Comments for Reality-based politics

Comment on A quick word on the auto industry bailout by jtkheiry

jtkheiry — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:48:53 +0000

I couldn’t agree more, wwelvaert! People who took on debt responsibly – whether for house, car, or anything else – are now in the position of having to subsidize the irresponsible decisions of people who signed on the dotted line, either knowing they couldn’t afford it, or ignorant of what they were signing. Either way, it’s reckless behavior that the market should be allowed to punish. And I think it’s also important to note that yes, there are cases in which people are in danger of losing their homes because they’ve lost their jobs, not because they took on mortgages that were too big. But you know what? That has always happened, even in flush economic times! Nobody is immune to bad luck or cruel twists of fate, which is why people used to – and still should – SAVE MONEY for a rainy day. My wife and I have burned through the vast majority of our savings in an effort to make a go of our businesses during this recession, while still keeping up with house and car payments. It’s been over a year, and we’re still solvent because we SAVED MONEY. Personal responsibility, self-reliance, risk-taking, initiative… none of these things is part of the current “bailout mentality,” unless it’s in the context of the government taking risks with OUR money on ventures that jeopardize everything our country has stood for.

Comment on A quick word on the auto industry bailout by wwelvaert

wwelvaert — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:01:28 +0000

You could argue the same idea about housing. What about the people who bought a house they could afford, took out a traditional mortgage and lived within their means? Where’s the reward for them while people who bought mansions they couldn’t afford clamor for a bailout?

Comment on The liberal willingness to watch poor people die by jtkheiry

jtkheiry — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:31:03 +0000

Okay, I’ll plead guilty to playing fast and loose with the word “liberal” in the headline. In this case I was referring to those whose rabid devotion to “environmental protection” renders them heedless of the human suffering that results from insisting that pristine wilderness be protected from development (mining, logging, etc.). It’s an easy case to make here in the U.S., but in other contries, it can literally sentence thousands – if not millions – to a life of poverty, and the increased illness, high infant mortality and early morbidity that go hand-in-hand with poverty.

When it comes to fiscal issues, the facts are incontrovertible – Clinton left office with a surplus, and Republicans have been just as guilty as any “tax-and-spend” liberal of running up mind-blowing deficits. That’s one of the many reasons I’m a Libertarian – I don’t have to wrestle with the cognitive dissonance that comes from adhering to one or the other of the major parties’ philosophies, only to have its principles betrayed time and time again.

Comment on The liberal willingness to watch poor people die by Godless American

Godless American — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:30:49 +0000

Hey, I like where you’re going with that.

What doesn’t compute is the headline. Unless you’re calling Republicans “liberals” also.

If you look at GNP trends, deficit trends, etc. you’ll see that Democrats tend to leave the piggy bank with a little extra cash while still providing social services. Republicans on the other hand, rape the budget for as many tax cuts for the rich as they can, and spend as much as they can before anyone notices.

if you recall, when Clinton left office there was a budget surplus. If that had continued, or even improved, we wouldn’t be in this mess today.

Comment on The liberal willingness to watch poor people die by jtkheiry

jtkheiry — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:17:42 +0000

Thanks for your comment, Godless American. However, you have incorrectly identified me as a Republican; I’m actually Libertarian, which means I, like you, am not against stem cell research or environmentalism, and I definitely part with Republicans on a host of other issues: gay marriage, legalization of drugs, and more. You accuse me of thinking solely of the short-term, quarter-driven future, but this is in fact the opposite of my philosophy. I believe that our long-term future is in extreme jeopardy BECAUSE OF the Democratic and Republican inability to control themselves; they burn up our money at such a rate that our kids and grand-kids are going to curse our generation for saddling them with so much debt that paying it off will take up the majority of their tax dollars, leaving precious little for all else. If it were up to me, we’d suffer far more in the short-term (this recession) in order to ensure that we emerge from it stronger and better able to withstand – or even avoid – future downturns. In other words, I would never bail out a company to save it from itself – not a bank, not a brokerage house, not an auto-maker.

