the economy revisited

i really suck at articulating my stances on issues. all of these little rants are only half-coherent. heres another one :P

just a short while ago, the senate passed a bill very similar to the bill that failed in the house. it had a few little add-ons meant to entice a few of those who were weary of voting yes on the last bill. im not going to say that the adjustments they made were not good ones.

theres more insurance for peoples savings
they have incentivized private participation (not to the extent that i wanted, but in the right direction)

and thats about it. ive only read summaries. the thing is 400-something pages.

im most certainly not endorsing the bill, but there was a subtle shift toward my position in the adjustments made. it gives me a little hope. and the fact that it enjoyed three-quarters support was pleasant considering how partisan things have been lately.

i keep wanting to endorse the bill. but i still cant. too much of the original language. too much tax payer money. it still supports this idea that the american government has to ride in and save the day, that it is our responsibility to buy faulty mortgages and place a check on the banking industry. i know it looks bad out there. i know the markets are turning to shit and we are trading at a loss an unemployment is going to be higher this quarter. but we cannot afford government intervention to this degree for the sake of the tax payer and for the sake of the market as a whole.

i keep hearing that the crisis is a fire that needs to be extinguished. that we can sort out who started it later. but thats all wrong. i see this unprecedented intervention as rewarding a bad kid simply because you dont want to see him cry. i know there are innocent folks who will lose their jobs. thats going to happen either way. i know we may see a recession and the econoomy wont be as stable. but thats only in the short term.

im just stressing myself out. ill be back soon to review the vp debate.