting certainty of a central economic plan." Trying to replace market uncertainty with central economic planning is exactly what our loving leaders in Washington are doing with the economic bailouts. What else could it possibly be? They've stated as much publicly. They're trying to get the market to settle down by heading off the failure of business that by all rights should fail. You say you gave bad loans to people that you knew couldn't pay them back? No worries, Uncle Sugar-daddy will guarantee them. Mortgaged your future profit margins by promising unrealistic pensions and health care? (albeit while being blackmailed by unions) No worries, we'll spend $25 Billion covering up the problem for a bit without doing anything to fix the systemic problems.

Sorry, but from where I sit, Obama is not only a socialist, he's just a 5-year plan away from Communist.

The source of my anger

I'm truly angry about the outcome of this election, but until now I've had trouble pinning down why. I've said that I'm angry about the stupidity of the general electorate, but that doesn't quite explain it. I know that stupidity simply exists, it's not a thing to be angry about but rather simply a fact to deal with. It occurred to me that it might be the cheating. I hate cheaters, and I hate feeling that I've been cheated, especially when it's something that matters as significantly as an election. (No, I'm not conspiratorial, but it does bother me that every election brings more and more stories of dead voters registering 15 times in Ohio and I can't stand that it could continue to exist). But I don't think there were enough of those votes to sway this election, so I'm not really mad about that, either. I hate that an election about ideology, truth, and governing philosophy is daily diminished to a racial landmark in the media. But again, that's not enough to explain the depths of what I'm feeling.

These questions aren't new. I've been distraught for a while at the liberal direction that my country has been taking. I've been bothered since Reagan by the lack of truly visionary leadership on the right. But tonight I realized the source.

I can't leave. I have no options, and the frustration is killing me. Every election year we here a bunch of liberals claiming that if the Republican wins, they'll leave the country, but the cowards never do. You never hear a conservative say that. It's because we have nowhere else to go. As bad as it's gotten since the 80's we're still the most free country in the world. That sounds like a compliment, but it's not. It's a lament. If I found somewhere with more freedom and better protections of my liberty, I'd leave in a heartbeat, because America is an idea, not a land. But I don't have the option. Liberals do.

And THAT is the source of my anger: If you like socialized health care, redistribution of wealth, public transportation and high taxes, more power to you. Go to Sweden. Go to England. Go anywhere in Europe. But don't ruin my America because it's all I've got. If I ruin your America, there's always France.

It's not all OK

The results of this election are not easy to face. I listened to McCain's concessions speech in abject anger at him. He spoke the way that he did during the campaign, and it showed exactly why he lost. He had the attitude and the disposition of a loser. Since the moment he was nominated, it was obvious that if McCain won, it would not be of his own doing. He was always the wrong man; his only redeeming quality is that he is not Barack Obama.

So I turned to the political blogs that I have followed so closely to see their reactions, and I'm even sad at their conciliatory tone. I understand the patriotic intent behind it. But Glenn Reynolds, Jonah Goldberg, and others who seemingly understand the depth of our current danger are still congratulating Obama. They recommend an attitude of "he's still my president". I get it, but this time I cannot agree.

A patriotic rallying behind the man elected to the office of president makes sense if you believe doing so is in the interest of the country. If, by the patriotic good intentions of the remaining conservatives Obama's presidency manages to only be a minor disaster rather than a major one, it will only make the resulting depression deeper and longer. If he is not opposed vehemently and at every turn, we will only lose further ideological ground to those who are already succeeding in pushing us socialist. To congratulate him as a historical candidate and a "good man" (in McCain's words) is to give credence to the the lie that his race matters or that his ideas are not evil when I believe that they are.

I don't know where this is going. In every way that I can, I will now push to go "John Galt" at the same time that I espouse the ideals of self-sufficiency and personal liberty. I will teach my son right from wrong and the honor of making his own way, while doing my best to bleed the social services system of any money that I can. The more quickly and spectacularly it fails, the easier it will be to teach a new generation of individualists. Socialism, redistribution of wealth, internationalism, and cowardice in the face of our enemies are not what America is. I will not support it in the name if equananimity.

I don't think the country is going to fall apart tomorrow. I realize that this isn't apocalyptic. But it isn't good.

To support the constitutional process of electing a president while ignoring the damage such a president (and congress) will do to the constitution is very short sighted. The American People deserve the government that they elect. It doesn't mean that I do.

