Hooray for the red, white and blue!
Hey, consolidation of the nation’s wealth into a whole three banks — that can’t be bad for consumers, can it? I can feel my $700 billion dollars growing already, it’s the most awesomely effective bailout ever! I must be sure to forward my thanks to President Pinochet Bush!
And if you wrote to your representatives to stop this bill, why not go ahead and write to them again? If Bush says it’s an emergency, it cannot possibly be an emergency, and if the world economy is doomed to go into the shredder, this $700 billion give-away is not going to prevent it from doing so, and the middle class will end up screwed either way.
And Michael Moore agrees with me, so there. Nyah.
I’m an exec at one of those 🙂 I’ll be posting on it in a few days when I get a chance and some clarity.
-Marco
I, for one, hail our benevolent new overlord Marco.
That’s right: I got your FDIC right here … :: looks down :: … it’s feeling a little ‘uninsured’ these days …
-Marco
Michael Moore agreeing with you is a bad sign! 😉
-Marco
I second this.
Aw, c’mon, the big lug’s heart’s in the right place, so what if he blatantly manipulates data in order to serve a pre-selected ideological point of view? Is that really so bad?
He also stiffs his film crews is what I heard.
–Ed.
And is a credit-hog and union buster.
If they all keep consolidating into bigger banks, they’ll be too big too fail! Duh.
Schrödinger’s economy
Obviously the solution is to put our major financial institutions in a box with Congress. As long as we never look at it, a bailout will both happen and not happen.
Re: Schrödinger’s economy
I’ve got the feeling that putting major financial institutions in a box with Congress is exactly what Bush has in mind.
We can always push back against bank consolidation by putting our money into our local credit unions!
Just FYI, it got voted down in the Senate. We’re not reminding the House that we really don’t want that bailout.
Correction, the House has raped the bill and let it die on floor. Oddly enough, the vast majority of the bailout bashers turned out to be Republicans. I guess the fiscal conservatives decided the bailout was way too socialist for their tastes. Who knew?
Todd Alcott knew. I think. Did you, Todd?
This should have been a Republican issue all along.
Perhaps this will help to see the big “Bailout” picture as articulated by the Republicans:
PALIN: Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions
In case you haven’t read this yet…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/top-5-reasons-to-vote-aga_b_130068.html
All good reasons to wait it out for a decent bill to pass that doesn’t shaft us, the taxpayers.
Two big hints that should really not be ignored:
1) The Republicans in the House voted down the bailout bill after an extensive session of debate and editing (mainly driven by Dems) to put in assurances and oversight. The REPUBLICANS voted against it. (They’re the idiots that have run roughshod over this country for 8 years now, greedily and recklessly and unethically, if anyone needs reminding.)
2) The Dow Jones set a new record in how far it dropped, in reaction to the House shooting the bailout down.
If you really think this was the better scenario, well I guess you’ll have to say thanks to the Republicans.
And I say big minus on Michael Moore. Not the go-to guy for much of anything anymore, these days.
While “too big to fail” has probably become tiresome, I have to wonder if “too big to save” won’t also become unpleasantly familiar.