Why Congress Bailed Out

Hurray partisan politics! Thank you so much for sending the New York Stock Exchange to its largest freefall ever. Thanks to the House sending the $700 billion plan to a vote without having the numbers on either side to carry the issue, the bill that looked as good as passed scared Wall St. into a huge hole. Their is only one reason either party would put this to a vote without knowing it would pass: elevating ones own party against the other. It is petty, and in this case horribly detrimental and irresponsible. Another couple days of amendments and hammering out details would have proved much less problematic. When people see a sure thing go down in flames it worries them that a deal may never get struck. I personally am very torn on this issue. I see the credit crunch and the gap left by fannie, freddie, and aig, as a serious economic burden. I also see $700 billion of funny money as a serious economic burden. We don't have that money to spend, and our children and grandchildren shouldn't have to spend it for us. Why don't we give one one-hundredth of that money to the lenders who didn't overextend and give too many risky loans in order that they may lend to entrepreneurs and families who will pay them back with interest?

Partisan

Partisan:

This word is a champion at describing our national political landscape. Dictionary.com defines it thus:

–noun 1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
2. Military. a member of a party of light or irregular troops engaged in harassing an enemy, esp. a member of a guerrilla band engaged in fighting or sabotage against an occupying army.

There are also two adjective definitions but they are both "of, or pertaining to," the two nouns, so they are omitted here. I have so many problems with our partisan system because it fits both definitions surprisingly well. Let me break down why they fit and why I wish they didn't.

"An adherent or supporter..." I have no problem with people supporting a cause. I have a huge problem with people who are blindly adherent to a "group, party, or cause." Our nature should preclude us from this herd mentality.

"...Biased, emotional allegiance." Wow. Looking at this part of the definition makes my head spin. We should always show emotional allegiance to issues and causes we truly believe in. Not to a political party whose sole interest is to remain in power. You should vote your conscience and your heart, not your party. People who get behind every position which their party represents are narrow-minded sheep. Therefore, most of Washington, both sides of the aisle, are narrow-minded sheep and should be treated as such and replaced with the more evolved free thinkers.

"...Irregular troops...harassing...an occupying army." A group simply doing everything it can to hold its ground and if possible gain a little territory too. This is what a political party is and does. And are they ever irregular!

That being said, I am a registered Republican. Not because I ever want the overturn of Roe v. Wade (I don’t). Not because I am against gay marriage (I’m not). Not because I support the war in Iraq (mixed bag). Not even because I find their Vice Presidential candidate to be the most attractive politician in our history (not saying much really). No, it's because I agree with one thing. I know that big time taxing on big business actually takes more money out of my pocket than the business itself. And, as far as I can see, the only legislation that will be very different depending on who wins is fiscal legislation. And I want to choose what charities I spend money on, not support the families of workers laid off due to higher taxes at the top.

But don't, please don't, take this as gospel. Read, watch the news, inform yourself, and decide what matters to you. Then figure out if that issue is really going to be, in practice not speeches, treated any differently by each party. If it is, then you know who to vote for (or against).