U.S. Debt Deal

CNN released an article today entitled “All It Takes to solve U.S. Debt Problem is Willpower,” which I think has an excellent commentary on the way things are currently going in Washington, D.C.

The author quite skillfully points out the economic reality that we in the United States have dug for ourselves.  We all have a bitter pill to swallow if we want to escape from the weight of our debt: tax increases aren’t going to be enough, nor will spending cuts.  We all know that both are necessary, and I honestly believe that we all understand that, even the politicians in Congress.  However, where we run into trouble is when we start getting specific: “We’re going to raise taxes this much” or “we’re going to cut spending this much,” and so forth.

However, what we all have to understand as our nation deals with these financial issues is this: however much suffering we endure by fixing our debt crisis, the alternative involves much more suffering.  When we go to a dentist with a toothache, we accept the reality that however much the extraction or surgery is going to hurt, the alternative is to allow the aching in our mouth to continue to increase.

I think the heart of our problem in the United States has been that we’ve been trying to eat financial Ibuprofen by the bottle; we’ve been comforting ourselves with the platitudes that if our current economic crisis had not occurred, we would not be having nearly so much trouble paying off our debt, that once the economy rebounds, we will quite easily be able to pay off our debt, and other such things.

Again, analogously, we in the United States have been downing financial cocaine for the last forty years by living beyond our means and spending more than we make.  A cocaine addict, when he is going into withdrawal, immediately thinks that if he could just have more cocaine, then everything would be alright.  But we all know that cocaine to a cocaine addict is a death sentence; if he continues to indulge his addiction, it will eventually destroy him.  I would argue at this point that the worst-case scenario for the United States would be a total economic recovery that enables us to spend ourselves into oblivion for the next 20 years until we are so steeped in debt that there is no escape.

There is a Biblical principle that God can do good things even during trying times.  We tend not to think that way anymore; we think that good things only happen during good times and bad times can only breed bad things.  However, if we are wise stewards, we need to accept that good can come from bad.  In the spirit of that thinking, I argue that we in the United States have an opportunity to lay a strong economic foundation for the next 20 years of our nation’s existence if we will appropriately and wisely deal with the struggles that are currently facing us.  By dealing with them properly, I’m not saying we “kick the can” to the next generation and let them deal with it; we have to deal with it now.  Otherwise, we will continue to borrow from the future until there is no more future to borrow from…nor any “now” to rescue.

So, if we are going to deal with the economic realities that face us today, we have a lot of bitter pills to swallow.  Even so, if we want there to be any hope and any expectation that things can improve in the future, we will do so.

Just some rants; sorry if it’s all rather non-sensical.

SfC

Earthquakes and Fracturing: A Possible Connection?

A number of articles have been released in the last week or so speculating on the possibility that hydraulic fracturing was the cause of the recent earthquakes in Oklahoma, largely in response to the previously-unimagined 5.6 earthquake that shook Oklahoma and neighboring states in the Midwest…obviously a source of confusion seeing as Oklahoma isn’t exactly an earthquake-prone state.

I will provide links to a few articles at the end of this post, but I wanted to muse for a moment on how real this causal relationship might be.

First of all, what is “fracking?”

Hydraulic fracturing, or simply ”fracking,” is a process by which modern technology seeks to obtain oil reserves found underground.  Many have heard of the large (or even enormous, depending on who you listen to) reservoirs of oil and natural gas in the continental United States but what isn’t always articulated is that these fossil fuels are contained within layers of underground rock.  The idea behind fracturing is to drill a well into the ground, detonate (small) explosives deep within this rock layer, pressurize the well with water and other (highly) toxic chemicals to induce the flow of the oil and gas and then pump it out.

Now, before I even touch on the earth-moving subject, I should point this out:  there are a number of health and safety concerns with hydraulic fracturing already.  The EPA has yet to obtain from the oil companies a list of the highly toxic chemicals, and indeed has exempted the oil companies from some safety requirements.  There are numerous articles and reports you can find on the internet that point to fracking as a cause of cancer, groundwater contamination (and not on a small level either), and other environmental damage.

But wait…can fracking cause earthquakes?

