Andrew Hamm: the Bipolar Express

Ruminations on theatre, music, and just about anything else that crosses my bipolar brain.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

A journey toward Barack Obama

I like to play devil's advocate. It gets me in trouble sometimes--okay, a lot--and it occasionally gives people the wrong idea about what my beliefs and values are. I'm willing to bear that burden; I'm a teacher at heart and I want to shake up people's entrenched ideas.

It has long been my philosophy that a fully realized human being must be able to look in the mirror every day and honestly say "I may be completely wrong about everything I believe in." I don't just look to change others' minds, I strive to be open to having my perspective changed as well.

This brings me to Barack Obama, my vote to be the next President of the United States.

It isn't so much that my views on the issues have changed, though a few have. What happened instead was that I had an abrupt realization of just how important many social issues were to me: gay marriage, funding for education and the arts, pay equity, healthcare, environmental preservation, alternative fuels and power sources, human rights. I realized that I had been voting a small handful of issues, all traditionally conservative, and that my votes had most assuredly not been resulting in candidates on any level who were terribly good at handling them.

I had known for months that I could not in good conscience vote for John McCain. When I looked at the newly-shuffled deck of what I believed and compared it against Senator Obama's platform, I realized that I could vote for Barack Obama with a clear eye and head held high.

I have many reservations. I'm not choking on this vote the way I did for Bush in '00 and '04, but I have doubts. Obama's inexperience is a factor, and you have to be delusional to deny that. I'm very nervous about the kind of revisionist Justices he could appoint to the Supreme Court. I worry about his healthcare program, primarily about the fact that there doesn't seem to be any kind of plan in place to fund it. I'm worried about how much more of a mess the current incompetents in charge of the House and Senate could make with a Democrat in the White House (I swear Pelosi and Reid make Bush look like a freaking Rhodes scholar). And there are socialist overtones to his economic plans that trouble me quite a bit. (This last bit I'm less worried about, because no one knows what the hell to do about the economic crisis, and I don't think anyone's current plans resemble what's actually going to happen. January 20 is a long way down the road.)

I still believe that Islamic war is the defining issue of our time. I believed this years prior to September 11, I gnashed my teeth as President Clinton disemboweled our international intelligence and military capabilities, and I still don't believe we as a nation know or care enough about the threat we face, particularly from Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. I fear it's going to take a radiological or chemical attack to make us realize, and such plans are in the works in at least two dozen locations as I type this.

What I'm most worried about is Obama's total inability to meet or even approach the expectations his supporters have. The first time he fails in some major way, will we have a national hangover, a depression?


I'm convinced. I'm convinced that Obama is actually the man we see, not a media-manufactured messiah. I'm convinced that he has the ability to be the kind of transcendent figure that Ronald Reagan was. I'm convinced that he can bring some unity and understanding in the face of an increasingly fragmented social discussion. And I'm convinced that he has the kind of swift and subtle mind a President needs to deal with changing circumstances.

I'm convinced that Barack Obama can be a great President.

I pray God I'm not wrong.

Labels: ,


  • At 11/04/2008 8:44 AM , Anonymous Phil said...

    The fact of the matter is every "issue" is a sideshow / distraction.

    Energy is THE ONLY issue that matters, and the only candidate in this election who understood that was Hillary Clinton.

    Oh, and our economy IS SOCIALIST now. The whole economic landscape has been completely turned upside-down. The old paradigms and arguments are all totally obsolete. Time to move on. People don't seem to understand what Paulson and Benanke have been doing these last couple months.

  • At 11/04/2008 10:57 AM , Blogger Andrew Hamm said...

    On September 12, 2001, national security was the only issue that mattered. That kind of blinder-focus leads to all manner of neglect of other vital issues, and it enables autocratic decision-making where we forgive a lack of oversight. Yes, energy is the most important issue, and we've been badly neglecting it. But calling the biggest issue the only one is ridiculously simplistic. Running out of oil isn't all that important to a soldier who dies in Iraq a decade before it happens.

    You're right about the economic socialism, though. America chooses today between an intrusive big-government liberal and an intrusive big-government conservative.

    Phil, are you down with the Pickens plan? It seems like the kind of thinking you might find attractive, as I do.

