So the battle over the Financial Regulation bill has yet to pass the filibuster stage. Deja vu anyone?
Like in the battle for healthcare, the GOP has set up camp with Big Money; rather than those well-meaning and sweet-hearted insurance corporations, though, they're bedded with the financial firms that brought our economy to its knees in the first place. With their campaign chests stuffed with bonus money, the Republicans are fighting the same stalling battle as before; desperately holding off legislation that will make it harder to swindle American citizens with fine print and outrageous fees.
Last week, President Obama gave a speech outlining his plan. It's not too long, and it outlines his administration's goals with the new legislation being delayed now in the Senate.
One quote I noticed was this:
"Some on Wall Street forgot that behind every dollar traded or leveraged, there is family looking to buy a house, pay for an education, open a business, or save for retirement. What happens here has real consequences across our country."
I believe the President is referring the dubious practice of short selling, wherein firms can bet on the failure of a company (or the nation of Greece if you're JP Morgan Chase) and thus make money on the death of another corporation. The Daily Show's Samantha Bee outlines the wonders of this little system in her Money Honey Bee segment. Basically when people notice there are bets being placed against a company, that company's stock prices plummet as investors are scared away. This panic selling is bad.
The other fun thing that Wall Street was doing to cause the financial collapse was, quite literally, pulling money out of thin air.
So instead of working with Democrats to construct and move the bill along, the Republicans are more content to use political games to delay a law that improves America for everyone.
I assume its because more regulation somehow infringes on the freedoms of corporations. This idea is amusing because it assumes businesses are people. They are not. They are staffed and operated by people, all of whom have the same equal rights. The corporation is like a tractor that the CEO is paid to drive for a while, and like how we have regulations for how you drive down the street, we should have regulations for how CEOs handle their monstrous rigs on the economic highway.
Bowing to greater authority, I'll end with words from the President:
"That's why we need to give consumers more protection and power in our financial system. This is not about stifling competition or innovation. Just the opposite: with a dedicated agency setting ground rules and looking out for ordinary people in our financial system, we'll empower consumers with clear and concise information when making financial decisions. Instead of competing to offer confusing products, companies will compete the old-fashioned way: by offering better products. That will mean more choices for consumers, more opportunities for businesses, and more stability in our financial system. And unless your business model depends on bilking people, there is little to fear from these new rules."
EDIT: Daily Show covers a bit of the Sachs Trial.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
American Economy and the Media [written in early March before the vote]
While browsing through The Economist a while ago, my attention was grabbed by two articles speaking against big government, published more or less as the publication's official viewpoint.
The first article was a picture of a disgusting, obese, barely-human blob, dropping what looks like a businessman into its mouth. The other featured multiple cartoons depicting government as Godzilla, terrorizing banks, hospitals, and other valued symbols of civil infrastructure. To add to the image, the article continuously refers to the rise of government as the rise of Leviathan, a biblical beast that basically no one likes.
Powerful imagery in a double attack; a giant scary monster to frighten, and a biblical reference to link the opposite stance to Satan himself. Clever, really. And it fits in with a growing theme and pattern of political media over the last year that shows alarming congruency: A message of fear and warning supported by half-truths.
Each article cites impressive sounding facts about money spending, GDPs, etc. etc., each showing how much money the government is spending. Yet not a single mention is made to what this money has done, or why it had to be spent in the first place. The Economist doesn't care what was bought, but the fact that something was bought at all is apparently bad.
Like the arch-typical businessman who loses his soul in his quest for money, America seems obsessed with only one thing: the bottom line. The point behind the spending is forgotten as if it were an unimportant factoid below notice. Why is that I wonder? If the money were being spent in wasteful places, I would expect to see calls for investigation from political opponents on both sides. But instead, silence.
Its as if the very IDEA of spending is the problem.
In most basic sentences, you need a noun, a verb. Something merely needs to do something. The dog ran; the boy sat; etc. etc. Or in the case of political media:
The government spends.
Strangely enough, this most basic of sentences represents the entire conservative argument. Each new article, each new soundbite, is utterly devoted to saying that sentence as negatively as possible.
Students who make it to the second-half of 1st grade add a new level of complexity to their sentences; mostly without being aware of it. They add the direct object, or rather, a noun upon which the action of the verb is influencing.
The boy kicks a ball.
The cat eats the food.
This adds a new complexity to communication. Yes, the boy is kicking, but whether or not that boy is kicking a ball or a baby is an important distinction. Strangely, the media doesn't seem too interested in this part of syntax.
