These are questions that are well worth pondering for at least the next 42 days. Certainly before we offer one red cent under the literarily extortionist terms that Bush and Paulson demand.
Things are getting a little suspicious about this "crisis."
Why did the Bush administration suddenly declare a "crisis" during the final two weeks when Congress would be in session during his presidency? Is it maybe because, after the election, Congress would know it wasn't dealing with Bush anymore?
If this is such a sudden crisis, why is it that the Bush administration was drawing up the plan for this bill for months beforehand?
Why is it that Congress is supposed to bail out many banks and firms that are actually quite successful and profitable right now, and not just those that are failing?
Why is Paulson blatantly lying to Congress about oversight?
Where did the $700 billion figure come from?
Why is Paulson urging that debate on the matter be held after the legislation is passed?
The burden of proof should always be placed on those who are demanding a huge government bailout, not upon those who are skeptical that one is needed. And yet the questions keep mounting, with no answers in sight.
I am not saying that there is no need for government intervention. I am saying that the case for a $700 billion bailout is far from having been made. Until the case is made, there is no need to go forward. We will elect a new President in 42 days. We swear in a new Congress in 103 days. What is the rush? Why does this all of a sudden need to be done while the Bush administration is still in charge? The case hasn't been made, and answers are slow in coming, if they come at all.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment