Can anyone not do better then Palin on the bailout?

So no one’s written anything here yet about the proposed $700 billion bailout of the US economy. I don’t think I have anything profound to say, but I suspect there might be some YAR readers out there with some opinions. I bet you can do better then Governor Palin did with Katie Couric yesterday when asked whether the bailout is a good idea:

That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Helping the—it’s got to be all about job creation too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans and trade—we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as competitive, scary thing, but one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today—we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. (as quoted in Christian Science Monitor)

So consider this an open thread for any insights or thoughts you have to share on the current state of the US economy or the intense politicking/backstabbing/nose rubbing going on today in Washington.

Comments (5)

  1. Skylark

    I think giving lending institutions free money is a bad idea. They got themselves into this mess, and they should have to pay for it. A loan from the fed. may be appropriate given the potential repercussions for all of us, but we will just find ourselves here again if the poor decision-making is not discouraged. People who can’t afford the house they want should either go for something smaller or wait longer until they can actually afford it. Or move to an area with lower realty costs.

    On many issues, I fall left of center, but on this, I am squarely on the right.

    Reply
  2. Melissa Green

    Skylark, your position on this is the position of the left (Democrats). It’s the Republicons who seem to want to hand these shiksters a blank check.

    Reply
  3. Lora

    If the government is interested in paying off large chunks of debt because it’s hurting the economy, then I’ve got a whole lot of seminary loans I’d be happy to volunteer.

    Seriously, though, the NY Times had an interesting article about how Sweden dealt with a similar scenario. I have no idea if it would work here, but it’s worth thinking about. It seems utterly useless–and wasteful–to bail out a bunch of institutions without at least trying to ensure that both lenders and borrowers are making good and manageable choices in the future. (Incidentally, I say this mostly because when I lived in D.C., pre-housing bust, it wasn’t the poorest people buying homes well above their reach–it was the upper-middle class ones.)

    Reply
  4. TimN (Post author)

    Seems that for once, Congress has sided with the majority opinion of YAR commenters:

    Bailout plan rejected

    In the end, 60% of Democrats voted for it, but only 30% of Republicans. It seems Bush has completely lost touch with his party.

    Reply
  5. Skylark

    Melissa, that in this case, the Democrats are taking the typically right-ist position, and vice versa for the Republicans. Note I used the term “right” rather than “Republican.”

    I just think it’s really stupid to give money to people who have already proven they can’t handle it. Lend, perhaps, but not give.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>