Thursday, October 16, 2008
At least twice so far in the *bailout* jawboning I have heard the words "five years" bandied about.
The first time was a few weeks ago when politicians were talking broadly about when they'd re-assess the goodies being thrown at the chosen banks: special lending facilities, relaxed accounting standards, and the insane collateral requirements.
Then again, just this past week, "five years" has been formalized as the length of the latest direct loans (capital injections).
The U.S. government will earn an annual dividend of 5 per cent for the first five years and 9 per cent after that. But Washington's holdings will be non-voting. (link)
I don't have a source for my first mention of "five years"; there's simply too much written on the bailout for me to find a good reference - but my following explanation should allay all doubts.
So let me ask y'all, why would our slimy politicians choose "five years" for these bailout durations? They seemed to have pulled that number out of thin air.
Look at it this way, there's NO WAY they'd set up their ill-fated meddling to come due in FOUR YEARS. That'd be right before an election.
No, in five years, nobody in Congress will have to deal with the irritation of re-election. No Congressman will have to answer to the 19-1 horde of constituents who were *against* this disastrous bailout. What they've done is this:
They have successfully gerrymandered the issue into a dead spot of the election cycle!!!
Obviously they could have done 3 or 7 years as well, but 5 must have seemed safer and round enough to dispel suspicion.
They pulled the same sh*t last year when they tried to jam Amnesty for illegal immigrants down our throats. Again, there was no grassroots popular demand for it. It was impelled by the desire of incumbents to preempt the *sticky issue* out of the 2008 election year.
Scumbags, all of them.
Why can't at least one person in the Big Media call for a *four year re-assessment* of the bailout???