are you for or against the recent government financial bailouts?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

But almost no one works for the for the fortune 500.

Walmart employes more than 2M alone. About 10% of the workforce is employed by the Fortune 500. That's not "almost no one".

The BJS report I read figured it at 8% in publicly traded companies when you included all sectors (aggro, etc). Obviously they wouldn't all be tossed, in fact not even a majority, so you're looking at a very small percentage affected.

Look at Home Depot, and the recent construction crisis. HD sales are down an INSANE amount. Many areas as much as 50%. Does that mean 50% of the employees are gone? Nope, not even close. Stores in crisis went from about 135 employees to about 105....roughly 25% reduction.

Carrying this type of crisis atmosphere across you have 2% of the total workforce in jeopardy. Hardly GD levels.

Moreover, the Home Depot example is a real, main street example of impact (bottom up, not top down). Just because financial gets screwed up and risks the back end doesn't mean there's a lower demand for goods and services...just less available capital for the corporation. Yes, I realize that means people laid off and therefore less money available for purchase, but that only directly impacts luxuries, not necessities. If you look at the entire history of the world you'll see that supply side economics is a lie. What the people need, the people get, one way or another. Corporations may fall like dominoes, but the demand will continue to create a supply (just from smaller, decentralized sellers).
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You're free to show me how I'm wrong. I've explained why I don't think it's going to be as impacting on some, and have yet to hear ANY rational refutation of those claims. If it's going to be doom and gloom for all, then show me how. If it appears I'm wrong, you know I'll admit it and apologize...God knows I split my time on this forum about equally between arguing and apologizing for being wrong so it wouldn't be the first, or last, time. Just give me either evidence, or draw a complete and rational picture so that I can see this imagined impact.

1a. small biz, big biz, large corps cannot borrow money not only for funding future projects, but to finance their day-to-day operations because of frozen credit markets. so no more growth, but widespread contraction.
1b. individuals cannot borrow money to purchase goods, homes, cars, loans because lending practices will be a lot more tight.

Not all business exists on lending. In fact I'd argue not even most. Existence doesn't mean growth. You can stop expanding and still provide existing levels of goods and services. Newsflash: business isn't about making more and more profit, it's about providing a good or service while making a profit. Corporations are the heart of the increasing profit model, and the world can exist just fine without them. As I pointed out in another reply, many members of my family own their own business and NONE took any type of loan. The same is true of many businesses. You don't NEED credit to operate a business. It's just not a necessity. It's a luxury, and you can live without luxury.

Individuals need to learn some financial responsibility anyway. Yeah, this would tighten personal loans. That's a good thing. Part of the problem is too much debt anyway. People need to learn to live within their means. It won't keep people from having what they have to have to survive, just what they'd like to pretend to be a rockstar. Tough shit, life made you no promises.



2. companies will fall; those that survive, jobs will be cut. no more income for many.
furthermore, consumer confidence is gone. those who have money, will not spend money because of fear of the economy.

Very few in the grand scheme of things will fail. Again, see my other post where I analyze the losses in the GD. Furthermore there's an equilibrium that will eventually be found. If people aren't working in finance there will be a greater call for social services to help them. That means more people employed in social services. The net impact isn't all that great. People should save money instead of spending it anyway, it will help alleviate these problems in the future.



3. from all the job losses, lack of spending, tax revenues will go down. all your public/social services will suffer a hit. yes, that means they will lose jobs as well.
this will happen at the local, state and federal level.

Already analyzed ad nauseum. It's a small impact that can be quickly addressed by the government in other ways.



4. people will lose their homes/cars because they cannot keep up with payments. many will file for unemployment, but the system cannot handle the huge increase in applicants. what's worse is the downward spiraling of the whole system because the funding for it is all gone from so many that lost their jobs.

yes, this will affect YOU and EVERYONE. maybe not your company at first, or directly at all. but if it hits another company in your state/town causing lots of job losses (don't forget corporations are taxed as well, quite heftily), then it will affect you sooner or later in some way.

scary isn't it?

Corporate income taxes amounted to less than 15% of tax revenue for the government. It's a small factor easily absorbed by other changes.


One other thing that needs to be addressed is my initial comment that it's a good thing overall, because it could help reign in irresponsible behaviors...at the personal, corporate, and government levels. End credit spending except where truly necessary, build up savings, reduce the debt/deficit, put a stop to corporations that don't produce for the people instead of just a few...overall these are potent and worthwhile lessons that would help the country greatly.
 

Gibson486

Lifer
Aug 9, 2000
18,378
2
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You're free to show me how I'm wrong. I've explained why I don't think it's going to be as impacting on some, and have yet to hear ANY rational refutation of those claims. If it's going to be doom and gloom for all, then show me how. If it appears I'm wrong, you know I'll admit it and apologize...God knows I split my time on this forum about equally between arguing and apologizing for being wrong so it wouldn't be the first, or last, time. Just give me either evidence, or draw a complete and rational picture so that I can see this imagined impact.

1a. small biz, big biz, large corps cannot borrow money not only for funding future projects, but to finance their day-to-day operations because of frozen credit markets. so no more growth, but widespread contraction.
1b. individuals cannot borrow money to purchase goods, homes, cars, loans because lending practices will be a lot more tight.

Not all business exists on lending. In fact I'd argue not even most. Existence doesn't mean growth. You can stop expanding and still provide existing levels of goods and services. Newsflash: business isn't about making more and more profit, it's about providing a good or service while making a profit. Corporations are the heart of the increasing profit model, and the world can exist just fine without them. As I pointed out in another reply, many members of my family own their own business and NONE took any type of loan. The same is true of many businesses. You don't NEED credit to operate a business. It's just not a necessity. It's a luxury, and you can live without luxury.

Individuals need to learn some financial responsibility anyway. Yeah, this would tighten personal loans. That's a good thing. Part of the problem is too much debt anyway. People need to learn to live within their means. It won't keep people from having what they have to have to survive, just what they'd like to pretend to be a rockstar. Tough shit, life made you no promises.



2. companies will fall; those that survive, jobs will be cut. no more income for many.
furthermore, consumer confidence is gone. those who have money, will not spend money because of fear of the economy.

Very few in the grand scheme of things will fail. Again, see my other post where I analyze the losses in the GD. Furthermore there's an equilibrium that will eventually be found. If people aren't working in finance there will be a greater call for social services to help them. That means more people employed in social services. The net impact isn't all that great. People should save money instead of spending it anyway, it will help alleviate these problems in the future.



3. from all the job losses, lack of spending, tax revenues will go down. all your public/social services will suffer a hit. yes, that means they will lose jobs as well.
this will happen at the local, state and federal level.

Already analyzed ad nauseum. It's a small impact that can be quickly addressed by the government in other ways.



4. people will lose their homes/cars because they cannot keep up with payments. many will file for unemployment, but the system cannot handle the huge increase in applicants. what's worse is the downward spiraling of the whole system because the funding for it is all gone from so many that lost their jobs.

yes, this will affect YOU and EVERYONE. maybe not your company at first, or directly at all. but if it hits another company in your state/town causing lots of job losses (don't forget corporations are taxed as well, quite heftily), then it will affect you sooner or later in some way.

scary isn't it?

Corporate income taxes amounted to less than 15% of tax revenue for the government. It's a small factor easily absorbed by other changes.


One other thing that needs to be addressed is my initial comment that it's a good thing overall, because it could help reign in irresponsible behaviors...at the personal, corporate, and government levels. End credit spending except where truly necessary, build up savings, reduce the debt/deficit, put a stop to corporations that don't produce for the people instead of just a few...overall these are potent and worthwhile lessons that would help the country greatly.

I just read the first response.....

All I can say is get this kid (PrinceofWands) a finance book.

 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Gibson486
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You're free to show me how I'm wrong. I've explained why I don't think it's going to be as impacting on some, and have yet to hear ANY rational refutation of those claims. If it's going to be doom and gloom for all, then show me how. If it appears I'm wrong, you know I'll admit it and apologize...God knows I split my time on this forum about equally between arguing and apologizing for being wrong so it wouldn't be the first, or last, time. Just give me either evidence, or draw a complete and rational picture so that I can see this imagined impact.

