Hold On

The title is directed at the reader—this posting will be all over the mental map! :)

Madame M,

You aren’t helping the queue problem at all. LOL

With your recent post, we now have at a minimum additionally lined up for near-term future discussion (probably sometime after the elections) at least the following:

1.     Primacy of the unborn/Primacy of the already born

2.     Millenials’ promise vs. Millenials’ pitfalls

3.     Medicare (this may subdivide into more granular discussions)

4.     The Phony War (okay, we can probably truncate this one, but it’s interesting to me!)

As if we were running short of discussion! :)  We are going to have to extend past the 26^th Century the presently projected number of discussions. LOL

You have precisely punctured a weakness in the liberal argument when it comes to “Pro-Choice”, and, given the next question (“Whose choice?”), I’m not sure there is a satisfying answer.  I have always had a step-back upward view about this hyperemotional issue.  I will queue (now getting quite numerous!) it up for a future post.

Can you explain more on the libertarian connection vis a vis The Declaration of Independence, as I’m not following completely?  While there is no absolute definition of libertarianism, in general, it’s about freedom, small and limited government, few rules and regulations, more voluntarism and cooperation, and economic conservatism along with social liberalism.   It’s still not clear to me where advocacy comes in, because families seem to be nearly absolute in libertarianism.  And families by definition include direction and control over one’s own gene pool.  Outside coercion and mandating would seem to be pretty scant in libertarianism.  I would think a more consistent view libertarian view would be one of attempting to persuade instead.  But perhaps the emotional strength of this issue upends consistency on all ideological sides!

Turning to your response to my response to Sowell’s piece (is that response twice removed?--I get as confused about that as when talking about cousins, lol):  In general, you and I each think the other is brilliant.  Of course, we think the other is “even more brilliant” when that other agrees with us! LOL

At first I thought, is this Madame’s “Defense against critique?”  :) Masterful!  How am I supposed to agree or disagree with your position vis a vis Sowell if I am uncertain what exact portion or portions you are agreeing with?  Is it just one point?  A few?  Many?  What, or which, of TS’s piece do you agree with?  Even I ended my last post by saying that it was some truths, and the body of my post included some key pieces of Brooks’ work (the working poor) that supported Sowell.

Of course, it could be that the point is plain, and I am just a blockhead (hello Charlie Brown!) tonight!

I am going to make, pending Madame’s clarification, the assumption that the central point is there is such a thing as debilitating dependency, and that it has social consequences.  No argument from me there, but will ask two (maybe three) further questions.  Who does it serve when government assistance first becomes generational?  The liberals who secure a “base,” (albeit a base that votes spottingly, and is easy to disenfranchise), or conservatives who preserve a status quo (regardless of any unjustness or inequity) and damper social volatility (something present conservatives may have forgotten)?  Or does it serve the plutocratic interests who ensure a convoluted system is easier to confuse, segment, in-fight, divert, deceive, and control?

I too am not surprised by the feelings of the old in Russia.  It’s “The Walls” explanation given by Morgan Freeman’s character in The Shawshank Redemption.

I do understand your concerns about getting too reliant on government to take care of our familial tasks.   And such reliance may also contribute to our already rampant lack of community.  Throwing those things onto the already buckling-from-the-strain nuclear or single family, in this disconnected, socially isolated environment, however, may be merely spreading kerosene-soaked kindling in an already dry forest.

I see I have already gone long-winded (hmm, has that ever happened before? LOL).  Therefore, my answers to JC’s comments and questions are going to have get divided up even more than planned.  However, here is the answer to the question of whether this a good time for the Fed to be pushing QE3, and could it cause inflation and financial crisis:

QE, or Quantitative Easing, is a Federal Reserve tool to buy, using dollars the Fed essentially creates (prints)—fiat money—some financial instruments (bonds, mortgage backed securities, etc.) that become assets of the Fed.  When it sells them, the money goes back to the Fed and those dollars disappear from circulation.  The Fed is using QE3 (that is, Quantitative Easing Number 3, as there have been two previous ones by this Board) because of the structural problems I have identified previously in my other writings: the economy remains ragged, with wary consumers still trying to pay down debt, and general credit remains tighter than desired, but the plutocratic semi-abandonment of the middle class is central.  The economy is also dragging because of uncertainty.  Not the uncertainty of “regulation,” which is a partisan phantom, but the uncertainty that the political system will actually address the multiple looming fiscal crises.   Is QE3 a little risky?  Yes.  Is it a lot risky?  Not at the present time, especially considering all the other things that have transpired and are possible to transpire.  By itself, QE3 is not likely to trigger inflation or a financial crisis.  However, if the political system does not address its responsibilities, and the people do not demand that it do so, the effects of QE3 could be a factor in any financial crisis that results from the failures of politicians.