$700,000,000,000

It's been about a week since the news of George Bush's proposed government buy out of a large sum of failed mortgage securities currently in the hands of the now defunct Lehman Brothers and AIG banking and insurance firms, and it's time PooB took a stance on this issue, so without further adieu, I will present our avid readers with my take on this exceedingly grave issue.

Let's start with the basics. Lehman Brothers (a mortgage bank) and AIG (an insurance and investment firm) recently went belly up due to the failure of their most significant investments: sub-prime mortgages. Now for those who are unaware, a sub-prime mortgages are home loans made to people who have less than perfect credit or less than enough income to actually merit a loan in the amount of a house. Most firms make these loans aware of the fact that at least 2% of the mortgages will default, so they charge astronomical variable intrest rates to make up for this fact. Well with an economy going bad due to high oil prices, low wages, rising food costs, and a steadily declining dollar many more than 2% of these loans defaulted, and the banks were unable to make them back because the houses that end up in the banks' control lost their value. Long story short, banks took huge risks with these loans. With huge risks there are huge chances for gains, and equally huge chances of loss, unfortunately for us and them, the latter was the result.

Now here's where my opinion begins. As "socialist" as I tend to be on matters like healthcare, education, and government involvement in the economy by way of energy regulation I am opposed to this buy out because it destroys free market capitalism. The basic tenet of which is, as I said above, big risks lead to either big pay offs or big losses. If we buy out these failed banks, it means that capitalism no longer has the aspect of huge loss and effectively encourages banks and other large companies to make horrendously foolish investments because they would no longer be a risk for losing, just gaining or breaking even. This buy out sends the message that you can invest in whatever you want, however you want, and if you mess up the government, and the tax payers will just assume your losses so you can get on with your life. Quite possibly the most burdensome, and detrimental act a government could impose on it's people. It's one thing to tax people to send people to school or take care of them when they get sick, but to save a handful of companies and their CEOs with tax dollars without much of a benefit to anyone but those being saved is offensive and should be illegal.

Speaking of the CEOs, when this buy out is passed (I do not want it to be, but I know it will) it MUST include pay caps for these "business men." This is America, the land of oppurtunity, not the land of oppurtunism. In this country, you work hard and you get ahead, you work smart and you get a raise. These CEOs clearly made bad choices that have harmed the American people, the American economy, and their companies, how do they possibly merit multi-million dollar incomes? They don't, and I have no problem with the government telling these people that if they want the taxpayers to bail them out they need to contribute by having there salaries slashed, permanently.

Finally, the most outrageous aspect of this buy out is the price tag, seven hundred BILLION dollars. Think about that number for a minute, there are about 7 Billion people in this world, so to pay for this, EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD would have to contribute one hundred dollars. Well, we can't tax the world to make up for our mess ups, so let's go just look at America. If we divide the check for this "Rescue Plan" amongst every single one of the over 300 Million Americans it would mean $2,333.33 per person. Do you have that much extra money? I sure don't, and I'm sure 90% of the people you know don't have that much money, and those that do would not be willing to use it to donate to save a few stupid Wall Street Execs. Our government has no where near enough money for this disaster, and we should NOT be spending it. We will be borrowing the money from the likes of China and Europe and even further devauling the dollar. We are already in a era of deficit spending thanks to the grossly incompetant leadership of the current administration and the wars and "national security" programs it has begotten. We simply cannot afford this. The only possible recourse would be if the Fed used the money to buy stock which will one day turn a profit for the tax payers instead of simply buying the bad stuff which will never profit.

...Read more

White House trying to bury the truth again.

Bush is at it again. His administration is trying to block and edit the EPA's findings on the dangers of CO2 and the ability of the US government to regulate emissions. The EPA is releasing this statement based on a Supreme Court decision that the EPA can and should regulate CO2 using the Clean Air Act. The White House is trying to block the original draft and get it changed so that they can say the CAA is broken and needs to be replaced (more than likely with some weaker policies and regulation). What are they trying to hide?

According to leaked copies of the draft, "the net benefit to society could be in excess of $2 trillion" if the US government changed fuel standards for cars to "well above 35 mpg." The White House has repeatedly tried to block things like this from being released, while would require them to act on it. This kind of editing and censoring of government agency's opinion and public releases should not be happening.

If the EPA, DoD, CIA, NSA, etc. decide that something is/is not happening and releases a statement on it, it should not be edited. I understand the security concerns for things such as terrorism, but this has nothing to do with that. This is simply a piece of work that directly challenges the idea that acting on CO2 would hinder the US/world economy. The EPA is saying the this is just not true, and Bush wants to silence that, since it is his biggest argument for not doing anything on climate change in the last 7 years. The Executive branch should not be allowed to censor things that they just don't agree with. The EPA is just doing what it is paid to do, and Bush just wants it to say what he wants, not what the data says.

I think given the way Obama and McCain have been touting their energy plans, they should stand up and take a side on this. Either you believe that the EPA is right, and the US can effectively regulate CO2 and avoid hurting (or in this case actually assisting, by $2 trillion) the economy, or you think that Bush is right for trying to have it removed. I imagine neither will speak on it, and that it is really a pipe dream that someone would stand up and say what is happening is just plain wrong. Hopefully it will either be release as is was intended soon, or the EPA will be able to stall until a White House administration that will allow it to publish what it has spent millions of taxpayer dollars researching. ...Read more