Could Republicans Have Something Right Here?

I have to admit, in recent years I have become polarized toward the left when it comes to my political beliefs. It's amazing what an inept, ideological president can do to ones political philosophy, but I digress. I once associated more with the Republicans' politics, but my beliefs have since been reformed to the point that I can barely conceive of a Republican doing anything right (and Democrats only get things partially right, but that's the choice I have to make), but I think the Republicans are on to something here with this financial recovery package being debated. 

As previously noted, I question the severity of this economic crisis. But, I must defer to those leading this country because they have much more access to economic knowledge and how our system works than I do. So that being said, there seems to be no question of if we should pass some sort of bailout, but rather what should be included in any bill that gets past to prop up our failing financial system. The debate is complex, it is melded with presidential year politics, partisanship (which in a party system will happen, I don't use it in the pejorative sense here), and class affinities/aversions. So that being said, ostensibly the Republicans don't want Americans to foot the bill completely here. I agree. That should not happen, unless of course Americans seek to reap some sort of return from their tax dollars going to fix an ailing financial system.  Now, I don't fully understand their plan, or to what extent there is support for such a plan, but from what I understand they want other businesses to buy up these bad mortgages, and those businesses will then purchase insurance for them. Sounds good in some respects, but I also worry about more monopoly, and more consolidation, because I believe those two trends are, in part, responsible for our current crisis. I"m just left wondering, could the Republicans be on to something?

I'm beginning a thoughtful, prudent bill must be develop, quickly of course, but not too rashly at the same time. It must make not allow profit to come to financial institutions receiving tax payer dollars, unless of course we see some return equally. That would be a compromise of sorts, since both parties would pay to cure the economy. I certainly concede that regular Americans benefit from a healthy economy, so we need a strong economy, but I just don't want to see in increase in the maldistribution of wealth in America. And I want answers to the question; If the government can propose spending 700billion to pay for an economic bailout passage, than why is it so odious, and antithetical from the perspective of lawmakers, to pass bills paying for education, health care, and unemployment benefits? Some believe that social welfare fosters dependency on government. Well, then I must ask, what does bailing out the financial sector do?  Ideas are powerful, and not asking such important questions do not challenge a double standard of ideals that the American people are spoon fed. I'm glad that the House didn't pass the current bill, but something does need to be done. This is a watershed moment for American politics and society, one which could irrevocably change America forever. An exciting time for political pundits, a precarious time for Americans.

If There Were No Angels....

...would there be no sin? I believe I heard it first in a Pearl Jam song, but at the time it didn't resonate with me. To me, at that time, it was simply a "cool" question. Well, would there be no sin? What constitutes a sin? Is something a sin because some religious figure dubbed it such, or because it is a commonly agreed upon standard for moral conduct. Think about this; do you not kill your mother/father because Jesus says it is wrong, or because you are aware of the moral and legal complications surrounding the issue? Let me put it to you this way (and I"m posing this question to believers, not Atheists like myself); If there were no God would you still refrain from lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc? This is the conundrum of all time if you are a religious person. To answer the question "yes, I would refrain from all of the above even in the absence of a God," would undermine your religious doctrine in a profound way. But to answer "no, I would decline into a state of utter depravity", would expose you as an immoral person, and somewhat of a lunatic. It's the type of question that is described as a "conversation stopper" when debating this issue (if there is such a thing) with a believer. So to answer the question set forth above; Yes, if there were no angels, there would most certainly still be sin because sin is not just about religion. The word sin itself may be a religious derivative, but ultimately it comes down to scruples and a society's values. We often are made to believe that religion is about "higher principles". I, however, believe it is a higher principle to do what is right not because some "higher power" tells you what is right, but because it is simply the right thing to do. These are just a few simple thoughts I had on religion.

Partisan Positioning

So we're in the midst of an economic crisis. Or are we. That's my take at least, since I have this deep suspicion that things at the top aren't as bad as we're being told they are. What I find most alarming though is the Bush administration's response to the Democrat's opinion that any economic bail out should include regular people, the so oft repeated "main street." The administration's response put succinctly is thus; we don't have time for partisanship, we need to overcome political rancor and division in order to save the economy. What is the economy anyway? Is it yours or my economy? Or is it the economy of Wall Street and Big Business? In an ideal world it would be a discourse that includes both since they both are truly a part of the collective American economy. 

However, the Bush administration's response to the Democrats insistence is emblematic of their position toward class and the economy in general, that is to say a biased one in favor of the monied interests. I'm a bit skeptical that the financial structure is in such danger in the first place, but any bail out attempt should include regular people. In my humble opinion the economic woes we're experiencing are a result of irresponsibility on all levels: government, personal, social, etc. Therefore, if we're going to bail out one party, we should bail out all. Think about what a bail out really is. As I heard Naomi Klein, author of the Shock Doctrine, describe it, and I'm paraphrasing here, think about waking up in the morning and having all of your debt erased. Think about that. No school loans, no credit cards, no home mortgage, no debt whatsoever. Now that is what the government is striving to do here. I'm not arguing that perhaps or economy needs some help right now, but I think there is something dubious going on here, especially when Bush calls helping the lowers classes partisanship. Why aren't businesses held accountable? They are after all made up of individuals right? The very same individuals that people like Bush and his lackeys declare should be more fiscally responsible. And shouldn't the economic puppeteers of our economy be held to an even higher level of responsibility and probity?

I am no economic expert, but I certainly find it awfully suspicious that when a group of Democrats wants to include a safety net for regular individuals in an economic package the president retorts, "that's partisanship." He treats it like an encumbrance. Screw you mom and pop, you put yourself in your own dire situation, but Mr. Wall Street let me take you inside, wash you off, feed you a nice hot dinner, and let you sleep in my bed. That's the essence of what is going on here. When you are I go into debt, irresponsibly or not, we're up the creek without a paddle. As actors in the economy, we all share responsibility to make sure we have a sound economic foundation from which we can all prosper. If that system begins to falter, we have a responsibility to help out as tax payers. I'm ok with that. But what is troubling is that so many times, Americans are told to work harder, to save, or to be more responsible when they are finding themselves in an economic hole, instead of being on the receiving end of 700 billion dollars.