Liberals and Conservatives

I had planned for this post to be a sort of return to erudition after that last rant. Sadly, that would require more discipline (and erudition) than I have. But I will offer this endorsement of the latest fascinating TED video I've watched:


(I can't get the $#%@! link to work so paste this in your browser and smoke it: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/
jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html)

I don't know if I've ever actually gotten around to sharing how wonderful this whole TED thing is on here yet... I know I've meant to on several occasions when I've vowed to try to post something more than once a month, but I don't know that I ever did it.

Anyhoo, in this particular video, psychologist Jonathan Haidt gives a scientific explanation of the difference between liberals and conservatives. And get this, there's no screaming or name calling and he explains that BOTH have morals!! I know, I know... it's crazy. Anyhoo, I can't possibly do justice to his prepared 19 minute talk so you'll just have to watch it on your own. All I will say is that it gave me immeasurable insight into my own sort of multiple personality leanings. In fact, if there's any merit to his explanation, I'm probably not alone. His most salient point (IMHO) was that while liberals might be the ones who embrace new ideas, NO new ideas can be exchanged when either side assumes groupthink and fails to acknowledge ideas from the other. It's the teaming up that makes both sides stupid! Ain't it great how we minimize this weakness during election season?!

OK, now on to the real poup.

I was entertained by the morning's speech returns from McPalin, who derided Obama for "sitting on the sidelines" rather than getting involved, like McCain, in solving our current financial crisis. What was really entertaining was when this second attempt at getting involved failed. There are a couple of points here that McPalin seems to have missed, but first I have to instill my own false logic into the picture with one little reminder. McCain, suspending his campaign, except for about a day's worth of appearances in his "rush" to DC to solve the problem, arrived shortly after what seemed like a deal had been struck. Then the deal went sour.

That's a post hoc ergo proctor hoc there... it happened after so it must have happened because of. (It's a fallacy... not really logical to assume that McCain's presence shot the deal down) I know, I know, but I had to do it. It's what people do during the campaign season!

Anyhoo, this morning, McPalin was all "I got in there and rolled up my sleeves" and he was like "Obama was all sitting on the sidelines."

But then another deal went sour and the speeches changed a little. After the news that the latest version of corporate welfare had failed, leaving us precariously teetering on the edge of financial failure, McPlain was all, "Obama and his Democrat allies are playing a dangerous game in blocking this bill... toying with hard working Americans' money by calling Paulson's bluff." See how they did that - they pulled Obama off the sidelines, put him into the game, and then blamed him. Touche... no one will see through that!

But then the news broke that it was actually House Republicans who felt the deal was a little too pro-banker (which in this case was deemed "fiscally unconservative") and McPalin was all, "oh... now what?"

I can understand their shock. House Republicans voting against making the rich richer? Since when? Isn't that what this administration is all about? Where's the executive influence on the hill? Where's the Newt when we need him to put another contract on America? Has the world shifted off its axis?

While we're on the subject, let's call this bailout plan what it is: welfare. Remember how universal health care was called "socialist" or "too expensive" and any social program, hell, taxes in general were labeled a redistribution of wealth rewarding non-producers? Now why would it be called anything different when the money flows the other way? More importantly, why are we just now realizing only this latest round of it when it's been the MO of this administration since day one... corporate tax breaks, oil royalties forgiven, CEO's hiding behind corporate law ("no individual was to blame") and avoiding prosecution while accepting their golden parachutes funded by looting the savings of their middle class investors... how are we just noticing this full-on sell out of 95% of America to the wealthiest 5%? Oh, yeah, it's because the 5% gambled with their winnings and lost!

What Bush/Paulson have proposed to fix it is the largest single tax hike in American history. They are about to tax every single man, woman and child in the country to the tune of about $2500.00. (that's 700 billion/300 million with some rounding in my favor) That doesn't sound like much, but it makes their cheesy little "economic stimulus" checks sound like a really lame idea. Never mind that about half of those folks didn't report any income, or that this is about twice the amount of actual welfare in the 2006 budget. ("Means Tested Entitlements FY 2006")

It's welfare... only it's cool when it's for the rich, even if it's only necessary because their latest gamble didn't pay off. Not one penny of this will put a lower middle class family back into their foreclosed upon home after they missed one payment. And the real real shitty part is that we HAVE to do it! It won't make life any easier for those of us who have been paying the giant corporate salaries or whose money these guys have been gambling with but since Wall Street is on the verge of missing a whole bunch of payments - though no fault of the American taxpayer or investor, as a result of that gamble, WE have to cough it up. Because if we don't we'll see exactly to whom Bush has actually sold America: China, Japan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia...

Remember all that debt that Republican economists keep telling us isn't real money? I'm thinking the folks who hold the notes for it think it's pretty real and I'm thinking they'll want to cash out when AIG gets a taste of their own medicine. So yeah, we have no choice now. We have to pump mass cash into the "level playing field of the open market." And we will, but next time around, let's not forget the high water mark of this debacle.

As of now, it's only reached a few feet into the middle class, but by McPalin's standards, that middle class extends into those households that earn $5 million a year. If you're not in that top 5% to whom this welfare is being handed, you're not safe either. Who knows how high the water will actually reach before a bailout bill is finally accepted. I'm only cocky because all I own is debt. (of course, unlike naked short sellers, my debt is in the form of a house) Either way, when it's called in, I'm a free man... homeless, but free! I don't have much to lose. And I don't expect anyone to bail me out.

It certainly calls to mind one of my favorite bumper stickers: If you're a Republican and you're not rich, you're stupid." (don't go there, Ray, there are some good Dem stickers too, but they don't fit this particular rant)

Maybe stupid is too harsh a word, but for those of us firmly in the middle class who are one illness or one downsizing away from bankruptcy, this one comes dangerously close. Do you still think only Democrats tax and spend? Do you still think government shouldn't regulate industry upon which the national economy rests? Do you still think the war in Iraq was a good way to spend our money? Do you still think abortion is the most important issue facing the nation? I only mention abortion here cuz everyone's familiar with China's stance on it. Since they own a ton of our debt, we could soon be one of them! Your last pro-life vote could result in us being subsumed by the second largest pro-choice proponents in the universe!

Back to the point: The bail out is a tax funded welfare program. The biggest of it's kind in history. We either suck it up, or we become Chinese. Once it's in place, we'll be closer to socialism than we've ever been. We've become the French. At least our flag has the right colors!

Luth,
Out