Practice Management

Burn is an exclamatory response, generally by a third party, after someone has just received an insult.  It is slang for disrespecting someone or to make fun of someone.  It is so humiliating or insulting to the point where you cannot return with a comeback.

I have thought, "Oh, BURN!", or its equivalent, a couple of times over the last decade.

The first was during bankruptcy deform, in which these large financial institutions pushed through Congress and the White House reforms that were not needed, and for which there was no motivation for no better reason than to make bankruptcy harder for consumers to file. Phil Gramm, who is now John McCain's economic adviser, was a United States Senator during part of the debate over bankruptcy reform, and I recall him getting on national TV, and sending out mailers, referring to those who file bankruptcy as "deadbeats".  This practice was repeated by his successor, John Cornyn, who liked to refer to those who file bankruptcy as "deadbeats".  I always thought, no matter what the arguments or what the position taken, that these two otherwise disrespectful men went out of their way to not only advance their contributor's goal, but to intentionally disparage, belittle, dishonor, derogate, defame and slur those who felt they needed this protection.

Certainly the Republicans were not the only ones to blame for this fiasco.  Many Democrats were complicit.  And, were John Cornyn could almost be forgiven because, I doubt from his demeanor in office, that he is very bright.  However, is not Phil Gramm's excuse.

The second "Oh, Burn" moment came when I read about the $700 Billion bailout of the large financial institutions so as to prevent them from filing bankruptcy.  None, or little, of that money is going to help ordinary folks that might have been affected by the conduct of these banks.

You can say what you want about the pros and cons of the bailout, but the philosophy of it show an hypocrisy that is huge and shows a blatant type of contempt for common people.

What this monetary philosophy entails is the privatization of profits, but the socialization of risk or losses.  When there is money to be made or bilked, the government should get out of the way and never interfere, but the government should be made solely responsible for the risks and losses associated with the escapades of the financial institutions.

This was the same argument people like Gramm, Cornyn, Bush, McCain and many on both sides of the divide in Congress argued in regard to the so-called bankruptcy reform measures in Congress.  They argued that in essence that by allowing middle class people to just file bankruptcy when times got tough for them, without regard for the better times they might have had in the past, that the government was allowing these people to privatize profits and to socialize their loses, and that was wrong in their minds at the time.

Now, after middle class people are forced into 5 year repayment schedules not based on their actual budgets or earnings, we are creating what is now a trillion dollars of relief for Wall Street, while ignoring Main Street, and while denying ordinary people the right to achieve the same result when they find a financial meltdown unavoidable.