Friday, October 03, 2008

He's just a $1 trillion dollar bill



Since we all know that the elephants--particularly Bushie--got us into this filthy bailout mess (well, not all of us), and after a big Republican supporter indignantly asked me how I will defend my current deplorable support for Obama a couple of years into his presidency (when he imagines the country will be reduced to a smoldering cinder), I came up with the following public action:

Every individual that voted for Bushie in 2004 must embroider a huge scarlet "W" on his/her shirt. If you voted for him in 2000 as well, you must embroider two huge scarlet WWs. You must wear the shirt each day--without benefit of laundering--until Halloween.

If a W-free person approaches you and asks for a dollar, you have to give it to him/her and not complain.

I realize these will be hard to enforce, but is sure looks good on paper.

15 comments:

Rory L. Aronsky said...

Times have changed. If that "Schoolhouse Rock" song was made today, that bill would collapse the Capitol steps and cause the columns to fall all over one another.

Every individual that voted for Bushie in 2004 must embroider a huge scarlet "W" on his/her shirt. If you voted for him in 2000 as well, you must embroider two huge scarlet WWs. You must wear the shirt each day--without benefit of laundering--until Halloween.

Nay, Erin. Let that happen all the time. They made us stew in shit for 8 years, so they should have to do it longer. We should also have the happy option of kicking the ones with rumored balls in the crotch.

hoosierboy said...

So Erin, you do not think a combination of too much deregulation and greed and bad accounting at Freddie/Fannie and the heavy emphasis of the Community Relations Act all worked together to make this mess? It is all on W?

Banks just wanted to provide loans to those who could not afford them?

Why did Franklin Raines have to resign in disgrace?

Why did Freddie/Fannie give so much lobby money to Democrats, who refused to pass stricter regulations in 2005, 2006, and earlier this year?

There is plenty of blame to go around, Dems and Repubs alike.

Are you too partisan to look at the truth and say My Party screwed up?

Erin O'Brien said...

Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around and some portion of it probably does belong on the donkey's back, but for today, I'm blaming it all on George Bush and the Republicans.

Erin O'Brien said...

And hoosierbaby? Gimme a dollar.

Bill said...

Ya know, I've heard that said several times from various sources, not being the sharpest knife in the drawer politically, I would like some sources for that information, 'cause it sounds like bullshit to me.
I'll take a dollar too.

Erin O'Brien said...

Bill, Here is one explanation from a North Carolinian economist. This ran in the same Cleveland paper that prints my "Rainy Day Woman" columns.

Bill said...

Thanx, I'm thinking that my initial reaction was the correct one.
I'm sure there is plenty of blame to go around, but trying to lay this at the feet of the Dems is bullshit.

Anonymous said...

Erin,

If your reference in your post is to our phone conversation a few weeks ago ....

My question was hypothetical. What I said was if Obama gets elected, and a few years from now things aren't improved, are the same, or possibly worse, who would you blame? Your answer essentially was that you wouldn't blame them anymore than you would the people who you feel got us where we are today (and by that I took it that you meant Republicans, the SEC, etc.). I never said that our country would be reduced to a smoldering cinder.

Just wanted to set the record straight.

Al
TRAG
And the only Republican in Vermont

garrett said...

Here's an article about that Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (the "CRA") that Hoosier Boy referenced in his comment.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html

(sorry I don't know how to turn that into HTML)

I got to thinking about this tonight. I think basically all the politicians from both sides of the aisle share the responsibility for the economic conditions that currently exist. Republicans (Bush certainly has championed home ownership during his reign and done everything he could to enhance the ability of Fannie and Freddie to facilitate more mortgage transactions at higher prices) and Democrats (complicit in the whole thing ... and in fact started the whole thing off, I think (see below)).

Jimmy Carter was President in 1977 (when the CRA was enacted). Jimmy Carter appears to have a deeply-held personal view that "home ownership" is a good thing and that America would be a better place if everyone owned their own home. (I'm guessing at the deeply-held belief part because of his involvement with Habitat for Humanity.) So when Jimmy Carter was President, he did what seems like a natural thing: he used the power of the office of President to pursue something that he thought was a good thing (increasing the level of home ownership among American families through incentive programs (coercion)).

And so the CRA was enacted and people used it for its declared purpose -- expanding the level of home ownership beyond what it would have been had people been left free to make their own decisions without government intervention.

We are now seeing the result: the level of home ownership in America is dramatically higher than it would have been had people been left free to make their own decisions without government intervention. And so are home prices (any time a market gets crowded with an unnatural level of buyers, prices will go up beyond what is rational). And the increase in home prices was financed by mortgage debt, all of which Fannie and Freddie agreed to guarantee (securitize).

It took us 30 years to get from the CRA being enacted to this place. With the bailout and continued government intervention (and the apparent continued appetite for government intervention among Americans), there is no telling how long it will be before we are free.

Anonymous said...

I suspect one could pick any event in American history and posit it as the initial impetus for the current economic crisis.
(hmmm, I'm kinda thinkin the Louisiana Purchase)
The fact of the matter is that the capitalist system encourages exploitation of any edge to increase accumulation of the currency of the realm, whether it be gold, silver, petroleum or cocaine. It also seems to be the competitive nature of humans to "push the envelope." When accumulation and consumption became one's raison d'etre there is no contemplation of unintended consequences. Government can only do so much to control human behavior. Ultimately if humans don't learn to manage our own behavior we will extinguish ourselves.

"Yep son, we have met the enemy and he is us."

RJ

philosophyondemand.com

Erin O'Brien said...

Al? You may be the only Republican in Vermont, but what makes you think you're the only Republican I know?

Erin O'Brien said...

And Al, How's the embroidering going?

You'll need to send me a dollar as well.

Daniel said...

Since we all know that the elephants--particularly Bushie--got us into this filthy bailout mess...

Oh, really?

Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around and some portion of it probably does belong on the donkey's back, but for today, I'm blaming it all on George Bush and the Republicans.

Ah, I see. It's an intentional untruth. Well, carry on, then.

Anonymous said...

Erin,

I don't embroider, sorry.

I'll send you something, but it won't be a dollar.

And I'm sure I'm not the only Republican you know. From the tenor of your post I inferred you referenced me.

This being said, I'm probably the only Republican you'd send kick-ass peanut butter cookies and a cool chick-on-a-motorcycle knik-knack to. Thanks again.

Al
TRAG

Erin O'Brien said...

Welcome, Daniel and thanks for commenting.

But, really baby, that Republican-sponsored YouTube link wasn't very convincing considering it came from perhaps the reddest guy Oklahoma has to offer.