In brief: the failure of the bailout

[demiurgent]

It's surprisingly simple.

Neither major political party was willing to sacrifice the election to save the nation.

There is nothing more basic than that. Neither party would sacrifice personal power in order to save the economy of the United States of America.

My representative voted Nay. For the first time, I'm considering voting against her in November. I'm certainly calling her office tomorrow to express my deep disappointment in her.

For those who don't want to see the bailout of Wall street firms because gorsh, they's all rich and it's not fair? I hope you really, really enjoy the next ten years.

Comments

[peri-renna.livejournal.com]

See, I really don't know how I feel about this.

First: yes, we need to do something - most of the experts agree, and when most of the experts agree, it's crazy not to.

But ... Paulson's plan? The three page grant proposal (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/09/how-not-to-appl.html) saying "gimme $700 000 000 000 or your economy will fall apart (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/09/panic-therefore.html)"? "Why $700 000 000 000? - I dunno, I just wanted to name a big number (http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/23/bailout-paulson-congress-biz-beltway-cx_jz_bw_0923bailout.html)"? Why should we think this random panic-mode legislative ejaculation is the best option we can come up with?

(Yeah, the House Republican plan is worse. Still.)

I'll look at how my representative voted, just so I know, but I can't say whether I support this or not. However ominous things look (http://www.threepanelsoul.com/view.php?date=2008-09-22), if we bankrupt the government for nothing, we're making it worse.

[snowspinner.livejournal.com]

Well, the government could already declare bankruptcy if it wanted to. I mean, the sad fact of the matter is, 700 billion is only 25% of our annual expenditures anyway. We can take that hit. Or at least, it's no worse than the hit we've already taken in creating the national debt.

But it's important to note, the $700 billion isn't just getting set fire to. It is buying tangible assets that can be sold at a profit. They just need to be held by someone who can afford to sit on them for a decade.

The list of institutions in the world that can afford to buy up hundreds of billions of dollars of assets and sit on them for a decade is a very, very short list.

[peri-renna.livejournal.com]

I know, I know ... and from what I heard about the actual version being run - with controls and equity and limits on executive compensation - I even support it. But I don't feel good about it, just the same.

[snowspinner.livejournal.com]

Oh, neither do I. I'm appalled that it got to the point where a purchase like this is necessary.

[peri-renna.livejournal.com]

I meant the plan. It seems to me like an intentional walk in baseball - sure, you have a better chance for the double-play or the force, but there's another runner on base, one more way for you to lose. Why shouldn't we be throwing for the strikeout instead?