With a presidential campaign in full swing and the country figuratively up in arms over this financial 'crisis', you would think the Dems would at least try to appear sane and above board.
You would be wrong.
Seriously, it is bad enough we are talking about a bailout - why in the world should that bailout include earmarks for a corrupt, incompetent organization that had a large hand in helping to cause this situation? It is almost as if they are trying to lose.
Honestly, the whole idea of a bailout chaps my hide but I am having trouble thinking of an alternative. Everything being interconnected and all.
One question, though. If the federal government is going to buy mortgages from banks, etc. so that said financial institutions can remain 'liquid', why do they have to buy the bad ones? Wouldn't it make sense for the feds to buy the mortgages that are sound, the ones that are being paid consistently and conscientiously? That would give the banks capital with which to continue operating, while leaving them to deal with the problem they helped create. At the same time, the US taxpayers would acquire actual assets which would either be paid off or could be resold to lenders when this rocky situation levels out.
I'm just sayin'.
Posted by Vox at September 27, 2008 02:39 PM | politicsAt this point, nationalizing them is the best bet. You stabalize them and you cut the golden parachute strings.
Of course, we aren't going to do that- instead we will give them blank checks.
Posted by: Samuel Skinner at September 27, 2008 11:14 PM