The government spends!
vs.
The government spends on welfare, infrastructure, wars, employees, etc. etc.
Where is the money that the government is spending going? It is something I need to know, or I begin to get the impression that someone is trying to manipulate me rather than legitimately try and provide me the facts I need to make an informed decision.
I have noticed that many have made strong stances in their opposition to spending on health care. Apparently, spending is SO bad, that paying for the medical bills of poor Americans doesn't quite make up for it. So what should the government spend money on, then? Poor cancer patients and Americans who are currently bleeding are not worth spending money on, so what then is more important?
Government's reason for existence is to provide safety, stability, and quality of life for its members, yet for some reason, the only tool the government has for doing that, money, is currently off-limits. Why is money so important that the only true virtue is to not spend it?
Money is merely a tool of trade. In itself, its useless; a green piece of paper with vaguely recognizable symbolism related to the nation that uses it. It was designed so that people who had, say a ton of corn, could trade goods with people who had, say, a ton of barrels. The guy with corn wants some barrels, and he can't steal them, so what can he do? Trade, of course! But since he doesn't have money, all he can offer the barrel guy is a bunch of corn, and since the barrel guy doesn't happen to like, want, or need corn... well, corn guy is out of luck in the barrel department.
Luckily, someone invented money. A universally valued item that basically acts like the "x" in an algebra problem. Money is a variable, a simple "x" that can be offered for anything from corn to barrels. People are willing to accept this "x", because they know they can turn around and use it for some other "y" like say cheese, or curling irons.
The point of money is to spend it. The only reason to save money is to ensure that you have money to spend LATER. Yet for some reason, spending is BAD, especially if the time to spend money happens to be in the present.
So tell me how many billions of dollars our government spends on its social programs- THEN try and convince me how that is a waste of money. In all likelihood, I'll just respond by pointing out all the different ways you are making economics more important than the Four Freedoms. But there is always that chance you might actually have a point worth listening to, but I'll never KNOW if you don't provide the information!
The first article was a picture of a disgusting, obese, barely-human blob, dropping what looks like a businessman into its mouth. The other featured multiple cartoons depicting government as Godzilla, terrorizing banks, hospitals, and other valued symbols of civil infrastructure. To add to the image, the article continuously refers to the rise of government as the rise of Leviathan, a biblical beast that basically no one likes.
Powerful imagery in a double attack; a giant scary monster to frighten, and a biblical reference to link the opposite stance to Satan himself. Clever, really. And it fits in with a growing theme and pattern of political media over the last year that shows alarming congruency: A message of fear and warning supported by half-truths.
Each article cites impressive sounding facts about money spending, GDPs, etc. etc., each showing how much money the government is spending. Yet not a single mention is made to what this money has done, or why it had to be spent in the first place. The Economist doesn't care what was bought, but the fact that something was bought at all is apparently bad.
Like the arch-typical businessman who loses his soul in his quest for money, America seems obsessed with only one thing: the bottom line. The point behind the spending is forgotten as if it were an unimportant factoid below notice. Why is that I wonder? If the money were being spent in wasteful places, I would expect to see calls for investigation from political opponents on both sides. But instead, silence.
Its as if the very IDEA of spending is the problem.
In most basic sentences, you need a noun, a verb. Something merely needs to do something. The dog ran; the boy sat; etc. etc. Or in the case of political media:
The government spends.
Strangely enough, this most basic of sentences represents the entire conservative argument. Each new article, each new soundbite, is utterly devoted to saying that sentence as negatively as possible.
Students who make it to the second-half of 1st grade add a new level of complexity to their sentences; mostly without being aware of it. They add the direct object, or rather, a noun upon which the action of the verb is influencing.
The boy kicks a ball.
The cat eats the food.
This adds a new complexity to communication. Yes, the boy is kicking, but whether or not that boy is kicking a ball or a baby is an important distinction. Strangely, the media doesn't seem too interested in this part of syntax.
The government spends!
vs.
The government spends on welfare, infrastructure, wars, employees, etc. etc.
Where is the money that the government is spending going? It is something I need to know, or I begin to get the impression that someone is trying to manipulate me rather than legitimately try and provide me the facts I need to make an informed decision.
I have noticed that many have made strong stances in their opposition to spending on health care. Apparently, spending is SO bad, that paying for the medical bills of poor Americans doesn't quite make up for it. So what should the government spend money on, then? Poor cancer patients and Americans who are currently bleeding are not worth spending money on, so what then is more important?
Government's reason for existence is to provide safety, stability, and quality of life for its members, yet for some reason, the only tool the government has for doing that, money, is currently off-limits. Why is money so important that the only true virtue is to not spend it?
Money is merely a tool of trade. In itself, its useless; a green piece of paper with vaguely recognizable symbolism related to the nation that uses it. It was designed so that people who had, say a ton of corn, could trade goods with people who had, say, a ton of barrels. The guy with corn wants some barrels, and he can't steal them, so what can he do? Trade, of course! But since he doesn't have money, all he can offer the barrel guy is a bunch of corn, and since the barrel guy doesn't happen to like, want, or need corn... well, corn guy is out of luck in the barrel department.
Luckily, someone invented money. A universally valued item that basically acts like the "x" in an algebra problem. Money is a variable, a simple "x" that can be offered for anything from corn to barrels. People are willing to accept this "x", because they know they can turn around and use it for some other "y" like say cheese, or curling irons.
The point of money is to spend it. The only reason to save money is to ensure that you have money to spend LATER. Yet for some reason, spending is BAD, especially if the time to spend money happens to be in the present.
So tell me how many billions of dollars our government spends on its social programs- THEN try and convince me how that is a waste of money. In all likelihood, I'll just respond by pointing out all the different ways you are making economics more important than the Four Freedoms. But there is always that chance you might actually have a point worth listening to, but I'll never KNOW if you don't provide the information!
The New Jim Crow: Arizona's new Immigration Law
For the inaugural post of my commentary on all things politic, I want to talk, perhaps even rant a bit, about the new Immigration Law signed by (R) Gov. Jan Brewer.
Now, I'm not sure if I want this blog to be partisan charged, though I doubt I could avoid it. After all, every blogger who says they are neutral is lying, either to themselves or their readers (assuming they have any... I don't). Regardless of how professional I am going to be in the future, I will just have to speak from the heart on this one.
For those unaware, the new law in Arizona will give police the ability to stop anyone who might potentially be an illegal immigrant and ask for proof of citizenship. So what does this translate into the real world? Police, and the people who control the police, stopping any Hispanic they want, for any reason, whatsoever.
Yes. Because that is how good American laws work: the criteria for police action is the color of the suspect's skin.
America claims to be a nation where race holds no preference in legal matters; and this law basically tells that lofty idea to go fuck itself.
That's right, we're dealing with REAL America now. Good White Christian America. And thank God the loyal Republican Governor Jan Brewer was there to sign this bill into law. Without her, someone with sense might have vetoed this embarrassment to the American legal system instead of just letting it go get trounced by the Judicial Branch for being unconstitutional, which it will, because it is:
The 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. . ."
In Arizona, probable cause is now synonymous with "looking Mexican".
Awesome.
In my web browsing, I came across the words of a certain Mike Folkerth:
“It is however, Barrack Obama’s latest verbal attack on the courageous actions of Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer that has rendered me hopping mad. Governor Brewer has signed a STATE LAW that makes being an illegal alien in the state of Arizona…illegal. It also makes it a crime to employ or transport illegals. What a novel idea."
Like many conservatives, Folkerth entirely misses the point. People aren't criticizing this law because it makes illegal immigrants illegal (they are already illegal, why would you need another law?), people hate it because it is a Jim Crow law; a travesty to the American legal system.
Folkerth loves the law because he is white, and as a result, he doesn't look Hispanic. Thanks to his brilliantly colorless complexion, he will never be stopped by a police officer and asked for proof of citizenship, and thank god, for that would be grave insult to his person and a violation of his basic American rights.
So.... what? There are no LEGAL Hispanics in America? Is that what we are assuming here? That somehow police have a "spider-sense" that tells them who is an alien and who is not? Let's say a police officer stops Mr. Gonzales, a U.S. citizen, and asks him for his papers. Boom. Just violated the Constitution of America, but since it happened to some non-white person, it doesn't matter.
Well done, Jan Brewer, your legal sensibilities are a triumph of American values.
But normal Americans suffer from similar bouts of idiocy.
From the New York Times Article:
“I sure hope it [the law] does have an effect,” Mr. White said of the new law as he packed his car with groceries. “I wouldn’t want to show proof of citizenship, but I also don’t feel it is racial profiling. You are going to look different if you are an alien, and cops know.”
Yes. So the fittingly named white man, Mr. White, is against racial profiling and wouldn't want to show his own proof of citizenship if asked. But those cops, yeah, they KNOW who's an alien because they all LOOK DIFFERENT from citizens.
That difference? A few shades of hue where your epidermis shows.
Does Mr. White even listen to himself when he speaks, or does he think his disregard for logic is simply charming?
Another amusing element of this legislation is the requirement for all Hispanics to carry with them, at all times, proof of their citizenship. Now after all the conservative comparisons of Obama to Hitler, I would expect people would notice that this Arizona law is a lot like the whole Jewish Registry thing and the Stars of David during the reign of the Third Reich.
But on the other hand, I am not surprised at all: it's plainly obvious that anyone who compares Hitler and Obama doesn't know anything about either person (Or probably about much of anything, really), so it would follow they would know nothing at all about Nazism or any events of the period.
If these people didn't act on their ignorance, it would be cute.
Now, I'm not sure if I want this blog to be partisan charged, though I doubt I could avoid it. After all, every blogger who says they are neutral is lying, either to themselves or their readers (assuming they have any... I don't). Regardless of how professional I am going to be in the future, I will just have to speak from the heart on this one.
For those unaware, the new law in Arizona will give police the ability to stop anyone who might potentially be an illegal immigrant and ask for proof of citizenship. So what does this translate into the real world? Police, and the people who control the police, stopping any Hispanic they want, for any reason, whatsoever.
Yes. Because that is how good American laws work: the criteria for police action is the color of the suspect's skin.
America claims to be a nation where race holds no preference in legal matters; and this law basically tells that lofty idea to go fuck itself.
That's right, we're dealing with REAL America now. Good White Christian America. And thank God the loyal Republican Governor Jan Brewer was there to sign this bill into law. Without her, someone with sense might have vetoed this embarrassment to the American legal system instead of just letting it go get trounced by the Judicial Branch for being unconstitutional, which it will, because it is:
The 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. . ."
In Arizona, probable cause is now synonymous with "looking Mexican".
Awesome.
In my web browsing, I came across the words of a certain Mike Folkerth:
“It is however, Barrack Obama’s latest verbal attack on the courageous actions of Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer that has rendered me hopping mad. Governor Brewer has signed a STATE LAW that makes being an illegal alien in the state of Arizona…illegal. It also makes it a crime to employ or transport illegals. What a novel idea."
Like many conservatives, Folkerth entirely misses the point. People aren't criticizing this law because it makes illegal immigrants illegal (they are already illegal, why would you need another law?), people hate it because it is a Jim Crow law; a travesty to the American legal system.
Folkerth loves the law because he is white, and as a result, he doesn't look Hispanic. Thanks to his brilliantly colorless complexion, he will never be stopped by a police officer and asked for proof of citizenship, and thank god, for that would be grave insult to his person and a violation of his basic American rights.
So.... what? There are no LEGAL Hispanics in America? Is that what we are assuming here? That somehow police have a "spider-sense" that tells them who is an alien and who is not? Let's say a police officer stops Mr. Gonzales, a U.S. citizen, and asks him for his papers. Boom. Just violated the Constitution of America, but since it happened to some non-white person, it doesn't matter.
Well done, Jan Brewer, your legal sensibilities are a triumph of American values.
But normal Americans suffer from similar bouts of idiocy.
From the New York Times Article:
“I sure hope it [the law] does have an effect,” Mr. White said of the new law as he packed his car with groceries. “I wouldn’t want to show proof of citizenship, but I also don’t feel it is racial profiling. You are going to look different if you are an alien, and cops know.”
Yes. So the fittingly named white man, Mr. White, is against racial profiling and wouldn't want to show his own proof of citizenship if asked. But those cops, yeah, they KNOW who's an alien because they all LOOK DIFFERENT from citizens.
That difference? A few shades of hue where your epidermis shows.
Does Mr. White even listen to himself when he speaks, or does he think his disregard for logic is simply charming?
Another amusing element of this legislation is the requirement for all Hispanics to carry with them, at all times, proof of their citizenship. Now after all the conservative comparisons of Obama to Hitler, I would expect people would notice that this Arizona law is a lot like the whole Jewish Registry thing and the Stars of David during the reign of the Third Reich.
But on the other hand, I am not surprised at all: it's plainly obvious that anyone who compares Hitler and Obama doesn't know anything about either person (Or probably about much of anything, really), so it would follow they would know nothing at all about Nazism or any events of the period.
If these people didn't act on their ignorance, it would be cute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)