Monday, January 19, 2009

Obama Inauguratiion, the Age of Obama, Bank "Owned by" America, and My Brother (Standing in for All Shafted Small Businesses)

You remember my brother? The one that is co-owner of a trucking company? Well, because of the economy, my brother is stsuck with too much equipment/fixed costs--even thogh his company is slowly IMPROVING (operationally). These TOXIC ASSETS put my brother at the mercy of banks and other lenders (like GE, which has acted like a company that wants to be bailed out, and did get a "bailout" of sorts from Warren Buffet).

As we enter the Age of Obama (anticipated by Paulson and Bush), you have to consider my brother (and other small business people out there, and small business is where most jobs are created in this country). His company has (or had--may be somewhat less now although formerly it was more) 200 employees. The proposed 25 billion dollar bailout of GM and the automatkers was for 25 billion dollars (may end up much higher, if it works at all). ONE MLLION dollars would have, and may still, bail out my brother--espcially if financial institutions were forced to help their borrowers just like they are asking their government to help them. 25 billion dollars would therefore save some 25,000 companies like my brother's (better chance to save them, probably, than to save GM). That would directly save 5 million jobs in this country. Obama is only talking about creating/saving 3 million. That is what irks my brother. Why should the nation's banks, like Bank of America and Citigroup, get bailed out and then turn around and tell people like my borther thant they have to "pay up or else". One bank actually told my brother exactly that, although they had no explanatioin of what the "or else" could be (since the market for trucks is so bad that their collateral is wroth little). Some bank "collectors" have even had the nerve to say that if my borther managed his business better, he could pay them. Do you wonder that my brother is ready to join a revolution, if only a leader would arise? We are not talking Obama here. Yes, I know the mainstream media (Tom Brokaw for one, but really all of them) are saying that even Repubicans are cheering Obama on and wishing for him "to succeed". Uh-huh. What is "success"? Is "success" saving Wall Street and bank of America, while letting small businesses like that of my brother go under? Is "success" bailing out homeowners and gving welfare to more and more people (bigger and bigger government)? Would it be "success" to force banks to give the same tolerance to the "bad management" of their borrowweres as the government is showing for banks (and GM) by bailing them out? Is it "success" to have Wall Street running the country to save Wall Street, so long as we extend socialism beyond just Wall Street (once you say homeowners deserve to be bailedout, what excuse do you have for not bailing out my borther, and exactly WHY doid AIG and Goldman Sachs deserve to be bailed out of their bad management more than my brother). Is success "socialism"? Drudge (which is why you gotta love Drudge) had that headline, "Bank OWNED BY America" to describe the Bank of America bailout. Why not just adopt socialism, and have the government partners in ALL businesses. We are well on our way to having the Federal Government (which is why I always capitalize the term) dominate life in this country. President Bush, Paulson, and the Communists (by which I mean all of Wall Street and not just the avowed leftists) have already "tipped" this country over into socialism (for the sole purpose, as far as I can see, of saving Wall Street and the politicians themselves). Obama is promising to accelerate the process--printing money to the tune of 1, 2 or 3 TRILLION dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Is it "success" to "save" this country by turning to socialism--albeit socialism which leaves my brother out in the cold except for giving him health care and welfare if he goes broke. Is it "success" to adopt the Marxist philosophy that we no longer are a country of opportunity for people to get rich, but a country where the goal is to equalize the rich and the poor (where you can get "rich" only in government, or a government sponsored acivity, such as a "green" scam or Wall Street, or big business executive in a business "too big to fail"). IN other words, is it "success" to adopt the Marxist philosophy--marked as a failure by history? That is why I call the people (again, essentially AlL of the people, and not just the avowed leftists) on Wall Street "Communists". I know it is hyperbole. But what is the essence of Communism (with a big "C")? It is central planning, where the planning is for the benefit of the Communist leaders and those favored by them. That is exactly the present position of Wall Street (who regard themselves as the people who have to be favored). It is the position of Obama. Heck, it is the position of the REPUBLICAN establishment. That is why it is saying nothing for the mainstream media to say that "even" Republicans are cheering on Obama. These Republicans were always essentailly no different from Obama. That is why so many people (including Rush Limbaugh and me) are no longer Republican. Rush Limabugh is not "cheering on" Obama, and neither am I. Don't I want Obama "to succeed"? This is a semantic game the mainstream media, and Obama himself, are playing. I want AMERICA to succeed, as is true of esentially all conservatives (not true of all leftists, where so many regard the United States of America as the main source of evil in the world, and regard our "success" as coming at the expense of the poor people of the world--a position so illogical that only a leftist could have such a strange position and not have his or her brain burst with the cognitive dissonance). Is it not the same thing? If Obama does not succeed, how can America succeed. Well, first you have to ask yourself why leftists did not want President Bush to succeed. Yes, this blog has established that these people are the worst sanctimonious hypocrites to have ever walked the Earth. The hypocrisy here is to suggest that refusing to support Obama is the same as being against the "success" of America. Leftists were right the first time. If they thought supporting President Bush would be ultimately bad for America, then they were obligated to oppose President Bush. In their case, of course, they wre willing to essentially support terrorists against this country, or at least give aid and comfort to same. But the