Bye-Bye Bad Bill, But Why Was It Bad?
By Kevin Korenthal | 09/30/08 | 09:35 AM EDT | 0 Comments
As we approach the 24 mark since the attempt to institute the biggest socialization of our economy since the New Deal FAILED, cooler heads are offering some sage analysis on why the bailout bill that Congress voted on yesterday was a non-starter.
Andy McCarthy at The National Review is seriously questioning how those that voted against the bill can be called irresponsible. He also questions whether there is anything at all in that bill that would have helped us out of the crisis. Read it here.
CNN (of all places) is running a piece by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron which seeks to explain the more solid aspects of the libertarian argument against the bailout. When all is said and done, the libertarian argument appears to be the same argument that 9 in 10 Americans are sharing with their Representatives. Read it here.
Next up we have Joseph Calhoun with RealClearPolitics who explains that the ONLY solution for failure in the markets is the removal of the government apparatuses that intervened against Capitalism to cause this mess. In other words, "In Times of Crisis, Trust Capitalism:" Read it here.
Finally, Walter E. Williams' position that the markets can and must be allowed to correct themselves is presented in an article by Carol Hazard. Check it out here.
The bottom line here is that for all of the support that some Republicans gave to the bailout, it was not enough to distill a sense that this was the correct path. Time will tell if I and others that have opposed this method for addressing the crisis were correct to council the avoidance of haste. It may turn out that in the end, the inability of Congress to pass this bill will amount to the complete meltdown of the economy. If that happens, I will be the first to admit I was wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. But it remains uncertain to me if those that have thrown axes at me for criticizing those who would rush to address a problem created by Washington politics by infusing more politics into the problem will do the same if it turns out that either the delay caused a better bill to be devised or that no bill was necessary to stabilize the markets at all.
UPDATE: Reuters has a decent report on Conservative objections, including those from Rush Limbaugh, against the bailout of the U.S. financial markets by the taxpayers. Other than the fact that it minimizes Democrat objections to the bill, it's a pretty fair report.
Andy McCarthy at The National Review is seriously questioning how those that voted against the bill can be called irresponsible. He also questions whether there is anything at all in that bill that would have helped us out of the crisis. Read it here.
CNN (of all places) is running a piece by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron which seeks to explain the more solid aspects of the libertarian argument against the bailout. When all is said and done, the libertarian argument appears to be the same argument that 9 in 10 Americans are sharing with their Representatives. Read it here.
Next up we have Joseph Calhoun with RealClearPolitics who explains that the ONLY solution for failure in the markets is the removal of the government apparatuses that intervened against Capitalism to cause this mess. In other words, "In Times of Crisis, Trust Capitalism:" Read it here.
Finally, Walter E. Williams' position that the markets can and must be allowed to correct themselves is presented in an article by Carol Hazard. Check it out here.
The bottom line here is that for all of the support that some Republicans gave to the bailout, it was not enough to distill a sense that this was the correct path. Time will tell if I and others that have opposed this method for addressing the crisis were correct to council the avoidance of haste. It may turn out that in the end, the inability of Congress to pass this bill will amount to the complete meltdown of the economy. If that happens, I will be the first to admit I was wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. But it remains uncertain to me if those that have thrown axes at me for criticizing those who would rush to address a problem created by Washington politics by infusing more politics into the problem will do the same if it turns out that either the delay caused a better bill to be devised or that no bill was necessary to stabilize the markets at all.
UPDATE: Reuters has a decent report on Conservative objections, including those from Rush Limbaugh, against the bailout of the U.S. financial markets by the taxpayers. Other than the fact that it minimizes Democrat objections to the bill, it's a pretty fair report.
| 
|
0 Comments | Related Topics »National
RECOMMENDED SITES
Comments
Post new comment