It’s About Making Babies!

I don’t get it. Why are the Democrats getting a free ride?

We sit here and hear Obama pound away about how awful President Bush is – with what, a 30% job approval rating? And Congress with a *9%* approval rating or something? That is, both Senator Obama and Senator McCain are responsible for job approval ratings HORRIBLY BELOW THE PRESIDENT THEY DERIDE.

So. My idea is this – have Senator McCain ignore Senator Obama – Obama tends to repeat lies and disregard questions anyway – a winning strategy for Bill Clinton, what? Instead, target Democratic Senate and House Leaders. Fill McCain speeches with details of individual Democrat Senators and Representatives that voted for the crap that tanked the economy, or voted against remedies. The Democrat-controlled Congress are the parties that create legislation – if they won’t pass a bill, the President can’t sign it. Congress controls money – like, the economy.

When the Democrats in Congress prevented correcting the Sub-Prime Mortgage and related credit crisis, why is the nation about to re-elect the people that strewed your retirement account to the winds? Anyone’s market funds take a dip, in, say, the last month?

And each little segment should conclude with how Obama led the Democrats’ delay of the bailout – in spite of warnings that delays would make the impact worse. Well, we saw the worse. I don’t see how adding a program to report on global warming in five years helped the Stock Market. That point needs to be made, since Sen. Obama got his name pasted at the front of the list of Democrats working on the bailout.

Too many Democrats will be re-elected to the House and Senate because the Republicans have failed to highlight the role that the Democrats played in the slush funds and payouts from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – and protecting their cash cow from regulators and accusations of illegal doings.

Pull the Nancy Pelosi’s and Trent Lott’s in front of the national camera, explain that they voted to protect the villains in the credit crisis debacle. Explain that they and other democrats voted to prevent remedies. Pick apart the amorphous image of ‘The Bush Administration’ and identify the culprits in Congress. Obama is taking the stage at present, holding up President Bush as the villain of the piece. Let’s haul down the curtain, and examine the real players – House and Senate Democrats. By showing Congress is full of the real culprits we show the truth – if you want to punish those responsible, you need to unseat Nancy Pelosi’s and other Democrat leaders – and turn the finger pointing back on a Senator that, until he won the Democratic nomination, no one in Washington would work with. He certainly can’t claim that he hauled approval ratings of Congress or even the Senate up off the floor.

And, damn it, it is *racist* to vote against a white man because he is white. It is *bigoted* to vote against a woman because she is a woman. As Roz Van Meter so colorfully put it, “Put on your big girl panties and deal with it.”

I am confused.

First, the ‘bail out’ isn’t about mortgages and foreclosures – it is mostly about how much money the really wealthy will lose.

I thought Obama was supposed to be one of those ‘hate the rich, tax their greedy profits, sell votes – um – give the money to the poor’ guys wanting to ‘redistribute the wealth’. I though Hilary and Barack and their ilk believed that buying votes from, um, helping the poor was more ‘fair’.

But now we *have to* save the money the rich few are in danger of losing – that invested in the funds and the companies that made so very many bad loans.

And we do have to save the mortgage companies, because we need to not disrupt the millions of mortgaged homeowners. This debacle could easily destroy the US economy – could lead to deaths by stress, by starvation, by exposure. Could deplete community resources, cause collapse of businesses – loss of jobs – the end of modern medicine as insurance and government revenue streams go away. As least, this will take down all but some of the very rich, who will be most likely to weather the storm with diminished funds and assets.

But isn’t that the point, to deprive the rich people of all that ill-gotten, unfair money?

Oops! I forgot – the point was *never* about whether wealthy people had money – Obama, Clinton, et al were always concerned that they couldn’t *spend* that money to buy votes from, er, help the deserving poor. Voters, that is, newly grateful for the Democratic assistance that locks them into a lifestyle of poverty in order to keep the shackles of assistance intact.

And the reality is that we *do* have to preserve the wealth of the wealthy. Because that is where the money comes to build stores, to create jobs. Wealthy people, especially those that live ostentatious lives, that invest to make more money – they are the ones creating livelihoods for echelons of people about them, about the businesses and craftsmen that supply the ostentatious goods and services, the people that these craftsmen frequent, that provide housing, and transportation, and accounting, etc. Etc. Etc. (apologies to Rogers & Hammerstein).

And that is the blind spot of ‘tax the rich’ schemes. The rich need to be rich – the wealthy, as much as the craftsman, is the wealth of the United States. Anything that reduces ‘wealth’ – more assets than are required to survive – depletes the ability to grow.

The currently proposed bailout plan – a Democratic proposal, no wonder the Democratic congress threatens to ambush the thing if Bush and McCain don’t sing it’s praises – is about buying votes, not preserving wealth. Not a bail-out, but discipline, can ‘solve’ the problems.

One thing I don’t understand. If I am late on a credit card bill, they raise the interest rate. In fact, when I lost my job, Chase Bank raised my interest rate.

Why are we agonizing over bad mortgages? Why not punish with fines and public service those still engaged in sweet-talking loans to borderline buyers? Why not take those ‘guaranteed’ loans and bump the mortgage rate to current market rates? Those that can make the payments get to keep trying. Those that can’t – let them, as Sharon Astyk recommended – let them adopt their home for $150 outright (or $10 or $500) and put a lien on the home for market value, to be resolved by the homeowner or at sale of the home, or let the lien expire in ten years of occupancy. Once. And jail the hell out of anyone making ‘bad’ mortgages in the future.

Dissolving the mortgages stops rewarding the bozos that counted on federal money to make up their losses – losses that they schemed to produce. Dissolving bad mortgages avoids the costs of foreclosure, avoids the current problem of angry residents trashing the building and destroying it’s value.

The scary plan

The current bailout would allow anything – anything at all – that the Secretary of the Treasury wants to do. No review, no regulations, nothing. One for instance: Recall Bradbury’s Farhenheit 451? That house had been shielded against fire – but books had been banned, so fire departments were used to soak everything and torch houses and buildings where books were found. The Secretary of the Treasury could begin torching late or foreclosed mortgaged property. Or claim foreclosed property for Section 8 housing. Or for Affirmative Action against racial bias, or to reward campaign contributors (probably the most likely).

And still the country’s economy would falter, and fail most Americans. Because, like Barack Obama’s ‘Tax The Rich’ mantra, it would destroy the fuel of the economy – the wealth of the wealthy few.