Ask Not What This Bill Is Going To Do For You...
Ask not what this bill is going to do for you, but what this bill is going to do to your country.
A week ago Treasury Security Henry Paulson met with members of Congress and outlined a story of gloom and doom. He said we have to pass a bill in which American taxpayers will have to pay out $700,000,000,000 to save financial institutions that are failing. He seems to have most of the Democrats in Congress convinced of this. He's even gotten President Bush believing this. And of course the Wall Street economists - the ones whose firms stand to gain from it - endorse Paulson's plan.
Yet there is considerable disagreement with the plan. On Thursday, Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) presented a petition signed by 200 of our leading economists (who, by the way, are not on the payrolls of those institutions that would benefit from the bailout) objecting to the Paulson plan "on the grounds that it could create perverse incentives, that it is too vague and that its long-run effects are unclear." [source]
As the flow of credit is beginning to freeze, everyone agrees that action needs to be taken. But the Paulson plan is met with much skepticism, especially when one considers how rapidly something like his has been crafted and rammed down our throats with the threat of dire consequences. One economist I heard on the radio was asked point-blank that if this bill wasn't passed, would we see the market crash this week or the next. His answer was "no," and he sounded absolutely confident. Polls indicate also that a majority of Americans are against the Paulson plan as well.
It sounds like this bailout would benefit Paulson and a few other politicians, as well as Wall Street. My hat goes off to those who actually spoke up and to those in Congress who actually listened and refused to go any further without more research.
With all the questions and concerns against this plan, where is Secretary Paulson to defend it? Where are you, Mr. Secretary?
One of my nieces - bless her heart - called the other night to see if we would co-sign on a car loan for her. She's already faced repossession on this same car before. We said no, especially in light of the possibility of co-signing a $700,000,000,000 bailout to Wall Street. After all, she's 32 years old. At that age, one should be financially responsible - not looking for co-signers. She's in a bad spot right now because of poor decisions on her part. Perhaps not having a car for a while will slap some sense in her head and finally she will get her priorities straight.
I wonder if we can do that with Wall Street? Unfortunately, whatever bill gets passed will probably have a little something for the members of Congress who have betrayed us.
A week ago Treasury Security Henry Paulson met with members of Congress and outlined a story of gloom and doom. He said we have to pass a bill in which American taxpayers will have to pay out $700,000,000,000 to save financial institutions that are failing. He seems to have most of the Democrats in Congress convinced of this. He's even gotten President Bush believing this. And of course the Wall Street economists - the ones whose firms stand to gain from it - endorse Paulson's plan.
Yet there is considerable disagreement with the plan. On Thursday, Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) presented a petition signed by 200 of our leading economists (who, by the way, are not on the payrolls of those institutions that would benefit from the bailout) objecting to the Paulson plan "on the grounds that it could create perverse incentives, that it is too vague and that its long-run effects are unclear." [source]
As the flow of credit is beginning to freeze, everyone agrees that action needs to be taken. But the Paulson plan is met with much skepticism, especially when one considers how rapidly something like his has been crafted and rammed down our throats with the threat of dire consequences. One economist I heard on the radio was asked point-blank that if this bill wasn't passed, would we see the market crash this week or the next. His answer was "no," and he sounded absolutely confident. Polls indicate also that a majority of Americans are against the Paulson plan as well.
It sounds like this bailout would benefit Paulson and a few other politicians, as well as Wall Street. My hat goes off to those who actually spoke up and to those in Congress who actually listened and refused to go any further without more research.
With all the questions and concerns against this plan, where is Secretary Paulson to defend it? Where are you, Mr. Secretary?
One of my nieces - bless her heart - called the other night to see if we would co-sign on a car loan for her. She's already faced repossession on this same car before. We said no, especially in light of the possibility of co-signing a $700,000,000,000 bailout to Wall Street. After all, she's 32 years old. At that age, one should be financially responsible - not looking for co-signers. She's in a bad spot right now because of poor decisions on her part. Perhaps not having a car for a while will slap some sense in her head and finally she will get her priorities straight.
I wonder if we can do that with Wall Street? Unfortunately, whatever bill gets passed will probably have a little something for the members of Congress who have betrayed us.
No comments:
Post a Comment