Making Sense of a Nonsensical Time

This makes sense to me, because flash back to the stimulus check, done via tax bracket. Its never made sense, and it never will make sense to pay people more government funding if they make more. This makes way too much common sense, so they must circumvent, reword and reward negligent friends who are in the higher bracket.
The article best explaining in layman’s turn what is going on is:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/29/why_bail/
I was linked to it from my friend Natalie’s blog. Here are some highlights I liked best.

By Dean Baker
“At this point I cannot identify a single good reason to do the bailout.
The basic argument for the bailout is that the banks are filled with so much bad debt that the banks can't trust each other to repay loans. This creates a situation in which the system of payments breaks down. That would mean that we cannot use our ATMs or credit cards or cash checks.
That is a very frightening scenario, but this is not where things end. The Federal Reserve Board would surely step in and take over the major money center banks so that the system of payments would begin functioning again. The Fed was prepared to take over the major banks back in the 80s when bad debt to developing countries threatened to make them insolvent. It is inconceivable that it has not made similar preparations in the current crisis.
In other words, the worst case scenario is that we have an extremely scary day in which the markets freeze for a few hours. Then the Fed steps in and takes over the major banks. The system of payments continues to operate exactly as before, but the bank executives are out of their jobs and the bank shareholders have likely lost most of their money. In other words, the banks have a gun pointed to their heads and are threatening to pull the trigger unless we hand them $700 billion.
If we are not worried about this worst case scenario (to be clear, I wouldn't want to see it), then why should we do the bailout?
There has been a mountain of scare stories and misinformation circulated to push the bailout. Yes, banks have tightened credit. Yes, we are in a recession. But the problem is not a freeze up of the banking system. The problem is the collapse of an $8 trillion housing bubble. (It was remarkable how many so-called experts somehow could not see the housing bubble as it grew to ever more dangerous levels. It is even more remarkable that many of these experts still don't recognize the bubble even as its collapse sinks the economy and the financial system.) The decline in housing prices to date has already cost the economy $4 trillion to $5 trillion in housing equity. This would be expected to lead to a decline in annual consumption on the order of $160 billion to $300 billion.
Given the loss of housing equity, I have actually been surprised that the downturn has not been sharper. Homeowners had been consuming based on their home equity. Much of that equity has now disappeared with the collapse of the bubble. We would expect that their consumption would fall. We also would expect that banks would be reluctant to lend to people who no longer have any collateral.
This is the story of the downturn and of course the bailout does almost nothing to counter this drop in demand. At best, it will make capital available to some marginal lenders who would not otherwise receive loans. We should demand more for $700 billion.
For the record, the restrictions on executive pay and the commitment to give the taxpayers equity in banks in exchange for buying bad assets are jokes. These provisions are sops to provide cover. They are not written in ways to be binding. (And Congress knows how to write binding rules.)
Finally, the bailout absolutely can make things worse. We are going to be in a serious recession because of the collapse of the housing bubble. We will need effective stimulus measures to boost the economy and keep the recession from getting worse.
However, the $700 billion outlay on the bailout is likely to be used as an argument against effective stimulus. We have already seen voices like the Washington Post and the Wall Street funded Peterson Foundation arguing that the government will have to make serious cutbacks because of the bailout.
While their argument is wrong, these are powerful voices in national debates. If the bailout proves to be an obstacle to effective stimulus in future months and years, then the bailout could lead to exactly the sort of prolonged economic downturn that its proponents claim it is intended to prevent.
In short, the bailout rewards some of the richest people in the country for their incompetence. It provides little obvious economic benefit and could lead to long-term harm. That looks like a pretty bad deal.”

So in reality the bailout only rewards people who are spending more than the average person. Probably the same people who haven’t dropped prices in food. So looking at the Presidential tickets, some things the layman should know.
McCain/Palin-will likely be a continuing of the Bush regime. Rewarding friends with tax breaks and so forth, just like most all other Republicans minus Ron Paul.
Obama/Biden-since he isn’t backed by huge corporate businesses, it’s a lot more likely he won’t reward them with tax breaks.
Who would you choose? Who would reward the more middle class Americans?
Also, for people who market and use the internet for business, McCain wants to charge you a type of electronic property fee. While I have to admit the market is there, why should people have to pay for their online advertising, aside from what they probably already pay.
Last Spring when the markets were teetering it seemed worse for the gov to step in and save companies. What happened to capitalism? And the only way capitalism works is if the government isn’t attached. The more banks going under now is the banks own fault. But no one is worried about their neglectful actions because if its bad enough and they think they affect the economy so heavily, they now the government will come in and save them.

America the Beautiful?

I am an Unreliable Narrator, I realize that, I’m impulsive and quick to the point, but have benefited very much from my “initiative”.

This being said, look at the country, its crumbling under our feet, the economy is a joke and if this only affected the US I wouldn’t care, but its nation wide. The US has put the world in a very scary position. This era of running around without checks and balances, removing regulations is taking its toll. And I for one am not going to sit quietly while people lie to my face and tell me everything is going to be ok.

This is scary.

So who is responsible? The greedy people who removed the regulations and lined their friends pockets with money. I am a moderate, and I don’t really feel I should have to have a tie to a country that has so abused my rights. What rights you say? Property.

Property has been a long promise for those in the middle class and that dream was ripped away when people started walking away from loans and mortgages. But why would banks give loans to people who before now wouldn’t have been approved, the removal of regulation and now the demand for it as there are consistent bail outs, but who is benefiting? I see my stocks shrinking, so it must be those greedy bigots at the top, the ones who used loans that should have benefited first time home buyers on 3rd and 4th houses.

You think this is radical? Well open your eyes, if you aren’t appalled you aren’t paying attention. It seems like no one is. Look at the condition of the world, it seems people who should be paying really close attention have done nothing, and who is going to suffer? We are.

A few summers ago an amazing TV show aired, which I watched online, why pollute my mind with more advertising? The show was amazing, it touched on the dystopian feel of America, and how so many do not feel a strong patriotic feel. I am one of them. I see America as destroying culture, the strong influence we have over the development of todays time is awful. What happened to the beauty each culture had before? Why swirl it into one? Helped them? Brought them technology? Hardly, England merely exploited and how can anyone say we do any different? There is a reason that people in India run from people trying to give them polio immunizations, because before they were sterilized.

Leave the country you say? Gladly, but the irreparable damage is done, and the whole world is suffering. But aren’t we innovative you say? Hardly, our country outlawed scientific developments for RELIGIOUS REASONS. That’s nearly as awful as burning down the Great Library but instead outlawing the knowledge within. So how can I speak out?

I am a traveler, I refuse to be an American. Not with its cookie cutter neighborhoods, excessive consuming, and paltry fast food restaurants.

So I am Angie a traveler.

Snack or Feast?

I have read Breaking Dawn by Stephenie Meyer, and I’m not impressed by it at all. Its like my pickiness with watching movies, they should do something for me, otherwise why should I waste my time watching? Time is something I value, I don’t have enough of it. I’m always in a hurry, busy, and I welcome days where nothing is planned. Even getting sick is a blessing, as it forces both Ryan and I to slow down.

Back to the book, its candy, its like chocolate, easy to consume but not nourishing, lest its dark chocolate, but the whole series has been gross waxy chocolate. Even worse is that people are raving about it, this very very unhealthy book series. However, I feel that with Breaking Dawn, there was too much and people finally took a stand against the impracticality and the difference between that and real life.

Good writers don’t let you question between what is reality and what is the book’s reality. They tell you what is real, and when you finish the book, you ache for that other reality, or location, you feel its departure and ending acutely. This is not the case with mediocre writing.

Astounding difference, “The Book Thief” written some few years ago has a more poignant story and makes you miss the world and story. Perhaps I have been spoiled, I’m fairly certain I have had the good fortune to get my hands on stories and books that have enriched my being.

Now let us compare, what would you rather have, a beautifully delicious feast or a simple Hershey’s bar? I felt like “Breaking Dawn” was a simple American waxy chocolate bar. Where is the quality in that?

Now to go find myself a feast.

Opposite Day

My brain is literally a mess of things right now. This is my feeble attempt to sort some issues out. I really am quite unfocused right now. This is so awkwardly different from Saturday, when I woke up and started writing, same for Sunday, but I guess weekend life is radically different from the work week. I dream of a day when it’s the opposite, when my job besides taking care of children will be writing.

Repression and the Obvious Consequential Result

I’m reading “The Catcher in the Rye”, a book I recalled from a Newsradio episode where the characters were all discussing how their parents wouldn’t let them read it; one mother burned down her house to stop her child from reading it. This encouraged me to read the novel, however 5-6 years later I have finally begun to read it.

The 50’s kind of appall me. I just don’t understand how revolutionary ideas would be so tamed by the end of war. Logically the end of war is two steps forward, not two steps back. And a book like “The Catcher in the Rye” published in 1951, should not have been so disconcerting. The book deals with a lot of swearing, but as compared to what is published nowadays, it is exceedingly tame.

The novel deals with growing up, dealing with teenage angst with a character that is relatable for all, someone dealing with depression as a result of post traumatic stress.

Why should mental illness have been so taboo? Why was there such an awful social stigma associated with being psycho analyzed, and why has it caused such a commotion.

However, I think the 1950’s taught us a very important lesson. If you do not deal with an issue, it does not go away, it merely festers. Something to keep in mind with current issues, ignoring them and brushing them under the rug makes the situation worse.

Logically the 50’s repression leads to the 60’s wildness, and the 50’s conservativeness leads to the 60’s liberalness. But that’s a good thing and society has a way of correcting itself from decade to decade, lets see what the 2010’s have in store for us.