  • At 11/04/2008 10:59 AM , Blogger Andrew Hamm said...

    Hit "send" before I was finished.

    There ARE people who understand what the bailouts mean, and they're mostly radical conservatives. The whole paradigm of our economy has changed hugely, and it will be years before we understand what it really means.

  • At 11/04/2008 11:47 AM , Anonymous Phil said...

    The Pickens plan is a fantasy. Any honest assessment of energy can come to only one conclusion: Massive proliferation of nuclear fission is the only hope for the continuance of the project we know as modern civilization.

  • At 11/04/2008 3:19 PM , Blogger Frank Creasy said...

    Well, if PA is called for Obama by the time I hit the sack tonight, it's pretty much "lights out" for McCain. And it looks very, very much like that's what will happen.

    I voted for John McCain and I hope he'll get the electoral count, though I seriously doubt it.

    I respect Obama's intelligence and political finesse, but not his integrity (which is highly suspect) or his position on fiscal matters. The irony to me of the Democratic platform, and most of its' support base, is the double standard applied to our freedoms. The same people who rant about civil rights and Bush's assault upon those (in their perspective, and I appreciate the concerns), seem to have NO concern whatsoever about our FINANCIAL freedoms as Americans, whether individual or at corporate levels. At what arbitrary point is making too much money "evil" or "wrong"? Who gets to decide who gets the handout? And why - WHY - is making a lot of money bad, or being poor noble, and where in the Constitution are we guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY THROUGH GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS??? Did I MISS that little blurb?

    Look, it was financial freedom that FOUNDED this country, a little thing called taxation without representation. Obama talks about "tax breaks to 95% of the population", which clearly makes no sense when almost 1/3 of all Americans pay NO income tax. So how will 95% get a tax break? By giving lower income workers a "rebate" of sorts on their social security tax deductions. Higher income workers forced to pay a higher tax rate will provide that rebate. On top of all this, Obama has threatened to "bankrupt" coal mining companies through penalties on greenhouse gas emissions (I've seen the video with him saying just that)...while out of the OTHER side of this mouth, he rails against Mcain's support of tax breaks for companies who "ship jobs overseas". Maybe nobody told Barack that all Fortune 500 companies employ some level of offshore resources to reduce admin costs, because in the real world businesses can increase profit margins in only two ways: Increase revenues or decrease costs. If higher taxes increase the costs of corporate American companies, they will find MORE ways to reduce costs, including more offshore employment and manufacturing (Hello? Barack? More job losses? I didn't go to an Ivy League school, so I'm not sure why you're not following the logic here Senator).

    Obama's platform professes noble compassion. His counter-productive approach is anything BUT that in the effect it will produce.

    Before every theatre event at any non-profit company, it's normal to thank the corporate sponsors of a production. These sponsors' largesse may soon disappear if increased taxation increases their administrative expenses. I think it might be wise to think about that.

    But while you may disagree or dispute all I've said heretofore, let me leave you with just two facts:

    - No government, regardless of administration in power, has ever proven itself capable of producing services more efficiently or more cheaply than the private sector.

    - My income is well below that of Joe Biden. I give more money to charitable organizations than Joe Biden.

    I think the last point says a great deal about how my philosophy differs from that of Barack Nobama and his ilk. Will he be president? Yes. But it won't be on my head.

  • At 11/04/2008 5:05 PM , Blogger Dave T said...

    Free marketeers are always yelping about the "real" world and government redistribution and socialism and blah blah blah. In the real world, we don't have anything even close to a true free market. And though you may whine and cry about it, you wouldn't want a true free market. Without government subsidies, our agriculural system would collapse. Oil companies -- and many high tech companies -- have depended on subsidies for research and development. If we opened our labor market and made it truly "free," we'd be flooded with cheap labor from the third world, even more so than we already are. The whole convoluted tax code is about redistributing wealth -- rewarding some people and punishing others. Why should I get such a big break for having 4 kids? Isn't that punishing the childless? Remember the GI Bill -- why should soldiers get a free education? Isn't that punishing those who didn't serve?

    Furthermore, governmental checks and balances literally keep capitalism from imploding. England was a cesspool of pollution and exploitation when corporate capitalism first took off. China is turning into the same thing. You want another Love Canal? A Bophal incident here? A large-scale Three-Mile Island incident? Get rid of all government "interference" and that's what you'll get. This latest economic melt-down is the result of greed amongst financial institutions taking advantage of derivatives that nobody understood with no oversight. Isn't unfettered capitalism great?

    In the "real world" the government has been redistributing wealth for decades and it will continue to do so until it scraps the tax code and starts over (which it will never do because of all the corporate lobbyists who want things just the way they are, thank you very much). The real question is where the redistribution should focus. And all of the breaks of the last 8 years have moved wealth up. That Obama wants to move it back down is not socialism; it's the pendulum swinging back the other way.

  • At 11/04/2008 5:23 PM , Blogger Frank Creasy said...

    The goal is not NO government involvement, it's about LESS government involvement.

    Obama is all about more intrusion into our lives. I can't support that, and I never will. That is less freedom, and more slavery, a real irony coming from the left.

    Face it - the man is all about more legislation and a less business-friendly government. That's not growth, unless you're in another country looking to lure American business and jobs to your area.

    Talk about whining? Hell, I've listened to a lot of whining over the past eight years. So get ready folks, the anti-Obama bandwagon is taking off, and I'm firmly on board.

  • At 11/04/2008 8:01 PM , Anonymous Phil said...

    Socialism is chairman Paulson siezing the means of production.

    What has happened in the last few months is the largest socialist seizure of private business since the Communists tood control in China.

    The Free Market experiment is OVER, it has proved itself an abject failure. There was no market freer than those unregulated derivatives, credit default swaps, and other spurious financial vehicles. The country which preached "Free Markets" to the world with a very heavy hand has completely gone socialist.

    The arguments above me are completely obsolete. You all need to read up and begin to understand the implications of what has happened in the last few months.

  • At 11/04/2008 10:23 PM , Blogger Frank Creasy said...

    Well Phil, I can PARTIALLY agree with you...the government takeovers of financial institutions is a huge move towards a more socialist economic model, though the preferable options just didn't develop fast enough. I know other solutions were available, but time and money were draining away too fast.

    Free market an "abject failure"? Nobody was making that argument during the boom years of the 90's, when Reagan's tax breaks, a tremendous American tech boom fueled by entrepreneurial geniuses, and a post-Cold War military draw down conspired to create the largest economic boom in our country's history. We could have had a baboon in the Oval Office and still enjoyed prosperity (oh wait, we DID. Bill Clinton).

    But while I'd agree that "spurious financial vehicles" in an unregulated market contributed to the current financial meltdown, that's not the whole story by a long shot. See, I HAVE read up on this, Phil. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 demanded financial institutions lend to "underserved markets", and those with bad credit got loans as a result. With supposed government guarantees by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underpinning the deals, financial institutions thought their glass houses were safe. They also marketed more opaque products that were difficult for regulators to assess thoroughly. Just two years ago, seeing the writing on the wall, Senate Republicans worked to pull the plug on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Led by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, the Dems blocked the effort. And here we are.

    I can understand your cynicsm based on the last few months. My net worth has dropped dramatically. Thank God I'm nowhere close to retirement. But you know what? I served proudly in the military under Ronald Reagan. When I got my honorable discharge in '87, we STILL thought the Soviet Union could achieve world domination if left unchecked. What we didn't know until almost the time the Berlin Wall fell was that because we could buy more guns AND butter in our capitalist economy, we'd never have to fire a shot against the Socialist Communists. Their economy just couldn't keep up with the arms race. Reagan knew it. Now, walk into your local Arby's, and you're likely to be waited on by a blonde girl from Kazhakstan, something you'd never have dreamed of in 1985.

    Free market experiment "over", Phil? Well, it's taking a beating of late. But down is not out. And I'll be DAMNED if I'm gonna let Obama strip away the last of our financial freedoms.

    Guess it's finally time to register as a Republican. I don't see what other choice I have, but to fight the good fight. Our very lives depend on it.

