Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thormagni" data-source="post: 4487263" data-attributes="member: 13637">Short answers. And a caveat that I haven't read the most recent version of the legislation, so I don't know how much better the dead fish smells than it did when it was first dropped last week:1) It is bad governance.As originally proposed it was a blank check. With no oversight. To a bunch of people I have learned through bitter experience not to trust with even the simplest mechanics of government. The very fact that the administration came in and demanded $700 billion without a concrete plan or a lick of oversight sends up huge warning signs to me. 2) It is bad law at a bad time.I seriously, seriously doubt that whatever our government is going to come up with in a single week, right before the election, right before a new administration comes in, is going to stand the test of time. And yet we are being asked for, I believe, the single biggest government expenditure ever. With hardly any debate or deliberation.3) It rewards a dangerously corrupt system of speculation.An entire segment of our financial industry made incredibly bad bets, corrupting everything from the mortgage-giving process, to the securities-rating process, to the insurance process, all so they could make piles of money. Whatever system we come up with should not reward those who brought us here. 4) It does nothing to help the average mortgage holderThe crux of the issue is that an awful lot of people either got homes they couldn't afford, loan terms that they couldn't repay or borrowed money for homes that then drastically dropped in value. Those people need help. And making it so that people can stay in a home, continue making payments and bringing stability back to the system is what we need now. Not an even bigger mass exodus. 5) It is bad politics.In the best case scenario, after this passage, the Congressional Democrats get a big photo op with a grinning, approving W. We are long past the point where these spineless Dems should be automatically shouting "No" every time this administration makes one of its demands. It is pathetic. Congressional Dems should have been way out AHEAD of this issue, negotiating from a position of strength instead of meekly waiting for W to come in with this cockeyed plan.6) I think it is a trapBest case scenario, Paulson and Bernake think they need to spend $50 billion immediately with more coming down the road. Why are we going to give them $700 billion? Personally, I think it is a trap to ensure that a new president has no ability to enact any progressive-friendly legislation. Universal health care? Gave it all to the bankers. Better education? Money went to a bailout. Global warming? Can't afford it, all our spending money went to a bailout.7) It is borrowing money we don't haveFinally, it is not like we have this money sitting in a vault somewhere. How cavalier can we be with money that we don't even HAVE IN THE BUDGET? This is the equivalent of funding next year's defense budget completely out of thin air. I don't see how we can do this without devaluing the dollar more, increasing the prices on everything and still end up owing more money to China.Just a few thoughts.</blockquote>

Verification