I can’t resist—how ironic is it that impending “financial disaster” equates to plumetting oil prices?
I’m glad the so-called Wall Street bailout failed. See how your Congressman voted. There are other options that should be considered first. As Michigan’s Representative Wahlberg said, “”Congress must not take action just to take action.” Fortunately, 9 of Michigan’s 15 represenatives saw it that way. Unfortunately, mine is not one of those.
Personally, I say let the greedy bastards suffer the fate they deserve. If they were so greedy they were involved with risky loans, they should reap the benefits—or consequences. And if hundreds of thousands of people took out mortgages beyond their means, I’m sorry. But there are consequences for irresponsible behavior. Since when did we expect someone to save us from all evils? In my opinion, the record drop on Wall Street is really just whining about not getting House approval and a free handout.
Ok, so we have the Help for Homeowners Act. That so-called bailout authorizes the Federal Housing Administration to back up to $300 billion in refinanced loans. So, the Main Street bailout is “go try and get another mortgage; taxpayers will co-sign.” I think this is good for folks who’ve seen their good paying jobs yanked out from under them—a problem in Michigan, home of the highest unemployment rate in the nation. But what incentive is there for those that bought beyond their means in the first place to not be just as irresponsible? Why would I want to make my payments if the taxpayers will just cover me? Likewise, those same banks that now need bailing have no incentive to make good credit risk decisions since the Feds will pay if the homeowners don’t. Would that explain why few of the banks have been willing to work with people behind in their payments?
The Senate is considering a new version of the Wall Street bailout. It still includes $700 billion to buy bad debts—a total now of $1 trillion for the two groups largely responsible for this mess. The Senate version adds tax breaks for businesses and middle class relief from Alternative Minimum Tax surcharges. Those breaks add another $100 billion cost to this so-called “rescue plan,” by the way. Then there’s the increase of FDIC insurance on bank accounts from $100,000 to $250,000. That’s probably prudent to quell fears of bank failures and a run on the banks like in the Great Depression of 1929. Just look at the recent panic at the pumps after Hurricane Ike to see what I mean—the mentality is already there. To me, though, the problem is average folks don’t have $100,000 in deposits, let alone $250,000! So what does that really accomplish? For most of us, it’s just a “feel good” thing, much like airline security.
If you ask me, the economy is already in the shitters. Somebody needs to show me how this bailout benefits anybody but the banks and CEOs with big salaries and golden parachutes. So what if they fail? That golden parachute becomes lead if there’s no money. The bailout plan is corporate welfare at its worst. Just proof to me that we need to vote out all the incumbents—they’ve become too inbread with special interests, one of which is Wall Street and banking.
I’d rather take my chances with potential fallout from bank failures than commit to spending $1.1 trillion on bad management and no regulation. Urge your Senators and Congressmen to vote no. And if they don’t, cast your November vote for someone else. Every representative is up for re-election this year. It’s time they represented us instead of special interests and big business.