If the $700 billion bailout is such a good idea, why was it necessary to add so much to sweeten it before the bill could be passed?
And if the $700 billion bailout is such a bad idea, why was it passed on the basis of the unrelated addons that total another $110 billion?
I am generally in favor of the bailout, with provisions for pricing the purchases in line with market value, with provisions for oversight and review,and with more detail procedures for modifying defaulted mortgages (which mortgages, what qualifications, what terms).
There is more detail in the pork addons than there is in the $700 billion bailout portion.
Finally, there is no provision to stabilize the tightening credit markets, other than hope the promise of $700 billion for bad mortgage securities will restore banker confidence in extending credit to consumers and to other banks.
We need to ask Representative Wamp why he changed his vote on the bailout from NO to YES, after the bill was changed to add other legislation. What made the loaded bill better than the streamlined version?
We need to ask Senators Alexander and Corker why they voted YES with a bill so short on details on the spending of $700 billion and so long on details about the extra spending.
TENNESSEE Representatives
Democrats — Cohen, Y; Cooper, Y; Davis, Lincoln, N; Gordon, Y; Tanner, Y.
Republicans — Blackburn, N; Davis, David, N; Duncan, N; Wamp, Y.
Here is a link to my post on
the bailout addons , from
www.RichardsRealEstateThoughs.com.
Here is link to a Rismedia story summarizing some of non related addons.
The article is entitled "How Sweet It Is? ". Here is the bill - 450 pages. Did they read it? Did they know what was included when they voted?
There is nothing in the
bill to encourage new home buyers. They ignored reinstating seller funded down payment assistance (HR 6694), which would qualify more home buyers and go a long way to helping restore the housing market. With so much in unrelated additions, one might think that a related bill could have been added, especially one that costs the taxpayers nothing.
