$700 billion US economic bailout: Is/was the passage of a $700b bill urgent?

  • No responses have been submitted.
  • The bailout was not urgent, nor necessary

    The US economy is considered a free market, which means that businesses should rise and fail based on their choices, the economic climate, and the demands of consumers. The bailout shook up that system by placing huge sums of money into the hands of people who had not only stolen millions from consumers already, but who had so mismanaged their funds as to cause an economic collapse. The bailout was like watering the lawn while it was raining--it didn't have any benefit for the taxpayers who funded it, and should not have been pushed through the legislature without more patience and consideration of its consequences.

  • $700b wasted on failed business

    Congress presented Bush, and then Obama, with the $700b bailout because of a failed financial scheme set up by the Bush family. Bush’s money buddies projected that the bubble wouldn't hit until 2014, well after he left office. But they did not plan on so many people jumping on board with their plans. They made promises to several major corporations; when the plan failed they started crying “unfair!”.
    The companies that took the bailout were directly responsible for the crash – yet people in powerful places made promises. They had to uphold those promises. Was it urgent? Absolutely not – distribution and the American NGP was not affected during the crash at all. In fact it increased. If some of the companies had failed, then room for smaller businesses would have been opened
    up. Simply put, the money should not have been spent at all.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.