I really do not understand this bailout business, but it feels to me like the same sort of fear-mongering we had pre-Iraq. We have this government “expert” telling us that disaster is imminent, and if we don’t knee-jerk react to agree with him, we will all rue the day.
On the other hand, I have read many articles by independent experts agreeing that we do, in fact, need to do something to fix this crisis. So I guess I would reluctantly agree that this investment needs to be made.
What really angers me though, is that the administration is fighting Congress about garnishing executives’ salaries. I don’t have a problem with these guys making multimillion dollar salaries under normal circumstances. They are managing billions of dollars, and high salaries come with high risks. Plus, these companies should want the best of the best for their chiefs, and they must pay for that kind of talent. However, when these executives run those companies into the ground, we the tax payers should not have to pay their huge salaries. Really, they should pay us for screwing us all by causing our investments to drop.
Henry Paulson, the treasury secretary, opposes theses wage limits because he feels it will cause many companies to hesitate to take assistance from the government. My question is, how is that a bad thing? I think companies should be hesitant to seek assistance from the government. It’s a last resort, not some sort of incentive program or grant to build small businesses.
September 24, 2008
yeah, i agree with most of what you said there. clinton was on the daily show yesterday, and he mentioned that we should bail them out, but we should give them the money with high interest. that way, we end up making money.
i think it’s funny, too, that this is the sort of stuff that happens in a free market. and yet, when it happens, we step in and act fairly socialist, with a $700 billion, big government bailout. somehow national healthcare is bad, though.