Bank Bailout

To set my argument in motion we need to come to terms on several things. Firstly is that we need to agree on the necessity of the financial stability within the banks in Canada, I'm not only saying this because of the obvious reasons like: the bank needs money; but what I'm trying to communicate is: we need the bank. Secondly, we need to agree upon the necessity of the bailout, we need to realize that as a capitalist society; the banks are a must-have. So to continue I would like to point out some key points to this collection of research.

      To begin we need to recognize that this 'research' is biased in nature, and in my opinion it loses some validity as a result. It acknowledges the obvious points too expected extent and then begins to open fire on the government. Let me establish; I am not a conservative, I will never be one. But the added emphasis on the quotes is a petty attempt to overwhelm the readers focus and read only what they want them to. The actual substance of this argument is lacking without its 'shock and awe' font style. Furthermore the writer point of view is clearly anti-conservative or anti-governmental, in his argument he talks about the fact that there was no parliamentary debate, and here is where his points begin to lose ground.

     What the writer needs to recognize is that not every issue can come to a parliamentary debate; the reasoning is that we would see far too many elections. The educated citizen could tell you that if the governing party fails to pass a bill; they are dissolved and an election is called. So can we afford to see as many as five elections annually? Of course not. The reason that this never met parliament is simple; the issue was too important to have to go through the metaphorical 'cogs of bureaucracy'. Ergo the government decided to bail the banks of their own will. I can agree that it was costly and points out some issues in capitalism; but I fail to see any point in the article; it was just meaningless conjecture really.