Category Archives: Democrats

Updated: Meaningless Musical Chairs

Democrats, Elections 2008, Government, Media, Political Philosophy, Politics, Republicans, Science

The parties are exchanging spit:

MSNBC: “Republican Sen. Arlen Specter disclosed plans Tuesday to switch parties, bringing Democrats closer to the 60-vote supermajority they need to push Barack Obama’s agenda through the Senate.”

The imagery conjured by defections, or ideological spit swapping, between Republicans and Democrats, in my mind, is of two colossal, identical amoebas occasionally allowing their semi-permeable cell walls to open and merge with a biologically compatible, primitive organism. In fact, that’s the perfect, dynamic metaphor for our two-party system.

Although dyed-in-the-wool party parrots will disagree, based on fact, reality, and policy prescriptions, the differences between the parties exist along a continuum; are quantitative, not qualitative.

As I said in “The Commie Who Controls the Economy From the Grave”:

“How much to hand out; who to hand it to; which handout makes the best use of taxpayer money; do the Big Three submit a business plan with their bailout requisitions, or not—that’s the depth of the ‘philosophical’ to-be-or-not-to-be among Republikeynsians.”

Mercer in 2006: “What we have now is a cartel, the traditional ideological differences between the political parties having been permanently blurred.”

The solution?

Mercer in 2006: “Antitrust laws ought to be deployed, not against business, but to bust this two-party monopoly, which subverts competition in government and rewards the colluding quislings with sinecures in perpetuity.”

Update: Look at the bright side. The political developments have steered Commissar Keith of MSNBC away from lamenting, night after night, the damage water boarding has wrought on Abu Zubaydah’s bladder, to speculating how Specter’s defection will help his man Obama’s agenda.

Updated: The Guy Really Doesn’t Get Econ 101

Barack Obama, Business, Debt, Democrats, Economy, Government

State-enforced egalitarianism in borrowing and lending has been a key component in the economic meltdown. But Barry the Bolshevik is intent on preventing any market corrections from taking place.

Financial institutions are attempting to reverse lending socialism. That means charging clients commensurate with the risk they pose to their lenders. Or not lending to the risky. Increases in late fees and in interest rates on existing balances, as well as requiring greater disclosure—these are all necessary, and to be expected, if a correction is to occur, one that incentivizes savings and solvency.

But not if Obama can help it. At Obama’s behest,

Both the House and Senate are considering a credit card “bill of rights” to limit the ability of credit-card companies to raise interest rates on existing balances and to require greater disclosure.

“These practices need to be stopped. … They cannot continue to use and do practices that are unfair to people,” Rep. Carol Maloney, D-NY, told CBS News.

Readers discuss “Survival On the Road To Serfdom.”

Update (April 25): The federal Frankenstein’s latest folly caught Peter Schiff’s attention, and is the subject of his latest column (great minds…). Writes Schiff:

“The bottom line is that credit card lending is a very risky business. The debts are unsecured and the probability of default is high, meaning big losses should borrowers choose not to pay. In addition, should a borrower file for bankruptcy, credit card debt is often the first to be discharged. Given the risks, interest rates need to be very high to keep lenders in business.

One way to keep a lid on rates for those who do pay is for lenders to weed out those most likely to default. This can be accomplished through higher rates. Not only does this discourage riskier borrowers from taking on more debt, but it gives lenders a bigger cushion to absorb losses. However, by interfering with card issuers’ attempts to better price risk and limit losses, the government will reduce credit availability.”

Updated: The Guy Really Doesn't Get Econ 101

Barack Obama, Business, Debt, Democrats, Government

State-enforced egalitarianism in borrowing and lending has been a key component in the economic meltdown. But Barry the Bolshevik is intent on preventing any market corrections from taking place.

Financial institutions are attempting to reverse lending socialism. That means charging clients commensurate with the risk they pose to their lenders. Or not lending to the risky. Increases in late fees and in interest rates on existing balances, as well as requiring greater disclosure—these are all necessary, and to be expected, if a correction is to occur, one that incentivizes savings and solvency.

But not if Obama can help it. At Obama’s behest,

Both the House and Senate are considering a credit card “bill of rights” to limit the ability of credit-card companies to raise interest rates on existing balances and to require greater disclosure.

“These practices need to be stopped. … They cannot continue to use and do practices that are unfair to people,” Rep. Carol Maloney, D-NY, told CBS News.

Readers discuss “Survival On the Road To Serfdom.”

Update (April 25): The federal Frankenstein’s latest folly caught Peter Schiff’s attention, and is the subject of his latest column (great minds…). Writes Schiff:

“The bottom line is that credit card lending is a very risky business. The debts are unsecured and the probability of default is high, meaning big losses should borrowers choose not to pay. In addition, should a borrower file for bankruptcy, credit card debt is often the first to be discharged. Given the risks, interest rates need to be very high to keep lenders in business.

One way to keep a lid on rates for those who do pay is for lenders to weed out those most likely to default. This can be accomplished through higher rates. Not only does this discourage riskier borrowers from taking on more debt, but it gives lenders a bigger cushion to absorb losses. However, by interfering with card issuers’ attempts to better price risk and limit losses, the government will reduce credit availability.”

Torturing The 'Torture' Issue II

Democrats, Iraq, Law, Military, Morality, Neoconservatism, The Military, War

In the first installment to the ongoing saga of torture under Bush, I asked:

Ever wonder why the Democrats and their media lapdogs never shut-up about the issue of torture, when Bush’s decision to wage an unjust, illegal war ought to be the focus of their ire? The matter of torture is, after all, subsumed within the broader category of an unjust war. Moreover, one can make the case for torture in desperate, dire situations. (I’m not making the case, I’m saying that one can attempt to justify incidents of torture: you were not thinking clearly, you were desperate to avert another disaster, you wanted to save hostages; you worried you’d be blamed if you didn’t extract crucial information.) But how on earth do you justify lugging an army across the ocean to occupy a third-world country that is no danger to you and has not threatened you? You don’t, you can’t.

Democrats are nearly as culpable as Republicans on the matter of the war on Iraq. So they stick with their limited, safe mandate of torture. MSNBC’s Maddow and Olbermann, and their constitutional scholar, are thus careful to skirt the need to prosecute Bush and his bandits for invading Iraq. Instead, they stick to waterboarding.

The current torture kerfuffle was elicited by Obama’s release of CIA interrogation protocols.

(A note to the neoconservatives who stalk this site, and believe their ill-formulated fulminations vis-a-vis Iraq ought to be featured on my private property: The war against Iraq is not going to be adjudicated again on this site–not ever. That crime I chronicled at great length, applying fact and every ounce of reason in my possession to repudiate and denounce. The case is closed! The lazy neoconservative can read my archive on the topic. While I can imagine these ideologues urgently need to make peace with their makers or consciences for their role in a crime of such moral and material magnitude, they will not do so on my private property!)