Comment on The liberal willingness to watch poor people die by Godless American

Godless American — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:04:12 +0000

Right, and that’s why liberals are so against Stem Cell Research, Global Warming initiatives, and environmentalism. Like many Republicans, you’re thinking solely of the short term, quarter driven future. Try thinking beyond your own future.

Another option for the community is Hemp Cultivation, if only it was legalized. Easy to grow, a renewable resource, could provide jobs to thousands.

Comment on Obama works to divide and conquer by jtkheiry

jtkheiry — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:03:43 +0000

Mr. Parker, Thanks for your comment, and to address your post-script, you’re right: I definitely believe that spending other people’s money is more likely to be wasteful. And, to take it to the next step in the logic-ladder, the further away one is from the people whose money is being spent, the less likely it is to be efficient. Therefore, tax money from my town is likely to be more efficiently spent by the Select Board, because they see the people whose money they spend every day. But how often does any of us here in my state (I live in Vermont) see or get a chance to meaningfully contribute to Senators Leahy or Sanders? Or Representative Peter Welch? And even if we do have an impact on them (which we certainly did NOT when they decided to vote for the bailout and stimulus bills against popular sentiment), the money they’re spending comes from 49 other states as well… and they don’t know those people, or particularly care about them. It’s an appalling state of affairs, exacerbated by the fact that government has become so irrevocably complext that laypeople like you and me couldn’t hope to understand it all, effectively shutting us out of the process so that “experts” and career politicians run our lives and spend our money to do it.

Comment on Obama works to divide and conquer by Christopher Parker

Christopher Parker — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:52:42 +0000

Looking at that list of budget items says little. In principal, for example, I think weatherizing federal buildings is a great investment and something that should have happened long, long ago.

I think you’ve conflated two different questions: one is what are priorities to spend our collective resources on. Or not. The other is the spending wisely free from personal agendas and waste. Alas I’ve certainly seen plenty, plenty of that at the local level as well. But whether the money is spent well or not is a harder question to measure and write about. That’s at the level of ‘Did we get a good deal on supplies’ and ‘Did we make sure we weren’t just funneling funds to someone’s uncle.’

If the priority is wrong, it doesn’t matter if the money is spent effectively. In fact that might even be worse! If the priority is right, the funds can still be mis-spent.

[PS - As I ponder what I just wrote I realize there is also a principal here (which you didn't mention, but I bet you'd agree with) that spending other people's money is more likely to be wasteful - because there's less care when it's free and because there are more strings and strings applied at a distance are blunt instruments that often misunderstand local reality. Which I guess actually is getting back to your disagreement with telling local officials how to spend.]

Comment on Salary controls: The drumbeat of socialism grows louder by SQT

SQT — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:33:19 +0000

The government has done such a good job snowing the public on this.

My husband works at Merrill, and no, he doesn’t make $500k, nor did he get one of those million dollar bonuses. Very few brokers did.

What people don’t understand is that those brokers are paid on commission. If a broker makes $500k a year it’s because they bring in a lot of business for that company in profits. They are only paid on a portion of the profits. The bonuses are part of the incentive program that encourages brokers to keep bringing in more business– and therefore more revenue. It’s very simple. It’s basically a sales job. The brokers sell their services and they’re paid on how good a job they do.

Now, with the salary caps, profitable brokers will leave. It’s all the topic of conversation right now. Brokers who bring millions into the company are very likely going to jump ship– and many of them are looking at non-U.S. companies. Credit Suisse maybe, or RBS.

What that means long term is that any broker already making over $500k or who has the potential to make $500k is going to leave and take their clients with them. Companies like Merrill will die their final death because only the low producing brokers will stay. And profits may move to non-U.S. companies. On top of that, they won’t be able to pay back the TARP funds and the tax payer will be on the hook for that.

This whole plan stinks and it will do nothing but drive put the final nail in these companies and drive up U.S. dept even more. Dumb dumb dumb.

Comment on Experts say bailout is grossly mismanaged… and this is a surprise? by Tom Awtry

Tom Awtry — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:59:31 +0000

I feel the stimulus package is in good hands with Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary and away from the former Secretary Paulson who basically ripped the American people off with his bad, unquestionable investments with our tax payer money.

http://ourcountryspresident.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/cheated-again-by-the-treasury-department/