Look, I stand by what I said previously, but please don't lump me into the "Reagan-ite" crowd just yet... I still have many issues with the "Reagan years" that no conservative has managed to explain away.
None the less, even FDR would see that with more than 93% of the American workforce gamefully employed, but watching their savings/retirement/income dwindle in an environment that is rapidly trending towards recession (where the same dollar amount buys less and less of what it did the fiscal period past), RAISING taxes is NOT the right thing to do. KEEP the money in the hands of those MOST likely to use it to the benefit of the economy, and only spend money where it will have the most BENEFICIAL impact on fiscal issues. WHEN (not IF) the economy turns around, you can begin to find the happy "medium" that CAN be found between unneeded deficit spending due to low tax revenues and a stagnant economy due to high tax rates.
These aren't the words of a newly-converted conservative... just a frustrated Truman-ite!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Yowzers!
Man alive! I haven't had so many compliments fly at me so fast since the last time Ang and I ....
At any rate, I hope by my last few posts I have officially established my "non-partisan" bonifides once and for all. In as much that "partisan" is defined as loyalty to a Party. I am NOT, any longer, loyal to the Republican Party as it stands today. I even considered switching to "Independent", so as to demonstrate to the GOP that conservatives are feeling less and less represented. Its a mostly symbolic gesture, I know, given I will still vote for their candidate - BUT - that's only because he is running against a flat out socialist! A Phyrric Victory for the GOP if there ever was one.
You know the amazing thing here? Here you have intellectuals like ourselves, A.M. talk radio, and the overwhelming number of American voters from the 1980's (presumably a great number still kicking around today) all clearly pointing to Reagan as the type of direction we would like our president to lead in. Yet NO ONE in the entire political landscape, on a level to seriously be considered a presidential contender, has stepped up and assumed the Reagan model, i.e. authentic conservatism. Why is that? It clearly worked. And I'm not talking about enacting the "exact" same policies, but operating off of the exact same principles. I mean here is a blue print for economic AND political success, and Mac says, "no thanks." Bush 43, "no thanks." Bush 41, "no thanks" (and he was his VP for crying out loud!). And I could say the same to the UK about Margaret Thatcher. They haven't reproduced another Iron Lady either.
And what is most troubling, as I pointed out and Titus reaffirmed, authentic conservatism as practiced in the 80's, in my ("our") opinion, is the ONLY answer to curbing these problematic trends. Yet Reagan's name is invoked by men whose policies he would have never supported (Mac) as if merely saying his name along side your policy makes the thing "Reaganesque." It does not.
Which brings me to an interesting question: if we agree that such a leader is needed, and one clearly isn't "on the scene" now, which victory come November has the better chance of producing an authentic conservative more rapidly? If Mac wins, we won't get him in 2012. If he wins then we may get "her" in 2016, but that's assuming she bucks her former boss (not to mention wins) during the election year. Not bloody likely. Oddly enough the election of a rabid socialist of the European model may be the quickest route to producing an authentic US conservative in 2012 ... just a thought.
(and if "Carl" Obama does win, Bobby Jindal, you should start making speeches around the country at about 7 a.m. on 11/5/08!)
At any rate, I hope by my last few posts I have officially established my "non-partisan" bonifides once and for all. In as much that "partisan" is defined as loyalty to a Party. I am NOT, any longer, loyal to the Republican Party as it stands today. I even considered switching to "Independent", so as to demonstrate to the GOP that conservatives are feeling less and less represented. Its a mostly symbolic gesture, I know, given I will still vote for their candidate - BUT - that's only because he is running against a flat out socialist! A Phyrric Victory for the GOP if there ever was one.
You know the amazing thing here? Here you have intellectuals like ourselves, A.M. talk radio, and the overwhelming number of American voters from the 1980's (presumably a great number still kicking around today) all clearly pointing to Reagan as the type of direction we would like our president to lead in. Yet NO ONE in the entire political landscape, on a level to seriously be considered a presidential contender, has stepped up and assumed the Reagan model, i.e. authentic conservatism. Why is that? It clearly worked. And I'm not talking about enacting the "exact" same policies, but operating off of the exact same principles. I mean here is a blue print for economic AND political success, and Mac says, "no thanks." Bush 43, "no thanks." Bush 41, "no thanks" (and he was his VP for crying out loud!). And I could say the same to the UK about Margaret Thatcher. They haven't reproduced another Iron Lady either.
And what is most troubling, as I pointed out and Titus reaffirmed, authentic conservatism as practiced in the 80's, in my ("our") opinion, is the ONLY answer to curbing these problematic trends. Yet Reagan's name is invoked by men whose policies he would have never supported (Mac) as if merely saying his name along side your policy makes the thing "Reaganesque." It does not.