1a. small biz, big biz, large corps cannot borrow money not only for funding future projects, but to finance their day-to-day operations because of frozen credit markets. so no more growth, but widespread contraction.
1b. individuals cannot borrow money to purchase goods, homes, cars, loans because lending practices will be a lot more tight.

Not all business exists on lending. In fact I'd argue not even most. Existence doesn't mean growth. You can stop expanding and still provide existing levels of goods and services. Newsflash: business isn't about making more and more profit, it's about providing a good or service while making a profit. Corporations are the heart of the increasing profit model, and the world can exist just fine without them. As I pointed out in another reply, many members of my family own their own business and NONE took any type of loan. The same is true of many businesses. You don't NEED credit to operate a business. It's just not a necessity. It's a luxury, and you can live without luxury.

Individuals need to learn some financial responsibility anyway. Yeah, this would tighten personal loans. That's a good thing. Part of the problem is too much debt anyway. People need to learn to live within their means. It won't keep people from having what they have to have to survive, just what they'd like to pretend to be a rockstar. Tough shit, life made you no promises.



2. companies will fall; those that survive, jobs will be cut. no more income for many.
furthermore, consumer confidence is gone. those who have money, will not spend money because of fear of the economy.

Very few in the grand scheme of things will fail. Again, see my other post where I analyze the losses in the GD. Furthermore there's an equilibrium that will eventually be found. If people aren't working in finance there will be a greater call for social services to help them. That means more people employed in social services. The net impact isn't all that great. People should save money instead of spending it anyway, it will help alleviate these problems in the future.



3. from all the job losses, lack of spending, tax revenues will go down. all your public/social services will suffer a hit. yes, that means they will lose jobs as well.
this will happen at the local, state and federal level.

Already analyzed ad nauseum. It's a small impact that can be quickly addressed by the government in other ways.



4. people will lose their homes/cars because they cannot keep up with payments. many will file for unemployment, but the system cannot handle the huge increase in applicants. what's worse is the downward spiraling of the whole system because the funding for it is all gone from so many that lost their jobs.

yes, this will affect YOU and EVERYONE. maybe not your company at first, or directly at all. but if it hits another company in your state/town causing lots of job losses (don't forget corporations are taxed as well, quite heftily), then it will affect you sooner or later in some way.

scary isn't it?

Corporate income taxes amounted to less than 15% of tax revenue for the government. It's a small factor easily absorbed by other changes.


One other thing that needs to be addressed is my initial comment that it's a good thing overall, because it could help reign in irresponsible behaviors...at the personal, corporate, and government levels. End credit spending except where truly necessary, build up savings, reduce the debt/deficit, put a stop to corporations that don't produce for the people instead of just a few...overall these are potent and worthwhile lessons that would help the country greatly.

I just read the first response.....

All I can say is get this kid (PrinceofWands) a finance book.

Since I'm appalled by the nature of business I doubt it would change my views. My econ series completely solidified my beliefs actually, so maybe it would even further entrench me.
 

mooseracing

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2006
1,711
0
0
like it's been said before, for the moron companies that thought they should give out loans to people who make 10% of that total amount in a year they should sink. And to the morons that thought they could afford to take a loan out for that I hope they suffer on the street and die.

Live within your means, it's really not that hard. If we bailout the morons now they will just do it again.
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
Everybody wants change. Change is good. However, changing too much too fast is bad. Changing from a borrow to make a profit ideology is probably good. Cutting the US off at the knees to effect this change might not be what is best. At the very least any bailout needs to change those things that need changing.


I don't really want to take an armored personnel carrier to the grocery store because another great depression is upon the land of a populace that is much more prone to instant self-gratification than it was in 1929.

 
Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
Originally posted by: mooseracing
like it's been said before, for the moron companies that thought they should give out loans to people who make 10% of that total amount in a year they should sink. And to the morons that thought they could afford to take a loan out for that I hope they suffer on the street and die.

