Necessary Changes
The bailout plan is just about to be rejected by the House of Representatives unless there are enough votes changed following the initial count (205 Yea, 228 Nay) while the vote is held open past the casting of all available votes but 1. And maybe it will be defeated with good reason. The markets have taken a drastic turn down.
In order to save the world's financial structure and prevent a meltdown of monstrous proportions, possibly leading to a worldwide depression equal to or greater than the "Great Depression, the US Congress is voting to give to single individual the power to dispense favors and money (700 Billion dollars) to the Wall Street robber barons in exchange for an ownership position in private business with the hope of earning a profit for the government. Say what?
The biggest opponents to this plan are the Republican conservatives, the great free market, limited government proponents whose policies of deregulation (and in the case of the Bush Administration - lack of enforcement of existing controls) have led to the problem in the first place.
The current plan to redress the ills of our economic system is being praised by moderate to moderately liberal Democrats and moderately conservative Republicans as a great bipartisan achievement. Rubbish!
The truth is that the plan as originally proposed was such a one sided outrage that everyone was against it. Then, without holding any hearings, a small group of congressmen took steps to make needed changes to the plan to make it more acceptable while leaving intact the basic concept of putting 700 billion dollars into the hands of a single individual to dole out in a manner of his choice to the financial community from which he comes before he became Secretary of the Treasury.
Since Secretary Paulson and possibly President Bush are smart enough to recognize the outrage that the original 3 page proposal would create, is it possible that they purposely proposed it so that the basic idea of making the Secretary the "money czar" would not be challenged and any modifications to the plan would only deal around the edges of that basic concept? So they put some restrictions on and outline more options for the Secretary, put in more after the fact oversight of his decisions, remove his invulnerability to after the fact judicial action, and slows down the allocation of funds from a lump sum to several smaller amounts needing congressional approval.
Still there are no direct actions to forestall foreclosures.
Michael
In order to save the world's financial structure and prevent a meltdown of monstrous proportions, possibly leading to a worldwide depression equal to or greater than the "Great Depression, the US Congress is voting to give to single individual the power to dispense favors and money (700 Billion dollars) to the Wall Street robber barons in exchange for an ownership position in private business with the hope of earning a profit for the government. Say what?
The biggest opponents to this plan are the Republican conservatives, the great free market, limited government proponents whose policies of deregulation (and in the case of the Bush Administration - lack of enforcement of existing controls) have led to the problem in the first place.
The current plan to redress the ills of our economic system is being praised by moderate to moderately liberal Democrats and moderately conservative Republicans as a great bipartisan achievement. Rubbish!
The truth is that the plan as originally proposed was such a one sided outrage that everyone was against it. Then, without holding any hearings, a small group of congressmen took steps to make needed changes to the plan to make it more acceptable while leaving intact the basic concept of putting 700 billion dollars into the hands of a single individual to dole out in a manner of his choice to the financial community from which he comes before he became Secretary of the Treasury.
Since Secretary Paulson and possibly President Bush are smart enough to recognize the outrage that the original 3 page proposal would create, is it possible that they purposely proposed it so that the basic idea of making the Secretary the "money czar" would not be challenged and any modifications to the plan would only deal around the edges of that basic concept? So they put some restrictions on and outline more options for the Secretary, put in more after the fact oversight of his decisions, remove his invulnerability to after the fact judicial action, and slows down the allocation of funds from a lump sum to several smaller amounts needing congressional approval.
Still there are no direct actions to forestall foreclosures.
Michael
posted by Michael | 5:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home