Which brings me to an interesting question: if we agree that such a leader is needed, and one clearly isn't "on the scene" now, which victory come November has the better chance of producing an authentic conservative more rapidly? If Mac wins, we won't get him in 2012. If he wins then we may get "her" in 2016, but that's assuming she bucks her former boss (not to mention wins) during the election year. Not bloody likely. Oddly enough the election of a rabid socialist of the European model may be the quickest route to producing an authentic US conservative in 2012 ... just a thought.
(and if "Carl" Obama does win, Bobby Jindal, you should start making speeches around the country at about 7 a.m. on 11/5/08!)
Speaking of Tricky Dicky...
In case you missed it, HERE is the link to Nixon's proposed Health Care Provision Plan (then called the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan, or CHIP). It is a brief outline of a plan, sent to Congress in 1974... where it was shot down in a really spectacular manner by the Democrat-controlled 93rd Congress, which was led by such patently familiar names as Mike Mansfield, Bob "KKK" Byrd, Tip O'Neill, and Carl Albert (the most ineffective Speaker of the House until Pelosi took office... he spent his entire career basking in the glory of having forced both a President and a Vice President out of office!).
Now, if you take the time to READ the proposal, you'll see that it is SHOCKINGLY similar to what Jambo suggested only a few short weeks ago. Obviously, some of the numbers need adjustment (imagine a time when having a BABY cost the average American $1,000!!!), but the premise is SOUND, and while it does increase government's role in health care... it doesn't raise taxes beyond the first TWO YEARS of implementation. It is self-sustaining after that!
Now, any one of you might question how I can get behind ANY piece of legislation stemming from the Nixon White House... but who was the main author of this work? Who was Nixon's LAST Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare?
Caspar Weinberger.
A damn fine Sec of Defense, and the ONLY Cabinet-level appointee to resign (on principal) BEFORE the Iran-Contra hearings started in '87. SMART and HONEST... not an easy combination to find in Washington, now or then.
Follow the link... it's worth the read.
Now, if you take the time to READ the proposal, you'll see that it is SHOCKINGLY similar to what Jambo suggested only a few short weeks ago. Obviously, some of the numbers need adjustment (imagine a time when having a BABY cost the average American $1,000!!!), but the premise is SOUND, and while it does increase government's role in health care... it doesn't raise taxes beyond the first TWO YEARS of implementation. It is self-sustaining after that!
Now, any one of you might question how I can get behind ANY piece of legislation stemming from the Nixon White House... but who was the main author of this work? Who was Nixon's LAST Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare?
Caspar Weinberger.
A damn fine Sec of Defense, and the ONLY Cabinet-level appointee to resign (on principal) BEFORE the Iran-Contra hearings started in '87. SMART and HONEST... not an easy combination to find in Washington, now or then.
Follow the link... it's worth the read.
Ryan has a good point, here...
As much as Obama and Biden have been telling us this is the WORST crisis since October, 1929... this ISN'T the Great Depression. Ryan is right.
This is NOT the failing of our national stock and commodities markets. In fact, even with last week's losses, they are STILL pretty strong. 48% stronger than they were in 1929, with adjusted dollars.
Unemployment is very nearly a NON factor. No figures point to a rate higher than 6.5%... and by 1930, we were looking at 22% of America out-of-work. It was twice it's current level in 1979, and that wasn't a "depression" at all.
This is a crisis based in imaginary money. With at least 1 out of every ten mortgages in this nation on the verge of default, and more than 75% of America holding more than the accepted 25% debt-to-income ratio (I think the average now is more than 50%)... no one WANTS to lend money... PERIOD!
Since 1969, credit availability in this country has been based on "future income" rather than actual savings. This is the same process by which the Federal Reserve calls on the Treasury Dept to simply print more bills if the economy strengthens, and take more out of circulation if it slows down... all based on the "future" strength of our economy. No actual "wealth" is EVER a factor in either topic.
With so much DEBT outstanding in this nation, the ability to continue to LEND money is stretching beyond reasonable limits... and the system is cracking. Local or regional banks are not able to get the "loans" they depend on from other banks, because other banks don't want to prop up bad mortgages... but the small banks NEED the loans to conduct ALL their business, not just the bad or risky mortgages. This is the money that is loaned to small businesses to make payroll, or to make SECURED, low-risk loans to parents so their kids can go to college, or to buy a new car (technically, ALSO a secured loan).
If it were simply a matter of putting people to work, then I'd probably be more inclined to agree with James. However, unemployment isn't the issue, credit is. If 10 to 18% of all credit in this nation is BAD credit... what is the bail-out really going to accomplish other than putting the burden of SWALLOWING the bad credit on the backs of tax payers rather than banks and lending companies?
The problem goes deeper, though...
Let's look at Jambo's example of FDR in the '30s. With the New Deal, FDR made the Federal Government the LARGEST borrower in the nation (and that percentage of credit extended nearly tripled by the end of WWII). From government bonds to T-bills, the Feds borrowed money (the easy-to-read version of history, here) to build Hoover Dam, the TVA, the "New Navy", the Golden Gate, the Tri-Borough, the WPA, the CCC... the list goes on and on. Confidence that the Government would PAY BACK the loans was high... thus, the economy came back (albeit, slowly) so that the Depression ENDED by 1937 (I'm NOT starting another fight... simply stating facts, here). This is the ROOT of the policy behind deficit spending and its impact on an economy... lots of people working, lots of the PEOPLE'S money safely tied up in very LOW RISK-low return investments. If, worst-case scenario, the Feds COULDN'T pay back the loans based on federal revenue... with the institution of the Federal Reserve, they could simply PRINT MORE MONEY, which would (obviously) impact the economy adversely, at least to a small degree, but the influx of cash TO THE PUBLIC SECTOR has always proven to be a short-term problem, not a long-term one.
Since 1984, when the Feds (meaning Reagan) de-regulated the stock market to a point where ANYONE could be a player, the economy has been almost a reflection of Wall Street ups and downs. Like it or not, more than 60% of Americans have money tied up in the stock market (401k, IRA, corporate retirement, Federal retirement, etc). The REALLY shocking fact is that less than 11% of ALL US banking assets are tied to the markets! By my math, that means that 89% of the REST of America's "banked" money is invested in LOANS. And as many as 1 in 5 of those same loans may now be BAD.
Then we see the $700 BILLION bail out... making the Federal Government the largest LENDER and CREDITOR in the nation! 180 degrees from the situation that Jambo advocates with "New Deal" politics, because the Feds will have nothing to show for the bad loans.
THAT is the root of this crisis. Banks have always been in the "loan" business... just watch "It's a wonderful life!" if you doubt me... but if the cash reserves aren't enough to cover the amount out in loans, then the bank is at risk, and loose lending laws (mostly stemming from the Carter years) have PUSHED banks to make more and more risky loans since 1980. THIS is the reason why "Farm Aid" was a factor in our culture... and a contributor to the Reagan-legacy of "government equals BAD". Risky farm and small business loans made during the last years of the Carter Administration went default... and did Reagan bail them out? No, he watched the banks foreclose and tapped his feet as the music world wasted 12 hours of our lives putting on a shitty concert that did next to NOTHING to solve the problem.
This brings me to my last point... ANOTHER area where Ryan is (surprisingly enough) right on the mark... Reagan was the ONLY conservative President since Hoover.
Not the only Republican, but the only CONSERVATIVE President, as it is defined today. This is a big part of the reason why I hate the term "Reagan-conservative"... he was the ONLY one! Anything more is simply gratuitous redundancy... sheesh.
I hear you now...
"But WAIT!" you say. "What about Ike? Nixon? Ford? Bush Sr.? THEY were conservatives!"
My response?
Bullshit. Pure, uncut, unadulterated bovine fecal matter.
Ike spent more, and BORROWED more, than Truman did in TWO TERMS! Nixon was the FIRST President to advocate National Health Care! Doubt me? Proof is HERE.
Facts are facts, and Bush Jr. is damn-near as "New Deal" as Nixon or Ford were. If you define "conservative" in a way that conjures images of Reagan (and the talk-radio crowd does JUST that... every one of them), then he stands alone as the ONE and ONLY in US history.
The more I see and TRY to understand the problems the nation is facing right now, the more I am inclined to think that the FIX for the problem lies with the true "conservatives" and NOT with the more moderate Republican crowd... and we won't even discuss the liberal's plans.
This is NOT the failing of our national stock and commodities markets. In fact, even with last week's losses, they are STILL pretty strong. 48% stronger than they were in 1929, with adjusted dollars.
Unemployment is very nearly a NON factor. No figures point to a rate higher than 6.5%... and by 1930, we were looking at 22% of America out-of-work. It was twice it's current level in 1979, and that wasn't a "depression" at all.
This is a crisis based in imaginary money. With at least 1 out of every ten mortgages in this nation on the verge of default, and more than 75% of America holding more than the accepted 25% debt-to-income ratio (I think the average now is more than 50%)... no one WANTS to lend money... PERIOD!