    And Dave - I don't consider myself a "free marketer". I am a Capitalist. Some government checks and balances are absolutely necessary. Problem is, once you pass legislation, it's tough to backtrack. Enron? Criminal, no question. But to impose Sarbanes-Oxley on all of corporate America as a result? SHAMEFUL, and just plain wrong and wasteful.

    No, the question is not how to redistribute wealth. The question is how to reduce government's size and influence. It's something even the founding fathers struggled with. I don't have the answers, or I'd be partying with TomKat by now and wolfing down caviar on my yacht. But I DO know taxing rich people and corporations MORE to give it away to people who've never earned it is NOT the answer.

  • At 11/05/2008 9:08 AM , Blogger Dave T said...

    Frank, good to hear you're going to give Obama a fair chance. He hasn't even been the President-elect for 24 hours and you're ready to rouse the troops against him. If you are truly patriotic, you'll withhold judgement and support our next Commander in Chief. Listen to your own candidate, for God's (and our country's) sake.

  • At 11/05/2008 10:59 AM , Blogger Frank Creasy said...

    At the time of my last posting the outcome was still in doubt. Now, on Tuesday morning, I am here to say that I respect the democratic process and the fact that Barack Obama has been elected president. Unlike those who failed to respect the outcome in 2000 and 2004, I do accept and respect this outcome of the electoral college. I do not join in the celebration, but acknowledge and accept the defeat, and am grateful for our democratic process.

    My deep concern is over a president-elect who vows to enhance institutionalized discrimination using the tax code, pledging to penalize those whose financial success exceeds a limit set by his proposed legislation as too high. This is my primary concern, that prejudice of one form or another should be considered reprehensible by all Americans. However, as someone who employs a diverse group of individuals - ranging in diversity by sex, race, gender, age, and physical ability - I embrace the civil rights changes that have taken Obama to the Oval Office. It is a historic event for the ages.

    I voted for Mark Warner and believe he will be a good senator representing Virginia. Using the democratic process I'll make my concerns known to Senator Warner and follow his votes closely. I will also vote with both my ballot AND my dollars, something I've done as what I view as my patriotic duty.

    To those who support Obama, I congratulate you and acknowledge that this is indeed a historic event. I welcome the end to the bitter diatribes that we've endured for far too long, and will be glad to see famous actors and musicians return to the skills they know and are paid for, as opposed to standing on soapboxes making political speeches.

    I understand and respect the concerns of those who brought about this change in government; I understand and share some of those concerns, and empathize with those I do not agree with, having gained understanding of opposing viewpoints by listening rather than shouting to drown out the other perspective.

    I hope that among the changes to come will be a willingness by those who support this new leadership to hear the concerns of those who wish for all Americans to enjoy the freedoms we've fought so hard to enjoy for more than two hundred years. I cherish our financial freedoms as much as our civil rights, and I hope and pray those will not be diminished as we move forward under a new administration in 2009.

  • At 11/05/2008 11:33 AM , Blogger Frank Creasy said...

    Correction: WEDNESDAY morning, not Tuesday. Not a good night's sleep.

    Sorry, can't pretend to be happy. I don't believe saying what I believe is "unpatriotic", but hey - you guys enjoy the victory, you've won the day, and that is that.

  • At 11/05/2008 2:41 PM , Anonymous Phil said...

    The "The Community Reinvestment Act" is a scapegoat, it is not at fault.

  • At 11/05/2008 3:16 PM , Blogger Scott Wichmann said...

    Frank, you are truly a Patriot. For the last 8 years, I have had about enough of people on the other side questioning other people's patriotism-- I won't be party to the same childish nonsense.

    Also-- quick tangent--I think that famous (and not-so famous) actors and musicians and celebrities have as much of a right to speak about politics as anyone else-- as you or me. They are citizens, they have a voice, they may have some higher visibility, but just because they are famous doesn't always mean they don't know what they are talking about. You can't trumpet your own right to say what you believe on this blog and then throw your hands up in outrage because somebody like Toby Keith/Tim Robbins/whomever gets in front of a camera and said what HE believes. That's hypocritical, too. If I said, stick to human resources, Frank-- that's what you get paid to do-- that would sound kind of lame.

    Frank, I understand your economic concerns. I hear you and I hear the things that make you squeamish (at best).

    However, most Conservatives are now acting as if the last 8 years were the 'good old halcyon days' that will now be ruined by an out-of-touch Liberal executive branch. I have heard more 'God Help Us' nonsense from Conservatives in the last 24 hours than I can even begin to believe.

    Have any of you been watching the store the last 8 years??

    George Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There weren't and aren't. He tried to forge a connection between Saddam and Al-Quaeda. There wasn't one. He strteda war anyway. Bush is about to be gone, but We're still there.

    Bush vowed he would get Bin laden "Dead or Alive." As of right now, Bin Laden is still on the loose. Bush says later "He's been Marginalized-- I don't really spend that much time thinking about him." Oh, great. I'D still like to see Bin Laden brought to justice and made to stand trial for plotting the murder of 3,000 Americans. But, whatever.

    Bush institutionalized ILLEGAL warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens. He established torture and rendition as a new American export, awarded pork-barrel no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton in wartime (Economic TREASON) and gave every American a $600-$1200 'Tax Rebate' while the deficit soared into the Hundred-Trillions. His whole philosophy?? "put it all on the credit card." How truly, truly fiscally-savvy.

    Bush filled important government positions with unqualified cronies and neglected -- for FIVE DAYS--to help the City of New Orleans as it drowned-- then, after being VIDEOTAPED at a security briefing being told "Mr. President, These Levees May Not Hold" He goes on national TV and says "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the Levees." That is called a LIE. As in "I.. Did not have.. sexual relations.. with that woman..."

    I realize that in pointing these things out, my comments will be reduced to simple partisan 'Whining', but the fact of the matter is-- as a proud American-- they turn my stomach. The above course of action isn't sound, principled leadership. It just isn't.

    But my point is --that Frank, you say nothing critical of any of these things. Not a peep. Only when it comes down to raising taxes does it get your dander up. And that seems really weird to me. I'm sorry, but it does.

    And I am stunned that, before even spending a day in office--Obama suddenly has 'no integrity' in your eyes. Where do you get that from??


    But wait-- I'm not done.

    Mr. Bush also presided over the worst security failure in American History and sat in his chair for 7 MINUTES in the NUCLEAR AGE after being told "The Country is Under Attack."

    And yet, to Conservatives, it is Obama who is the naive, irresponsible pollyanna that will wreck the entire country with his inability to lead.

    Please. For the LOVE OF GOD-- Just STOP.

    I love you dearly, Frank-- Like a brother-- but where have you been?? Haven't you SEEN these things unfold?? The course this nation is on is simply UNACCEPTABLE.

    We were given two choices-- vote for a man-- a very decent, admirable man, might I add-- who nevertheless rubber-stamped all of Mr. Bush's decisions, and subject ourselves to more failed policies along the same lines-- OR give the reigns of leadership to an idealistic newcomer with a talent for finding common ground and getting ordinary people involved.

    I chose to vote for this new man, because I believe in his ability, his intelligence, his sense of service and his understanding of the challenges we face going forward into the 21st century.

    In the man's own words:

    "There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won’t agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can’t solve every problem.

    But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And, above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it’s been done in America for 221 years — block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand...

    Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers.

    In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let’s resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.

    Let’s remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity.

    Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.

    As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.

    And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too."

    I will be right alongside you, Frank, as we move forward to restore the greatness of this nation. I will be here next to you-- we may bicker back and forth (and I just may learn more about economics in the meantime LOL) but I ask you to give this man a chance. He is a good man, a decent man will need all of our help going forward. We are in a real bind right now-- we got into it together, we can get out of it together.

    Yes, we can.

    Your dear friend,


  • At 11/05/2008 6:05 PM , Anonymous Phil said...

  • At 11/05/2008 6:43 PM , Blogger Frank Creasy said...

    Well, I thought this thread had run dry and the victory celebrations were well under way. But you make intelligent points Scott, without engaging in rancor, and I respect that and feel a response is in order. I probably won't touch on every point or we'll be here all night, but I'll hit a few key things you mentioned.

    First, we all have to accept that you and Dave and Andrew and I are going to disagree on a lot of things. Obama will be president, that is a fact. I'm not going to picket the White House on January 21st just because my candidate lost. But I hope those who voted Obama will understand if the 46% who voted McCain don't link arms with Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann in Grant Park to sing "We Are the World". Guys, the world we live in just ain't like that. It's pretty easy to say "my man won, now let's come together", but recent history has been anything BUT that. Didn't happen in 2000 and 2004, won't happen now. So I accept the outcome and hope for the best, but I won't be convinced easily, to understate the point.

    I've read and heard your concerns about George Bush, Scott, and those of so many others. Yes, I agree on some but not all of those concerns. Should I have spoken out when I had misgivings? Maybe so, maybe it was wrong to be silent. But there was never a shortage of dissenting voices, and they've grown louder and stronger over the past four years. Sure, it was time for a change. I believe John McCain didn't articulate that to the degree Americans could rally around; he couldn't make the business case for tax breaks for ALL Americans, as opposed to tax breaks for everyone who's not filthy rich (Obama's basic position). Combined with his "the surge worked" position, McCain couldn't shake the Ghost of Bush Present. I saw the handwriting on the wall several weeks ago, and pretty well expected the outcome.

    For Bush's mistakes overall, I believe the failure to match the intelligence with the reality literally killed the administration. Now, having had top secret clearances in the military, I know very well that gathering intelligence from a totalitarian regime is a slippery slope. The Russians and Brits and others came to the same conclusion we did. It let us to a war that we've been unable to extricate from. At this point, being where we are today, I feel the Iraqis haven't acted with urgency to take their own country BACK from us, and I want like most everyone else for exactly that to happen, and soon. I've also got to say that the New Orleans flooding situation was an abomination. But I supported George Bush's tough stance on terrorism, and feel taking the fight to the terrorists, on their turf, has protected this country. The execution of this strategy has produced very mixed results, but there's been no terrorist attacks on our soil since 2001. So I'd not call Bush's strategy a complete failure by any means.

    We tend to speak out about the things we're most passionate about. Obama may well not be able to deliver on many of his promises. He has gained the presidency largely on a platform I find highly objectionable, and which I'm very passionate about. That has prompted me to end my silence. I have rarely discussed politics, because like religion it touches on individual's most deeply held values. Offending the things people cherish most is not something I venture into lightly. But I do believe some of the president-elect's proposals could have a very damaging effect on our future economic health, and the ability of me and other Americans to enjoy a prosperous retirement. I can't pretend I'm not only worried, but truly FRIGHTENED by that prospect. Real, honest to God FEAR.

    Do celebrities have the right to speak their minds? Sure they do. Thing is, I've been pretty well inundated with it for a long time now, everywhere I turn. I went to see Springsteen in concert this year. Great show. And if he wants to do a concert to raise money for Obama - you know, he's free to do just that. But for my $90, I didn't expect or want a little political diatribe between songs from The Boss. It did rub me the wrong way given the expectation of just seeing one of my long time favorites play the old standards for top dollar.

    Jesus God Almighty, I hope things get better. I really do. But honestly, a turnaround in this economy may have very little to do with who's president. Keeping hands OFF may be better than doing something. I'm not an economist, and I don't play one on TV. But I gotta think more government intervention isn't gonna turn the tide (I bet even Phil is gonna give an "amen" on that!)

    I hope you're right about "restoring the greatness of this nation", Scott. But the pain is deep and the troubles vast, and it's gonna take a lot more than impassioned speeches to produce the changes.

    But I'll be there with you praying for it, brother. You and Dave and Andrew - and Phil. All four of us that read this blog. ;>)

  • At 11/06/2008 9:41 AM , Anonymous Phil said...

    But I gotta think more government intervention isn't gonna turn the tide (I bet even Phil is gonna give an "amen" on that!)

    "more" government intervention? It's hard to imagine more than we already have now.

    The government needs to completely overhaul the regulatory structures. Ideally, the end result will be not more but better regulation.

    The real thing that needs to happen is a massive AT&T style break-up of all these companies that are "too big to fail". Nothing except the government itself should be allowed to grow to that size. Lots of quesitons and problems with that kind of overhaul though.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home