BAIL OUT!!!

I should have figured the House was Jewish. As per the stereotype, they’re all focused on their money.

What the F#$% are our "Representatives" doing taking a day off from work for Rosh Hashanah? WTF?! Yesterday, the phags in the Legislative Branch voted down a "bailout bill" to help sustain the American Economy.

I was actually surprised at who voted what - I thought, for sure, the Republicans would vote for this, since it is their party's President that is calling for it. But oh, nay nay - Republicans voted against it 65-133, and Democrats voted 140-95 for it. 67% Reps against, 60% Dems for it.

However, I am split on it - on the one hand, I agree with the writers of a Time magazine article "Let Risk-Taking Financial Institutions Fail", which says:

Let the poorly managed, overly risk-taking financial institutions fail! Always remember that Wall Street and the real economy are not the same thing.

I agree - companies that are stupid enough to make poor lending decisions should be allowed to weed themselves out of the marketplace. It's the cleansing of the gene-pool...survival of the fittest. That's how the free market works - you have equal opportunity to be successful or to fail epically. Let it happen.

On the other hand, I agree with Jim Marshall (D-GA), in his "Commentary: America can't go cold turkey on credit". I too have thought about how an economy with government intervention should work. He says that he has:

...studied ways to make sure they don't get into trouble in the first place -- and drag all of us down with them.

In my opinion, I am pro-capitalism...and also pro-socialism - but within balance. I believe that companies should not extend credit to individuals in cases that their total credit equals or surpasses 50% of their yearly earnings. (In my individual case, my credit-line EQUALS or EXCEEDS what I make in a year. I know that I am currently negative about 75% of my annual salary and have put a stop to it, and have been doing everything I can to reverse it.) Of course, companies are greedy and will extend credit with no regard to the individual's over-all ability to pay. It seems that credit checks only take into account their ability to pay as if this were the only loan they had taken out.

Therefore, the Government should step in, and set a lower limit to the amount of credit that companies overall should be able to extend to a particular individual. This would have to be in the form of a regulated government division dedicated to the extension of credit. Companies would have to borrow their money from the government initially and be liable to the government if they default.

This bottom limit for how far an individual (and even company, or parent company as a rollup of all subsidiaries) can go into debt will prevent this kind of economic failure that ripples throughout the American economy, and into the Global economy.

That is a very Socialist concept, but the pro-capitalist part is next. While it would be acceptable for the Government to help prevent failure, it should not inhibit success. The Government should not attempt to set an upper barrier to limit the amount of success that an individual or business can attain - to a point. Let me explain...

A person goes into business - after 30 years becomes one of the most wealthy businesses in the nation, and then retires or is laid off - either good or bad, for better or worse, and receives a Golden Parachute. That Parachute should be the result of an equation - an equation that takes into account the Value of the Company, the Profit the Company generates on average during the years the individual has been in that position, and the unpaid Debt the Company has acquired during the individual's time in that position.

If you have a company that is thriving, doing well...and turns a profit, but has a nearly equal unpaid debt - the package the CEO or individual leaves with will be less than if they had no unpaid debt. If the company is on its way out, like Enron was, the CEO would either leave with nothing, or OWE money, depending on the equation.

There needs to be a reformation of how the economy works, because right now it does not work...at least not to the Main Street economist - the person that sits in a cubicle all day, living pay-check to pay-check, wondering if it's going to be a $10 grocery week, or a $50 grocery week. Sure the concepts may sound Socialist, but if applied correctly, is it really all that bad?

It might be if you're a greedy CEO, counting on that extra $200m package deal when you retire.