Because I said so; Not Always Enough
Posted on September 30, 2008
Filed Under Off the beaten path, Politics
As a father of two, I’ve uttered the words ‘because I said so’ more than a few times. Usually after some amount of discussion and/or negotiations or at the point where I’ve just had enough and want something done. It’s not always popular and is usually only used as a last resort.
Last week President Bush suggested we as taxpayers pony up some $700 billion to bail out the financial markets and the logic he used was basically because he said so. In his speech he essentially said if we didn’t do this then we would see the ‘Great Depression II’ which would be worse than the first. What he didn’t tell us was exactly how $700 million would fix the problem or what they would do with the money or how this would benefit you and me.
Yesterday, after a weekend of trying to hammer out an agreement, Congress decided not to pass the bailout bill. Evidently because President Bush said so, wasn’t good enough for them. I’m not a financial expert, but it seems to me that if we’re going to be asked to spend that kind of money we should 1. know exactly how it’s going to be spent and be comfortable that the right people have oversight on said spending and 2. I think we should have time to think about it and more importantly Congress should spend some time discussing it. I don’t think we have to rush into anything just because the president says the sky is falling.
The bottom line is that in a capitalist market, sometimes businesses succeed and make billions (see Exxon/Mobil et al) and sometimes businesses fail (see the airline industry and now the banking industry). Now granted there are some businesses that we need to try to help, but when I wrote out $700 billion on a piece of paper, that was a whole bunch of zeroes. We should definitely use caution and I think we have every right to get that money back in a reasonable timeframe.
Now some would say we’ve got to do this and that the consumer is as much if not more to blame as the banks. I take issue with that. The banks made the loans, so in my opinion they bare the biggest burden. Anyone who has ever financed a car of home knows they aren’t just issuing blank checks. There’s a qualification process and if they bent that process to make more loans and now some of those loans have failed, well guess what? That’s their mess to clean up and maybe they don’t deserve to be in business, and their CEO’s definitely don’t deserve mulit-million dollar severence packages. What do you think?
Until next time…
3 Comments »
Recent Comments
- GreggG: First time poting here. So, I’m looking for some feedback about the forum from regulars. Leave me a...
- Mark: Nearshoring is a major problem for States like California and Massachusetts. The cost of living is so high...
- Kirschner: Success always comes after failure
So let’s cheer up. 
- Kris: lol. I guess it’s time to be more careful now. Thanks for the share!
- Kirschner: I have to say that I am really impressed by it is to go through your blogand getting things rolling, this...
Gov should not be in the business of bailing out businesses poor risk decisioning.
I’m inclined to agree. The fact that we had to pass a $700b bill right away feels like they’re trying to pull a fast one.
Gosh! That is really amazing! I am sooo going to get one