I think it is beyond gutsy, ballsy, whatever you want to call it, that Paulson wants absolute, utter control over this deal, so far as his actions shall not, under any circumstances, be subject to review, judgment, legal action, etc...
Barack Obama said (paraphrase) why should we agree to give someone total control over $1T with no accountability or oversight, when it was the lack of accountability and oversight that got into this mess in the first place?
What I'd like to know is ...
- Why can't we consider this money a loan to these banking companies? If the government is using taxpayer money to "bail" these yahoos out, why can't they be charged interest on these loans?
- Why can't the American taxpayers each get a cut of this interest? A little check--quarterly, annually, whatever--however they want to do it, they can send me my earned interest check. They could even tax me on it--I wouldn't mind. That is still some extra cash in my pocket to spend. It would inject money into the economy, and raise more taxes for the government to spend on programs.
*That* to me is a wise use of our money. What I mean to say is, if they are going to use it anyway, why shouldn't we get something for it?
Take a look in your own back yard STA didnt PATTIE RITCHIE recently BAIL OUT BILLY DASHNAW at highway ? HMMM... it may have ONLY HAVE BEEN IN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS HOW MUCH MIGHT IT BE NEXT TIME????
ReplyDeleteOur politicians are wasting time trying to solve this problem at the Capitol.
ReplyDeleteThe best way to deal with this bailout decision is to bring President Bush and the 5 CEO's of the failing financial corporations into a football stadium along with a hundred thousand or so tax payers and let them "negotiate".
OMG, you people are in complete denial!! It was Bush in 2003 who proposed a new agency to oversee regulatory reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The dems were against it. It was 2005 when McCain said, "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." He sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act which was also shot down by the dems.
ReplyDeleteCould it be that they were still following behind Mr. Clinton and his "Community Reinvestment Act" that is responsible for this mess?? Could it be that the dems were suffering from cognitive dissonance in 2003 when Barney Frank said, "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Or when Mel Watt (another dem) said: "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."
The dems were so busy playing Robin Hood that they dropped the ball. It was the dems who did nothing because of their fear that tighter regulation of the companies would sharply reduce financing to low-income families. Your closet Socialist ways are going to cost everyone money.
Even the New York Times lays the blame at the feet of the dems for not cooperating with first Bush and then McCain. You were warned and kept pushing your agendas.
You'll never learn..........