Log in

No account? Create an account
Greg [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ website | gregstoll.com ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Links:| * Homepage * Mobile apps (Windows Phone, Win8, Android, webOS) * Pictures * LJBackup * Same-sex marriage map * iTunesAnalysis * Where's lunch? ]

seriously, guys, $700 billion is a lot of money [Sep. 24th, 2008|10:25 am]
[Current Mood |confusedunsure]

This whole bailout thing seems kinda shady. Stanton doesn't think it will work. Kos doesn't like it, neither does Atrios. The plan lacks oversight:
Section 8. Review: Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

It sounds like they're really really really trying to push this through this week, which is like what was done with the PATRIOT Act and should ring alarm bells.

Also, $700 billion is a lot of money, enough for 410 space shuttles, etc. (just multiply by 1.09!) It's $2300 per person. I understand things are bad, but something about giving away $2300 of my money to save Wall Street from their risky decisions makes me want to throw something. From an interview with Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT):
For years now, they’ve told us that we can’t afford—that the government providing healthcare to all people is just unimaginable; it can’t be done. We don’t have the money to rebuild our infrastructure. We don’t have the money to wipe out poverty. We can’t do it. But all of a sudden, yeah, we do have $700 billion for a bailout of Wall Street.

From: tehfanboi
2008-09-24 06:09 pm (UTC)
Krugman has had a LOT to say about all this. He seems to back Dodd's plan which would give the US Gov equity stake in the companies we help (thus increasing our direct say and possible recoup the money) and has oversight.

But ultimately we have to do something. Letting Wall Street fail would be dire. I'm not saying give them 700B and hope for the best, but failing to act would hurt a lot of people. Give us oversight, gives us partial ownership and you can get helped.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: wonderjess
2008-09-24 08:55 pm (UTC)
In the middle of an unrelated conversation in an unrelated meeting, a professor of mine started yelling "WE HAVE NO CONSTITUTION! WE HAVE NO CONSTITUTION!" I know it's not funny, but...it was kind of funny.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: gregstoll
2008-09-24 09:00 pm (UTC)
That actually sounds quite funny :-)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: abstractseaweed
2008-09-24 11:19 pm (UTC)
The whole approach seems backwards. Instead of asking "what do we need to do" and then figuring out how much that would cost, they've decided that $700b is a good number and now they're figuring out what to do with it.

Now McCain is threatening to cancel his debate appearance unless the deal is completed by then. Sounds like an entertaining week in politics.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: liz_gregory
2008-09-25 02:23 am (UTC)
it's all about priorities. (gross oversimplification, I know) Republicans are all about their money, and Dems about people.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: djedi
2008-09-25 03:24 pm (UTC)
Actually, that's not bad. Some republicans are for the plan because they want to give money to businesses and other rich people, while others are against the plan because they don't want to give away "their" money.

Democrats seem wary about giving the money to businesses but most think this will help people.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)