Memo to Dr. Burgess: Stay Strong
My Congressman is Dr. Burgess. He was elected in 2002. And what did he do Monday when faced with rising pressure to vote for the bail-out plan? He called local banks and got their opinion. He asked them how they were doing.
And I'm sure he asked if they were still giving lines of credit.
What he heard, and what he's been hearing from constituents, solidified his vote against the bail-out bill.
Monday, when the market fell, I was shaky on my resolve on this. But the more I've read, the more I've researched, the more I think this bill is a bad idea. I don't like scare tactics. And I feel like Treasury Secretary Paulson is threatening me with financial genocide if I don't give him what he wants.
I don't respond well to threats.
Especially when the $700B he's asked for, has no basis in fact. It's just a number. A high number. And the Senate ate it hook, line, and sinker.
Proponents, including Paulson, are screaming from the top of the Capitol building that if Congress does not pass this, there will be a credit freeze. I don't buy it. I can still get a loan. My friends are pre-approved for a loan for a new house. What I think he means by a credit freeze is: "if we don't do this, sub-prime borrowers won't be able to get a loan."
GOOD. It's about time!
Credit is not a right. Credit to buy TVs, and iPods, and clothes, and lobster, and chardonnay is not a right.
And if we really do have to do something, there are other options. Like, a moratorium on "mark-to-market," which is when banks have to put values on the mortgaged-backed securities and since the market for those dried up, they have to list them at $0, even though they clearly have a value. If they altered that rule and gave them a year or two to place a value, they could wait till the bottom shook out before having to go bankrupt. If they had to.
Or - and I like this idea too - LOWER THE TAB. Why $700B? Why? Oh no reason.
Well then no dice.
Dr. Burgess, please vote no again today. And please encourage your colleagues to do the same.
And I'm sure he asked if they were still giving lines of credit.
What he heard, and what he's been hearing from constituents, solidified his vote against the bail-out bill.
Monday, when the market fell, I was shaky on my resolve on this. But the more I've read, the more I've researched, the more I think this bill is a bad idea. I don't like scare tactics. And I feel like Treasury Secretary Paulson is threatening me with financial genocide if I don't give him what he wants.
I don't respond well to threats.
Especially when the $700B he's asked for, has no basis in fact. It's just a number. A high number. And the Senate ate it hook, line, and sinker.
Proponents, including Paulson, are screaming from the top of the Capitol building that if Congress does not pass this, there will be a credit freeze. I don't buy it. I can still get a loan. My friends are pre-approved for a loan for a new house. What I think he means by a credit freeze is: "if we don't do this, sub-prime borrowers won't be able to get a loan."
GOOD. It's about time!
Credit is not a right. Credit to buy TVs, and iPods, and clothes, and lobster, and chardonnay is not a right.
And if we really do have to do something, there are other options. Like, a moratorium on "mark-to-market," which is when banks have to put values on the mortgaged-backed securities and since the market for those dried up, they have to list them at $0, even though they clearly have a value. If they altered that rule and gave them a year or two to place a value, they could wait till the bottom shook out before having to go bankrupt. If they had to.
Or - and I like this idea too - LOWER THE TAB. Why $700B? Why? Oh no reason.
Well then no dice.
Dr. Burgess, please vote no again today. And please encourage your colleagues to do the same.
Comments