This golf blog needs a bailout
Dear Members of Congress,
I write to you not in my own self-interest, but with a clear vision of the larger picture. As you discuss the bailout of the U.S. financial industry, I ask that you take a moment to think about what type of bailout you can offer my golf blog.
You see, due a string of bad investments and narcissism, this blog faces a liquidity crisis of a historical nature. Many trace the financial unrest of this blog to April, when I stubbornly picked Sergio Garcia to win the Masters. While this may or may not be true, it certainly didn’t help matters nor enhance my reputation.
So, right now, this golf blog is in a deep recession, from which only direct government interference (in the form of cash) can correct. The bailout of this golf blog needs to be a big one. Let me just throw a number out there - $7.4 million. That is not enough money to hurt the U.S., but it is also substantial enough to show that you mean business.
The liquidity crisis this golf blog is undergoing is already trickling down to other, prominent golf blogs. Take Chris Baldwin, for example. Unable to borrow from other blogs, Baldwin has written golf blogs over the past couple weeks that featured myself, and most recently, Jennie Garth. When Chris Baldwin completely loses relevance, you know the entire golf blogging industry is in grave danger.
I hope you can see where this is all going. Not bailing out my golf blog will send reverberations throughout the entire golf blog community. There is no time for debate, there is only time for action. Send me the money I need to get my blog liquid again, or risk alienating a strong and loyal voting block - occasional golf blog readers.
Thank you for your time on this matter.
–WKW
| « President Tiger Woods? Gary Player thinks so | After Ryder Cup loss, Europe hits the whine » |
11 comments
Fat cat.
Sounds like you might be 'poking fun' at the financial bailout plan, yes? GOSH...of course, one would NEVER want to lay the responsibility for NEEDING one at the feet of our Democratically-controlled Congress....would one?? Hussein Obama says "Change is good"....it better be, after we elect him and the rest of his tax-hungry cronies....."change" is all we'll have left! ;)
What a maroon.
You ought to be careful when you hurl names, because you may know less than you think. There is a videotape you should watch; I think it dates from 2004. It shows Reps. warning about Fannie and Freddie and Dems. chastising them harshly and saying there was no problem. The Reps. did try to reform the institutions, but the Dems. blocked them. That is a fact.
Moreover, the deregulation everyone bemoans started under Clinton (although I don't know that I blame deregulation).
Next, the Dems. pressured lenders into giving unqualified borrowers loans through the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 -- and Clinton increased the pressure in the 90s.
Also remember that Barney Frank chairs the Finance Committee.
Having said this, there is more than enough blame to go around. For one thing, the gov. have been devaluing our money for at least the better part of 100 years.
As to this, Kiel, can you tell me how much the dollar was worth 100 years ago and today when valued against gold or silver?
Now, onto the CRA--if you'd bother to read the law, it says nothing about forcing institutions to make risky loans. It simply said that loans cannot be refused based on race or location of the property (which had become a proxy for race-based discrimination). Moreover, if you'd bother to look at the institutions that are in the msot trouble now, only one of the top 25 is even covered by the CRA. In other words, the CRA blame is a complete red herring.
What a maroon.
I had read that about the CRA, so I'll cede that what you say about it may be true. However, Clinton did apply more pressure in the 90s to get banks to lend to minorities, although I don't know many details about it.
I notice that you didn't address the matter of the Dems who blocked reform of Fannie and Freddie. It also seems that you weren't able to answer the question about the devaluing of our currency.
As for hurling names, I did not chastize you for doing so; I said you should be CAREFUL about it, mainly because your ideology is so fatally flawed. But I can see that my practice of calling you names hurt your wittle feelings. You pinko libtards are such girlie-men; someone calls you a name and you start pouting like an 8-year-old lass. It's funny.
As the newest ads say so well - "the liberal majority in Congress was more concerned with giving homes to poor people, than they were with helping protect those who COULD afford their homes". That sure seems like a problem to ME.....but then, I'm a believer in WORKING for what you have, not being GIVEN it.
Comment feed for this postComments are closed for this post.
Recent comments