Since 1969, credit availability in this country has been based on "future income" rather than actual savings. This is the same process by which the Federal Reserve calls on the Treasury Dept to simply print more bills if the economy strengthens, and take more out of circulation if it slows down... all based on the "future" strength of our economy. No actual "wealth" is EVER a factor in either topic.
With so much DEBT outstanding in this nation, the ability to continue to LEND money is stretching beyond reasonable limits... and the system is cracking. Local or regional banks are not able to get the "loans" they depend on from other banks, because other banks don't want to prop up bad mortgages... but the small banks NEED the loans to conduct ALL their business, not just the bad or risky mortgages. This is the money that is loaned to small businesses to make payroll, or to make SECURED, low-risk loans to parents so their kids can go to college, or to buy a new car (technically, ALSO a secured loan).
If it were simply a matter of putting people to work, then I'd probably be more inclined to agree with James. However, unemployment isn't the issue, credit is. If 10 to 18% of all credit in this nation is BAD credit... what is the bail-out really going to accomplish other than putting the burden of SWALLOWING the bad credit on the backs of tax payers rather than banks and lending companies?
The problem goes deeper, though...
Let's look at Jambo's example of FDR in the '30s. With the New Deal, FDR made the Federal Government the LARGEST borrower in the nation (and that percentage of credit extended nearly tripled by the end of WWII). From government bonds to T-bills, the Feds borrowed money (the easy-to-read version of history, here) to build Hoover Dam, the TVA, the "New Navy", the Golden Gate, the Tri-Borough, the WPA, the CCC... the list goes on and on. Confidence that the Government would PAY BACK the loans was high... thus, the economy came back (albeit, slowly) so that the Depression ENDED by 1937 (I'm NOT starting another fight... simply stating facts, here). This is the ROOT of the policy behind deficit spending and its impact on an economy... lots of people working, lots of the PEOPLE'S money safely tied up in very LOW RISK-low return investments. If, worst-case scenario, the Feds COULDN'T pay back the loans based on federal revenue... with the institution of the Federal Reserve, they could simply PRINT MORE MONEY, which would (obviously) impact the economy adversely, at least to a small degree, but the influx of cash TO THE PUBLIC SECTOR has always proven to be a short-term problem, not a long-term one.
Since 1984, when the Feds (meaning Reagan) de-regulated the stock market to a point where ANYONE could be a player, the economy has been almost a reflection of Wall Street ups and downs. Like it or not, more than 60% of Americans have money tied up in the stock market (401k, IRA, corporate retirement, Federal retirement, etc). The REALLY shocking fact is that less than 11% of ALL US banking assets are tied to the markets! By my math, that means that 89% of the REST of America's "banked" money is invested in LOANS. And as many as 1 in 5 of those same loans may now be BAD.
Then we see the $700 BILLION bail out... making the Federal Government the largest LENDER and CREDITOR in the nation! 180 degrees from the situation that Jambo advocates with "New Deal" politics, because the Feds will have nothing to show for the bad loans.
THAT is the root of this crisis. Banks have always been in the "loan" business... just watch "It's a wonderful life!" if you doubt me... but if the cash reserves aren't enough to cover the amount out in loans, then the bank is at risk, and loose lending laws (mostly stemming from the Carter years) have PUSHED banks to make more and more risky loans since 1980. THIS is the reason why "Farm Aid" was a factor in our culture... and a contributor to the Reagan-legacy of "government equals BAD". Risky farm and small business loans made during the last years of the Carter Administration went default... and did Reagan bail them out? No, he watched the banks foreclose and tapped his feet as the music world wasted 12 hours of our lives putting on a shitty concert that did next to NOTHING to solve the problem.
This brings me to my last point... ANOTHER area where Ryan is (surprisingly enough) right on the mark... Reagan was the ONLY conservative President since Hoover.
Not the only Republican, but the only CONSERVATIVE President, as it is defined today. This is a big part of the reason why I hate the term "Reagan-conservative"... he was the ONLY one! Anything more is simply gratuitous redundancy... sheesh.
I hear you now...
"But WAIT!" you say. "What about Ike? Nixon? Ford? Bush Sr.? THEY were conservatives!"
My response?
Bullshit. Pure, uncut, unadulterated bovine fecal matter.
Ike spent more, and BORROWED more, than Truman did in TWO TERMS! Nixon was the FIRST President to advocate National Health Care! Doubt me? Proof is HERE.
Facts are facts, and Bush Jr. is damn-near as "New Deal" as Nixon or Ford were. If you define "conservative" in a way that conjures images of Reagan (and the talk-radio crowd does JUST that... every one of them), then he stands alone as the ONE and ONLY in US history.
