It's been a strange day. A day in which I actually agree with George Bush. A day in which I admire my own Representative, Tammy Baldwin, and my favorite Republican, Tom Davis, even more:
roll call for the bail-out vote
more here
(And we can only wish it was a bill to provide assistance to the Peace Corps volunteers....evidently they had to steal the name of another bill to get it through so quickly.)
I get that people don't want to use taxpayer money to rescue Wall Street. I certainly don't!
Here at chez-Nelson we've been living in our not-very-big house and staying (mostly) within our monthly budget. I've been a working mom, even when I really would have preferred being home for those first few years. I've been contributing slowly but surely to my 401(k) and the kids' 529s to keep our assets higher than our liabilities and save for the future. Living within our means. blah, blah, blah, boring, boring, boring. Suze Orman would be proud.
So why should any of my hard-earned, smartly-invested income go for a wall street bailout?
Because the alternative is much worse. And because we can't afford to see what happens if the banks fail and the credit market dries up.
See Dan Drezner and Paul Krugman and The Economist for more nuanced analysis.
Ironically, the conservative writers seem to be making the best points:
Megan McArdle
Larry Summers
Ironic because it seems that the House Republicans were the ones who voted against it.
Should we fly in a few economists to teach them about the Ted Spread?
They've got to be able to find 23 House Republicans who care more about their country than getting re-elected, right? (I think that is the number they need?) The Republican president supports this. The Republican Treasury Secretary supports this. The Republican presidential candidate supports this. What are the House Republicans trying to prove?
Yes, this sucks. But it isn't just going to blow over.
Can I go back to horse camp? At least the manure was used for something useful there...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the Democrats have passed this bill if they had all voted for it?
Of course - but I think that would be a lot to expect for 100% of the party to agree on something as controversial as this.
I was just surprised that so many Republicans went against the administration. I find that odd. And re-looking at the math, it sounds like they only need 12 more people to switch sides. I'm sure it will all work out, and probably end up with a better bill. I guess I just figured that more Republicans would rally around Paulson, Bush and Bernanke and do what needed to be done. I guess I must think of the Republicans as the "do what needs to be done" party and I didn't see that this week.
Strange days indeed. I'm kinda reeling...who stands where, again?
Post a Comment