Site logo

© 2007-2013 fiveboxes.com Email the Publisher
There are five boxes to use in the defense of Liberty: The Soap Box, the Mail Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammunition Box. Please use them in that order.
by FiveBoxes Staff | 2008-10-09 14:20 
From the email inbox, we got this question:
why were you against the bailout?  I definitely think it’s going to create major problems in the long run, but has our government ever looked down the road?  Not usually.  They look for the quick fix, then leave the mess for the next generation to clean up. 
Actually it’s more of a “bribe” than a “quick fix”…. “Look how much money I’m spending on you! Vote for me!” As for why it’s bad:
The short answer: true freedom is freedom to succeed and freedom to fail. Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin.
The long answer:
1) The government should not be a nanny. The government should not be a parent. The government needs to say “NO!” and get the hell out of the way. People need to take responsibility for their actions, and they should not be able to turn to the government to bail them out or “make everything okay”. We as a nation have turned into a bunch of whiny, spoiled, soft children. We need to collectively grow up, and a bailout is not the way to do it… it only encourages more irresponsibility later. One of the best principles is this one: “When you subsidize something you get more of it, when you tax something, you get less of it.” Subsidizing failure only begets more failure.
2) It’s another step toward socialism. The government has no business in the financial markets, in the real estate market, or any other market. They have no business interfering with education, healthcare, the stock market, housing prices, or anything else. The more they regulate, the more they interfere, the more power they grab from the free market, the further we get from the founding principles of this nation, the closer we get to socialism, and the more individual liberties and freedoms we lose. For example, sections 102 and 103 give the Secretary of the Treasury the power to buy up “bad” home mortgages, determine the value of a house, and re-negotiate the mortgage terms. (That’s what McCain was referring to in the debates Tuesday night.)
3) It won’t work. No one is coming forward and saying this will prevent a meltdown. Not Nancy Pelosi, not George Bush, not Obama nor McCain. Why? Because they know this will prevent nothing. It may soften the fall, maybe, but we’ve already tipped over the edge.
4) Government meddling got us in this mess in the first place. Fannie & Freddie were Democrat playgrounds, with Johnson, Raines, and Gorelick — all Clinton staffers or appointees at some point in their careers — receiving fat pay packages. They spent years cooking the books — something that caused Ken Lay of Enron to get put on trial for — and doling out campaign contributions and sweetheart no-interest mortgages to their protectors in Congress: Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Obama, etc. (This is why you’ll never see the execs from Fannie & Freddie get hauled into court or put in front of a Congressional or Senate investigation.) As a result of getting their payoffs, these Elected Charlatans pushed hard to ensure “equitable housing”, which is politi-speak for “bad mortgages to risky borrowers who couldn’t get a loan through regular banks because they were deemed too risky.” In exchange for the bribe of a mortgage to Irresponsible Americans who should be renting not buying, the Elected Charlatans expect — and get — votes. And, when Bush tried to create an independent oversight agency for Fannie & Freddie in 2003, and when the Senate tried in 2005 to do the same thing, the Elected Charlatans who were on the dole stood in the way. (FYI: McCain co-sponsored the 2005 bill, and spoke out for the need for regulation of Fannie & Freddie.) So, in short, bribes all around: 
  • Elected Charlatans bribe Friends with high-paying positions in exchange for creating mortgages for Irresponsible Americans. 
  • Friends bribe Elected Charlatans with campaign contributions in exchange for protection
  • Elected Charlatans bribe Irresponsible Americans with mortgages in exchange for votes
We’re not saying that the Republicans are completely innocent, but If you look at who was in charge of Fannie & Freddie, who were the largest recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie & Freddie, and who in Congress pushed the hardest for the “bailout”, there are (D)s next to the majority of their names. And one of the people involved is running for president? And the media doesn’t do due diligence and investigate it…. why?
We here at FiveBoxes still remember my high school journalism teacher talking about yellow journalism, how to spot it, and how to avoid it. If you take an objective view, you’ll notice that  the majority of the mainstream media is rife with example after example of textbook examples of yellow journalism. We’ll save the “media bias” discussion for another time, but again, We’d like to know why the media isn’t investigating the fact that Chris Dodd accepted $165,400 in campaign contributions from 1989-2008 from Fannie & Freddie, and in the 2 years he’s been a US Senator, Obama accepted $126,349 from them. The media has spent more time investigating Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy than they have investigating the Obama-Fannie-Freddie connection… why?
5) The worst recession since the Great Depression was in the early ’70s, and we lost about 5% of our GDP. If we lost that today, it would amount to…. right about $700 billion. So we’re squandering taxpayer money we don’t have, giving more power to the government, and giving up more of our freedom, to try and…. do what, exactly? We’re increasing government largesse with no appreciable benefit.
6) The bill was festooned with goodies and earmarks and pork. (And yes, we here at FiveBoxes find McCain’s signing that Christmas Tree bill makes his “I’m against earmarks and pork” campaign position reek of hypocrisy.)
It is for these reasons, we felt that the bailout bill was — and is — wrong for the future of America. Hang on, everyone. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Be Sociable, Share!
More articles in Featured Column  | 

Similar Posts:

Comments (1)

One Response to “The bailout boondoggle: Why was the bailout bad for America?”

  1. seo Says:

    Thats an interesting article – your blog is really good i keep coming back here all the time keep it up!