The more I see and TRY to understand the problems the nation is facing right now, the more I am inclined to think that the FIX for the problem lies with the true "conservatives" and NOT with the more moderate Republican crowd... and we won't even discuss the liberal's plans.
Man that was fast....
...But in no way was I advocating MORE government.
Since the money has already been SPENT, I was using it as an example of what COULD have been done. New Deal FDR or 2008 isn't about bigger federal government, it's about visible, reassuring leadership on the executive level. And that's what faith is all about in this political landscape. Something measurable, specific, visible and reassuring. The creation of more jobs isn't the primary goal. The infrastructure needs to be worked on. These things need to be done. The fact that they are being done now, in a time of uncertainty, restores the faith. The fact that these plans create jobs is great, but not the primary reason. You see?
It's THIS kind of plan people should be touting, not the redistribution of wealth or the nationalization of the banking industry and related financial fields.
Since the money has already been SPENT, I was using it as an example of what COULD have been done. New Deal FDR or 2008 isn't about bigger federal government, it's about visible, reassuring leadership on the executive level. And that's what faith is all about in this political landscape. Something measurable, specific, visible and reassuring. The creation of more jobs isn't the primary goal. The infrastructure needs to be worked on. These things need to be done. The fact that they are being done now, in a time of uncertainty, restores the faith. The fact that these plans create jobs is great, but not the primary reason. You see?
It's THIS kind of plan people should be touting, not the redistribution of wealth or the nationalization of the banking industry and related financial fields.
Maybe not ...
I like the genie back in the bottle post, but as to your other ... unemployment is NOT the issue now. Credit lending is, i.e. the dry up of investment in lending houses by those with the capital to do so. Which is why the government declared they "must" do it with tax dollars.
Public works projects, no matter the hundreds of billions, will not address this problem. Putting faith back into the American lending and financial house WILL. And you do that not by printing more money, public works, or federal bailouts; but by stimulating private capital into US markets: repeal Zarbanes-Oxly. Put a 2 year moratorium on the capital gains tax. Reduce corporate taxes significantly. And put forth a REAL energy plan. THEN you will see both foreign and domestic capital flood US markets with the cash needed not only to sustain credit lenders, but enhance them.
Sorry my friend, but LESS government is the answer here (and I fixed the link in the original post, so you can now listen to the first political soundbite, as well as HERE).
Public works projects, no matter the hundreds of billions, will not address this problem. Putting faith back into the American lending and financial house WILL. And you do that not by printing more money, public works, or federal bailouts; but by stimulating private capital into US markets: repeal Zarbanes-Oxly. Put a 2 year moratorium on the capital gains tax. Reduce corporate taxes significantly. And put forth a REAL energy plan. THEN you will see both foreign and domestic capital flood US markets with the cash needed not only to sustain credit lenders, but enhance them.
Sorry my friend, but LESS government is the answer here (and I fixed the link in the original post, so you can now listen to the first political soundbite, as well as HERE).
Putting the genie back in the bottle.
Ryan made a point a couple of posts back about Reagan corking the genie in the bottle that LBJ and Carter had released in the sixties and seventies. And maybe there's the blueprint for help.
If the new executive, or a future executive faced with the consequences of the socialistic policies of his/her predecessors, were to clearly delineate state and federal fiscal responsibilities, and realign spending along said lines, the genie could get pushed back.
That was Reagan's first massive federal cut. One could call him a heartless bastard for slashing federal social programs, or one could simply say, "This isn't the Fed's job. It's the state's job. They pay for it." Which is exactly what Reagan did. If one wants to see the success/failure of "welfare states" vs. non-welfare states, then compare California to Alaska.
I know this isn't a comforting idea, being that McCain won't do this if he wins, but we can save the idea for 2016 or 2020. It's small comfort being right now and saying I told you so a generation later, but it is a small bit of sunshine.
If the new executive, or a future executive faced with the consequences of the socialistic policies of his/her predecessors, were to clearly delineate state and federal fiscal responsibilities, and realign spending along said lines, the genie could get pushed back.
That was Reagan's first massive federal cut. One could call him a heartless bastard for slashing federal social programs, or one could simply say, "This isn't the Fed's job. It's the state's job. They pay for it." Which is exactly what Reagan did. If one wants to see the success/failure of "welfare states" vs. non-welfare states, then compare California to Alaska.
I know this isn't a comforting idea, being that McCain won't do this if he wins, but we can save the idea for 2016 or 2020. It's small comfort being right now and saying I told you so a generation later, but it is a small bit of sunshine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
