Karl/Marx '08

I was watching the Obama Channel the other day and after an hour and a half of listening to Obama's "amazing story," which included a mere fifteen to twenty minutes of actual policy, something occurred to me.

Has Obama ever considered the fact that the reason our economy is in the toilet just might stem from taxes being so high that companies have little incentive to give a damn anymore? "Tax breaks"? REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!? I am tired of the political jargon and the catchy campaign slogans about change and believing. Obama has as little experience as Palin (though hers seems to be the only inexpertness the media has decided to follow) and his hubris, I believe, will be his Achilles Heal. Not since Bill Clinton has a politician been so charismatic, but Bill had experience. I wish McCain would compare Obama's quick rise to Presidential candidate to George W's. The similarities are uncanny and that might get people thinking. From Texas Governor to Presidential hopeful before the end of his first term... And the general consensus is that he has not fared too well, isn't it?

This ad too, an obvious response to this, made me think. Obama responded to McCain's attack because he had to. The nature of the beast that is politics is that a candidate must defend himself or lash back, or it will come back to haunt him later. Obama's purpose, like much of his campaign, was to bend the truth about McCain's history and shed a negative light on it. He is appealing to his audience's emotions through flawed logic; bent truth.

His audience is most likely people who already support him, his "middle class" who are hurting the most right now from the economy and see him as a political Jesus, the Great Healer of Washington, come to make things right again. I believe this because people who are not already supporting Obama will most likely research the claims he made about McCain and realize that although there may be truth found in these false pretenses, it is not the whole truth.

Unless they're teenagers.

xO

Consequences

A little over two months of inactivity and all I have to say is that it feels so good to be back.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27015257/

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fi-bailout4-2008oct04,0,6267511.story

----

Today I was discussing the bailout bill that was just approved by the House of Representatives, then quickly signed by 'W,' and it got me thinking. Though I had already decided my feelings towards the bailout, playing devil's advocate with myself made me feel almost sympathetic - the key word being almost.

A part of me is upset. These companies, specifically the mortgage companies, and the people who bought into the low flexible rate made a decision financially that ended up coming back to 'bite them in the ass,' as it were.

Should they not incur the consequences of their actions?

Capitalism, you have the floor. What is your response?

Capitalism: Yes!

From what I understand, the basic gist of a free market is that a person or company rises and falls on its on merit.

So is this the death of capitalism?

Or, since this is "the biggest government intervention in the financial system since the Great Depression," is America going to rebuild and become even stronger than it was before, as it did after the G.D.?

Time answers all, I suppose, but some food for thought would be this:

When companies are taught that their actions have little or no consequences, what is the incentive to be an ethical company that really thinks about its actions rather than making decisions on a whim?

Is there one? If there is, it seems to be disappearing.

Actions without consequences create rebels without causes.

Maybe the government will enact an ethical bailout bill next, where it will tell personal business owners how to run their companies so as not to offend anyone under any circumstance. Ever.

Oh shit.

xO