Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
While I am for the bailout and feel it has to happen in order to keep us from slipping into a major recession and causing us major economic problems the oversight of this money has me worried. All the people that will be on the oversight committee have other full time jobs and the committee will only meet once a month. Also, it puts much of this deal in the hands of the sec. treasury Paulson. On January we will have a new president and most likely he will then appoint a new sec. treasury. So really we are putting this power into the hands of someone that we don't even know.
Let me ask you this. Would you comfortably invest 700 billion (or for that matter any large amount) into a company that you knew had a CEO that would be gone in less than 6 months with no idea of who the replacement is and that had a board that only met for a few hours a month? Probably not.
Don't get me wrong, I think the bailout has to happen to ward off some serious trouble, but to say that there is substantial oversight might be a little overstated.
|
i'm not for or against it really. at the end of the day, i don't really care. the interesting thing to me is that people want to bitch and point fingers and because of that and the unimaginably profound ignorance of the subject, their lives were just made harder, not easier.
generally speaking, i think the market should be allowed to run its course and whatever happens should happen. painful lessons need to be learned on all sides. banks need to collapse... people need to lose their homes and the whole idiotic system we have of living on borrowed money needs to collapse. i don't think the government should be involved in the economy in any real way and i don't think airlines or banks or farmers or anyone else should be doing whatever they want with the knowledge that the government will step in and save them.