By now, you all should've heard about how the US Government is going to spend $700 Billion of your tax payer money bailing out large, failing banks such as Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, and AIG. Many politicians argued that this was a good move because it would prevent the economy from sliding further into a recession. Look at the market now… But they didn't tell you the full story. The bailout bill wasn't 700 Billion dollars; it was over 800 Billion Dollars. You know what that extra $100 Billion is…EARMARKS! Our politicians, both Democratic and Republican, said from the beginning, that this bill would be bi-partisan. It wasn't. Our politicians saw this as a great opportunity to get their "Special Interests" passed. They knew that every vote counted, so what they basically said is: I won't vote for this bill unless my interest is in the bill. So, in this pretty critical bill, members of Congress and the House let them have their way. This, to me, showed that they took advantage of their power and didn't really care about anything else besides passing this bill and getting favors in return. So why is there over 100 Billion extra dollars? Let me give you some of the stuff they put into this bill, and who wanted it:
Legislation that, for insurance purposes, equates mental and physical illnesses.
--Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.).
A tax benefit for bicycle commuting.
--Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.).
Extension of the solar tax credit.
--Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.)
Extension of the research and development tax credit that is important to the high-tech industry.
--Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.)
(By the way, this guy lives in the state that is home to Microsoft.)
Extension and expansion of tax breaks to promote energy conservation and renewable energy.
--Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.)
(By the way, this guy is the co-chair of the House Renewable Energy and Efficiency Caucus.)
Also, let's not forget about the totally necessary tax break for Hollywood studios that film in the US and those absolutely necessary manufacturers of wooden toy arrows.
But hold on for a second, didn't George Bush in the beginning of the year say he would veto bills that include earmarks? How come all of a sudden, he goes against his word. Now, we can't trust our Congressmen and or President. But wait, there is more. Now I'll talk about Henry Paulson. (The Current Treasury Secretary)
Remember when Lehman Brothers failed? Do you know why the government let them fail while bailing out other large banks? (Especially AIG) Well, Henry Paulson was the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs, through the years, had done extensive business with AIG. (Which Failed) So, being that Paulson had a large amount of money in his former company, he knew that if he let AIG go, Goldman Sachs would lose millions upon millions of dollars. (Which would affect Paulson) In the end, that is why AIG survived and Lehman didn't.
Corruption…yes. Why didn't the media report this! He should be kicked out of his job NOW.
So now we can't trust our Treasury Secretary, Congressman, CEO's, and our President.
In conclusion, the government should have no say in how a company is run. It's none of their business. If a business fails, it fails. No matter how large or small the company is. Especially in this case where these banks gave out loans to people, who they knew, couldn't afford it. That is bad business, and they should have paid the full price for their mistakes. Now we, the financially stable, have to pay big time for these companies' mistakes. It would be better for the economy and the people if we just let capitalism run its course. Look at the recent deal with Wells Fargo buying Wachovia. Allowing good, financially stable companies buy these failed companies is a good thing. It kind of scares me that our government is taking over businesses. Is this bailout moving towards socialism, maybe, maybe not? But our government is becoming bigger, and bigger is not always better.
-The non bright lamp
4 comments:
You can bash the bail all you want, and it sucks, I agree, but what else can anybody really do? We can't live in a country without banks...
A country without banks? There are plenty of other banks out there! We can't live in a country where banks fail left and right because of fraudulent occurrences. Maybe stricter regulations?
We can trust in the free market to do what it does: let the failing companies fail and let the successful companies emerge from the ashes of those that fail. Anyways, who wants to put money in a failing bank? If they run out of business, then perhaps its a sign they would have been a bad bank to put money into.
England gave money to failing companies. There was no incentive to have a successful business. If you failed, Parliament would write you a check. They had economic pains until Thatcher became the prime minister.
Thatcher allowed the free market do what it does. She ended Parliament checks to companies.It hurt at first, unemployment rose. Thatcher was called the Iron Lady. But in the long run, she repaired the economy.
We have a choice to learn from history or to live in the past. History teaches us that the free market is superior to communism.
Our country is already in a recession and if the government doesn't do anything to try and stop it, the economy will keep getting worse. Then even the responsible homeowners will feel the bad economy.
Post a Comment