principle is valid. What is "success? That is the rub. Was the Soviet Union "successful"? It lasted, as the "evil empire", from at least 1945 to about 1990. Was that "success"? I don't think so. Turning the United States into a socialist/Marxist country (and we have been trending down the road to the Federal Government being the "solution" to all of our problems for a long time, interrupted only by the Reagan years and the Republican House of the Clinton years) will DOOM us in the end, like it doomed the Soviet Union. I am convinced of that. Therefore, it is my DUTY (as it is the duty of Rush Limbaugh and all other people who think like us) to oppose Obama. We will not be opposing Obama jsut because we do not want a Democrat to succeed. In fact, at this point there are numberous Republicans we don't want to see "succeed". We would like to see Obama have real "success", which we define as building a free country based on free market principles, in such a way that we do not end up relying on the discredited idea of central planning to solve all of our problems. "Success' is NOT having a permanently poor country, like Cuba, where the government makes sure everyone is equally miserable who is not faovred by the government. If the government employs everyone, you have no unemployment. But neither do you have a "successful" country. But what about my brother? Well, in my version of a successful country, he is out of luck. BUT SO IS THE BANK OWNED BY AMERICA, AND GENERAL MOTORS. Further, Wall Street is not deemed to deserve being bailed out, while my brother does not. My brother understands this. He does not want these bailouts. But if we are going to have them, he would like to know how you justify letting bankers foreclose of people and businesses, while they are immune from being foreclosed upon themselves? That is the problem with "bailouts". You cannot justify why one person, or group, is being bailed out, while others are not. And my brother recognizes that if banes were forcded to keep him from failing, it would not work in the end--just as it will not work for the government to set "reasonable" compensation for executives. What standards do you use to decide when to let my brother fail? Oh, you could do what the government is supposdedly doing with the "bailouts". You could force my brother to have a "plan", which he has, but what qualifies the government to decide who fails and who does not? What qualifies the government to decide what people should be paid in the "private" sector? What is Alex Rodriguez (who has never led a team to a World Championship) worth? What was Michael Jordan worth? We will still let baseball players and basketball players fail, even though the principle is really no different. If we have crafted an economy where we can't afford to let some people fail (including, by the way, OBAMA), then we have done it WRONG (as, in many ways, we have--such as by not vigorously enforcing antitrust laws to keep businesses from being "too big to fail"). Yes, my brother would be out of luck if I were President. He would be out of luck if HE were President. The same cannot be said to fthe Commuinists on Wall Street, and our politicians. There main interest is in "self", and "success" for them (I think for Obama) is avoiding blame. "Sacrivice" is not a real word to them. It is a tactical word to use (like "confidence" and "fear") to advance their own interests, while concealing what they are doing. We enter fully upon the Age of Obama tomorrow. I am not optimistic (although I continue to think that individuals can still make their own happiness; I am just no longer sure how long that will be the case). YOU explain to my brother why banks can lower the boom on him in the Age of Obama, while banks are immune from the boom being lowered on them. It is worse than that. My brother does not make the 28 million that the CEO of GM was making, or the millions Paulson was paid to drive Goldman Sachs into the ground. But my brother gets a salary from his own corporation slightly in excess of $150,000 per year. That puts him in the top 10% of wage earners paying more than HALF the taxes. Those are the taxes which are PAYING Bank of America to continue in business so that they can foreclose on small businesses like my brother's. YOU explain that to my brother. I can't. Oh, I know that even if the banks dealing with my brother went under, it would theoretically not save my brother. That is not the point. The point is: Why should THEY get a break, and my borther's business not get a similar break? That is my problem with the Age of Obama, and why I do NOT wish Obama "success" in imposing central planning, socialistic principles on this country. If the government controls who "succeed" and who fails, which means that most people will be stuck with failure and no chance of success, then the government CONTROLS YOUR LIFE. And leftists say they are for "freedom". Nuts. They have no idea of what freedom is. Facing the possibility of your international communications being intercepted in anti-terrorist activiites is not even a blip in comparison with the loss of freedom involved in the government determining winners and losers, and pretty much making sure no one is a big winner not actively either in government or favored by the government. No, I will not watch the Obama inauguration. And I am not much interested in what he says, unless he were to lurch into conservatism (which would force me to believe in God). I am sorry. I am not looking forward to the Age of Obama, and I do NOT want him to "succeed" in finishing the evolution of this country into a country totallly dominated by the Federal Government. I don't want Obama to "succeed" in opening our borders (beyond the disaster our immigration policy already is). I can't think of almost anything that Obama actually proposes to do in which I want him to "succeed". Oh, there are a lot of platitudes in his speeces that I would be happy for him to accomplish. The problem is that there is no way his actual policies, and those of the Democrats in Congress, will actaully accomplish those platitudes. Sorry again. Obama does not have my "support", and I don't apologize for that. Now, I will support him when he is RIGHT, as I supported Clinton when he was right. I will temd to support Obama against foreign enemies. But my support is based on the actual policies, and not on some strange, anti-American idea that Obama "has" to be supported because he is our only hope. If Obama is our only hope, we have already failed.

No comments: