A little over a month ago, our eloquent Lame Duck in Chief commented that “Wall Street got drunk and now it’s got a hangover.”
I’d say. (Although, I’d say it in a way that suggested I’d spent more time in college studying than crushing beer cans against my head and burping the National Anthem. But, then I’m not the leader of the free world – err, “free” world – so perhaps I’ve got the wrong approach.)
A month and a half after this comment was made, it seems President Bush read the briefing explaining exactly what has been going on in the economy. The $700 billion Wall Street bailout package, the water and Advil of this horrific analogy, needed to pass, he urged. Without quick action [to remedy the disastrous culmination of the past 8 years], Bush warned of a “long and painful” recession.
I have two problems regarding the bailout. First of all, after 8 years of Bush’s presidency, I’m pretty convinced that the best interests of the United States lie in doing exactly the opposite of what he thinks is right.
Second, and more importantly, I’m really annoyed that Wall Street got all the upside of their risk and then the rest of the country gets stuck paying for it. If I have to pay for the downside, I want the benefits of the upside, too! Americans had nothing to gain from the profits of Wall Street, but $700 billion to lose. As much as I support doing something to stem the country’s economic crisis (such as debt forgiveness and converting debt into equity for creditors), I don’t know that I support the bailout. I did, on first glance, but then I started to get angry the more I analyzed the situation. If I have to pay for Wall Street’s greed, I want a share of those big fat bonuses.
Retroactively, of course.