data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4c696/4c6965cdc7758ea2f8ae2adeb78c0c17c42921e6" alt=""
So I will keep this one short. If you are confused as to what has been going on in our country's economy -- mostly on wall street -- then read our previous posts on the subjects below to get up to speed.
Then, if you feel like you can spare 10 minutes of your life to reinvest in our country, email your 2 senators and your 1 representative. You can find out who they are here, click on the electronic correspondence links, and send them a quick email voicing your opposition to this measure. I did this today and it took 10 minutes. You don't need to say anything fancy, just tell them that you are against this bailout and that the only meaningful taxpayer protection offered is a vote "no."
As for the politics driving this thing, I really hope we are all learning the importance of working and investing in our own country and in our own leadership. All the little slips and slides of consolidating power over the years are now painfully obvious.
Government regulation can never stay current enough to react to changes in the free market. The answer is not more legislation to regulate the economy, it's less. Free markets (when unregulated) are self-governing.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a56bd/a56bd9daa39c3e0966f073b444272b8ff354486f" alt=""
It is becoming apparent to me now that those entrenched in power really do believe that their Constitutional duty is to manage our economy. Most people must believe this too, since so many continue to credit Clinton for a great economy and blame Bush for a bad one, when those reputations are merely products of coincidental timing. Therefore, few politicians want to lose power, so they will do something, anything to become "decisive" and wash their hands.
And we as a people have become increasingly gullible. I have received so many emails about "alternative" bailouts or "responsible" solutions to these problems that do not in any way propose anything more than new regulations that will become out-dated for sure within a generation. But people are believing these opinions because they come from the Wall Street Journal, or fellow "conservatives" or people who are finance experts. Of course people working in finance are "pro" these measures, their asses are mostly on the line here, even those not in the mortgage industry.
I watched the Bush speech today when I found time. Scoring my previously posted drinking game, if I were loose with it, I would have gotten hammered. The actual language was more closely guarded, though the message was more vicious and specific than I could have anticipated. It was appalling to hear the President threaten our ability to send our kids to college if we didn't back this bill, simply appalling.
These vague threats have kept back the otherwise angry throngs of people, just as the vague economics of the mortgage-backed financial communities have caused this problem. Keep it simple, America, and stick to your guns -- both figuratively and literally.
4 comments:
I started an email to Sarah Palin to ask her to fix this. Here's how it turned out:
Dear Sarah,
I would like you to reject Henry Paulson's proposal for... for... for... you're so pretty. I love you. IloveyouIloveyouIloveyou!
Regards,
roller
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/erik-hurst-on-the-risks-of-re-regulation/#more-3123
Geno, that's a nice take on it.
Here's another I found as well... (I think we're all up to our eyeballs in this stuff now!)
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmMxNTg0Mjk3MmM3YmExNTI3MzY0NDVjYWMxMDE2ODI=&w=MA==
Post a Comment