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

[mephron]

One of my big issues with the bailout - and the one I'm glad that it was voted down for - was the amount of power this would have dumped in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury. There was a great deal of weasel language in it - the kind that goes "and there will be changes to be enumerated later to deal with the penalties/regulations for this situation by the Secretary of the Treasury", and I don't want that kind of naked power grab.

Something needed to be done to head that off, and the bill as written left out too much required how-to information to pass as written.

I work for one of those Wall Street firms - you may have seen them on the news today licking their lips and saying 'Mmm, Wachovia!" - so I have a vested interest in things NOT collapsing. At the same time, I have a vested interest as an American citizen to not support the growth of the Imperial Presidency As It Stands Today.

[(Anonymous)]

Bernanke's out in four months. God only knows who will follow-- and if it's Phil fucking Gramm, he doesn't have the sense of responsibility or the basic economic knowledge to handle this mess in any sane fashion.