Know anyone on the Obama transition team? Pass this idea along to them, see if they can indeed think outside the box:
Sell the glut of houses to immigrants. It will cost taxpayers nothing. All that Congress & the President would have to do is to authorize those who are already on the waiting list, and have the money to buy a house, to come on in.
Even administrative costs would be minimal. Those who can show the financial ability to buy a house could get temporary visas to come in (I would not want them to buy a house unseen), pick a house, and make the arrangements. When the money is transferred and the new title recorded, they get their green card and can occupy the house.
The entire surplus of American houses could be disposed of in six months to a year. Housing prices would stop falling, so people would (mostly) stop defaulting on their mortgages. Banks would be saved.
Cost to tax payers: zero.
The anti-immigrant types might scream, but we would not be letting in more immigrants in the long run. Just speeding up the current program. Quotas would remain the same, so legal immigration would slow for a while once the program was completed.
I just can't think of anything wrong with this idea, except that it does not involve giving away taxpayer dollars, and most politicians are too spineless to tack into the the anti-immigration headwinds even when the benefits to the United States of America are so obvious.
Pass the idea along.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Barack Obama and Franklin Pierce
The Barack Obama campaign has done a lot of talking about hope and change. But certainly he has brought no change to the two-party system. Compare that to the elections of the 1850's, cumulating in the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Now that was change, and it was change for the better. And it required the destruction of a major political party, the Whig Party, to get done.
I have been thinking a lot about the political psychology of American citizens. One of my litmus tests is war crimes. Why do almost all Americans apply a double standard for war crimes and crimes against humanity? I have found this to be just as true of most "progressives" and liberals as of conservative Americans.
To get at the heart of that matter, I have been studying the history of relations between the United States of America and Japan (See The U.S. Bullies Japan in the 1850's). These relations started while Franklin Pierce was President of the United States. Yet like most Americans, I know little about President Pierce.
It turns out (I am garnering this from Bailey's The American Pageant, but you can look at the President Franklin Pierce Wikipedia page) Pierce was a member of the Democratic Party. He was from New Hampshire, where he had worked his way up from the state legislature to the U.S. Senate. He sounds a bit like Barack: "youngish, erect, smiling, and convivial." The Democratic Party at the time was many things, but foremost it was the party of slavery. "As a pro-Southern Northerner he was acceptable to the slavery wing of the Democratic Party." [Bailey p. 384-385]
Pierce's main opponent was the Whig Party candidate, General Winfield Scott. But the Whigs were divided internally over the slavery question, with the Southern Whigs of course for slavery and the Northern Whigs mostly against it. Scott's campaign was inept. Pierce won with 1.6 million popular votes to 1.4 million for Scott. Campaigns vague on issues are not new. The Pierce campaign slogan was "We'll Pierce 'em in '52."
More important in retrospect, but obscure at the time, other parties took about 6% of the vote. John P. Hale of the Free Soil party picked up 6% of the vote. This party would become the nucleus of the Republican Party, which would first field a presidential candidate in 1856.
Pierce's Presidency was as predatory as any in U.S. history. His Secretary of War was Jefferson Davis, who would later become President of the Confederate States of America. The Democratic Party had, as a goal, acquiring more territory where slavery would be legal. The new territories recently muscled away from Mexico would mostly become Free states. Cuba was the prime target, but ironically it would be the Republicans who grabbed Cuba later in the century. Anti-slavery Americans killed the Pierce administration's attempt to buy Cuba. However, Pierce did preside over the Gadsden Purchase.
The pro-slavery Democrats thought they won a victory in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Instead they re-opened the slavery question that most people thought had been settled by the Missouri Compromise. Both the Whigs and the Democrats had both pro-slavery and anti-slavery wings, but the anti-slavery wing of the Democrats was weak. As the abolition of slavery increasingly became an issue, anti-slavery Democrats defected to the new Republican Party.
We like say things like, "it was President Pierce who sent a war fleet under Perry to attack Japan in 1854." But Franklin Pierce just happened to be President when the ruling elite of this nation decided Japan's time was up. Winfield Scott would have done the same thing. At least in 1852 electing a civilian, rather than a general, did not affect the level of aggression in U.S. foreign policy.
