For the better part of the existence of the modern world, there has been one particular raging debate that has never ceased, though at some times has lied dormant.
That is the debate between those who believe the role of government in a democratic society is to work toward the betterment of the entire society, sometimes at the expense of the individual, and those who believe the role of government to be to ensure the freedom of the individual even if at the expense of the collective good.
I know, it's a very oversimplified version of the argument. However, I don't have a lot of time here, and I want to relate this to the current debate in the House and Senate regarding the "bailout".
Let's just cut to the chase and point out the damn obvious: Those who support the bailout - whether they acknowledge it or not - are in favor of the taxpayer loaning $700 billion to the banks, so that those same banks can then loan more money to the taxpayer, in order to ensure that the taxpayer can continue to buy homes, cars, and whatever else they need to buy in order for this bastardized version of free-market capitalism to survive. Am I wrong? I don't think so. Sure, there's a few things in the bill that are good ideas, like insuring bank deposits up to $250,000 instead of just $100,000, but the poor and middle income people who are more screwed than anyone in this deal could really care less about that. Oh, sure, we are supposed to care because what happens to the rich ultimately affects the poor too, or something to that affect. HOGWASH! Note the government: THE POOR IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE BEEN IN A DEPRESSION FOR A VERY LONG TIME ALREADY! THERE IS VIRTUALLY NOTHING THE WEALTHY CAN DO TO MAKE OUR LIVES ANY WORSE, AND ARGUABLY OUR LIVES WILL GET EASIER IF THE RABID BANKS THAT OFFERED US THE CRAPPY DEBT IN THE FIRST PLACE JUST DISAPPEAR OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH!
Anyway, back to the argument at hand. There are also a lot of legislators and literally millions upon millions of citizens who are dead set against the bailout. In the House and Senate, there are two kinds of "against". The first is the conservative argument against, which is pretty simple and pretty ridiculous and callous - as most conservative arguments are -, and it basically states that the bailout is a bad idea because it too closely resembles SOCIALISM; the "S" word. However, they are sorely mistaken, because under a Socialist government, even a more mild social democrat government, we would be proposing that the banks be taken over by the tax payer, or "nationalized." This is precisely what they have done in Europe as of late, thanks to our shenanigans. In reality, the conservative ideologues should be really happy about this bailout, because it essentially is saying to the rest of the country that free-market capitalism is alive and well, but we just need to give the banks a bunch more money so that you fellas can get richer as a result of further enslaving the tax payers with debt they know they can never pay off. Sound familiar? It should, if you are a modern day conservative. The second argument against the bailout is from the more leftist Democrats like Kucinich, who argue that if the taxpayer is going to be enlisted in saving the economic structure of the country, it should come at a price, and that price should be guaranteed profits from the investments the banks make on their behalf (effectively nationalization)and guaranteed relief for struggling homeowners who were duped into applying for these ridiculous loans they were too ignorant to know much about.
Now, without getting into the debate about whether or not someone with a $30,000 salary should even be trying to buy a $200,000 house, let's just say there is blame to go around here. However, one thing is damn certain: The banks knew everything all along, and yet they still sent the enticing loan offers out to potential home buyers. I personally could build a mountain out of the home loan offers I was receiving in the mail for a whole year after I financed my car. Plus, we are told from the beginning of our lives that owning a home is the dream we should all be striving for. So why not take the loan when it is offered? Anyway, blaming the homeowner for buying a home they were told they COULD afford by the bank is like blaming the poor sucker who bought a crappy car from the auto lot. Both parties are at fault.
Well, I have to go now, but here's my parting thought:
We are at a philosophical crossroads in this country, one at which we must decide what we think the role of the government really is, and this bailout issue is the perfect example. I happen to be of the mind that the fastest and most logical way out of this mess is to spread the money out to the very people who are engine of economy, the workers, the homeowners, the middle class rabble who really make the world go round. I don't see any reason to bail out the very people who have spent their lives making the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is not necesarilly bigger government I am advocating for, but a more justified use of the government as a whole. Work to provide for the good of the many, at the expense of the few, first. Then, after we get that on a good footing, we can talk about our next steps.
No comments:
Post a Comment