My Thoughts On The Debate: Financial Crisis and International

I want to go back and watch the debate, while I'm not both stoned and buzzed. However, I was able to gather a few things to talk about last night.

I should brush up on the financial crisis. Someone asked me what my plan would be, and I said my plan would be to match however many billion we spent on the corporate bailout with a bailout for the lower end of the spectrum. $600 per person on a tax stimulus isn't 70 billion or whatever. Well, frankly, don't ask me to do the math, but I don't THINK so. This was my flippant response, without taking any of the details into consideration.

I am untouched by the crisis. I was poor before and I'm still poor. But I feel it, and I feel what is going on. On one hand, I'm not surprised. I would say this is a manifestation of what happens when the plutocracy has been making policies and creating loopholes for corporations for years. The thing is, if they can get away with paying almost nothing in taxes, because they know how to "work" the loopholes, this only encourages high risk behavior. In investments, there is a time to take high risks. But the rule of thumb is that you keep a balanced profile. Low, moderate, and high risk, in various forms of investment. These guys were making decisions based on greed and the encouragement our society gives, to those who take risks. I say encouragement, because the only people who can pull the strings to take the risks of this magnitude, are those who already feel protected by the government they've been using special interests and lobbyists to create for themselves.

Unfortunately, so many middle class Americans are affected who were just along for the ride. Do we bail out these corporations, and give them the assurance that they, and large airlines, and other big business, can count on the government to fish them out of shady waters? There's sort of not a choice right now, because they're actions, the choices the elite has made, has affected everyone else. Well, like I said, not me, and not a lot of us already-po-folk, but in general...

So how about this...If we're going to spend billions to bail out these corporations, and then be stuck with higher taxes to pay it off, when these corporations have tax cuts and loopholes like none of us have...If we're going to give corporations, who, through their OWN FAULT, made unwise decisions, WELFARE--EMERGENCY WELFARE (and, by the way, let's just start calling it what it is...)--I think we can look to the government and expect to have a ready answer when we ask who the favorite in the family is.

Three kids in the family, Poor, Middle Class, and Rich. Rich keeps getting an awful lot of gifts, favors, fancy dinners, special meetings, and welfare. But when we give to Rich, we don't call it welfare. Now, for Rich, we discuss "bail outs". For Poor, we turn our nose up over "hand outs".

What is the fucking difference between a bail out and a hand out?

Middle Class is the unfortunate middle child. We know what happens to the Middle Child. Rich gets attention, Poor gets attention (even if it's negative attention), but Middle Child...Hmmm. Maybe we should begin to worry about the neglected Middle Child.

If a multibillion dollar bail out to corporations is the solution, and some kind of help probably IS at this point, why don't we start to think about doing something radical like this, for the lower end of the spectrum?

We are seeing the effects of "trickle down" with the collapse of banks, but whatever happens to the idea of trickle UP? Making our base stronger, and giving people who never had the means to take "high risks" in the first place, a chance to succeed? I already hear resentment over who is going to paying for the mistakes of the corporations, through taxes. And who already gets some of the biggest tax breaks?

I want to know how much money we could give people who want to save their houses, and those who have never been able to own a house in the first place. How far would 70 billion go towards these people? If we're going to spring for billions, why not trillions? at the very least, in this giant government bail out, I would think the bail out should be distributed, or more money added to the pot. I even wonder, so what if the banks fail.

In a way, I wonder, what if we just allow them to fail, but support everyone else who has been affected by their failures and mistakes? For once, I wonder what could happen if Americans were given tools and money and a little guidance on how to take their own bail out money and make it work for them. Maybe some new people could start up new banks. I don't have very much sympathy for Enrons and Banks that do stupid things. Everybody makes mistakes, but it's these people who turn their nose up at the poor and try to cut welfare for the poor, but open their hands for money themselves, and they will TAKE it as long as the government is willing to dignify and distinguish the vocabulary.

This is an emergency, but I also know a lot of families in emergency situations every single day and no one is giving them ENOUGH to really be able to make a difference. They get some food stamps, and the single mothers are encouraged to become worker bees for the grist by taking state sponsored courses in vocational schools, to prepare the poor for doing the dirty work of the rich.

Onto the debate. The thing is, it was either Obama or McCain, who said the best days of America were ahead of us. Something about how this isn't the end. Which wasn't very encouraging.

When you have presidential candidates standing up, and telling the American people this isn't the end, and that we have better days ahead, when the fear is palpable throughout the nation, over the state of our nation, it almost reinforces the idea that we all know. That THEY know, and are admitting to us, they know things look grim. It's sort of like standing in a wasteland and trying to be courageous. I know, probably, that most people were able to blow things off, but for me, there was a point in the debate where I became literally afraid for the country. Like, "Shit. We are going down."

On the other hand, I think both candidates are admirable men. I heard a lot of mockery over McCain, which I didn't like. I'm for Obama, but hearing crowds jeering does nothing for me but make me feel sorry for the jeered-at party. I also don't like all the age-discrimination crap I hear all the time. I know I want to be taken seriously when I'm 70-something and people should have more respect for wisdom that comes, often but not always, with age. Is it a serious concern that he COULD pass away or something and leave us with Palin? Yeah.

Obama has come a long way. His demeanor was more confident and commanding. He didn't have the same deer-in-the-headlight look he sometimes had months ago. You can see he's grown.

On the other hand, McCain had some good points, and while his face seems expressionless, the things he says, hit hard. He is able to make a forceful point. The point about genoicide was good. On the other hand, some of the stuff, about seeing "K, G, B" in Putin's eyes, sounded a bit artificial and doesn't sound very diplomatic either. Sort of contrived in a way.

I need to hear the debate again, before writing more.

I think, the best economic stimulus plan is to empower the people. Something needs to happen, to motivate, embolden, and inspire the middle and lower class, to take control and put their talents and skills to use. When 9/11 happened, people were suddenly working together, flying flags, and trying to do what they could to help their neighbor. The very richest, at the top, we need them. We can and could benefit from the tricks they've learned over the years, while they actually had TIME to develop strategies and MONEY to pay for advice and consultation. We need to have them on the side of the rest though, realizing that if they do not change themselves, and their policies, and begin to give up the rule they've had, they will be going down, and when they do, they will fall further, and hit hardest.

The regular American needs a "plan" that will inspire them to take action. The rich need to be willing to give up some of their power, to allow those who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths, to level the playing field. This is, I think, what will save the country. It will only become weaker and more corrupt if this doesn't happen.

Oh, by the way, get rid of the war on drugs and legalize the crap, and you'll have a lot more money for the justice system as well. And how about allowing Americans who don't make much money, smoke pot when it really is a medicine for so many, and stop pandering to the pharmeceuticals. It's a documented fact that pot reduces intraoccular pressure, and is effective, and noted as effective, by our government, for glaucoma. This same mechanism at work reduces pressure I get behind my eye from migraine. It's just common sense.

Get rid of the drug war, and take, as someone said to me recently, "The legs out of crime".

Give a giant stimulus package to Americans, not corporations. See what happens. Also, I think it would be a great experiment to give a few people, who represent average America, all of the tools that the rich have, including guidance and mentors and tax attorneys, and see what these people are able to accomplish when they are equipped with the same tools. People do not get the kind of "bail outs" that corporations get. They get a few bucks here and there, and that's not enough to work with. You need money to make money. It takes generations of saving, and planning, to bring a family out of poverty, and that's a family that is planning ahead and has time to think about it. On the other end, it's been generations, on the part of elite, to secure their own interests, through the policies we have now that encourage risk and greed.

I DO think something can change. I don't think the U.S. is falling down, or falling apart altogether. But there are very serious warning signs, and if the collective whole doesn't stand at attention, and realize there is going to have to be some give and take, it will weaken, I think, and set us up to be taken advantage of by other countries which haven't enjoyed playing second fiddle to "the best".