Tuesday, September 30, 2008


Okay, let's see if I have my facts straight:

1. When we elect representatives they are to represent the people in their districts.

2. Polls show most Americans are against the bailout bill as it was presented.

3. Most of the representatives, regardless of party affiliation, who voted against the bailout bill are up for reelection this year.

4. Criticism abounds from the ones who wanted the bill passed that these representatives were more concerned about getting elected than passing the bill.

Tell me where my facts are wrong here people, because if the four statements above are factual then the representatives who voted for the bailout are the ones who are wrong. What am I missing here? Because it seems to me that if #1 & #2 are correct then #3 is the logical consequence of that and should be regardless of whether one is up for reelection or not.

Apparently I'm an idiot because it's another one of those things that I just don't get in spite of my high IQ.


Jeni Angel said...

Let me preface this by saying, my thoughts aren't specifically directed at you. Not at all, actually.

In #2, you wrote "as it was presented". As it was intially presented by President Bush, is not the same bill they voted on yesterday. They made some good revisions. Much needed revisions. And I think the bill was good. Besides not doing it at all, what else would people like changed?

Which leads me to my next point. As someone with 6 years in the Financial Services industry (whom, sadly, only has friends and relatives in the same industry, including my boyfriend), I KNOW we need this plan. And even with all my knowledge, I would say I have limited knowledge, which tells me most people can only see the # ($700 billion) and say "Oh, hell no!"

And I get that. But those are the same people that will lost the little bit of money they have saved in their 401ks for the last 20 years. Those are the same people that pulled all of their money out of WaMu, which helped lead to the end of that bank. Those are the same people that are going to want the government to do something when this country goes into the next Great Depression.

You can't have it both ways.

Just my 2 cents. I know everyone sees it differently, but I know I will hold my congressmen personally responsible at the polls in November.

Fusion said...

I think there will be repercussions no matter which way this ends up, but the more I read about it the more I feel this bailout shouldn't happen. Will it mean hard times for many? Yes. Will it lead to another great depression? No, the financial makeup is much different today than it was back in 1929.
I agree with you True, in this case 1 plus 2 does not equal 3...

John said...

We elect people to lead us, not just to listen to us in our alarmed and panicked and often uninformed state. There are no "leaders" in politics anymore. The people of the US didn't say "Hey, let's go to the moon", our President did. We elect them to represent us because we trust their ability to make good decisions, ones that we would agree with when presented with ALL the facts, not just the ones on conservative talk radio or the business TV stations. Of course, saying no to the plan is a lot easier than coming up with a replacement solution ;-) Isn't it always easier to sit on the sidelines and criticize than to be the doers trying to get things done?

(Note: No opinions given on the failed proposal. I don't think it was a good bill, and think there were better choices. But nobody is talking about them, either)

Val said...

I heard a blurb on NPR this AM (will go back & try to unearth link) re: 200+ economists have signed a petition AGAINST the bailout...
One compared it to blowing up the dam to drain the lake in which a few boats of the fleet were sinking...

Trueself said...

Jeni - Good for you for holding your congressmen responsible! Everyone ought to do the same thing by voting for/against representatives who will/won't vote on issues in a way to represent their constituents.

Fuse - For a recovering Republican, you're not a bad guy.

John - You're right that there are very few leaders. There are bullies and dictators but very few leaders. A leader, if he/she feels his/her constituency doesn't understand has a duty to provide information to help the constituency to understand. I do believe it is Congress, not the public, who are reacting rashing and with undue haste.

Val - I've seen economists, well respected ones, come down on both sides of the issue. I think that just speaks to the complexities of it and the difficulty of predicting reliably the unintended consequences of whatever action is taken.