The $700 Billion Bailout

It has been decreed from On-High: If Congress doesn't approve a $700 billion bailout for the financial services sector, the consequences will be far worse than the Great Depression.

Oh, and one more thing: This bailout must be done quickly!

And let's not overlook: The Secretary of the Treasury has to be given broad new powers.

Oh, please..stop...

Isn't anybody going to stop these people? Many of us bought into the Weapons of Mass Destruction line of bull, and see where that got us. And, oh yes, we were urged to act quickly on that one too, before the mushroom clouds started sprouting over American cities.

Of course Congress will pass this bailout package. It's too close to the election for any Congressmen to challenge the ultimate wisdom of this gross act of corporate welfare. They'll all quickly fall in line. So will Obama and McCain (and Hillary), when this package ends up in the Senate.

Congress knew about the crisis in the subprime mortgage market for a year, and now...we must act quickly to avert disaster. Whatever happened to a democracy in which lawmakers deliberated over the pros and cons of pending legislation? Whatever happened to a democracy in which lengthy and exhaustive public hearings were held on matters of monumental import?

Whatever happened to democracy in America? My sad conclusion is: We never really had it, but once upon a time we could pretend that we did.

What would I do if I were President right now?

Here's a clue:

QUOTE:

SEVENTEEN:  I will veto any bill presented to me by Congress which has any provision for tax increase or for increased government borrowing.

:UNQUOTE [from The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle for US President, posted on Gaia on 9/19/2008]

Now I'll be even more explicit: I would veto such legislation and let the chips fall where they may - at least as far as Wall Street is concerned. I could, however, support a federal moratorium on mortgage foreclosures.

The real problem is: Our gridlocked, Dem/Pub, business-as-usual, look-the-other-way Congress got us into this mess. If we had a real democracy, complete with a Congress made up of independents instead of Dem/Pubs, we would not be in imminent peril because of something known as planning ahead. That's what independent legislators do - independents who aren't tied to the purse strings of lobbyists, and who aren't thinking of "party first, country second."

That's right: planning ahead. That's what good chess players do if they want to defeat their opponents: They plan ahead, instead of merely reacting to the "situation on the ground," one move at a time - to mix a metaphor.

But, really, why should the American people plan ahead? When Barack Obama began his miraculous campaign two years ago, no one pressed him for specifics. [Not even the press pressed him!] In other words, no one asked in what manner Barack had "planned ahead" for this country.

I.O.U.S.A. - a documentary film

To be brutally frank, I.O.U.S.A. wasn't very well done. However, it did make a few good points concerning our headlong rush into national bankruptcy. And one of those good points was our failure to save for a rainy day. Americans don't save, which not only hurts each of us who doesn't save, but which forces American businesses to borrow from overseas investors.

In other words, we don't plan ahead very well. And why should we? Haven't we made a religion out of live for today and charge it against tomorrow's pay check? This attitude coexists with a feeling that all warnings of dire downfall are nothing more than Chickens Little rambling, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" And I understand that feeling. It's easy to feel that way, especially when I.O.U.S.A. itself opens up with video clips of at least six US presidents warning us that we're on the verge of economic disaster.

That forces us either into disbelief or into asking: "Please define verge."

Warren Buffett's two fictional islands and the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis

At first blush, these geographies (both cited in I.O.U.S.A.) seem unrelated but...bear with me.

Warren Buffett tried to explain the downside of becoming a debtor society by means of a story about two fictional neighboring islands. The people of Squanderville had no problem buying from their neighbors on Thriftville. But they did so by selling so much of Squanderville to Thriftville - piece by piece - that they lost their sovereignty. This brief animated clip from YouTube illustrates the basic idea quite well but...it overlooks something very profound left unsaid by Buffett: http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=M-vMxKvYfVs

Before I mention Buffett's oversight, a little history lesson:

In 1956, the French, British, and Israelis attempted a military seizure of the Suez Canal, which belonged to Egypt. The United States opposed this effort due to fears the Russians might jump in on the side of the Egyptians. We tried diplomacy with the Brits, which didn't work. Then we did something which some historians cite as the landmark moment when the British Empire ceased to exist:

The United States told the British, in so many words: "Either you pull your troops out of the Suez or we dump our holdings in British government bonds on the market." This Financial Nuclear Option would have been too much to bear, so the Brits immediately withdrew their forces.

While it's true the United States is in hock up to its eyeballs to foreign creditors, we are not in the same position now as were the British in 1956. We still have the greatest military force in the world. Even if all of our creditors, all at once, threatened us with the Financial Nuclear Option, we could counter with:

"Oh no you don't. If you f**k with us, we'll nuke you - and not with any so-called Financial Nuclear Option. I'm talking A-Bombs and H-Bombs, jack!"

That's what Warren Buffett overlooked (intentionally, I believe) in his sweet little tale of two islands. For if Squanderville had nukes, Thriftville could "own" as much of Squanderville as it pleased, but wouldn't really have true ownership power.

Conclusion

Tell me, why do you think all of our major Dem/Pub candidates - all of them - stressed the importance of having a strong military? Isn't it obvious?

Oh, and one more thing: If anyone reading this thinks our military advantage will compensate for our fiscal mismanagement, just remember:

We'd be turning the entire world against us and a morally-bankrupt America which might try to pull such a stunt would find out soon enough:

We can't beat the whole world.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"To President Bush, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Warren Buffett: What part of the jig is up don't you understand?" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign: I am no longer soliciting, nor will I accept, any monetary contributions to my campaign. This does not mean, however, that I'm giving up.

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.