[SIZE="2"]Regardless of how taboo this idea may seem, the potential "economic harm" is completely theoretical. The federal treasury along with Wall Street calculated and pooled together a bunch of statistics in order to determine that the unsupported fall out would lead to conclusion X. But the thing is, how do you know that conclusion X is guaranteed?
These are the same men who allowed these terrible housing loan practices from the beginning of 2004 to be initiated and continued to be practiced for the next four years. Congress according to reference 2 even had a hand in reinforcing the purchase of more low-income loaners. What possible implications that not bailing out this 12-trillion dollar business will never be seen.
We assume it will be bad, but in what ways will that apply to the modern American? Because the problem is now government-regulated makes the problem less of a hot issue? And if we didn't do choose to bail out the company, then our pockets would suffer. Isn't it more or less the same consequence as it is now? Our pockets still have to suffer.
And the pure fact that either presidential candidate did not address or was even aware of the problem before it became into fruition is a major issue to me. Who exactly are we electing and putting into office? Since when were our standards so low? These men are senators and have a vital role in Congress to shift the tides and round up their two parties that practically run American politics.
I thought that the government was supposed to serve Americans, but it seems more like an unrequited relationship where Americans are feeding the government by the spoon like it was a premature toddler.[/SIZE]
These are the same men who allowed these terrible housing loan practices from the beginning of 2004 to be initiated and continued to be practiced for the next four years. Congress according to reference 2 even had a hand in reinforcing the purchase of more low-income loaners. What possible implications that not bailing out this 12-trillion dollar business will never be seen.
We assume it will be bad, but in what ways will that apply to the modern American? Because the problem is now government-regulated makes the problem less of a hot issue? And if we didn't do choose to bail out the company, then our pockets would suffer. Isn't it more or less the same consequence as it is now? Our pockets still have to suffer.
And the pure fact that either presidential candidate did not address or was even aware of the problem before it became into fruition is a major issue to me. Who exactly are we electing and putting into office? Since when were our standards so low? These men are senators and have a vital role in Congress to shift the tides and round up their two parties that practically run American politics.
I thought that the government was supposed to serve Americans, but it seems more like an unrequited relationship where Americans are feeding the government by the spoon like it was a premature toddler.[/SIZE]