Sep
30
2008

Political Economics By and For Dummies

What a day yesterday on the Hill. Our Congress (that of the 10% approval rating) said no thank you on the bailout plan.

As I see it, here is the problem: No one likes President Bush.So, when he gets up and says, “Hey, you uh Congressers um, you need to uh… pass this bill. I know it’s uh…hard. It is a um… tough time,” In the past, Congress would have done just that, pass the bill. But, because of the unpopularity of the lame duck (outgoing) president, Congress is less likely to jump at his commands.

The other thing: No one likes Nancy Pelosi. So, when she gets up before the vote and says: “Because of the reckless actions of some classless, irresponsible people, mostly, but not all of whom are in this room and voting for the white guy in the election, we have been called to clean up your mess, so let’s do it. But, while voting for this unpopular measure, lets keep in mind that if you guys had done your job correctly, we would not have to take these drastic measures.”

Oh, and the other thing, Congressmen like their jobs. They get paid pretty well despite being universally reviled. Their phones were ringing off the hooks lately with John J. Constituent saying, “If you vote for this bill, I will not vote for you.” Usually this is an idle threat, but with the election 5 weeks away, it was a chance these fat cats could not take.

So, what do we get when we mix all of these things together? Nothing. No go on the bailout. Now, what if the bailout was called something different, like the fuzzy raft bill, or the Hope Floats? And, who names these things? If I hear one more person refer to the Pats taping signals in football games as “Spygate,” I will kick someone in the nuts! My apologies to that one dude who was referring to a legendary Dead show at Highgate, and I hear ice will help the swelling on those things.

So, what do I think? I think that the market is artificially high, still backed by speculation and kept mostly afloat by foreign money and investments. If our government dumps our money into these systems, it is no longer close to a free market economy. It has not been such for a long time. In a free market economy, the ebb and flow of prices creates and manipulates supply and demand, no intervention necessary. If this bill passes, there is no incentive to succeed, no danger in failure. It is as if the people who put us in the predicament we are currently in had no fear of failure anyway, or we would not be this far behind the 8 ball. To all of those who say something needs to happen, because if nothing happens, this will get worse: You are probably right. But, if we quell the fears of the markets this time, what happens next time?

To the fools who got us in this trouble: Use your Harvard MBA, and get us out. Earn your salaries for once; Congress just did.

To those of you whom I have not yet lost and who could stand to read a little more, a piece on why Bankruptcy is the best alternative in this case.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

~J. Burrows

Written by Julie Maloney in: Uncategorized

5 Comments

  • jamie says:

    As of 1pm eastern, the dow has recovered 265 points. Whichever way you feel about this issue be sure your Congressman and/or senator knows. I feel that we will weather this storm without government intervention.

  • Toni says:

    I think that the government has proven time and time again that whatever they touch does not usually turn out well.

    I have scanned several different articles on all of this and I may be mistaken because I did say scan and not studied but wasn’t it government’s intervention that partially got us into this mess?

    I am horrible at economics and finance things – my transcript proves it – so I don’t know the answer. Just have my opinions…

  • Julie says:

    Girl, I’m the same way. Those are my thoughts exactly, although I’m sure there are those who’ll object.

  • jamie says:

    I am not fantastic with these things myself, but, some time back it was against the law to package mortgages in a financial investment package. The government in their infinite wisdom, decided that this was not necessary. So, what you had was like a bundle of a million dollars in a mortgage package that would be sold as an investment against the payments that would be made on these. However, when people stopped paying their mortgages, these packages were not worth the paper they were written on, let alone the money paid for them. So, in a sense, or course it is the governments fault for relaxing their own rules against these sort of securities and investment packages.

    My wife has an economics degree, so maybe she can tell me where I am wrong…I think she has a degree in that too:)

  • Dr. B. says:

    Those who voted no were actually evenly divided among parties. It’s heartening to see Congress put aside party differences to come together to not get anything done.

RSS feed for comments on this post | Create your avatar


Site Theme by The BuckMaker | Site Design by Amanda Meares | RSS Feed | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2009 Momspective™ A division of Cool Mom Guide, LLC. All Rights Reserved

This blog is a personal blog written and edited by me. This blog does accept forms of cash advertising, sponsorship, or paid topic insertions. I will and do accept and keep free products, services, travel, event tickets, and other forms of compensation from companies and organizations. The compensation received will never influence the content, topics or posts made in this blog. I am sometimes compensated to provide opinion on products, services, websites and various other topics. Even though I receive compensation for some of our posts or advertisements, I always give my honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experiences on those topics or products. If compensation is received for a post, it will be clearly disclosed in the post. The views and opinions expressed on this blog are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider or party in question.