There have been some truly powerful Presidents in U.S. history, notably Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But most U.S. Presidents can exercise their judgment only over a limited set of options. Those options are presented by the ruling class. In Pierce's era that ruling class consisted mainly of slavers and other very wealthy business people. They wanted to exploit China and Japan; they wanted to build railroads; they wanted to advance the industrial revolution. And they did all that. They were not united in their support for the institution of slavery, or in how they saw the federal government's relationship to state governments, so they fought the War Between the States.
I have been thinking a lot about the political psychology of American citizens. One of my litmus tests is war crimes. Why do almost all Americans apply a double standard for war crimes and crimes against humanity? I have found this to be just as true of most "progressives" and liberals as of conservative Americans.
To get at the heart of that matter, I have been studying the history of relations between the United States of America and Japan (See The U.S. Bullies Japan in the 1850's). These relations started while Franklin Pierce was President of the United States. Yet like most Americans, I know little about President Pierce.
It turns out (I am garnering this from Bailey's The American Pageant, but you can look at the President Franklin Pierce Wikipedia page) Pierce was a member of the Democratic Party. He was from New Hampshire, where he had worked his way up from the state legislature to the U.S. Senate. He sounds a bit like Barack: "youngish, erect, smiling, and convivial." The Democratic Party at the time was many things, but foremost it was the party of slavery. "As a pro-Southern Northerner he was acceptable to the slavery wing of the Democratic Party." [Bailey p. 384-385]
Pierce's main opponent was the Whig Party candidate, General Winfield Scott. But the Whigs were divided internally over the slavery question, with the Southern Whigs of course for slavery and the Northern Whigs mostly against it. Scott's campaign was inept. Pierce won with 1.6 million popular votes to 1.4 million for Scott. Campaigns vague on issues are not new. The Pierce campaign slogan was "We'll Pierce 'em in '52."
More important in retrospect, but obscure at the time, other parties took about 6% of the vote. John P. Hale of the Free Soil party picked up 6% of the vote. This party would become the nucleus of the Republican Party, which would first field a presidential candidate in 1856.
Pierce's Presidency was as predatory as any in U.S. history. His Secretary of War was Jefferson Davis, who would later become President of the Confederate States of America. The Democratic Party had, as a goal, acquiring more territory where slavery would be legal. The new territories recently muscled away from Mexico would mostly become Free states. Cuba was the prime target, but ironically it would be the Republicans who grabbed Cuba later in the century. Anti-slavery Americans killed the Pierce administration's attempt to buy Cuba. However, Pierce did preside over the Gadsden Purchase.
The pro-slavery Democrats thought they won a victory in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Instead they re-opened the slavery question that most people thought had been settled by the Missouri Compromise. Both the Whigs and the Democrats had both pro-slavery and anti-slavery wings, but the anti-slavery wing of the Democrats was weak. As the abolition of slavery increasingly became an issue, anti-slavery Democrats defected to the new Republican Party.
We like say things like, "it was President Pierce who sent a war fleet under Perry to attack Japan in 1854." But Franklin Pierce just happened to be President when the ruling elite of this nation decided Japan's time was up. Winfield Scott would have done the same thing. At least in 1852 electing a civilian, rather than a general, did not affect the level of aggression in U.S. foreign policy.
There have been some truly powerful Presidents in U.S. history, notably Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But most U.S. Presidents can exercise their judgment only over a limited set of options. Those options are presented by the ruling class. In Pierce's era that ruling class consisted mainly of slavers and other very wealthy business people. They wanted to exploit China and Japan; they wanted to build railroads; they wanted to advance the industrial revolution. And they did all that. They were not united in their support for the institution of slavery, or in how they saw the federal government's relationship to state governments, so they fought the War Between the States.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Stop the General Motors Bailout
Some members of Congress appear to be getting ready to bailout General Motors, aka GM. This would be bad for America. Allowing GM to go out of business would be a very good thing. And it GM is to stay in business, the money should come from its shareholders, not the taxpayers.
The pimps in Congress who want money for GM, and the corporate press, will be careful not to remind you of all the dividends that were drained out of GM over the last century. If even the dividends paid out in the last ten years had been kept and used to create a cash reserve, or invested in producing small, energy-efficient cars, GM would be fine right now.
How about sucking the dividends back in? Have GM send to its stockholders notices saying that if they don't send back the dividends, GM will go under. See what happens.
Think of the enormous benefits America will see if GM goes under. Ford and Chrysler have plenty of capacity to supply U.S. consumers with cars. In addition, when GM goes under, everything it owns will go for sale under the bankruptcy court. Maybe a foreign car manufacturer, Tata or Toyota or Fiat, that has more competent management will buy the whole thing. Maybe some parts of it will go here, some parts there. Maybe GM will be broken up into four or five smaller American-owned companies that are better managed, nimbler, and capable of operating in the 21st century.
So why is the Democratic Party leadership so keen on giving your taxes to a bunch of old corporate capitalist types. They will say it is jobs. That is their sales pitch. But the same money could create a lot more jobs if put into any industry other than auto manufacturing.
To be efficient, robots have to be used to run modern automobile factories. So there are two choices for your taxpayer dollars: recreating an inefficient GM with human jobs, or creating an efficient, competitive GM with robots replacing workers.
Let us just face up to the fact that when push comes to shove, the Democratic Party uses taxpayer dollars to do its campaign donors bidding. Between the United Auto Workers, the GM bosses, and hedge fund managers, Barack Obama and other Democratic Party officials were flooded with money this campaign cycle. Those donors want to be repaid. Job creation is just one Democratic Party standard marketing tool. I am not against job creation, but I know when it is a sales pitch instead of the real deal.
GM purposefully made and promoted miles-per-gallon, expensive SUVs that they knew were killing the planet (see Global Warming) and impoverishing consumers. They were happy to make us dependent on foreign oil and lobbied for drilling for oil in ecologically sensitive areas of the United States.
If GM's management deserve anything from the government, it is the gallows.
More data:
General Motors
The pimps in Congress who want money for GM, and the corporate press, will be careful not to remind you of all the dividends that were drained out of GM over the last century. If even the dividends paid out in the last ten years had been kept and used to create a cash reserve, or invested in producing small, energy-efficient cars, GM would be fine right now.
How about sucking the dividends back in? Have GM send to its stockholders notices saying that if they don't send back the dividends, GM will go under. See what happens.
Think of the enormous benefits America will see if GM goes under. Ford and Chrysler have plenty of capacity to supply U.S. consumers with cars. In addition, when GM goes under, everything it owns will go for sale under the bankruptcy court. Maybe a foreign car manufacturer, Tata or Toyota or Fiat, that has more competent management will buy the whole thing. Maybe some parts of it will go here, some parts there. Maybe GM will be broken up into four or five smaller American-owned companies that are better managed, nimbler, and capable of operating in the 21st century.
So why is the Democratic Party leadership so keen on giving your taxes to a bunch of old corporate capitalist types. They will say it is jobs. That is their sales pitch. But the same money could create a lot more jobs if put into any industry other than auto manufacturing.
To be efficient, robots have to be used to run modern automobile factories. So there are two choices for your taxpayer dollars: recreating an inefficient GM with human jobs, or creating an efficient, competitive GM with robots replacing workers.
Let us just face up to the fact that when push comes to shove, the Democratic Party uses taxpayer dollars to do its campaign donors bidding. Between the United Auto Workers, the GM bosses, and hedge fund managers, Barack Obama and other Democratic Party officials were flooded with money this campaign cycle. Those donors want to be repaid. Job creation is just one Democratic Party standard marketing tool. I am not against job creation, but I know when it is a sales pitch instead of the real deal.
GM purposefully made and promoted miles-per-gallon, expensive SUVs that they knew were killing the planet (see Global Warming) and impoverishing consumers. They were happy to make us dependent on foreign oil and lobbied for drilling for oil in ecologically sensitive areas of the United States.
If GM's management deserve anything from the government, it is the gallows.
More data:
General Motors
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
