A week of confusion.

So, apparently this whole $700 Billion problem started last Thursday, and while its certainly not resolved yet, at least today on C-SPAN they clarified what exactly this whole mess is about, and then tonight the president gave a brief clarification in a format that people might actually watch. As one of the representatives explained it to Paulson "There are a small group of people inside the beltway and on Wall Street who understand what is going on. When you throw a $700,000,000,000 figure out to the general public without explaining yourself, thats when you get 85% opposition." I'm paraphrasing of course, but that was the gist of it and I thought "Yes, finally they'll clarify this nonsense!" And they did, sort of. I had to watch and read some more stuff, but it seems like (In case you don't know) all those nasty foreclosures and bad loans and other real estate garbage we've been dealing with for the past year finally reached a breaking point with companies like AIG and Lehman Brothers and Fannie Mae, etc. being the "First Dominoes" if you will. Its like one of those cool displays where 1 tips 2, which tips 3, and soon you've got this giant cool looking V in the middle of your lair. From my understanding, the government wants to buy a good chunk of the foreclosures and such (Thus giving these dying companies that glutted on real estate some money) and then sell them back later for more money. In theory it seems like a good idea, but there's no guarentee it will work, and if this fails we really will be screwed. If we don't do it, tthen it seems like a whole bunch of companies and banks will go under which will also hurt a lot of people.

So the way I see it, and I could be wrong as I'm no expert, is that we're definitely going to have problems if we don't do it, we'll definitely still have relatively lesser problems even if we do (Thats the great thing, it won't really fix the problem, oi) but there's a possibility that the money and strings attatched oversight of that money won't fix the problem. Or we could use a quicksand analogy: We could stay in the quicksand and hope we touch bottom, or we could grab this thing that looks like a vine, but might be a snake and either way we'd have to move around in the quicksand which is going to sink us faster before we can even try to grab it.

To modify a familiar phrase: "Damned if we do maybe damned if we don't."

Excuse me, Unlce Sam?

You want HOW much money to help these fools keep London Bridge from falling down? Uncle Sam, would you like to explain to me and 300,000,000 of my dear fellow Americans why we should keep London Bridge up? Because you haven't done a very good job of that. It seems to us like you and your friends are the only people that really use it. I certainly don't understand why we should be spending $700,000,000,000 to build a giant golden support beam that you say your friends aren't going to steal bits and pieces of a few months down the road because you'll watch it, but don't you have other more important problems to look at Uncle Sam? Aren't there some disaster victims in the south, some kids failing school and a myriad of other problems you need to watch but haven't really been doing a good job of? Oh, and isn't their that scuffle going on in a far away land that we need to watch, and couldn't this money support that since apparently we're supporting it anyway? Thinking on it, couldn't we basically buy enough food to feed everyone in the US, heck the world for a week or longer? Or couldn't we pay tuition costs for just about every student in the US? Couldn't we do a lot of things that make sense to those of us who don't walk up on London Bridge? Oh, sorry, that tastes a little like Socialism doesn't it? I thought it was just a "bailout" for more people or some sort of super-sized "stimulus package". My mistake.