|
If the 700 billion dollar bailout bill goes through as a handout to wealthy Wall Street banks then it will amount to nothing more than 'welfare for the rich.' Trickle-down Reaganomics will be firmly in place as it will be argued that, without this handout, credit markets will freeze up, small businesses will be unable to obtain loans, people will lose jobs, blah, blah, blah... The ultra-wealthy obviously have some leverage over the little people.
If, on the other hand, the bailout goes through as a long-term investment where The People are assured that any losses after a certain period of time will be covered by the financial industry, then it might be viewed as a safe investment. The important thing is that this must be worked as a permanently binding agreement, otherwise you know that Democratic lawmakers with no spine, and Republicans, will eventually weasel out of any follow-up responsibilities.
Regardless of how this bill is worked, Republicans will end up in a much stronger position to argue that Democratic spending is unacceptable in light of our vastly expanding debt. Universal healthcare will likely become unacceptable and even Social Security may be in danger.
I realize that this is a somewhat simplified way of looking at a complicated bill, but I would like to hear any counterarguments.
|