Live within your means, it's really not that hard. If we bailout the morons now they will just do it again.

we all know the companies were at fault for irresponsible lending practices, as well as the morons that bit off more than they could chew. that's what led to all of this, yes.... we know...

but by saying let them suffer and live with the consequences of their decisions, eventually we will ALL suffer unless we bail them out.
the way i see it, it is not just bailing them out. it is preventing this from further eroding the economy which is essentially bailing all of us responsible folks out.

how come you guys can't realize this???
 

LOFBenson

Member
Sep 11, 2000
123
1
0
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: mooseracing
like it's been said before, for the moron companies that thought they should give out loans to people who make 10% of that total amount in a year they should sink. And to the morons that thought they could afford to take a loan out for that I hope they suffer on the street and die.

Live within your means, it's really not that hard. If we bailout the morons now they will just do it again.

we all know the companies were at fault for irresponsible lending practices, as well as the morons that bit off more than they could chew. that's what led to all of this, yes.... we know...

but by saying let them suffer and live with the consequences of their decisions, eventually we will ALL suffer unless we bail them out.
the way i see it, it is not just bailing them out. it is preventing this from further eroding the economy which is essentially bailing all of us responsible folks out.

how come you guys can't realize this???

Or we could use the 700 billion dollars to create a new federal bank targeted at commercial and consumer lending while prohibiting it from getting involved with other financial institutions. But that might actually force people to pay for their poor investments and our government can't allow that.

We're talking about more money then the entire budget of most countries here people. With this much money you could litterally do almost anything. Why is this plan the only plan?
 

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,218
8
81
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: her209
I am for the people responsible for the mess getting what they deserve.

Then you are for losing your own job. This isn't an isolated problem. It *WILL* bring down the economy.

The bailout will, once it fails to turn the problem around, and the housing market still doesn't move.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
One thing everybody should keep in mind...

We will be buying these assets on a DISCOUNT. The assets YIELD INTEREST. If you amortize the discount over the holding period, or just sell the assets, WE WILL MAKE MONEY.

The only reason why banks can't hold the assets and get the return themselves is because they are being squeezed. Trust me, they'd rather make money than sell for a loss.

Make money + keep job + save the economy = WIN!

Finally an answer to the question I asked a hundred posts ago.

With this answer I can vote for supporting the bailout.

Viper GTS

You do realize, of course, that if these "assets" had the value that LK claims SOMEBODY FUCKING ELSE WOULD BUY THEM.

The fact that nobody in their right mind is snapping them up by the billion means all that paper will end up on a roll in the congressional bathrooms.

You do realize (but you really don't, but I'll keep up with your attitude), that the banks won't sell it until they have to. Why sell at $20 what you know is worth $30?

If these "assets" are so profitable (as you claim) why would the banks sell them at all? If liquidity is the only problem then where's the crisis? Why can't the banks just borrow more money? Hell, that's exactly what the plan is anyway. Buy questionable paper with borrowed money and hope it pans out, eh?

Hmmm...maybe because there's really no money to borrow?

This really isn't about money, per se, it's about time. The banks don't have time to wait for this to normalize. The Fed/Treasury does and they don't have mark-to-market pricing.

I will tell you this. The banks better fix this shit, fast, if they get some relief. If they don't, then I'll be calling them out myself.

As I said, liquidity. They need cash. Do you think the US government has cash? Hell no, we're just increasing our debt ceiling. So why not let these these investment bankers borrow money from the same place we are? Let them take the risk.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: LOFBenson
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: mooseracing
like it's been said before, for the moron companies that thought they should give out loans to people who make 10% of that total amount in a year they should sink. And to the morons that thought they could afford to take a loan out for that I hope they suffer on the street and die.

Live within your means, it's really not that hard. If we bailout the morons now they will just do it again.

we all know the companies were at fault for irresponsible lending practices, as well as the morons that bit off more than they could chew. that's what led to all of this, yes.... we know...

but by saying let them suffer and live with the consequences of their decisions, eventually we will ALL suffer unless we bail them out.
the way i see it, it is not just bailing them out. it is preventing this from further eroding the economy which is essentially bailing all of us responsible folks out.

how come you guys can't realize this???

