Rant of the Year?

Ok, I’m not going to say a lot here, mainly because I tend to a moderate view on some of the proposed fiscal policy. That said, though, I do think we are hearing the voice of many people in our nation, when hearing the opinions voiced here. What it means to me is that if there are bailouts and buyouts and stimulus packages, they need to be wisely and carefully implemented. And because of it being government… especially Democrat managed government, I just don’t have lots of confidence that this is how it will go. At least the ranters are foreshadowing the umbrage that is simmering right now. It remains to be seen how seriously that is taken into consideration in the coming years.

4 thoughts on “Rant of the Year?”

  1. Rick Santelli’s disgusting rant on CNBC was a public exhibition of selfishness that appealed to the lowest common denominator of American self-absorption. When he said “The government is promoting bad behavior” my first reaction was “Excuse me? Did I just hear a reporter standing in the midst of a bunch of Wall Street types complain about bad behavior?” If I were in that place “bad behavior” would be the last topic I would mention. He later got of a cute line about giving money to people who “carry the water instead of those who drink it,” never imagining a population near the bottom who worry about paying for their water, deciding between utilities or groceries.

    I thought WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ more adult response was too circumspect considering the character of the assault but that’s why I’m not a good candidate for public office.

    I put a link to both videos in a blog post about an obliquely related subject but I didn’t care to have either video showing at my place.

  2. Yes, I saw that. He and Kudlow are correct. There is a populist revolt in response to the housing aid part of the stimulus plan. As I said before, it’s driven by selfishness. I’ve even heard that some “responsible homeowners” are missing payments on purpose in order to get a piece of the pie.

    I guess it comes down to whether one is among the responsible people enraged because others less responsible are getting help, or a different group of responsible people who instead sympathize with those being helped.

    Count me in that second group.

    This is an example of what in conflict resolution I call The Last Word Game. He who has the last word wins. Gibbs should have stood mute. Me too. We lose.

  3. I posted the video because I think it voices something that ought to be observed, and to which we should apply some critical thinking. John, I keep getting the feeling that your conversation revolves around “what ought to be”. Whenever I hear that tone in a conversation, or when I engage in it myself… the first place I want to look is at where the foundation is for that “ought”.

    If we are going to help our country, which is really helping ourselves in the best sense, then we have to get two thing right in how we view, and act on these crises.

    The first thing is to get down to the reality, the real situation of how people feel, why they feel that way, and the facts of the situation: in other words we have to open our eyes and assess the reality correctly. Taking in all sides, and filtering it down to what is provable and logical, to get some semblance of the scope of what we are dealing with.

    The second thing is to get a grip on what standards we adhere to in pronouncing what ought to be, because inherent in that “ought” is the threat of force to make it so. Force is anything that moves people in a direction. Some force is the type we advocate when we say “influence”, “debate”, and “education”: the means of voluntary persuasion. Inside that is also the type of “persusion” that isn’t so voluntary through legislation, police force, penalization. that is where “ought” ultimately leads… so while we say we are on this side or the other , the “oughts” are going to have to either back down or enforce.

    If you back down from your standards you change them, by default. This conversation and the intent of looking at Santelli as, perhaps in an exaggeratted manner, representative not of Wll Street hobgoblins… but of real people caught in political policy that they must underwrite… who are very unhappy about it. They are feeling corralled, branded and put up for slaughter. This is what Santelli is tapping into, and I believe that you are an excellent representative of those who need to adjust the filter of your own view so you can at least hear what is being said on that side of the table.

    I said I was not on board with the view in this video, I’m not, but I think an important message is coming through that should be taken into account and not dismissed with the points of ‘ridiculum that you are using.

    It is all part of coming out on the right side of this economic and civil crisis. I think it has moved beyond economic, only.

    What is the right side? where the people of this country can hope to live in peace and prosperity. Government confiscation of wealth in order to “distribute to the worthy” never ends up peacefully, not in the beginning, the maintenance, or the end. That understanding needs to be front and center on the table. so unless the “ought” mentality includes a rule by military force… I think we need to decide how far we are willing to enforce the “ought” part or compromise it early to include advocating for more than our set of “the needy”.

    While I’m on this topic. The needy is not one homogeneous subset of humanity. People become “needy” for many reasons and throwing money at those reasons is not as compassionate as it looks on the surface.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.