How hypocritical it is that the very same business owners and conservative politicians who are quick to demonize Democratic fiscal proposals as dangerous and borderline socialistic have openly embraced this billion dollar corporate bail-out. If this undertaking by the federal government merely delays the inevitable---if more businesses go under and more default on their debts, the state might end up owning huge sections of the private sector. I hate to break it to them but...that really IS socialism incarnate. It darkly comedic to see these formerly staunchly pro-business Republicans wringing their hands, for the first time doubting their own formerly trusted positions regarding economic policy and national stability.
Maybe we shouldn't be surprised. I certainly am not. Maybe any country spoiled by too much excess and cursed by not enough people watching the store deserves precisely what it gets. I've failed to understand the discrepancy inherent when fiscal conservative policy, which prides itself on a combination sensible decision making and taking safe risks in business transactions will go against its core beliefs time and time again by turning its head when large corporations fall under the sway of greed and profit. I wouldn't nearly be as upset if there were any way to justify this kind of radically irresponsible conduct on behalf of the companies now very shortly to be owned by the Federal government and the American taxpayer.
The Reagan-era Voodoo Economics are also to blame for this, nearly twenty-eight years in the making. It reminds me again of how it takes years for mistaken policy to reap maximum harm. Prior to now, we have taken short term fixes to fix long term problems and so it's hardly shocking when these sorts of economic crises come to pass. Regarding the blame game of economic misfortune, Presidents frequently get blamed for the mistakes of their predecessors and often are eager to take credit for policies that went well, even if they had nothing to do with them. Herbert Hoover was the scapegoat for the Great Depression, but by most accounts he was a competent bureaucrat in an unfortunate situation. Gerald Ford was strongly criticized for a period of stagflation in the seventies that he inherited. Bill Clinton took office in 1993 having beat George H.W. Bush over the head with the legacy of the early nineties recession, but by the time he was sworn in, the situation had resolved itself, just as Bush 41 said it would.
As for right now this moment, I'm still in wait-and-see mode.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"The Reagan-era Voodoo Economics are also to blame for this, nearly twenty-eight years in the making. It reminds me again of how it takes years for mistaken policy to reap maximum harm."
I don't see that. When Reagan took office, the Dow Jones was hovering just under 1,000- when he left, it was hovering just under 3,000. Bush the Elder and Clinton the first (hey, we may yet have another Clinton someday), continued his policies with relatively minor tweaking, and when Clinton left office it was hovering around 3,500. The taxes collected during those 28 bull years are far, far greater than we will lose in the bailoutsof freddiemac and fannymae- and those organizations weren't Reagan's project anyway.
Post a Comment