Monday, September 29, 2008

I'm no economist but everything I've learned from watching politics the past 10 years tells me this is right: why in the hell is shoveling banks buckets of money a good idea? I honestly don't understand why the Democrats don't, at the very least, want to minimize the amount given NOW, so that they can have much more control over the process of drafting the HOW in a few months time, when a Democrat (likely) is president. And why hundreds of billions to help the banks but nothing to help the people defaulting on mortgage payments for their only home? I mean, wouldn't it make sense for there to be an agency created (or an existing one expanded and tasked) whose job would be to try and renegotiate some of these userous variable-rate mortgages into more reasonable fixed-rate mortgages? That would cost money (because the fixed-rate mortgages require good credit and a bunch of the defaulters are not of the highest credit rating), but take some of that $700 billion and establish a fund which insure the risk for the banks and allow those who need it a lower interest rate which would let them keep their homes and pay the banks the money they need so desperately. Or even just outright subsidize some people in their struggle to keep up mortgage payments so they don't just walk away from their investment. That way, the banks still get the money, AND it helps people too.

(EDIT: That said, I keep hearing that something has to happen, anything almost, or lots of people will hurt, and I'm willing to believe that this is true--I'm commenting more generally on the shape of the bailout, not whether or not to vote for this one. Both topics I'm really unqualified for to pose as an authority.)

But what do I know, I'm a poet not an economist. I'd like to hope there's a reason of higher order than the reason which led so many democrats to embrace Iraq. Wall of text over, back to poetry.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe with Bloglines