Posts tagged Politics

jasencomstock:

davidkendall:

wellthatsjustgreat:

Total debt forgiveness?

jasencomstock:

squashed:

jasencomstock:

Previous stuff

Forgive the debt of the 99%? Really? So, let me get this straight — the proposal is that everyone who’s ever outspent their means, who’s run up 10s of thousands of dollars in debt on credit cards (that no one forced them to incur), who’s “had” to buy a 55 inch tv and flat-screens in every room, and everyone who “has” to lease a new Escalade because a 5 year old used SUV isn’t “good enough,” and everyone that “must” have a week or two in a shore house every year, they all now get to be free and clear of their responsibilities?  And that solves the perceived “problems” in the financial sector…..how?  Because people will never over-extend themselves again?  Because it’s now okay to drive a 5 year old car?  (Mine is 7 years old, by the way, and I’ll be driving it til it stops running.) Because it’s not “fair” that I should have to pay for all of the stuff I’ve bought?  Don’t get me wrong: I opposed the bail-out of the banks, too, on the terms (or, rather, non-terms) it was done.  And I’m sure this is a popular idea, as I can see from the reblogs; I just like my plans to: (a) make sense, and (b) not absolve people of responsibility for their own actions.  (I mean, seriously, no one made me incur any of the credit card debt I’ve accumulated over the years — I chose to do so.  I have also chosen to pay it all off because that’s what you do.)  Just sayin’….

I’m going to Re-blog this comment because it seems to be a common sentiment and it needs to die.

this entire argument is based on ontological sentiment: poor people with debt are evil sinners doomed to burn in Hell for their wickedness. Flat screen tv’s are fornication and flashy ghetto SUV’s with shiny rims are gluttony. I am not going to Hell because I am frugal and pay my debts. I am a better person and you should be one too.

I don’t know why this sentiment is so popular with people. your betters don’t think it. the people being protested don’t think it, they think you and me are dumbasses because we (well you, I don’t anymore) attach morality to the check I write for my mortgage. You are not going to go to heaven if Citibank gets it’s mortgage from you. You are also not a bad person if you don’t pay your mortgage, especially if you can’t.  Those being protested have no problems spending other people’s money. One could even argue that to be rich means, de facto, to spend another’s money. this was the case in the past and will be again in the future.

Anyway, this proposal, which isn’t anyone’s really, just something I read and put on Tumblr, is supposed to be irrational (or better, ambiguous), not rational. It is supposed to sound catastrophic and scary to those who have money and want the system to exist more or less like it does now and enacting this would be really really bad for them.

the reason it must also be ambiguous is because the reasoning for opposing the protestors (and what they ‘stand’ for) is ambiguous but popular sentiment. You can pick any reason you want. Herman Cain blaming the unemployed for being unemployed. Ron Paul blaming the Fed. Republicans blaming Blacks and Latinos for buying houses.  Republicans blaming taxes and regulations as the cause of poor job creation. Republicans blaming the social safety net for our national debt. your own ontological opposition to debt.

In fact, I’d say now that if the protestors kept this and other ambiguous messages, they actually could be a Left’s version of the tea party. the only thing they are missing is force which hopefully they will start to now amass.

An interesting road you’ve assumed (incorrectly) that I was heading down.  From my reading of what I wrote, I’m not seeing anything ontological about my belief that people should be responsible for their behavior (I’m assuming you’re referring to ontology as having to do with existence of being, and questions of what kind of entities exist and can exist……I’m happy to consider any other definition you’re relying on.)  I didn’t, nor do I, make any argument that “poor people are bad and rich people are good.”  Nor did I say “lazy people are bad and hard working people are good.”  If you’re reading that into what I wrote, you’re bringing much more to the table than was initially premised in the “modest proposal” in your original post to which I was responding.

