Well... inaction by the federal reserve was a huge factor in the great depression being as bad as it was. Bernanke did a lot of research on the depression (I believe he wrote a thesis on it) and if this was what he was suggesting we do, I think we should have went for it. Bernanke is not an elected official and as such doesn't need to pander to lobbyists like the rest of the politicians do. I doubt he would want to go down as the guy who fumbled and dropped us into the next great depression. (altho I think that blame mostly goes to Greenspan... and to the greedy who put us in this mess with the housing bubble) So I trust him a bit more.
I do think we should have had a lot of transparency and oversight. I thought that had been decided on in the final draft of the bill - an oversight commitee and some other checks and balances. I may be wrong though, as they weren't being very forthcoming with all the details. But doing nothing is going to be a huge mistake. Thank god I don't have a 401k to lose... Still, its scary.
Yeah, it wasn't the idea of the bailout that I had a problem with, it was the fact that it was written in a way that was very manipulable without any transparency.
I did read that the house was trying to pass a version of the bill with more checks... but something does bother me.
If something is so obviously good and needed, then why is it that over half the house is declining it? What is it that they know that we don't? I haven't felt right about the bill from the beginning. I think we need to do something, but I also want it to be the right thing. Cause as a country, we're about one bad decision from really messing ourselves up.
From my understanding, a lot of provisions in the bill, those checks and balances we are in favor of, fly in the face of regulation-hating conservatives who see it as big government as taking over the banking system. I actually heard a soundbyte from one on NPR this evening as declaring the bill as the first step towards communism. The other side didn't feel there was enough oversight and were probably rightfully worried. Apparently the compromised bill just wasn't good enough to satisfy either side fully
( ... )
Sorry, I re-read my post and I know I'm being argumentative, particularly that second paragraph - so disregard it. :) I agree with you. I just find this thing so damn frustrating that they are deciding our future and I don't have input and don't get to know whats going on. Some democracy when things are decided like this in secret and behind closed doors...
I rarely agree with anything you post when it comes to politics, but this is one thing I can definitely agree with you on. There is no way in hell we should give either the government or wall street this much money- BOTH OF THEM ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE. It just blows my mind how the people who are responsible for problem are now in charge of fixing it.
This sickest thing about this whole mess is that the government has tried to cast sole blame on wall street saying things like "the party is over" etc. when the real fact of the matter is that the people on wall street didn't do anything illegal. unethical? yes. illegal? no. And why were their irresponsible actions legal? Because the, eh hem, Republican party, the party of deregulation, deregulated the whole freaking system that had been regulated after the first stock market crash to insure it wouldn't happen again. I too am extremely happy the bail out didn't pass but I wish we had policy makers with the objectivity to create a responsible plan to fix this problem.
Allow me to enlighten you. The reason this whole thing started was allowing the two biggest mortgage lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were giving loans to those who could not afford to pay them back. This started back in the Clinton years with these so called "fair housing" initiatives which forced the lending institutions to give loans to those who could not afford to pay them back. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTITIES, which basically means that they can get all the benefits of engaging in the market and none of the risks because they were backed by the Federal Government. Since our entire economy was heavily invested in the subprime housing market, when the two biggest holders of subprime loans went under, our economy collapses with it
( ... )
How's about enlightenment all around (references to unsolicited "enlightenment" offers really annoy me as they often/usually confuse a lack of understanding with disagreement
( ... )
Comments 10
I do think we should have had a lot of transparency and oversight. I thought that had been decided on in the final draft of the bill - an oversight commitee and some other checks and balances. I may be wrong though, as they weren't being very forthcoming with all the details. But doing nothing is going to be a huge mistake. Thank god I don't have a 401k to lose... Still, its scary.
Reply
I did read that the house was trying to pass a version of the bill with more checks... but something does bother me.
If something is so obviously good and needed, then why is it that over half the house is declining it? What is it that they know that we don't? I haven't felt right about the bill from the beginning. I think we need to do something, but I also want it to be the right thing. Cause as a country, we're about one bad decision from really messing ourselves up.
Reply
Reply
I agree with you. I just find this thing so damn frustrating that they are deciding our future and I don't have input and don't get to know whats going on. Some democracy when things are decided like this in secret and behind closed doors...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment