Recycling Gets a New Look

by francine Hardaway on September 8, 2008

Today is the first day of the rest of our lives. Americans on both sides of the political fence should know that the bailout of Fannie and Freddie means things will never be the same. Never mind the markets, which will gyrate up first (ah, problem solved) and then come back to reality (what are our Treasury bonds going to be worth). I’m talking real life. Beyond this euphoric week, when once again the markets will be high on financial cocaine. And then have to deal with coming down, which will probably include the merger of our automakers and the loss of more jobs.

Americans, you cannot have any more. There isn’t any more left. You spent it all. Americans especially Baby Boomers, have never been savers. Maybe it is the influence of their Depression-era parents, against whom they wanted to rebel. Boomers thought it was not worth while to save when you could invest and make more money.

A generation of financial planners underscored that philosophy, telling us that the stock market has always performed better than savings, and that the equity in our houses was a form of savings. And then, of course, things got even worse in the last ten years, what with the ability to day trade online and refinance the equity OUT of houses. Disintermediated, we have our own power to speculate.

So now, although we argue against socialized medicine, we hsve condoned socialized finance. The government has literally taken over the free markets.

This is horrible, but also laughable. The Republicans, notorious fiscal conservatives engineered the government takeover. And why not? For the last eight years they have been looking away from the problem. There are no other solutions.

But they are not the only ones to blame, because most of these problems were a long time in developing. And we can waste a lot of time laying blame rather than moving to solve the problem

Mort Zuckerman, conservative owner of The New York Daily News, put it best this morning on Mornig Joe. when he said the American people were going to have to accept a forced form of savings: increased taxes to pay for this bailout and all the others. He also said that neither candidate can afford to tell the truth about the situation we are in now, although he believes the American people know something is wrong.

So here’s my advice to you: vote for the first guy who tells you it will be necessary to raise taxes for a while.
You can’t get around it, so you might as well go for the guy who gives it to you straight. That will probably be Obama.

Younger people, watch what we did and do the opposite. We destroyed your planet and borrowed you into eternal debt. Do you know what “change” really means? Taxes. You will pay them, but if I were you, I’d also start to squirrel money away in a sock. Reduce, re-use, reycle. It will save the planet and probably your finances as well.

{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

Christian Burns September 8, 2008 at 7:06 am

Wow, that forced savings plan doesn’t sound fun.

I was struck the other day with the fact that here we are, the richest country in the world and none of us can be satisfied with what we have, we all want the latest and coolest stuff. The big house, the nice car.

Borrowing to have all the things you want never leads to happiness.

“balancing the budget” because you got a huge raise is not the same as making hard choices at home and spending only what you have.

Kelly Roy September 8, 2008 at 9:46 am

Not only is it socialized finance, but socialized bail out of people who make bad choices everyday to further their own satisfaction by going further into debt. My Kindergartner’s class lives by a saying of “make good choices” to keep your “duck off the pond”. Getting your duck on the pond is a BIG negative to be avoided or be called out for a bad choice. Its drop dead simple for the kids to understand- maybe we need to put some ducks on the pond and teach people what bad choices lead to. Instead, we rely on those folks who make good choices to bail out those who make bad ones. I don’t envy Obama or McCain neither has a fun job ahead, and I completely agree taxes will have to be raised, anybody who thinks otherwise is putting their head in the sand- like another quirky bird :).

Francine hardaway September 8, 2008 at 10:18 am

And as a society, we have been told to spend. Remember after 9/11? What did Bush say? GO SHOPPING!

Michael VanDervort September 9, 2008 at 3:43 am

What’s even worse is, the Republicans took care of the Execs before they nationalized the mortgage brokers. Dick Symon will probably get $14 million as part of a new clause in his employment contract.

There was some interesting back and forth on an HR bloggers group over this.

At least our Asian creditors are happy.

Nonsense September 9, 2008 at 11:01 am

Only those of left-leaning persuasion would ever argue that raising taxes will improve the situation. Taxes need to be lowered still, government needs to shrink, and entitlements and funding for pseudo-socialist programs need to be drastically reduced. You lefties like to claim that President Bush has created the largest deficit in history…while that may be true in pure dollar terms, when looking at the deficit as a percentage of GDP (which any economist will tell you is the measurement that matters) it is historically low. Economic prosperity occurs with lower taxes, not higher! But then again, I realize basic Econ 101 is often lost on liberals, who are driven primarily by emotion and feeling rather than logic and reason. It is slightly understandable and maybe even a little excusable since modern liberalism is best defined by its own madness. As my good friend Dr. Rossiter observes, Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion. Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate: his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.

What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”

The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force.

It should be apparent by now that these social policies and the passions that drive them contradict all that is rational in human relating, and they are therefore irrational in themselves. But the faulty conceptions that lie behind these passions cannot be viewed as mere cognitive slippage. The degree of modern liberalism’s irrationality far exceeds any misunderstanding that can be attributed to faulty fact gathering or logical error. Indeed, under careful scrutiny, liberalism’s distortions of the normal ability to reason can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities.

As is the case in all personality disturbance, defects of this type represent serious failures in development processes. The nature of these failures is detailed below. Among their consequences are the liberal mind’s relentless efforts to misrepresent human nature and to deny certain indispensable requirements for human relating. In his efforts to construct a grand collectivist utopia—to live what Jacques Barzun has called “the unconditioned life” in which “everybody should be safe and at ease in a hundred ways”—the radical liberal attempts to actualize in the real world an idealized fiction that will mitigate all hardship and heal all wounds. He acts out this fiction, essentially a Marxist morality play, in various theaters of human relatedness, most often on the world’s economic, social and political stages. But the play repeatedly folds. Over the course of the Twentieth Century, the radical liberal’s attempts to create a brave new socialist world have invariably failed. At the dawn of the Twenty-first Century his attempts continue to fail in the stagnant economies, moral decay and social turmoil now widespread in Europe. An increasingly bankrupt welfare society is putting the U.S. on track for the same fate if liberalism is not cured there. Because the liberal agenda’s principles violate the rules of ordered liberty, his most determined efforts to realize its visionary fantasies must inevitably fall short. Yet, despite all the evidence against it, the modern liberal mind believes his agenda is good social science. It is, in fact, bad science fiction. He persists in this agenda despite its madness.

WebPixie September 10, 2008 at 7:41 pm

…and middle-of-the-road people want it both ways. More nonsense.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: