Flyover Redux

Obama has money for every financial institution there is. But homeowners are still waiting for help. Reminds me of another out-of-touch president who spends too much time with rich people…

22 thoughts on “Flyover Redux

  1. Said Aggie:
    Please tell us, Randy, where people should turn to for help if not the government.How about starting with family, friends, team mates at work (even at a, shudder, "corporation"). You must know, Aggie, that that "legal obligation" to help people is mere wishful thinking on your part and not binding at all, even if it were written into law (after all, how many times have you seen governments behaving unconstitutionally?): helping has different meanings to different people.

    Anyhow, bailing out people, either bankrupt conglomerates who are deemed too big to fail (why?) or insolvent borrowers is definitely unfair to people and companies that weren't so financially unwise.

  2. Oh there goes Randy with the "over reaching" argument.

    I guess he hasn't noticed that inflation has far surpassed real wages exponentially since the 70s.

    Well you're right Randy, we should all like to live in caves. Because 30 years from now after inflation outstrips the American publics earnings it'll be the only place to live.How on earth does this relate to my post?

  3. Aggie,
    Your argument is classic. You substitute "low income" with "minority" then claim conservatives say minorities caused the problem.

    What conservatives are saying is that people were sold homes they could not afford. If you choose to make it about race, then you are the racist.

  4. "Susan,
    I do not think the government should have bailed out any of them."

    I absolutely agree. If they are "too big to fail", then they should be nationalized, and the CEOs kicked to the curb.

  5. I just listened to my extended family go through this discussion of the sub prime mortgage crisis and completely conflate two separate issues with regard to what spurred the meltdown. I think this is a very important distinction.

    Yes, the federal government, throughout the 1990s and first decade of this century (read: under both Clinton and Bush), worked to encourage low income people to aspire to own homes. Home ownership is a very important aspect of strong civil society. This was NOT a partisan issue, everyone agreed that this was a good goal.

    The "housing bubble" was caused by speculators who were trading in real estate rather than buying stocks on margin, but the outcome was really similar. The greed and recklessness was really similar.

    Now I hear right wingers, conservatives and Republicans essentially using the low income new homeowners (read: minorities) as scapegoats for the crisis. In fact, these people started losing their homes because of the economic collapse, not because they were speculating on houses that had inflated values. Trust me, housing has not been inflated in places like Cleveland and Detroit for a very very long time. The "crisis" that sparked the meltdown was in California and Florida, amongst high-dollar mortgages on investment properties.

    I think it's very important to get this straight, because I hear the right wing chorus of "see this is what happens when the federal government forces us all to support minorities" chiming up.

    It's going on at these fabricated tea parties across the country. Even in the rare event that people ARE talking about taxes, this is simply a code word for not supporting minorities. Tax dollars go to fund public programs, which are used by everyone, including minorities. It's really insidious and each and every one of us ought to make damn sure they know the implications of their statements.

    The idea that Fannie and Freddy approving $60,000 mortgages for low income families caused this meltdown is stupid, and the motive behind it is ultimately of racial scapegoating. Make no mistake, it's deliberate.

  6. Randy, with all due respect, where have you been for the past six months? Do the terms "AIG" and "Wall Street" ring a bell with you? The government gave massive bailouts to Wall Street and the banks of about a trillion dollars, if not more. Think of that amount, Randy.

    In light of this, for you to say that "homeowners should not wait for the government to bail them out" is just astonishingly ludicrous.

  7. Oh there goes Randy with the "over reaching" argument.

    I guess he hasn't noticed that inflation has far surpassed real wages exponentially since the 70s.

    Well you're right Randy, we should all like to live in caves. Because 30 years from now after inflation outstrips the American publics earnings it'll be the only place to live.

  8. I should have been more specific: Anyone waiting for the federal government to bail them out on their mortgage should not be looking to the government, unless it's bankruptcy court. People were greedy when they took out loans on homes they couldn't afford. They took the teaser rate and assumed they could sell the home, pay the loan off and pocket the appreciation. It was a great strategy while it lasted, except for those caught at the top.

    As for the Federal Government, they were the ones who artificially lowered rates, and guaranteed loans through Freddie and Fannie, so there was no perceived risk to the lender.

    And finally, as for who to look for help, obviously depending on the circumstances, starting at home and working outwards is your best bet. There are too many people sitting around waiting for the Feds to take care of their needs.

  9. Randy:

    The "government" and it's subsidiary institutions, constitute THE ONLY set of institutions outside the parent/child relationship that are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to help people, including you. All other institutions are beholden to some economic or private interest that does not have an obligation toward the public good in any way.

    Businesses are there to make money, and they will use whatever tools their social and physical environment provides them to maximize that goal. They will push the bounds of legal behavior until they are stopped by the government, they will relocate to places where government is the most lenient on demanding consideration for the public good.

    We live in a society that is so complex that individuals are not ever self made, they always exist within a social network that provides them resources and access to support networks. Nobody is an island. Therefore, EVERYBODY needs help. Some people get so much help that they never even consider their privilege, and go around lecturing everybody else about the need for individual responsibility and sacrifice.

    Therefore, accepting that we are all in need of help to survive, whom else do we turn to for help other than the government…the ONLY institution which is mandated by law to provide access to its citizens? Markets? Markets are rigged games set up by powerful interests to compound their existing privilege.

    Please tell us, Randy, where people should turn to for help if not the government.

  10. Andy: To quote Ted directly:
    "The artwork is by Pablo J. Callejo, the brilliant artist behind "The Bluesman" series."

    There is a bit more artistic license taken with most political cartooning, ergo Ted's caricature of Generalissimo el Busho. Stylistically quite different from graphic novel/la, where the characters are drawn closer to life to help tell the story.

    Hope this helps 🙂

  11. Andy,

    Thanks. Never saw that picture.

    Also as far as the realism in his cartoons I think he said he was having someone else draw it. But I could be mistaken.

  12. I agree with the comments here, this is big league, Ted. To me, it captures how Obama is almost destined to become a tragic figure in American politics. What's terrifying is that the alternative is still a disgustingly adolescent party on the other side that may regain power in this country in a short period of time.

    This is truly tragic.

  13. Some serious funny here. But also strangely moving.

    And, I'm noticing a computer generated gradient in tonality that I've never seen in your comics before…

  14. Santiago: It's a reference to a famous photo of GW Bush flying over New Orleans.

    Yup Ted does a pretty good obama, but Obama looks a lot like a Ted Rall charicature.

    Ted: The artwork in your book is so realistic compared to your cartoons. Why?

  15. Damn.
    I agree with the first poster. Best one yet, Ted, and I've read all the damn archives I could find.

    They better give you an award for this one.

  16. Your charicature of him is getting better

    to be fair, fiscal bailouts got passed under the previous guy's watch, pretty hard to unring that bell

  17. This picture reminds of the picture Hitler flying over Poland.

    I'm not sure if you were trying to make the reference. Or it was a reference to George Bush, Jr.

  18. Mr Rall,
    That is the most moving picture I have seen you draw…in seven years.
    You've de-caricaturised what is obviously meant as a cartoon, and imbued it with gravitas. The artwork on the face, and the emotion in the eyes is beautiful.

    You can go in to portraits soon.

    Good Job Ted.

    Sincerely

    Y_S

Leave a Reply