tiurin: (Default)
[personal profile] tiurin


I have no idea why the Democrats aren't attacking Bush continually over the state of the economy and the US Dollar. The two reasons that come to mind are that they're either utterly incompetent or disgustingly pusillanimous. Neither's a good option.

Really, I don't know why there's no liberal party in this country that's not afraid to start pushing the slogan that there are now two types of people associated with the Republican Party: millionaires and suckers. In fact, I'd even say that the Republicans have swerved so far from the "limited government" idea that traditional conservatives espouse that it's hard to classify the party anymore. Let's take a look at a few numbers.

The war in Iraq has already cost $500 billion. Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Blimes have estimated that the Iraq war will eventually cost $3 trillion. I believe this is one of three things that will eventually cause another Great Depression-scale period for this country. The $500 bil that's already been spent is absorbable, barely- though I think it would've been far better spent on darn near anything else, whether it was investing in alternative energy infrastructure(I also am amazed by Bush's ineptitude regarding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) and research or paying down the other $9 trillion of national debt.

The Dems should also be hammering on the Republicans on the Bear Stearns bailout. Having the Fed guarantee $30 billion of Bear Stearns' assets...well, this is, to put it bluntly, corporate welfare. Heads JP Morgan Chase wins. Tails the American taxpayer loses, to the tune of about $100 each. $30 billion is a fuckton of money. By comparison, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families(TANF)- what's commonly known as welfare- costs about $16.5 billion a year. The next time any "compassionate conservative" opens his or her piehole about welfare, they should be hammered with the Bear Stearns bailout. The Republican management believes that the free market is the best allocator of resources...until it's their own that takes it in the nuts.

Bear Stearns is only the beginning, of course. I'm not exactly impressed by what I've been hearing about the Lehman Brothers' portfolio, for example. By the time the smoke clears, I expect at least one and possibly as many as three major investment banks requiring federal intervention. The taxpayer, of course, will foot the bill. If I didn't think massive inflation was going to be an issue and if I had more of a bankroll, I'd seriously consider buying puts.

The Republicans wanted deregulation. They got it. And now the subprime debacle is giving them all the deregulated market they want. The next time deregulation comes up, the Democrats need to bring up the subprime meltdown.

Finally...the tax cuts. The class warfare nature of the tax cuts has been discussed in tons of outlets. I've also mentioned how Bush departed from the usual taxation pattern during wartime. But given that our Idiot-in-Chief wants to make his cuts permanent...that'll hit us for another $1 trillion a year over the next decade. What slight chance we'd have of avoiding the complete collapse of the USD would be gone. The Democrats should be emphasizing this every time tax cuts are mentioned.

Why can't we have a _real_ liberal party in this country, not these cowardly, idiotic Democrats?

Date: 2008-04-14 12:39 pm (UTC)
feuervogel: (godless liberal etc)
From: [personal profile] feuervogel
Because Really, I don't know why there's no liberal party in this country. doesn't need the rest of the sentence behind it. There is no liberal party in the United States.

And I'm not saying that because I'm a leftist. The "liberals" in the US are centrist or slightly rightist compared to political parties in Europe.

Date: 2008-04-14 02:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eirias.livejournal.com
"Liberal" has meant a lot of different things. I'm never sure what's meant by it anymore. The Wikipedia article on liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal) looks like it is really interesting! but I don't have time to read it all. But it gets across the point, which is that "liberal" is ambiguous when you're talking about economic issues.

I suspect, [livejournal.com profile] tiurin, that one of the obstacles is that the people making the decisions are all relatively wealthy. It seems to me like this gives them a different set of incentives than those that impel the typical taxpayer.

OTOH, principles aside, I've been told that the point of corporate welfare is that things will suck even more for Average Joe if many major corporations fail. It's the ugly flip side of trickle-down economics: suckiness trickles down too, maybe more effectively than wealth does. I'm not an economist, but I find the argument plausible, at least. Not that I don't see the problem with, effectively, providing insurance against Really Stupid Decisions, i.e. that we will encourage more of them, perhaps to the point where the government is no longer *able* to insure against them because it's gone broke.

...but then if we don't bail out the corporations, and a bunch of the big ones fail, who're we gonna tax to get the revenue that keeps the huge machine running? This seems like a pretty big can of "aw, shit" no matter how you slice it.

Date: 2008-04-14 07:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sammka.livejournal.com
I can understand bailouts to a certain extent but only if they come with a little tough love for the corporations on whom our nation's welfare is supposedly so dependent. Like... regulation to make sure it doesn't happen again? You know, that sort of thing.

Profile

tiurin: (Default)
Just Another Idiot

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 12 3456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 11:12 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios