Apparently Bill O'Reilly is *for the bailout* and isn't tolerant of rich guys on "right wing conservative talk radio" who dare stand against it. According to him they are "Kool-Aid drinking idiots", "liars", "right wing liars", and "they're not looking out for you".
Okay.
Then Mark Levin comes on and fires back, "Moron", "you jerk", "you paid more in hush money for your little phone sex than I've ever earned.", "the Non-Factor who doesn't know crapola about economics, history, or law", "another mainstream Moron phony journalist", and "jealous like hell of Rush Limbaugh".
Levin's final shots: "Your ratings suck" and "you'll be gone soon".
Okay, he can bust on the guy's radio ratings, but c'mon, Bill O'Reilly has knocked the cover off the ball on television.
Anyway, I wanted to point out what's really going on here. Yeah, Bill O'Reilly may genuinely think his opinion on the *bailout* is unimpeachable gospel; and there may be more than a little bit of professional jealousy.
BUT, anyone who's ever studied Bill's tack would know that he considers himself, or markets himself a populist - a basher of the elites on *both sides*. Frankly, I can't stand this dichotomized construct but admit that is does have a rough basis in fact - if only because so few people today can think for themselves that everyone has decided to self-pigeonhole. For years Bill has been exposing so-called left wing loons on his show: would-be marijuana legalizers, San Francisco inverts, *restorative justice* advocates, etc. But he's always strained to find marketable wackos from the other *constructed* pole. Usually he's been reduced to bringing in some obscure Protestant clergymen; or non-orthodox Catholic priests in favor of Amnesty for illegal immigrants; and making very much ado about them. The fact is, in this country, 90% of the clowns are on one side; and that's because that side dominates our culture: the media, the courts, government, education, etc. These *LLL* Morons are allowed to act out with absolute impunity; heck they're encouraged.
In other periods of history - say when a hidebound Catholic Church reigned supreme - the polar balance of wackos was completely reversed. It is simply empirical history that:
Cuius regio ejus religio - "whose region, his or her religion" or "the religion of the ruled must be that of the ruler."
Bill HAS to blow up at *right wingers* on any particular issue he can in order to keep (transparently) chiseling his image as a moderate, as an independent. This is his MO and he's sticking to it!
Now, to speak more generally on this *bailout* that everyone and their mother has a fanatical opinion of:
A friend of mine yesterday tried to frame his *pro bailout* perspective thusly - he said that "when the extreme right and the extreme left are against it....you know it's the correct, practical thing to do."
"Okay," I said conceding that specious premise, "but will it in fact 'work'??? Will it stimulate the economy in any meaningful, sustainable fashion???"
Of course it won't. The government has already spent $700 billion to date on ailing financial institutions and various real estate bubble-exposed entities. Home prices have kept dropping and will continue to do so for another 20%-30% - until they equalize with personal incomes. Look at that chart again from my recent post - and the other one where I put the bailout cost of higher gasoline alone at $109.5 billion already.
Now again, I don't care for the puerile dichotomized framing of issues; and I haven't done any real research on which *categories* of people voted for or against the DOA *bailout*. BUT, I will say this:
If it's the diehard communists and the diehard libertarians who voted against a taxpayer funded extension of this Ponzi scheme, I have to say, IMNSHO, they are both correct and true to their ideologies.
This bailout is a complete boondoggle, a complete *bailout* of Wall Street, of wealthy investors, and of foreign governments. Any clear-headed, consistent socialist could see that. Hardly a soul on Wall Street has had to return a bonus or been charged with a crime. Not a single official from the SEC or from government has had to resign or admit blame. Apparently this tide of bankruptcies following a tremendous (if fleeting) boom is absolutely no one's fault - at least in the quadrants of finance and a government (which seems perpetually staffed by Goldman Sachs partners). If it weren't for bogeymen, there'd be hardly a soul to blame. Heck, Fannie Mae's head crooks are paid advisers to the frontrunning presidential candidate!
Furthermore, there is no way that anyone with a bona fide understanding of and appreciation for the free exchange of goods and services could ever endorse the overnight nationalization of the banking industry (and housing, and insurance). This *bailout* is the culmination of decades of statist economic meddling, of voter apathy, and the nationwide epidemic of econo-illiteracy. Even supposed capitalists like Steve Forbes and Don Luskin have forsaken their principles for the fantasy of hope; for the pipe dream that even though government can't teach kids to read, manage the retirement money of Americans, efficiently build roads, deliver universal healthcare, enforce the law, protect us from terrorists and hurricanes...that this fumbling entity can indefinitely suspend *prices* above *economic value*. You see, as the air departs this credit bubble, reality is torturing the souls of perma-optimsts and paper-wealth tigers. The fact that extremely wealthy people losing a mere 15% of their net-worth are going ape-sh*t is a frank admission of ignorance and impiety; it's proof they have an unhealthy, idolatrous lust for a currency *they can't take with them*.
True believers in free-market capitalism would be relishing this *buying opportunity*; they'd be celebrating the pruning of weak industry; and would be unshakably confident in the economy's ability innovate and regenerate its way back to prosperity.
But no. People with soft assets - real estate (YES), stocks, and bonds - are petrified because deep-down inside (since apparently not upstairs) they know they've built their livelihood upon a house of cards,
THEY'VE TAKEN AN ADJUSTABLE MORTGAGE ON IT,
AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEIR BONUS AND THEIR WAGE SLAVE PAY ISN'T SO SECURE...
The idea that a bunch of bought-and-sold, ignorant lawyers in Washington can wave a wand and convert popular self-delusion into reality, well...
In that case the *bailout* bill may as well commence:
Devil's Advocate - You just want the market to tank and the bailout to fail so you can profit from your shorts and perhaps scoop up a house on the cheap...You're as biased as anyone.
Wrong. I made my bets AFTER assessing the future. The others placed theirs BEFOREHAND. Go read my last 700 or so posts!
By the way, I'll NEVER buy a house - if I can. I would say that based on the flux in my wife's firm, there's at least a 20% chance now we'll have to move, AGAIN, back to the NYC/NJ area. Notwithstanding the six month winter I happen to really like this oasis of Boston's South Shore. Regardless, I've grown too BIG to ever be defined or confined by geography.
Sorry to have condescended to *politics*; but I was taking heat from Taylor for too much "social commentary". This anti-social post was for him.
2 comments:
Politics is, in fact, the greatest anti-social exercise of all time... after all, who controls govt and who decides what to do with the govt's power ultimately makes the decisions about what parts of "society" will be sacrificed for "the common good."
I enjoyed the post, even it was a bit of a *digression* from the more recent fare.
Someone recently made the quip that:
George Bush came to office 8 years ago a social conservative, BUT he's now leaving a conservative socialist!
Post a Comment