1. If I owned my own business and let people buy on credit there would be no bail-out for me if they couldn't pay me back and it killed my business. I would be able to declare bankruptcy, but that is all the help that would come my way.
2. I realize that the businesses that are in trouble will probably cause an economic crisis if they are allowed to fail.
3. I also know that many of these businesses are in trouble because their board members, CEOs, Presidents and assorted high management make more money than anyone really needs to survive, and therefore the business does not have enough savings to support themselves after making bad credit decisions.
4. The government (read: tax-payers) did not force any of these businesses to extend more credit to people than they could afford.
5. The government did not force any of these businesses to advertise about the low credit rates available and make people believe that a variable-interest mortgage (read: debt) was a good idea simply because of the low rates available now.
6. The government did not force any of the people now in trouble to borrow money without looking at their true financial situation, what they could realistically afford, or without reading the fine print and understanding that the current interest rate and payment will not stay as it is, but will most likely rise to a point that is, perhaps, unaffordable by the borrower.
EDIT: Apparently the government (read: democrats) did require a certain amount of sub-prime mortgages to be given by each bank. How in the world did democrats think that would be a good idea? Seriously! I took AP Macroeconomics in high school, aced the exam at the end of the year, and could have told you it was a bad idea. You don't force banks to lend money. That's like forcing lactose-intolerant people to drink milk and eat ice cream: All you end up with is a big pile of poo. Gucci Mama posted a video that explains.
7. I have never met anyone that could not live comfortably on an income of $100,000 per year. Also, I see no reason for someone who makes more money than that (and also does not pay social security taxes on much of their earnings, because of the level) to need large bonuses every quarter, every Christmas, every time their birthday, wedding anniversary, work anniversary, or any other excuse they can come up with comes around.
8. My husband and I live comfortably on a household income of less than $50,000 per year. I can only imagine what we could accomplish with twice that.
Now, my opinion of the bailout may be clear from what I have said, but allow me to state it plainly. It disgusts me that something like this is considered necessary by the leaders of our country when it is clear to me that people who are getting rich and fat off of other people's woes are the cause of this whole thing. And who will benefit? Those same because even if the government puts a cap on what they can earn if their company is bailed out they probably still have enough savings to keep them living comfortably for years. And the 'tax-payer' benefit of having a stake in these companies? Paltry. For one, we will never see it, because the government will have it and reason that it needs to be held there to settle the debt Bush has caused (from a falling debt, might I remind you, and despite that during most other wars in history, our economy has strengthened). Also, even if we manage to ever get back to a surplus budget, will we really see the benefit? I think not. The credit companies are not the only ones hemorrhaging money. The government is bleeding to death and doesn't seem to realize it. The national debt, at the moment, is
| The Gross National Debt |
That's crazy! But since it's in the trillions, so why don't we just add another 700 billion? That'll fix everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment