Monday, September 14, 2009

Too big to succeed?

A year after the Lehman Brothers failure, and almost a year after the initial TARP program which was rolled out to save our financial industry by saving those businesses which were "too big to fail", one question remains: What was done to prevent this from happening again in the future?

If a company is "too big to fail", logic dictates that it is simply too big, and needs to be broken up, similar to what happened to AT&T several decades ago. Our government has not only failed to do this, but has instead encouraged the failing businesses to be bought out by other larger businesses (one example being the Merrill Lynch purchase by Bank of America). Instead of breaking up "too big to fail" businesses, we have even bigger "too big to fail" businesses.

One could look at this as a failure of leadership or economic stupidity, but the truth is a far worse thing: These companies are major sources of campaign funding. If they die, politicians will have to find other sources of campaign funding, which won't be nearly as generous. So the politicians happily handed out money they didn't have to these companies to keep them afloat. And now we are stuck with the bill for their largess.

The corruption in the U.S. government has reached astounding levels, where bribes fly back and forth between Wall Street and Washington, and all of it perfectly legal, because the lawmakers have made it legal.

If you think either the Republicans or Democrats are somehow immune to this, just look at the bailouts, which were approved by BOTH parties, and you will see just how deep the money runs in Washington.

It is time to throw out the bums, and I do not mean just the incumbents. I mean the two-party system. If you think you are wasting your vote by voting for a third party, I will tell you that your vote on any Republican or Democrat is just as wasted, because you are voting to maintain Wall Street's hold on power.

6 comments:

William R. Barker said...

You've got it exactly wrong - as I've tried (unsuccessfully) to explain to you for years now.

Like it or not, we live in a two party non-parliamentary democratic Republic.

If you think that collusion is bad now - with TWO Parties - just look at Italy or Israel or even France.

No, Ed, multiple Parties only leads to MORE intra-party deal making and more "rewards" for the moves and shakers of the parties in power.

Nope. As I've tried to explain to you for years, what needs to happen is for average educated, sane, reasonable, responsible American adults to enter the political process at the grass roots level, capture the various Party (both Republican and Democrat)committees, and thus create a situation where ideological debate takes place WITHIN the Party PRIOR to picking the candidates.

It is the Committee Members which by and large pick candidates - the candidates regular "Party Members" are stuck with - at best their only influence being presented via the primary process AFTER the fact.

Still... more often than not... there aren't internal primary challenges - not successful ones.

Ed. Without being involved in the COMMITTEE process, your average registered Republican or Democrat is powerless to do other than support or oppose his or her Party's candidate in the general election.

Stick to basics, Ed; that's what I'm trying to get through your head my friend. (*GRIN*)

Of course... (*SIGH*)... it ain't gonna happen, so...

We're back to praying for the military coup.

(*WINK*)

BILL

EdMcGon said...

Bill,
Remember who you voted for in the last election? And you want to lecture me about how I should vote?

Seriously, you voted for Obama under the contrarian logic that his victory would allow for the Republicans to regain the presidency in 2012. While you may have been right, the country will be "That 70's Show" by then. How much damage can Obama and a Democratic Congress do in 2 years?

And YOU want to lecture ME on how to vote? God help us all...

William R. Barker said...

"Bill, remember who you voted for in the last election? And you want to lecture me about how I should vote?"

Yes and yes.

(*SHRUG*)

I voted for Bob Barr because I couldn't vote for McCain and wouldn't vote for Obama.

Ed. You're basically an honest, forthright guy. To thine own self be true. (*SMILE*)

As you KNOW... as you KNOW... I believed then and I believe now that a McCain presidency would have been a one term presidency that would have been perhaps 70% as bad as an Obama policy in terms of policies with the ADDED negative of DESTROYING conservatism from within.

Be HONEST, Ed; you can disagree with my reasoning, but don't ever pretend that you are or were unaware of it.

(*SHRUG*)

And YES, Ed... you SHOULD listen to me. I'm smarter than you.

(*WINK*)

I'm better educated and have an uncanny ability to get to the heart of any question.

(*HUGE FRIGG'N GRIN*)

Recall, Ed... YOU'RE the one who has had to backtrack on past support of "stimulus."

(Remind me... where were you on TARP...???)

So, YES, Ed... you should listen to me.

(*WINK*)

* Oh... just finished reading the rest of your post. Allow me to respond:

"...you voted for Obama under the contrarian logic that his victory would allow for the Republicans to regain the presidency in 2012."

Again, Ed... (*HEADACHE*)... I voted for Barr. BOB BARR.

(But, yes, I had considered voting for Obama for EXACTLY the reasons I cited then and reiterate now.

(*SHRUG*)

"While you may have been right..."

(*SHRUG*)

I don't know, Ed... look around... conservatism is GAINING in strength. Do you really believe this would have been the case with a McCain presidency?

Plus... Obama now OWNS Afghanistan.

If you had your way MCCAIN would "own" Afghanistan and beyond that McCain's incompetence across the board would at this very moment be destroying the country SIMILARLY IN DEGREE to what Obama is doing - only if McCain were in charge Republicans would be getting the blame and the Pelosi Democrats would be growing STRONGER rather than weaker.

Ed. Being right matters. And as you know... I'm usually right!

(*GRIN*)

(You're usually right too... just not as much as me!)

Hey... btw... speaking of USUALLY RIGHT... what's this business about you listing RODAK'S RIFFS as a link and not USUALLY RIGHT...?!?!

(*SNORT*) (*RUEFUL SMILE*)

BILL

EdMcGon said...

My point is you lecture me about voting for 3rd party candidates, and then YOU go and do it. Dare I mention the "h" word? :P

I'm better educated and have an uncanny ability to get to the heart of any question.

And Obama is better educated than both of us. So was Bush. So was Clinton. Education doesn't make you smarter.

That said, you are a bright guy. I also don't think either of us lives or dies by our view on 3rd parties.

Remind me... where were you on TARP...???

I was against both bailout bills. Corporations which fail should be allowed to go bankrupt. Period.

So, YES, Ed... you should listen to me.

I do listen. Just don't expect me to always agree.

Do you really believe this would have been the case with a McCain presidency?

I didn't want a McCain presidency either. You're preaching to the choir.

And as you know... I'm usually right!

I'll let President Barr know. ;)

what's this business about you listing RODAK'S RIFFS as a link and not USUALLY RIGHT...?!?!

I'll fix that. Sorry.

William R. Barker said...

"My point is you lecture me about voting for 3rd party candidates, and then YOU go and do it. Dare I mention the "h" word? :P"

1) But your "point" is misplaced.

(*SHRUG*)

2) And no... there's no hypocrisy on display here.

Allow me to explain:

re #1 --

I "lecture" you on specifics.

re #2 --

Ed. The 2008 Presidential Election was ONE SPECIFIC ELECTION.

(*SHRUG*)

"Obama is better educated than both of us."

Nope. I see no evidence at all to support that.

Ed. Law school is basically memorization and rote learning of legal boilerplate language.

Yes, no doubt President Obama could out-quote us when it comes to legal "rules" and even legal RULINGS... but as to general education and analytical abilities, from what I've seen YOU are much better educated. (And certainly I am.) (*WINK*)

"I was against both bailout bills."

Thanks! (See... more proof that you're one of the smartest of the smart, since even folks like Newt Gingrich "reluctantly bought in to" the doomsday nonsense being spouted by the likes of McCain and Obama.

"I'll let President Barr know. ;)"

(*GRIN*)

Again... great as a good natured elbow to the ribs, but to be technical... I never predicted Barr would win; in fact, I predicted an Obama victory. (Nothing all that hard in predicting that, but it goes to my "record" of correct predictions.)

BILL

P.S. - Did you attend a 9/12 Rally?

Did you read about the one I attended?

EdMcGon said...

The 2008 Presidential Election was ONE SPECIFIC ELECTION.

I never said vote for 3rd party ALL the time. If the Republicans ever run a decent candidate, feel free to vote for him/her. But don't exclude 3rd party candidates from consideration simply because "they can't win".

I see no evidence at all to support that.

For pure educational credentials, he outranks both of us. But I will certainly agree that for pure intelligence, we outrank him. But the feral cats that hang out around my house outrank him. ;)

Did you attend a 9/12 Rally?

Unfortunately, I was house hunting that day. I'm in the middle of moving.

I did read about the one you attended, and commented on it in your blog. Read your comments! :P