Monday, September 29, 2008
If you're against the bailout you're an idiot!
There I said something judgmental.
Don't act so suprised ;) If you don't know about the details, go read some at WSJ or NYTimes. You don't get to have an opinion if you don't know what the bill is for.
My congressman, Cliff Stearns, voted against the bailout today. Why? According to the republican beauty queen who answered the phone it was because Congressman Stearns 'doesn't want the government to be in the banking business." If the government had paid more attention and been 'more in the banking business' we wouldn't be in this mess today. As it said in the New York Times:
After long favoring a hands-off approach and deregulation of the financial industry, the Bush administration has found itself in recent weeks interceding repeatedly in the private market to try to avert one calamity after another.
The bill would have opened up 350 billion dollars so that the treasury could start buying up some of the horrid foul MBS that are blocking up the credit systems. The republicans got their insure the securities idea (in spite of its cost to taxpayers) in there and got rid of much of the Main Street protections (Allowing bankruptcy judges to restructure mortgages in their courts). Executive pay was going to be capped (a concession from the administration)
Very few Republicans voted for it. Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican, said he was “resolute” in his opposition to the measure because it would betray party principles and amount to “a coffin on top of Ronald Reagan’s coffin.”
Party Principles?!? What about what's best for the American people? And who the hell cares what Ronald Reagan would think about this?
My representative voted against it because he's opposed the government fixing the mess its caused. Congressman Stearns either doesn't understand how serious this is or his worried that his constituents will view it as Wall Street welfare. Either way, he needs to man up and pass this poo sandwich.
We all have to take a bite...for years we've been so caught up in the culture wars (gay marriage, abortion, prayer in the schools) instead of how both parties have been allowing greed to go unchecked. Instead of looking for smart people to run our government we care more about their hair, what sports their kids play, and how often they go to church.
Look how well its paid off!
Don't act so suprised ;) If you don't know about the details, go read some at WSJ or NYTimes. You don't get to have an opinion if you don't know what the bill is for.
My congressman, Cliff Stearns, voted against the bailout today. Why? According to the republican beauty queen who answered the phone it was because Congressman Stearns 'doesn't want the government to be in the banking business." If the government had paid more attention and been 'more in the banking business' we wouldn't be in this mess today. As it said in the New York Times:
After long favoring a hands-off approach and deregulation of the financial industry, the Bush administration has found itself in recent weeks interceding repeatedly in the private market to try to avert one calamity after another.
The bill would have opened up 350 billion dollars so that the treasury could start buying up some of the horrid foul MBS that are blocking up the credit systems. The republicans got their insure the securities idea (in spite of its cost to taxpayers) in there and got rid of much of the Main Street protections (Allowing bankruptcy judges to restructure mortgages in their courts). Executive pay was going to be capped (a concession from the administration)
Very few Republicans voted for it. Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican, said he was “resolute” in his opposition to the measure because it would betray party principles and amount to “a coffin on top of Ronald Reagan’s coffin.”
Party Principles?!? What about what's best for the American people? And who the hell cares what Ronald Reagan would think about this?
My representative voted against it because he's opposed the government fixing the mess its caused. Congressman Stearns either doesn't understand how serious this is or his worried that his constituents will view it as Wall Street welfare. Either way, he needs to man up and pass this poo sandwich.
We all have to take a bite...for years we've been so caught up in the culture wars (gay marriage, abortion, prayer in the schools) instead of how both parties have been allowing greed to go unchecked. Instead of looking for smart people to run our government we care more about their hair, what sports their kids play, and how often they go to church.
Look how well its paid off!
Comments:
<< Home
According to some outlets, the initial cost will be approx. $2-4K/taxpayer. That assumes not a *single* dollar will be coming back. Given the current incarnation of the program, the US taxpayer could (if we hold the banks to the agreement) come out ahead.
Post a Comment
<< Home