I don’t oppose debt, nor do I equate debt with “goodness” or “badness”.  I don’t oppose debt on an ontological basis (and I’m assuming here, but when you say “ontological,” I’m reading you to say “religious” with a sprinkling of “evil conservativism”.  Feel free to correct me if I’m assuming too much.)  I do, however, oppose irresponsible debt, and by that, I mean debt that you cannot realistically pay off in a reasonable time.  A home mortgage?  Not irresponsible.  A home mortgage on a $500,000 house, when you put 1% down and make $20,000 a year, with a balloon payment in 7 years? Yeah, I’m thinking that might tend towards the irresponsible side.  Don’t get me wrong, the banks should never, ever give that kind of loan — but they did (and then sold securities based on those loans.  Talk about irresponsible! But I digress.)  The problem is that too many people took advantage of the “opportunity” with a “we’ll worry about that balloon payment in 7 years” mentality.  Should those home owners be “punished” for taking those mortgages when they could get them?  No, of course not.  If it wasn’t clear before, let me make it clear: I’m not advocating punishment for over-extended people.  In fact, the banks (and here’s your realistic solution) should be required by law to re-structure such mortgage loans that were given when the money was flowing like water before 2007.  The banks (and mortgage lenders) created the problem; they, not the consumers, should be required to fix it.  But no one is bothering to zero in on the nuts and bolts of those initial problem.

My argument was, and is, that absolution from the consequences of irresponsible, or poorly conceived, or ill-informed (pick your adjectives) decisions does not solve the problem; rather, it perpetuates it, because human nature being what it is, people will simply repeat the cycle over again if they’re relieved from the consequences of the responsibilities they’ve taken on.  And the danger of your “modest proposal” is that, in the sound-bite age in which we live, when so many people react before they think, some will latch onto that “proposal” as a viable solution, and it’s simply not.

By the way, as for flat-screens, and SUVs, and all the “luxuries” of life these days, there’s nothing “wrong” with them, and I never said that there was.  There’s also nothing “wrong” with going into debt to own a nice car, or a nice TV.  What’s “wrong” is a large number of people thinking that it’s not only okay but necessary to go into debt in order to own 5 flat-screen TVs, a $500,000 house, a new SUV, and a beach house, and then expect sympathy and assistance when they can’t meet ends meet on their $50,000 salary.  Forgiving folks all of that debt under those circumstances accomplishes nothing except rewarding irresponsibility. 

As for government assistance to those actually “down on their luck” (which you allude to but really wasn’t the point of the post), just so you’re aware, I’ve never opposed it and, in fact, support it and recognize the need for it.  But I also recognize the need for all people, rich and poor, of every color and creed, to take responsibility for their own actions, to take responsibility for helping those who are truly in need, and to take responsibility for making the world around them a better place, not a place of contention, distrust and hate.

wellthatsjustgreat:

Total debt forgiveness?

jasencomstock:

squashed:

jasencomstock:

So my immodest proposal is simply this: Individuals and households in the bottom 99 percent who owe debt to any large financial institution that received federal government support during and after the 2008 crisis should see their debt forgiven. That would certainly stimulate the economy, as most people would suddenly find themselves with a great deal more money to spend on iPads (and food, and clothing, and housing, and healthcare). The debt can be forgiven by decree or if the government really wants to it can step in to pay it itself; I don’t much care either way. (Though it’d be nice to see it just wiped off the books, to enrage the banks.)

Let’s wipe the debt of the 99 percent off the books, tell the financial sector to eat it, and get on with our lives.

This is an excellent proposal for a lot of reasons, the biggest of which is wiggle/negotiating room, the second biggest is broad understanding and support.

I’m not sure that is going to have broad support at all. I just spent two years suing banks on behalf of impoverished debtors … and still I think that’s a terrible proposal. The first thing it would due is wipe out everybody’s life-savings. Your money isn’t sitting in a bank vault somewhere. It’s been loaned out to other people. Your ability to withdraw money is contingent on people paying some portion of that money back. The second thing it would do is destroy whatever portion of the economy is remaining as liquidity turned to dust and no businesses could pay their employees.

And it wouldn’t actually result in a more just system. The guy who’s richer than 98% of the country suddenly owns his mansion free and clear. (Well, for about a week before the real troubles start. Functionally eliminating the financial sector is going to screw up or distribution network, so things are going to go Mad Max pretty quickly.)

I’d offer an even more modest proposal.