The answer is easily…maybe.  Take Oklahoma as an example: before 2009, there were an average of 50 quakes in Oklahoma per year.  Then, in 2010, that number increased to 1,047.  The presumption is that this is a direct result of hydraulic fracturing…and an oil company in the United Kingdom recently admitted that their fracking operation led to seismic activity.  In addition, there have been other instances where much less than something as sophisticated as hydraulic fracturing resulted in seismic activity (like a dam filling a lake with water; see articles below for details).  Nevertheless, even the most vocal are merely saying that there is a connection between fracking and seismic activity; they are not saying (yet) that there is a direct connection, though one could certainly make that argument.  Some are arguing that the amount of actual activity that is being done underground isn’t enough to cause earthquakes on such a scale (and certainly not on the scale of a 5.6 earthquake).

Not being a scientist myself, I cannot accurately say one way or the other.  However, I do think that I can bring some common sense to the conversation, and my first thought is this:  how do we know what fracking does?  That is to say, we don’t have cameras watching the fracking process occur miles underground.  For all we know, the fissures created by the explosions  – even small explosions – are much larger than we would anticipate.  And that doesn’t even have to be a universal truth; maybe it’s just in one or two places where explosions used to create the fractures cause more underground movement than we would suspect.

In response to those who argue that the underground activity from fracking is insufficient to cause earthquakes, I would argue that little things we do all the time have huge consequences.  That’s simply a fact of life, from my perspective.  Those who believe that humanity is causing climate change are accepting that human activity on a small scale does impact the larger environment.  Even if removing oil was all that happened underground, we are removing liquid mass from deep underground.  At some point, there comes a time when there are holes and caves underground that do not have structural support to stay open.  So, when there is a collapse, it becomes more than just a cave collapse; it’s an earthquake.  And (potentially) the longer that area goes without collapsing, the larger the collapse will be when it does occur.

Okay…so let’s stop hydraulic fracturing!

And here’s where I think that we run into the real problem.  Based on the articles I perused and the points I just made, it certainly does seem likely, though not certain, that fracking causes earthqaukes.  But that is really not the point.  As I pointed out earlier, the EPA has relinquished a lot of its powers of enforcement over the hydraulic fracturing industry.  Why?  Because we in the United States are very focused (perhaps even…obsessed?) with finding the fuel necessary to power our economy, keep our cars going, our lights on, and so forth.  Energy is a fundamental part of our nation’s very existence.  The hydraulic fracturing industry has the potential to meet our energy needs for some time to come.  In a lot of ways, I believe that in spite of a few jostles every now and then, people will not turn against hydraulic fracturing unless it can be said to cause a major, destructive earthquake…and the reality is, even though a 5.6 is significant for a region of the world that has previously had very few earthquakes at all, a 5.6 is nothing compared to a 6.0 or a 7.0.

Which, to me, is kind of sad that, if hydraulic fracturing is causing earthquakes, most people will focus more on the pros – jobs, energy, economic development – than on the possibility of some major catastrophe.  Who knows, maybe such a catastrophe will never happen and the central midwest will just have to get used to a few jostles every now and again…but with the kind of crazy weather everyone has been having lately, I’m leaning more towards the line of, “Let’s not cause any more natural disasters than we have to.”

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

SfC

References

Is Gas Fracturing Inducing Earthquakes?

Did Fracking Cause the Virginia Earthquake?

Fracking Pros and Cons:  Weighing in on Hydraulic Fracturing

Divorce: Economically Destructive

I came upon this article recently, and I wanted to provide a link to it and comment on it.  The article is entitled “Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty.”

To begin with, I want to make it clear that I count myself a very blessed man in that I grew up in a nuclear family; my parents loved me and they loved each other, as much as we all drove each other crazy from time to time.  So, this whole thing of divorce is not something that I have experienced directly the destructive pain of divorce.  That being said, I do have something to say about  the topic.

As I am a Christian, I feel that an adequate place to begin would be the Bible.  What did Jesus say about divorce?  In Matthew 19, the Pharisees came before Jesus asking him about divorce:  “Is it lawful for a man to divorce?”  For one, I wonder why they even asked him this; according to the law of Moses, divorce is permissible, so I wonder if this was the first time Jesus taught on this.  But notice that in Jesus’s response, he does not focus on the lawfulness of divorce but the intent of marriage:  man and wife joining together and becoming one flesh (v. 6).

Then, when the Pharisees ask why Moses permitted it, Jesus explains that it was a concession to the “hardness of your hearts;” in other words, God permitted it only because the people were going to do it anyway and thus he gave them guidelines for making divorce a legal proceeding (which at the time would’ve made men think twice about divorce).  Now, however, Jesus is saying that the only proper reason for divorce was sexual unfaithfulness.  So strict was this stance that Jesus’s disciples said, “Then it’s better not to get married!”  Why would they say that?  Because suddenly they realize the gravity of the issue of divorce and how important marriage is in the eyes of God.  Surely they were thinking, “What if I marry a woman, and she turns out to be horrible to live with?  I would have to live with her until I died!”

Now, do not misunderstand this:  I love marriage, and I think it’s an incredible institution that, when done properly, infuses the married couple with life.  And as a Christian, the Bible is my first argument against divorce.

But, if you want other reasons to not divorce, read the article that I posted at the top of this post.  In that article you will find statistical data that will tell you that divorce is a major cause of child poverty; only 6% of children in a married two-parent family are poor.  Compare that with 36% of children in a one-parent household.  That is not a small difference.  That means that if you are married and are thinking of getting a divorce, then you are thinking of putting your children at risk of living in poverty.  You can cover that by saying that you love them and that you are getting divorced because you don’t want your children to live with parents who don’t get along, but statistically speaking, that is untrue.  Divorce destroys wealth in the family that goes through it, not just in the spouse divorced but also in the spouse that is getting the divorce, and it seems to me that the real losers in the whole scenario are the children.

Now, I’m not saying that you cannot deal with really important issues in your marriage.  In fact, if there is a major issue in you marriage that needs to be confronted, then confront it now and stop waiting for the issue to get out-of-hand!  And also stop waiting until you have multiple issues with your spouse to confront because then they all get mixed and mashed together.  Resolve them one at a time in as clear-thinking a mindset as you can.  And more than anything, stop using divorce as the first option you go to when you have a marriage problem; if you’re a Christian, then the only – the only scenario in which a divorce is permissible is if your spouse has been unfaithful to you.  Don’t divorce your husband because he called you fat (literally heard of it).  You can stop cooking his dinner, or maybe make his bed on the couch for a couple of nights, or stop doing his laundry.  But don’t just throw in the towel just because of something someone said that irritated or hurt you.  Don’t divorce your wife because your cats don’t get along (literally heard of it).

Now, some people will say, “But what if my husband beats me?” or “What if my wife does drugs?”  Well, those things are illegal and wrong, so I would highly suggest you call the police on him and let them throw him in jail, but don’t divorce him.  I’m not trying to downplay the seriousness of these offenses; believe me, if you experience these sorts of things, I have the highest sympathy for you.  But there comes a point where these bad behaviors reflect badly on those who are suffering at the hands of these badly behaving spouses.  After all, they got married to these horrible people.  That’s why this marriage stuff is really serious; you have to choose very carefully and not just decide on a whim who you are going to marry.  I heard of a woman who wrote in to a show that helps married people: she met a man, 3 days later they were married, and 3 days later, he was deployed with the military.  And then, she writes in to this marriage show wanting help with her marriage.  How could they even begin to help her?  She was the one who chose that situation, and as much as others can try to help, there’s a point where there is not help to be given except encouragement to stick it out.

At what point do people literally understand and ascent to the vows, “For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do we part?”  I think there are a lot of people who are lying when they say these vows today.  Maybe we should rewrite these vows to say very simply, “No matter what happens, no matter how much money we have, no matter how we feel, the only way we are getting out of this is in a body bag.  And that does not authorize either of us to kill the other while he/she is sleeping!”  Either that, or we rewrite them to say, “I’ll stay married to you…until circumstances get bad.  I’ll stay with you…until we run out of money.  I’ll stay with you…until you get cancer.”

Anyway, so this much is clear from the article: if you are married with children, and you are thinking about getting a divorce, then think of the effect that will have on your kids; for all you know, they could be scrapping a living below the poverty line for the rest of their entire lives if you go through with your divorce.  Do you really want that?  Is the possibility of that existence worth going through the painful process of divorce so you can be free of your “horrible” spouse?

Earth Day Thoughts: Global Climate and Malthusian Scare

Global Warming.  It’s happening, right?  Ever since Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, everyone has just assumed that global warming is a real thing, and based on many scientists’ stances toward climate change, we need to reduce carbon emissions and try to save the world from some kind of The Day After Tomorrow scenario.

Well, perhaps not.  Here’s a post by a fellow blogger which is entitled “Earth gives us an Earth Day present:  Arctic sea ice is highest for this date in 8 years.” In summary, the author points to recent studies that indicate that the ice in the arctic sea has actually returned to a near-normal level.  So…how does this fit in with global warming?  “Well…it’s global cooling, which is caused by global warming, which is caused by people.”  Does anyone else detect something amiss in this?  Because this is really what some scientists are saying:  that global cooling is the natural result of global warming.  So wait a minute…that sounds oddly like a cycle:  a global warming trend causes ice cap melting, which causes in influx of cooler air into the world’s oceans, which brings about a trend of global cooling, which causes the ice caps to refreeze.

Now personally, I at this point have decided that human activity has little to do with this global climate.  I am not saying that human activity doesn’t affect the climate; for certain, pollution, urban sprawl, and other such human issues cause environmental damage.  What I am saying is that, based on the data we have, the climate really is cyclic, not just in that it’s a cycle itself, but it’s built with cycles on top of cycles on top of cycles, and I highly doubt that after 100 years of our current technologically advanced culture, we will have all of that figured out.

Let us suppose, however, for the sake of argument, that human activity does affect global climate.  So the world gets a little warmer…which means that it gets a little cooler next time around in the cycle, which the next warm cycle counterbalances, and so on until we’re approximately where we’ve started.  Now, legitimately, if enough of a global warming trend occurs that all the ice caps melt and the world is drowned, that would be an…apocalyptic problem.  However, that is not what the data we have is forecasting.

Now, if there’s been two alarmist trends over the last 50 years, it has been the fears of the changing global climate (cooling during the 60′s, warming during the 90′s) and the Malthusian scare:  “The world is overpopulated! There aren’t enough resources for everyone!”  As a result, many modern philosophers have proposed euthanasia, abortion, and other such measures to help control the world’s overwhelming population.

Well, it appears that the Malthusian scare might be a total farce as well.  A recent article called “Sleepless in Shanghai” has stated that the very opposite of a Malthusian scare may soon occur.  Instead of world overpopulation, we may soon be experiencing world underpopulation.  Let me explain: in most developed countries on Earth, the birth rates are falling.  I remember when I was younger, the average children per family in the United States was 2.3.  Recently, I’ve heard that it’s dropped to 2.1.  Now, the Malthusian alarmists will say, “That’s good!  We need fewer people to feed!”  But wait a minute, let’s think about the effects that this is having and is going to have.

First of all, overpopulation is a localized problem.  There’s cities in the United States that have hundreds of people per square mile, and there’s places in the United States that have become wilderness because there’s less than one person per square mile, and that’s just in the United States.  The majority of the world’s population is concentrated in Asia: China and India alone have 3 billion people – over half of the human population on Earth is concentrated in two countries that are no larger than the United States and Canada.

Now, the real concern with the overpopulation debate is the need for resources:  The more people there are, the more resources need to be produced for them to consume.  Well, if people are really concerned with this overpopulation thing, then why aren’t people simply suggesting that we stop sending so much food to the United States and send more of it to Asia?  After all, we’re only 300,000,000 people, while China and India come together to possess about 10 times that number of people, yet the United States alone controls and consumes over half of the resources produced on the planet – in fact, one figure I’ve heard says that’s actually closer to 2 out of 3 global resources are consumed in the United States.  But most people don’t want fewer, scarcer resources in the United States.  They see a problem, but they aren’t willing to change their lifestyle in order to help fix the problem.

So, what about underpopulation? To be honest, I think underpopulation may become a far more real problem than the Malthusian scare.  For example, Social Security in the United States is under a constant threat now from the Baby Boomers.  Why?  Because not enough young people are working to support the older, more numerous generation.  (Interestingly, recent statistics have shown that approximately 50 million people have died in the last 50 years in the United States from abortions.  Now, I don’t care whether you think it’s right or wrong; that’s still 50 million fewer people that are working to support our faltering economy).  That’s just scratching the surface too; imagine how bad the housing market will be when we have too many houses and not enough people to live in them.  Yes, this is a financial disaster in the making.

Oh, and this article also points out that China, infamous for it’s famed one-child policy, is now encouraging their couples to have 2 instead of 1.  Why?  Because they’re having the same problems we are.  Their economic system is threatened.  Perhaps we should take some clues from them.

Now, inevitably, some people would say, “Well, these are all problems for the future.  Why should I care?  I like how things are right now.”  Ah…I hear these words, and the word “selfish” sneaks to the front of my mind.  So, I would say that if you don’t care enough for your children to try to give them the best kind of culture and future they can have, then I would say go ahead and don’t have any children.  Live on your thrones of materialism…and don’t expect me to be very sympathetic when you’re freaking out because the world is falling apart.

Okay, rant complete.

SfC

Happenings of Various Sorts: Studies, Writing, and Brief Comments on World Affairs

I return to my blog with some good news:  after a couple of weeks of focused effort, I am on the better end of the semester.  After a couple of weeks requiring unusual focus on my part, I have finished all but one of my midterms and exams for my classes.  It isn’t that I’m going to totally kick back and relax, but I can rest easier now than I was a couple of weeks ago.

I have an English exam on Monday (it was supposed to be on Friday, but the professor had an emergency and class was canceled), and then midterms are behind me.  My World War II class is back to status quo until the end of the semester, though we haven’t seen our grades from the midterm and our papers.  Music Theory is steadily improving; by investing more of my time and focus in it, I can comfortably say that I understand what is going on and am improving at doing it quickly (which is half the struggle of the class).  Religious Studies is showing itself to be more difficult on during this half of the semester; we finished Is Religion Dangerous? by Keith Ward (a very good read that, in my mind, reinforces my belief that, although people twist religion to selfish ends, it can be a fundamental and foundational force of good in the world) and now we are on to Religion: The Basics by Malory Nye, which is set up to be more like a college textbook…which makes it an overall thicker read.  In addition, we’re short on discussion groups for Religious Studies in the next couple of weeks, so we will be left to our own devices to understand the book, unless we decide to ask about it shortly before the lecture sessions.  Finally, my French Horn lessons are also going smoother, thanks to more time and thought devoted to figuring out everything.  It isn’t even really a hard task, just time-consuming.  I think I’m starting to realize that very few things in life are truly as difficult as they just time-consuming.

In addition, I have been making progress on my book as well.  I began using Photoshop to create heraldries for the many factions that will be in my world, as well as putting the finishing touches on one of the regional map.  I was also inspired earlier this week to begin writing down a rough race sketch for the humanity of Kenushi Ryu.  I will gladly share some or all of this progress, depending on if there is any interest in the readers.

However, I now find myself confronted with a gargantuan task in writing my book, a task that I have mentioned in previous posts.  Although I have, for all intents and purposes, decided that the creation of an artificial language for the purpose of use in my book will be highly positive, if not necessary.  That being said, all of the work that I have done on naming characters, cities, nations, and every other facet of my world has basically been creative, but random and, if I am going to create my own language, most or all of what I have already named will, for the sake of consistency, need to be renamed in the ancient tongue (or tongues?) of the world.  So, I find myself at a position where at least beginning the creation and forging of an artificial language seems necessary, yet I find myself faced with a project of such enormous proportions, I don’t even know where to start!  Of course, it isn’t to say that there is nothing else I can do before my language is alive; there’s still plenty of maps to be made and that sort of thing.  However, the sooner the language is created, the sooner I can forge on ahead with so many other facets of my world (Kenushi Ryu) with greater confidence.  Perhaps, if you (the reader) feel you have something to contribute to my efforts, even if it’s just encouragement, I would be very grateful!

Finally, for the last couple of weeks I have directly omitted writing anything about world affairs; the election, the economic downturn, etc.  I feel that I must explain that.

As for the election, I find myself completely disillusioned about the whole system.  That is to say, I believe that via absentee, I will cast my lot to John McCain, but I do not do so enthusiastically.  I must say that I do have my doubts about Sarah Palin; after all, in the words of Joe Biden (addressed to Barack Obama at the time, ironically) the Presidency “doesn’t lend itself to on-the-job training.”  I agree with that, and I believe that the Vice Presidency, a heartbeat away from the Presidency, is scarcely different and, no offense to Palin, but she doesn’t have the political experience of John McCain or Joe Biden.  I must restate that I do still find Obama to be a suspicious character.  To illustrate that, let me put it this way: when someone launches an attack on Obama, the media is all over it and, when McCain is attacked, there is little, if any acknowledgment.  Obama’s like the media’s poster boy.

Also, despite the enormous amount of coverage that the rumor of Obama’s foreign birth is getting on the blogs, the media hasn’t covered it, at least that I have heard of.  It is difficult to tell if this is because the bloggers are starting rumors to damage Obama or if the media coverage betrays skewed opinions and poor journalism.  Overall, a friend of mine spoke a few weeks ago of how disillusioned he was about the election, and I must agree, although for different reasons.  I have seen one too many times during this election phrases like “I will never vote for a Republican” (or it could just as easily be the other way around), which tells me that people aren’t really thinking about their vote; they’re casting their vote based on illogical biases that really don’t have anything to do with what a candidate believes and has everything to do with what party the candidate holds to.  In other words, I’m tired of people throwing their lot in to someone just because of their party affiliations…or worse, picking the candidate that talks better.  This is not saying that a good politician can’t communicate properly; it’s just that, from what I’ve observed, that’s all that Obama has.  He doesn’t have as much experience as McCain, and I’m monstrously suspicious of Obama; if nothing else, am I the only one whose noticed that his supporters practically worship the guy?  That, to me, is deathly frightening.

Well, no matter.  The election is in 10 days (not including today) and mine is just one vote in something like 300,000,000, albeit there will probably only be about 50-60% voter participation (maybe 70%, since this is a major election).  And trust me, I would love to learn that I’m wrong; I would love to hear of voter turnout at 80 or even (gasp!) 90 percent.  It sickens me that people take for granted the democratic form of government and let their potential votes fall silent.  Anyway, this is likely going to be my last post about the election; it seems like most everything that is worth saying has been said a million times.

As for the economic downturn; well, from my limited knowledge of economics, let me say that I honestly believe there is little either candidate can realistically do to reinforce the economy unless they can come up with some new way to restore investor confidence.  Every day Wall Street takes a hit, it’s suffering is echoed across the rest of the world.  When I think of the economic problem, I envision a suspension bridge; a single chord in the middle has started giving slack and lowering and the increased strain on the rest of the bridge is forcing the entire structure closer to the abyss.  I do think that, if one major stock market in the world collapses, that it won’t be the end of the world.  If two crash, then it will be more difficult to recover, but it will be possible.  Three, and we’re getting precariously close to a world-wide crash.  Four or more, and I honestly think that the whole world economic system will implode upon itself.  What will that look like?  I have no idea, and it isn’t something I want to think about.

Anyway, like I said about the election, it seems that most of the things worth saying have been said, so I will let that be for now.

Take care, and God bless!

SfC

P.S.  Don’t forget, if your interested in seeing some of the materials I’ve been able to construct for my novel, let me know!

The Failed Government Bail-Out Bill

When I was a sophomore in high school, my English teacher at the time made me aware of peak oil and his own understanding of economics. Ever since then, I have been paying distant but increasingly curious attention to the developing economic conditions that will likely shape my future adulthood. Of especial interest to me right now, however, is the government bail-out proposal that failed to pass in Congress sometime today (I think). I just thought that perhaps some of my thoughts were worth consideration.

1) I found Barrak Obama’s rebuff of McCain’s proposal to postpone the Presidential debate in the name of finding a solution to this problem rather crude, at the least. Obama stated that as a President, McCain should be able to tackle multiple problems at once. I would counter that, in the event of a crisis (of proportions best illustrated by Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, as so aptly illustrated in the following blog post on the Teeming Brain), one should focus one’s attention on rectifying the crisis at hand instead of focusing on what I consider personal matters (though admittedly, a Presidential campaign can also be seen as a public commitment as well as a private decision). Anyway, in spite of his attack, Obama seems to have joined forces with McCain for the time being, arguing in favor of the Bail-out bill in Congress.

2)  I question the necessity of the bail-out bill.  That is, if a small company failed to operate successfully, whether by mistakes, competition, or simply bad luck, there is a relatively nonexistent chance for them to get bailed out by the government.  Why should a larger corporation expect more than that?  In addition, why expect taxpayers to agree with spending their money on a corporation that might continue to tank and do badly even after such a bail-out?  Maybe the corporation CEO’s and policy-makers are inherently bad economists (I’m not meaning to imply this, but I just want to make sure that everyone is thinking of all possible outcomes)…

Even with this in mind, I recognize that this is a difficult situation with many thousands of variables, not the least of which is investor confidence…and of course, if keeping those companies afloat is necessary to keeping the economy afloat, then I concur that this is what must be done.  Even so, I also think that, before such action is taken, I hope that it is considered by all if this is really necessary.

3)  Since the bail-out bill in its present form (whatever that is) failed in the House today, I wonder what the next incarnation of it will be (since I have no doubt that they will try again).  Will it be even bigger?  Will it involve more taxpayer money, or will it involve asking for a loan from another country (which will dig our national debt even deeper, as if it will ever be paid off as it is)?  Will we just have to wait out the economic downturn (or recession or depression or whatever it turns out to be)?

Just some quick thoughts for you.  Now, off to read for my World War II class.  Take care!

SfC