First thoughts

The most immediate effects of these election results are this:

1. I think I may have trouble sleeping tonight.
2. I owe somebody a case of beer.

Keeping the Poor Poor

We have a guest blogger of sorts today. A friend who is much more eloquent than I sent out the following as an email. I'm posting it here with his permission:

Glenn Beck got me thinking about this from his radio show today.

You've all heard the argument, however petty, that claims the Republican Party is the party of the rich. It's a popular bumper sticker among Liberal voters. Well, let's suppose that's actually true. From some perspectives (moronic though I may find them), it certainly looks true. It feels true. So let's take that and run with it. The Republican Party's constituents are all rich. And if they're not rich, then at least they're greedy and want to become rich. Right? Ok, so in order to get into power, the Republicans need to keep their constituents happy...i.e. keep the rich people rich and find ways to make the non-rich but greedy people rich, too. Makes sense, right?

So, the Republicans = support for rich people and corporate greed (to keep this exercise going, please disregard the fact that rich people and corporations do most of the job creating in this country). Ok. Let's look at the other side of our two-party system here. Where, then, does the Democratic party get their power? Who are the Democrats' constituents? Do they go after rich people, too? Well, except for Hollywood, George Soros, and a hand-full of others out there, the answer is "no". They promote themselves as the champions of the poor, and maybe you could argue the middle class. Ok. We'll give you that one, too. So, if the Dems get in office and have their way, are they going to attempt to uplift their constituents and try to make everybody rich, or even to get out of the way so people can make themselves rich? Are they going to be working to improve the lives of all Americans? They may think so, but their goals conflict with each other. The Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, is a collection of politicians. And no matter how good their hearts or intentions, the only way those politicians can stay in power and continue to inflict...excuse me, enact the changes they want for the betterment society as they see it (ex. France), is to maintain their voting base. If the poor or middle-class get rich, then wouldn't they switch teams to the GOP - the party of the rich? I imagine that not all, but most would do so in order to protect what they have. It's human nature. So, say it with me, if the Republicans want to keep rich people rich in order to stay in power, then in order for the Dems to stay in power, don't they need to keep poor people poor?

Sounds silly, doesn't it? No, of course they don't want that. They're the party for the poor and middle class, right? Sure, they tell us all the time. They wouldn't say it if it weren't true. Well, for argument's sake, if you wanted to keep people from becoming too successful but still interested in keeping you in power, how would you do it? For those of you who said, "Voter Fraud", good answer, but that's not what I'm talking about right now. The answer I'm looking for is, at least to me, an obvious one - make them dependent upon you. Promise them things like tax cuts for 95% of Americans but ignore the fact that 95% of Americans don't pay taxes in the first place. Don't mention that you're going to let Bush's tax cuts expire in 2010, so by doing nothing, our taxes will automatically rise. Poll popular ideas first, and then talk about those as if they are your own. Don't worry, you don't have to say the same things to the same people. Instill feelings of class-envy and jealousy by playing Robin Hood - promising to tax the "unjustly" rich and give to the poor, and define for all of America a threshold for when you have "enough" money (currently fluctuating somewhere between $150K and $300K). Promise inclusion and welcome everyone into a hate-free environment - unless you're one of the other guys. Raise taxes for the rich, and challenge their patriotism if they balk at the idea. Promise health care for everybody. Promise affordable housing for everybody. Work to help the country by taking over everyone's 401-K's and rolling them all under the social security administration. And all this is a pill more easily swallowed when you get a smooth, suave, steel-spined spokesman to sell it. Neither does it hurt when most major entertainment sources blindly follow your agenda without asking any of the tough questions. But occasionally, one of those tough questions does happen to sneak through. And if it makes its way to the news and you're running the risk of having your flock of sheep start to wake up and question you, just simply fire up the mob again. It's easy. All you have to do is discredit the questioner with claims of racism, right-wing political propaganda, past financial or legal trouble, or anything else handy, which will effectively shift the focus back on the them and not on you.

I don't know...maybe it's me. Or maybe it's easier for me to see since I'm on the outside of this party, looking in. Both parties are guilty of seeing what they want and ignoring what they don't want to think about or can justify for some "greater good". But, while the Republican party and its candidate are by NO means perfect, or even what I would consider to be conservative, how can anyone with an ounce of ambition or self respect choose to be lied to and held back by the current incarnation of the Democratic Party, only so they can turn around and take care of you?

Update: Related video link from a poster in the comments Here. Not the style I'm accustomed to, but very well put. He makes the same point as my friend at the beginning, and then goes on to criticize Democrats and The One on lots of other things.

Megyn Kelly inerviews an Obama stooge

This is awesome. Watch the video.

(link from Instapundit)