Perhaps Not Absolutely Anti-Bailout

Originally published in 2008.

Watching the 5:00 evening news and seeing that The Bailout passed the House (Need I have checked to verify that Deb Pryce voted for it? No, but I did anyway because I’m a responsible writer.), I realized that there might, theoretically, have been a bailout plan that I might have been able to get behind. This just wasn’t it.

The rush to pass it was an act of cowardice on the part of the nation’s economic and political leaders, who are unable to trust even their own kind, let alone the Great Unwashed Masses.

Nobody really wants change. If they did, they would have been willing to suck it up and tighten their belts and dig in for the long haul. (‘Nuff clichés, methinks.)

It’s the same situation as everybody longing for a third party but nobody being willing to vote for third-party candidates: nobody’s willing to live through the disastrous transitional process while the old phoenix burns up.

The fact is that the economy would have recovered if the bailout had not been passed, and it might have become stronger than it used to be because people might have learned something. But no, we’re throwing good money after bad and keeping a de facto colonialist system on life support.

©2008 Khrysso Heart LeFey

1 thought on “Perhaps Not Absolutely Anti-Bailout”

  1. You’re right. People are so afraid of change. If this bailout didn’t get passed, times would be tough, but the market would turn around. Now, the cycle has been corrupted thanks to the government’s meddling.

"Artists are here to disturb the peace." —James Baldwin. Please lesave a comment!

Discover more from Khrysso Heart LeFey

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top