You are viewing a read-only archive of the Blogs.Harvard network. Learn more.

In Case Congress is Interested in My Two Cents

I’m not an economist. I’m not a politician. I’m not even remotely knowledgable about the topics of economics or politics. I suspect that my forthcoming rant will be chock-full of ignorance, but it’s my opinion and until we lose our rights to be opinionated (along with our retirement savings) I’ve still got my right to piss and moan.

Quite simply, WTF is going on? This whole $700 billion (BILLION!) bail-out is shrowded in secrecy. We know their working on something…but I still can’t tell who this will be helping. My two cents is this:

  • The government has no right to set salary limits for CEO’s. Personally, I find it obscene how much CEO’s make (even when their business is tanking). But I don’t think it’s the government’s job to regulate their salaries (should the government be able to choose your salary?). The shareholders and boards should institute rules within their own organization. However, if a company goes bankrupt, THEN the government should prevent CEO’s from getting salaries and bonuses. It’s the same way how employees will end up on unemployment and not get bonuses…why should the CEO who led the company to bankruptcy receive a bonus? The company goes under, he stops getting paid. Period.
  • Speaking of companies going under…let it happen. Seriously, why are we bailing out companies that made stupid decisions and were greedy (loaning money to unqualified people at higher interest rates)? They should go out of business, and deservedly so. From what I can tell, other companies will most likely take over the failed ones. A fair portion of jobs will likely be kept within the new company and eventually other companies will come into business and hire people. The others will collect unemployment.
  • Speaking of unemployment, that is the ONLY place where I think the government should be getting involved. Why not add some more money to that pool for the actual tax paying CITIZENS (versus bailing out CORPORATIONS) who lose jobs as a result of businesses going bankrupt? That way, they can continue to feed themselves and pay for their mortgage.
  • Speaking of mortgages, the government should NOT be bailing out people who purchased homes they can’t afford. Home ownership is risky – prices go up and down (but will eventually go up again). When I purchased my previous condos, the lenders kept offering us more and more money. We went in seeking money for up to $300,000. They came back to us saying that we qualified for $600,000…and then they asked if we wanted them to search higher amounts to see if we qualify for more. HELL NO! People in this country need to learn to live within their means. Just because lines of credit (or mortgages) are offered at absurdly high amounts, it doesn’t mean you should accept them. My solution? Instead of foreclosing on people (which hurts the bank and the home-owner) banks should stop being such cheap asses and renegotiate. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should they change the amount the person owes. The person borrowed a certain amount, the borrower should pay back that amount…plus interest. However, they could lower the interest rate to what it was before the ARM changed. Here’s a thought, why not also simply extend the payment period of the loan from 30 years to 40 or 50 years? That will lower payments. Considering that people usually don’t stay in their home for more than 5-10 years, extending it to 50 won’t matter in the long run, but it sure as hell could help over the next few years. Plus, the value of the property will eventually go up again so when they sell, they’ll still make a profit. Just wait and stop being so greedy.

Phew, that was exhausting. I’m normally a liberal. I still think I’m liberal (just not of the bleeding-heart variety). But Ialso think I’m fiscally more conservative than most liberals. This country is already in debt beyond belief. Spending an additional $700 BILLION to bail out corporations that should fail because of their greed and stupidity offends me. Similarly, using $700 BILLION to bail out home-owners who spent above their means offends me. As a non home-owner and a responsible spender, I get no benefit, yet the gluttonous among us with gas guzzling SUV’s and room sized hi-def flat screen TV’s in their McMansions get taken care of. I know there are individual cases where circumstances are more dire, but we already have systems in place to handle that (welfare, food stamps, WIC, generic foods and medications, unemployment, utility assistance, etc…). There just needs to be more regulation to prevent corporations from acting so irresponsibly, and some regulations requiring banks to alter the terms of their mortgages instead of allowing foreclosure.

‘Nuff said. You can hate me now.



  1. Comment by Jeffrey on September 26, 2008 3:47 pm

    To be honest, I didn’t read this post beyond the first paragraph. I just wanted to say what a precious picture that is of the goat, and presumably you as a little tyke.

  2. Comment by Karl on September 26, 2008 3:52 pm

    he he. Thanks, Jeff. That photo is actually of my brother and a goat. I couldn’t find any political photos of me so I just searched for a completely random un-related image. Ta-dah!

    And based on your response, I guess this proves that I shouldn’t get political in my blog. I should keep it about sex and pop culture.

  3. Comment by Jeffrey on September 29, 2008 5:40 pm

    Don’t base anything on my response. I just don’t do politics, with anyone. I’m sure somebody must like your political commentary…. Hello? Anyone? Buler?

Comments RSS

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.