Greg Pallast penned an hilarious bit of wishful thinking. Hey, we can dream.
Frankly, I was worried about this guy. Obama’s appointing Clinton-droids to the Cabinet, bloated incompetents like Larry Summers as “Economics Czar,” made me fear for my country, that we’d gotten another Democrat who wished he were a Republican.
Then came Obama’s money bomb. The House bill included $125 billion for schools (TRIPLING federal spending on education), expanding insurance coverage to the unemployed, making the most progressive change in the tax code in four decades by creating a $500 credit against social security payroll deductions, and so on.
It’s as if Obama dug up Ronald Reagan’s carcass and put a stake through The Gipper’s anti-government heart. Aw-RIGHT!
About the only concession Obama threw to the right-wing trogs was to remove the subsidy for condoms, leaving hooker-happy GOP Senators, like David Vitter, to pay for their own protection. S’OK with me.
Actually, there were more concessions. The tax cuts, whether for poor or rich, represent money that will not be as effective as spending in health care, education, and infrastructure in terms of stimulating the economy. But I’d love to think Pallast is right. Let’s see what comes out of the Senate.
Addendum: And here’s a very articulate argument that the federal government should stop dicking around and just “nationalize the damn banks already.”
There was a story on NPR today about the girlfriends of male bank mid-management and how stressful it all is. One woman even remarked on a blog dedicated to the group, “my boyfriend isn’t going to take me on any trips this year because his wife is watching his finances more closely.”
Second addendum: And Joshua Holland speaks for me when he talks about how “f—ed up the discourse surrounding Israel and Palestine.“ I feel the same way about other issues. Abortion. The general plan. Whether the film Humboldt County sucks the most because it stereotypes rural hippies or because Fairuza Balk wasn’t in it long enough (and by the way, the poster is lame without the end of the big joint burning). Certain issues just leave no room for nuance.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 1, 2009 at 11:02 am
Moonshadow
I am in complete agreement with you and Joshua Holland about the middle East mess. To say the least it is frustrating when it is the extremes dictating the course to the middle when it is highly likely the middle has more people who just want to find, to use the Buddhist term, the middle way [pun intended].
What Greg Palast said makes a great deal of sense to me as well . . . I’m hoping for a better bill out of the Senate, but it has to be said that Obama is off to a great start at, as he put it, put a stake through The Gipper’s anti-government heart.
February 1, 2009 at 11:04 am
Moonshadow
OH . . . and really . . . they might as well nationalize the banks . . . they’re pretty darned close already . . . get it over with and do the job properly.
February 1, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Anonymous
“The Green Party financial backer Blackwater”
I’m not a Green member, Eric, not after your pal Cobb took over and drove the thing straight off the cliff (pun?), but this is just absurd. One donation, years ago, in a state thousands of miles away, does not a consistent “Financial Backer” make.
February 1, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Eric Kirk
The point is, the money was offered, and the Greens took it. It was offered by Blackwater who was hoping to split the vote to save Rick Santorum, and the Greens lapped up the money more than willing to play the pawns.
I didn’t say “consistent financial backer,” you did. But I have no doubt that many Greens would just as soon accept the money in the future, and if it can split the vote in a close election it will be offered.
David would not accept that money. Not under any circumstances.
February 1, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Not A Native
As far as nationalizing the banks restoring stability to financial markets, I recommend this week “PBS Now”.
On the show, Bethany McLean gives a good analysis why nationalization in and of itself doesn’t resolve the fundamental question: Who will bear the losses from mortgage defaults? She argues that until the answer to that question is settled, market volatility and flight to safety will continue.
She feels that the most honest way to resolve the question is for there to be a transparent discussion of who bears the losses and not hide those allocations behind “nationalization” or a “bad bank”.
She also points out that a nationalized bank’s policies would be subject to political influence. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been nationalized. She cites that their new policies to reduce foreclosures might be unsustainably propping up house prices at taxpayers expense and perpetuating the “housing bubble”, just like Alan Greenspan’s unreasonably low interest rates did.
She further points out that that bailing out banks isn’t “fair” but fairness isn’t obtainable. Wiping out bank equity assigns losses to their owners, who include pension funds and mutual funds in individual 401K accounts. She observed that no one feels they are responsible for the massive number of defaults, but that actually most everyone is implicated.
February 2, 2009 at 7:27 pm
sohumborn
Hey if you have a minute look at the girlfriend of bankers blog it’s hilarious.
It made me aware of how far out of my world some people are. I have to think it’s mostly fiction or my brain hurts.
http://dabagirls.wordpress.com/