There was yet another announcement of a bailout agreement last night.
Everybody wins.
The Bush administration got $700 billion to buy up bad debt.
The Democrats got their conditions for approving such a massive bailout. These include phasing in the money $350 billion at a time, getting options to purchase stock in companies, limitations on CEO salaries, and homeowner relief.
For House Republicans, a token "insurance provision was added as an alternative to having the government buy distressed securities."
The Bush administration and the Democrats thought the deal was important because it would avert a depression. The House Republicans wanted to show that they're still barely relevant. But caring more about their standing as a party then the economy is an indication that they deserve to become even less relevant to national policy-making.
And the House Republicans will be less relevant after the Republicans lose more seats in November.
But the person who probably was single-most driven to get a deal was Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
As a result of the financial crisis, McConnell's numbers have been sinking like a stone against his clueless opponent Bruce Lunsford. McConnell wanted a deal before years of representing the Republican Party rather than Kentucky finally caught up to him.
It would be overly generous to characterize Lunsford as a "potted plant" candidate who just kind of sits there doing nothing. Potted plants have more spirit and tenacity than Lunsford has been showing this fall.
But McConnell and Lunsford are now tied at 41% and it will be interesting to see if the bailout deal helps McConnell or not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Isn't this the reverse of what we used to hear about government programs and public service agencies? Didn't politicians used to rail against the fraud and abuse in government? Now, the government is saying things like, "Taxpayers must be at the front of the line. No more golden parachutes for CEOS. We need to take back the responsibility for those we bailout…" The fox is guarding the henhouse here. We have big business being bailed out by big government and the taxpayer is paying the whole bill for both of them.
We the taxpayers are being extorted by our own system. McCain and Obama aren't going to put the brakes on. They are impotent to do anything about it. Neither of them can put the fiscal responsibility back into our economy.
This whole banking collapse can only lead to extensive inflation and the eventual crash of the US dollar. The consequence will be wreak havoc on many sectors of our economy. Where are all the doom and gloom people that are always lurking around crash sites? Wall Street has overextended itself for quick profit. Taxpayers are living beyond our means and racked up extensive personal debt. America has overspent for the short term and to bail us out we just continue to borrow against our future. This is a one way street with a brick wall at the end. Eventually there will be a crash and it ain't gonna be pretty when we reach the end of this one way street.
Obama or McCain won't and can't do anything about it. One is the same as what we've had for eight years that has exacerbated the whole process and the other is as big of spender as we have ever had. These two candidates are the wrong people at this time to lead this country with the economic factors that we face. We need candidates that are more fiscally responsible. Even your candidate Hillary with all her liberal glory talked more conservative than the two we ended up with. This is all depressing…and with Sarah Palin on the horizon to take over if McCain checks out would really scare me! She would probably try to bail us out with your J.C. Penny charge card.
I agree with much of this. Bailout or not, the American economy is weak and likely to get worse before it gets better. I also think that Hillary would have been the best president for managing the problems (even if I don't view her as "conservative"). But Obama has some advantages here. He's very good at the kind of moral exhortation that would challenge us to start living withing our means as individuals and as a nation. If you're concerned a president who would act to fundamentally change American behavior, Obama really is the best candidate.
correcting editing error in last version.
I agree with much of this. Bailout or not, the American economy is weak and likely to get worse before it gets better. I also think that Hillary would have been the best president for managing the problems (even if I don't view her as "conservative"). But Obama has some advantages here. He's very good at the kind of moral exhortation that would challenge us to start living withing our means as individuals and as a nation. If you're concerned to elect a president who would act to fundamentally change American behavior, Obama really is the best candidate.
Post a Comment