Demands

1. Burn the world!

It has the same “kids if you don’t shut up and work out your problems reasonably I’m driving this car off a cliff” effect. But at least people won’t mistake it for a good idea.

It isn’t supposed to be a rational or even a modest proposal, it is a “burn the world!” proposal. It’s supposed to be, because the “world” isn’t working for a lot of people.

I don’t see how this proposal is any less ridiculous than “getting government out of healthcare,” ending bailouts, or “ending the fed.” yet an entire party representing almost half the nation belches these platitudes out incessantly. 

as I’m discussing with username: Muppetpants right now on g-chat, I think quibbling that the demands of an irrational mob are not going to work out very well for everyone isn’t the point. the point is that things aren’t going very well for lots of people in the country and a change has to be made to the “system.” It can happen in a rational fashion that satisfies them or an irrational one that satisfies no one. the threat of an irrational conclusion, is the only way that the rational action can be arrived at. a true threat, not a paper one.

The right has their irrational threat and it is backed with force and somewhat serious. I think it would be very nice if the left has some nukes in this cold war.

Thank you, jasencomstock, for verbalizing what I’ve been far too lazy to express. Too busy making Panda Bear images. What can I say? I am who I am.

The political climate in this country has drifted so far right that presidential candidates can suffer no political damage when they sign a document that actually says that African Americans were better off as slaves while others can get away with headlining an event organized by far right religious nut bags and verbalizing the same kind of “Christian Dominion Over All” philosophy that they espouse.  People can unashamedly engage actively in voter suppression as long as the voters being suppressed are traditionally moderate or left leaning and folks can be labeled as socialists for thinking that health care should be more accessible and affordable for all and that the top tax rate should be moved from 35% to 39.6%.

I am glad that we have some lefties speaking up for radically left wing stuff. That should be the point from where negotiations with those on the right need to start since conservatives are treating proposals to raise taxes on the poorest in society and dismantling the social safety net as reasonable things to consider.

Perhaps one day when can get to the world that President Obama wants us to live in, where he can propose something reasonable with elements that everyone can agree on and some things that are more controversial and then negotiate the details. But we ain’t there yet. So let the Fox News Sheep fear that leftist anarchy is at the doorstep. Maybe that will get them to realize it would be in their best interests to stop ignoring the less radical members of our society. And maybe allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire wouldn’t mean the end of capitalism as we know it.

Personally, I think about joining these protesters every time I hear some idiot talk about “broadening the base of tax payers” because, “Did you know that, like, 50% of Americans don’t pay ANY income taxes!?” And while they pay payroll taxes…and state tax…oh, and sales tax…all of which disproportionately hurt low income families, it is true that approximately 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax.  This is such a prevalent right wing echo chamber talking point that this is what is suggested when you start looking for “percent of americans who” on Google:

Hey. Do you know why 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax?

BECAUSE THEY’RE POOR!!!!

If you took more money from them they couldn’t eat. Or repair their car that is the only way they can get to their low paying job.

Morons.

Ag

Forgive the debt of the 99%? Really? So, let me get this straight — the proposal is that everyone who’s ever outspent their means, who’s run up 10s of thousands of dollars in debt on credit cards (that no one forced them to incur), who’s “had” to buy a 55 inch tv and flat-screens in every room, and everyone who “has” to lease a new Escalade because a 5 year old used SUV isn’t “good enough,” and everyone that “must” have a week or two in a shore house every year, they all now get to be free and clear of their responsibilities?  And that solves the perceived “problems” in the financial sector…..how?  Because people will never over-extend themselves again?  Because it’s now okay to drive a 5 year old car?  (Mine is 7 years old, by the way, and I’ll be driving it til it stops running.) Because it’s not “fair” that I should have to pay for all of the stuff I’ve bought?  Don’t get me wrong: I opposed the bail-out of the banks, too, on the terms (or, rather, non-terms) it was done.  And I’m sure this is a popular idea, as I can see from the reblogs; I just like my plans to: (a) make sense, and (b) not absolve people of responsibility for their own actions.  (I mean, seriously, no one made me incur any of the credit card debt I’ve accumulated over the years — I chose to do so.  I have also chosen to pay it all off because that’s what you do.)  Just sayin’….