As I (and multitudes of others) have figured it, this current incarnation of the Wall St. bailout, not that even the conservative economists are calling it that, is going to cost each of us a minimum of $2,000 (do you really think this is only going to cost only $700B?). That really means everyone from the newest infant to the oldest of the elderly.
OK, I'll be the first to admit that there's a large portion of me that would like to tell the financial genii - "OK, you got us into it without my help, you can bloody well get us out of it the same way", but then sanity takes over. To correct this amount of fuckwittery is really going to require us to pull together on this one. And we'll need to count on Chris Dodd and others in the Democratic Congressional leadership to make sure that there's the proper oversight and that those who got us into this swamp don't get to buy a bigger boat for a long time to come. Actually, it would be OK with me if they lost their personal portfolios and bank accounts, the estate in Westchester (or Fairfield) county, the wine cellar, the Picassos, and the summer house in the Hamptons (or Nantucket), as well and had to live like a mere mortal. But I draw the line at putting them up against the wall and charging what's left of their estate for the cartridges, no matter how satisfying it might be, it might be a bit over the top.
That's why the sort of thing detailed by Ed Kigore in The GOP's Bottomless Crack-Pipe really frosts my ass. We have Republican strategists advising their Congressdroids not to vote for the bail-out. The idea here is to let the Dems do the responsible thing by passing an expensive, sure to be unpopular, bill to keep the economy in one piece (more or less) without Republican votes and then have the Republicans run against them full of righteous populist outrage for their saving the fatcats. I'd suggest that Nancy and Harry call their opposite numbers over and point out to them that his bailout will pass with wide, bipartisan support, including John McCain and the entire Republican leadership or it never sees the floor of either house.
And oh, yeah - get the promise in writing, for some reason, I'm not feeling very trusting this evening.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
bbd
Steve Klingaman
Catherine Forsythe
Susan Creamer Joy
Nick Leshi
Verbal Remedy AKA Denise
Salon.com
Comments
"The idea here is to let the Dems do the responsible thing by passing an expensive, sure to be unpopular, bill to keep the economy in one piece (more or less) without Republican votes and then have the Republicans run against them full of righteous populist outrage for their saving the fatcats." That Republican strategy would not surprise me in the least, too.
Good to see you back. :-D
If the GOP keeps up with the "clean" tack, point out the Administrations stellar examples of competence as a reason why they need to be watched by grown-ups. If they do try the faux-populist line of attack, make sure that they get lambasted with a counter somewhere along the lines of "The Republicans want you to lose your jobs and homes by allowing the economy to go down the drain", paint them as latter-day Hoovers.
Like many of us, I remember the later part of the Carter administration and the late '80s somewhat less than fondly, but the end of the "W" strain of Reganomics isn't going to die quietly. You can't run a county like a 3rd-world kleptocracy and not expect similar results.
On second thought, it's time to page Madame LaFarge and have her bring her knitting.
Thanks for the post!