http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/general/view.bg?articleid=1122325
Now ask yourself why the Democrats, who are at odds with Wall Street, would have so many more votes than the Republicans to rescue the banks that went wild (and under) knowing Bush would turn a blind eye to their antics?
Let's see here...
Republicans clearly spend more...
Republicans eliminated oversight of the banking industry (and oil, and auto makers, and pharmaceuticals, and energy, and...)...
Republicans aren't looking at the hard answers... (Even Bush and Cheney wanted this to go through!)
"We’re all worried about losing our jobs," Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., declared in an impassioned speech in support of the bill before the vote. "Most of us say, ’I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it — not me.’"
The reason Mr. Ryan said this is because 2/3rds of the Republicans want the Democrats to be the ones blamed for all the spending. Well, their plan failed, and that's what really sent the market down 777 points last Monday. (777, hmmm... I'm sure there are quite a few evangelical pentecostals who see that as a sign from above to use the nuclear codes like, like... Palin) Now the Democrat's gambit looks like they support a spendthrift economy. They just didn't want to be remembered as the ones that were in office, and blamed, should another Great Depression begin.
The situation on Wall Street has a very real possibility of causing a financial collapse. The reason things would collapse are because it is a house of cards (like credit cards, sorta...). If we build a house of brick, stainless steel brick, we wouldn't have these issues. Ultimately the government is our biggest bank, whether they want to be or not. If all the little banks like WaMu, National City (about to, trust me), Bear Stearns, etc... get to do whatever they want things will get a bit screwed up. Ever read Lord of the Flies?
It would seem that the bailout may be necessary to preserve our current way of life. This wasn't the way of life even 30 years ago. It's a bad path to take because it will still end up in the same place. The bailout will only delay the outcome.
The same is true with all other industries. Now don't worry, I'm not saying we grow the government more than Bush has done for the sake of oversight. I don't even think that's possible (Thank you Mr. Bush). I'm saying we bring back the laws Bush, Bush, and Reagan took away that gave industry the power it has and, when the companies are bad little boys and girls like they inevitably will be, we fine the shit out of them and imprison some of the CEO's and CFO's with regular, general prison population, not the Hilton. Hey, if they really want to make 3-400 times what the average worker makes, while in Europe or Japan it would rarely hit over 40 times, they need to be literally, in the flesh, prison raped because they spent all their time raping the American People.
Can I get a "WOOT!"
Reagan sold America on the whole deregulation idea. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but as regulation expired on many industries like natural gas, electricity, oil, etc... prices skyrocketed. At the point of deregulation the bill, from one month (regulation) to the next (deregulation) would double (or more!). I'm sure it doesn't really cost them more to get it to us. If it does it's because the things they buy (like pipes) cost more because they raised their prices. It just goes on down the line. (that's real trickle down economics, it's really trickle up!)
Thanks Ronnie!
Love,
Gordon
Posts
