If spending bills have to originate in the House, why would the Senate start the largest spending bill aside from the budget itself that I've ever heard of?
That seems remarkably backwards to me.
Having looked over reviews of the bill and its changes from the one that failed in the House earlier in the week, I see no way that this becoming law is a "good thing". As I see it, the government allowed these sub-prime securities to exist (actually forced them to exist, but that's another matter), then decided to buy these same securities once it was revealed they were valueless. Now I don't think the Federal government is well thought out in the first place, but who thought "being good stewards of the public trust" included securities that are known to have NO value and paying more than nothing for them?
Frankly, anyone who voted or votes for this doesn't want my vote this year or in any other year. I'll do my part to help them into their life of lobbying and running Fannie and Freddie (aka finding a way to screw the taxpayer from the private sector instead).
This is no rescue, this is one of the shared pillars of fascism, socialism, and communism. This is state ownership. If I loan money to someone who I know won't repay it, I'm forced to eat that loss. A bank is a corporate citizen in the eyes of the law, so equal protection should dictate that they have all the collection methods open to me, but not a $700 billion handout from taxpayer funds (as such things are NOT available to me - nor should they be).
Current Location: Roswell, GA
Current Mood: cranky