Close Meditations of a Visual Kind

Since I've said before (and will again, I'm sure) that I don't normally partake in political discussion, this post may come as a surprise. Two things: I refer once again to 'don't normally', and point out that this isn't a discussion. If you don't believe me on the latter, just look around for the response options.

I am full of questions. Not even offering any answers, I plan merely to put some of those questions out here so as to ease the discomfort of too many questions. I've been hearing for how many years now, certainly longer than the Reagan years, that the G.O.P. is the party for less government involvement and letting business take care of business. There's definitely a good deal of evidence for that during the Reagan years, with deregulation of various business concerns such as transportation and telecommunications and, even, some financial institutions... which led to a crisis in the Savings and Loan field.

There's a deal more evidence for that deregulation in the past eight years, particularly on environmental concerns that would bring a financial impact on large business', amongst others notably the power industry (coal-fired generation plants), as well. Plus, the SEC apparently encouraged to do less oversight in a number of areas (energy again, can you say Enron?). This worked fine to promote the message that the economy is doing well, just look at housing sales and new housing starts.

And let us not forget another aspect of example: Let's live on credit! By this I mean we are being told by the current Occupant, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that we are in a war. We are fighting this war on multiple fronts, most noticeably two in particular. Now, wars are expensive parties, folks, as a lot of what is used is intended to be expendable. Thrown away. Watch it go Boom, quite literally.

But let's not pay for this now, eh? Let's not raise taxes for revenue to pay for those expendable items, which are needed to do this little thing, in fact let's cut taxes making a big public brough-ha-ha about that very act. Though most of the tax cutting is for those same big business' (some of which are making the expendables but by no means all) in order to promote their ability to do business, which they are doing... overseas.

So now I wonder, I do. Now there's not one, not two, but three specific bail-out events for large investment/mortgage concerns. Now there's a plan announced to establish a taxpayer-supported fund to cover the other risky investment business'. I've got to wonder, just why is this happening with the support of an Administration that says 'Stay out of business, let business take care of itself and all will be well?' Why, yes, the Democrats now control the House and Senate; look closer at those numbers, though and you will see that the margins are not so large there.

Still. Let business take care of itself which includes that principle: You invest in high risk and accept the responsibility and consequences. Which may well be a large profit payoff. And may well be a large loss. So now there are business' which are 'too big to allow to fail?' Every year when I submit my tally sheets to the IRS, there are two forms (one for the Art Photography business, one for teh Ranch) on there with a checkbox: 'Are all assets of this business at risk?' Every year they are checked, 'Yes'. Maybe I should submit my business' to this new fund for a bailout? Don't look to me to be turning blue holding my breath waiting on that one, folks.

What about all those mutterings about questionable profits made by companies which received un-contested contracts to support those military actions in those two places I mentioned? Just in which investment companies were those profits invested?

Yes, that's what I've got. Questions. No answers.

And now I've got some other things to do, and a few other concerns about the day. I'm not sure I'll be posting again for a bit. I'm hearing some strange noises from over by the Bro's dens...