>Slippery Slopes

>The 700 billion dollar bailout is on one of the “slipperiest slopes” I have seen since well.. The Iraqi War buildup.

It’s basically on this premise: The Economy will fail if we don’t do this.
We have seen that with every bailout in recent history. And somehow we are still buying it

I would like to counter it with this: The Country will fail if we do this.

  1. Seemingly no matter where we get the money (except from taxes), it’s going to increase inflation, which means prices on food and gas are going to go up, which means harder economic times for everyone but the rich.
  2. From there the path is set for the classic Rome empire failure. Economic and political troubles within and an unmanageable and overextended military situation abroad.

Oh, I guess I forgot the part where it doesn’t actually solve the problem it was made for. It misses it completely, we use the credit system too much in the US. It has us expanding it, when the market wants to cut it back.

My Crazy Idea: Let the people who have the mortgages refinance, with the 10-30 cents on the dollar that the goverment would get in the 700 billion dollar plan.
What does this do?

  • Helps the people owe 1/10 to 3/10 less in mortgages than they do now.
  • Let’s the “bottom” form in the housing crisis


7 thoughts on “>Slippery Slopes”

  1. >Is it really fair for the tax payers to pay for their mortgages and for us to take the loss? I think the government should try not butting in for one and let them lose their homes, they shouldn’t have had them in the first place!!!

  2. >(Here via Planet Ubuntu) The above commenter misses the fact that this bailout actually does little or nothing for the people who bought these aggressively-marketed mortgages. They are still saddled with homes worth a fraction of what they paid for them. It is a bailout of the financial institutions only.

    Some interesting thoughts are from Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Harper’s Magazine’s Ken Silverstein on why they’re in such a great rush, and Naomi Campbell (Shock Doctrine author) on why the policy that goes with the money should be resisted.

  3. >Agreed. I’ll be voting for Cynthia McKinney. After reading their press release on the financial meltdown, I decided on it. Here’s the part that shows they get it when McCain/Obama don’t:
    “Promote an economy that’s based on sustainability rather than on lending and borrowing beyond one’s means. Raising the debt ceiling will lead to greater potential liability and further economic meltdown.”

    That’s exactly the trouble. Our economy isn’t productive. We just consume. And quite a lot of people consume quite a lot more than they can afford to. Obama/McCain want to continue this messed up system where we borrow instead of saving up.

  4. >I do agree that we need to solve the root problem of greed without a matching level of fear.

    The market will settle down only when the level of fear rises to meet the level of greed. By suddenly creating new money and “solving” this problem, we are only delaying the correction and making it larger and more painful when it does happen.

    As for giving money to people who made bad decisions, that is a terrible way to solve this problem. We should not give an incentive for people to continue over-extending themselves with credit by saying, “The government will take care of my problem. My friend Joe only had to pay 10% of his loan, so I will get this mansion for 90% off!”

    Make sense?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *