-Newt Gingrich has steadfastly opposed the bailout, correctly pointing out that to centralize the power of $700billion into the hands of one political appointee, who is professionally conflicted and who is demanding it so stridently, is simply un-American. Now, Newt is reluctantly on board.....I'm not sure what to make of that. -Given that Treasurey Sec. Henry Paulson came from Wall Street and in 4 months will return to his job on Wall Street, how can we fork over any money at all to him to give to his friends there? He's been screetching from the rooftops like Chicken Little about how the apocalypse will happen if we don't give him, and him alone, $700billion. I'm sorry, it just doesn't pass the smell test.
-Apparently all the earmarks for corrupt liberal orgainizations like ACORN that Pelosi and Reid tried to sneak in, have been stripped from the original bailout bill. That's good.
-Why aren't Chris Dodd and Barney Frank being investigated on corruption charges? They both received huge cash donations from Freddie and Fannie at the same time John McCain first rang the alarm bell, then they blocked Congress from taking the very actions that would have prevented this collapse. Am I the only one who sees this obvious conflict of interest?
-The bill is now being called a "buy out" rather than a "bail out" because there's a remote possibility that the taxpayer could actually make money on this "investment". Here's the wafer-thin reasoning: at-risk mortgages are practically worthless right now so the taxpayers will be getting them at bargain-basement prices. Then when the market corrects in a few months or years after the bailout, those homes will be sold or auctioned off at what will certainly be much higher prices, reaping huge profits for the taxpayer. That'll be great if we taxpayers receive a big fat check as a dividend on our investment, but let's see a show of hands of those who think that's how it'll work? That's 1.....2.....ok, none. Right you are. With democrats in control of Congress, there's no way they'll give us our money back. They'll tell us that they know better how to spend that windfall profit than we do, then they'll blow it on vote-buying schemes.
-The one thing I'm glad they included is the limit on CEO compensation if that company gets even a penny of taxpayer money.
-The MSM is absolutely refusing to point the finger of blame at democrats where it belongs. They'd rather blame Bush, it's what they do.
-Finally, is this just the beginning of private companies who've made stupid decisions, demanding taxpayer money to help them out of financial jams?
2 comments:
Ed,
You are correct. This is just the beginning. We will see several more companies clamoring for their handout now the precedent has been set.
This whole thing stinks and we've not seen nor felt the last of it.
Newt's rollover while disappointing is not surprising, he is still a politician.
From what I understand this bailout proposal is not a done deal technically, they still must vote on it. I think I'll fire one more salvo to my representatives so I can go on record as opposing this crime against capitalism.
Who is John Galt?
It's disheartening that the line between liberals and conservatives of consequence is steadily blurring. Sure we rank-and-file conservatives can snipe from the periphery but it takes real conservatives in positions of power to effect real changes. I'm just afraid the age of small, limited government is over, if we ever really had it, and from now on, the two parties will clamor for electoral support every 2 years by promising to give away the biggest tax-payer funded goody bags.
It's hard not to be depressed about the future of America when you see the curruption and spinelessness on both sides of the aisle.
Post a Comment