"Help is on the Way(?)"

This November 31 senators will be up for re-election. Of these 31 senators 21 voted YES while the other 10 voted NO on the $700 billion ($700,000,000) bailout package. Other than highly suggesting that you, or anybody else looks to see where your senators voted, as well as your congressmen/women I suggest contacting them and letting them know how you feel.

I know in my state (Georgia) only 2 congressmen out of 13 voted yes and both Senators voted Yes. Someone explain the logic there? I have always considered the congressmen to have a better grasp on the voters because they have the opportunity to listen to constituents while Senators are simply stuck with voting party lines most of the time since their individual votes a bit more hefty, but. . . THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE ! ! ! It is blatantly apparent by looking at the split of 74-25 and seeing that there is no really clear cut decision that the two parties could come up with to separate themselves.

To keep it within my realm of understanding I am going to stick to my local example of my own state. 11 out of 13 State representatives voted NO against the bailout while 2 voted YES. The two that voted YES were Democrats. The two senators both voted YES and they are both Republicans. Can it make less sense? These people who are supposed to represent what We the People desire failed miserably at their one real task. I'm not here to suggest that the People are always right, or that we can even agree, but I think this one was a slam dunk for policy makers. Why not vote the way your constituents want you to? The answer is obvious for me. The representatives are up for reelection so often it probably makes their heads spin while Senators sit around for half a dozen years before having to campaign. The representatives did just what they were charged to do, for the most part, by nixing this thing out of the gate. It is an election year and they like to be reelected. Now the senate has spoken and they forgot how to listen. The Representatives will show up tomorrow and likely pass the same legislation that the Senate just did and we will have successfully, as the people, paid banks and stock brokers $1.5 Trillion ($1,500,000,000). What little thought process went into this is harrowing, and I hope the people remember this in 2 years when many more of these Senators are up for reelection. McCain's vetting process to pick Palin was probably slightly longer thought out.

Lets look at the other side of this poor reality in terms of how our economy is reacting to this "crisis." Bear Sterns failed, Lehman Brothers failed, Washington Mutual failed, AIG got bailed out, Merrill Lynch was bought by Bank of America, and Wachovia was bought by Citigroup, but it is worth mentioning that Well's Fargo AND Citigroup both wanted to buy Wachovia. So what exactly has happened? Well, a handful of companies that made terrible investments got hurt when their bets did not pay off and other companies in the same field were still in a position to buyout large banks. Certainly a $700 Billion more dollars for companies to invest would churn the market up allowing banks to go back to making loans and apparently. Would they be inclined to make good decisions this time around? I tend to not believe that in the slightest. If nothing else the next time the hens come home to roost they will only let it get WORSE and expect another bailout.

"Help is on the way," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. I just want to know exactly who this help is for.

-E

EDIT: The bill the Senate passed on top of the $700 Billion increases the FDIC backed money from $100,000 to $250,000. Do you have that much money in the bank or do you think it is for people who do not think much like the everyman? This is no longer the Wild West where people are actually robbing banks and you lose the money they take, this is the modern day where the Government robs straight from you and says put the rest in the bank they just kept afloat for safety.

Senate bailout bill

The Senate bill passed Wednesday night included measures that:

• Allow Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to buy up to $700 billion in bad mortgage-related securities and other bad assets.
• Allow the Treasury Department to modify mortgage terms to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.
• Permit the government to receive equity in companies it helps so taxpayers get a share of any future profits.
• Restrict executive pay for companies aided by the program.
• Create an independent oversight board to oversee the Treasury Department program.

Source: Senate Banking Committee