Or we could use the 700 billion dollars to create a new federal bank targeted at commercial and consumer lending while prohibiting it from getting involved with other financial institutions. But that might actually force people to pay for their poor investments and our government can't allow that.

We're talking about more money then the entire budget of most countries here people. With this much money you could litterally do almost anything. Why is this plan the only plan?

Or maybe contract with existing financial institutions to provide liquidity for the economy instead of propping up clearly incompetent investors.

There are so many other options other than "bail out the speculators" but it doesn't surprise me that none are being talked about. The purpose is not to save the economy, it's to save political buddies. If it helps the economy it's a side effect. If it tanks the economy, that's just the price of keeping their buddies afloat.
 

rise

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2004
9,116
46
91
so how exactly are all the taxpayers ($2,300 per every man, women and child) going to see their return?
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Hmmm...maybe because there's really no money to borrow?

This really isn't about money, per se, it's about time. The banks don't have time to wait for this to normalize. The Fed/Treasury does and they don't have mark-to-market pricing.

I will tell you this. The banks better fix this shit, fast, if they get some relief. If they don't, then I'll be calling them out myself.

As I said, liquidity. They need cash. Do you think the US government has cash? Hell no, we're just increasing our debt ceiling. So why not let these these investment bankers borrow money from the same place we are? Let them take the risk.

because no one has money to lend!!!
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: her209
I am for the people responsible for the mess getting what they deserve.

Then you are for losing your own job. This isn't an isolated problem. It *WILL* bring down the economy.

Oh get over it...it doesn't affect everything. People who don't work for financially involved institutions/corporations won't be losing their jobs over it for Christ's sake. The world will still need, teachers, police officers, garbage men, etc. The only industries hurt will be financial, and while the common man will pay a bit more for a time the long run would be so much better as to make the argument moot. The guilty deserve to burn for their sins.

i'll admit i'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to all this finance stuff, but you are a fool.

ALL industries will get affected by a depression. yes, even health care, even gov't jobs, social services like schools and your garbage men.
some will get hit harder than others, but it will be felt by EVERYONE including YOU.

Felt, probably...but minimally for many. The harder you're hit by it, the less prepared you were and the more the fault is your own...not for it happening, but for the effect it was able to have on you.

how the heck are you supposed to prepare against a job loss that is not brought on by your own actions?
:roll:

i'm prepared to weather this storm for a few months if I lose my job, but any more than that, i'm pretty screwed - as i'm sure most everyone else will be as well.
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Not all business exists on lending. In fact I'd argue not even most. Existence doesn't mean growth. You can stop expanding and still provide existing levels of goods and services.

wrong.
most businesses don't keep a stockpile of cash on hand. they rely on LoC from banks to cover their expenses until they get paid by their customers.

no every business is a microsoft or apple.
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
my sentiments exactly.
will the morons (princeofwands) in ATOT that voted against please read this article.

The backlash against the bailout worked. The House rejected the controversial $700 billion rescue plan on Monday.

But considering that the Dow plummeted nearly 800 points - its worst one-day point drop in history - will there now be a backlash against the backlash?

"Many of the folks writing their congressmen last week to say they were against the plan may have looked at their 401(k)s this morning and are rethinking their position," said Bill Knapp, investment strategist with MainStay Investments, an asset manager based in New York.
Talkback: Should Congress pass a new version of a bailout or just do nothing?

Sure, stocks rebounded a bit Tuesday. But make no mistake. If Congress doesn't come up with some new plan to address this credit crisis, we could be faced with more gut-churning market drops.

I stated last week why I thought the bailout was a necessary evil and I still feel that way.

I understand why people are angry. I'm angry. I am not happy that the government is in this position because of reckless behavior by banking executives, investors, lax regulation by the government and, yes, even consumers.

And I even can concede that there is a lot of merit to the claims by critics that we should let the market sort out the country's credit problems. In free markets, companies should be allowed to fail. And clearly, the market and government let Lehman Brothers fail.

However, in the wake of the Lehman bankruptcy, things just got worse and more dominos fell ... AIG, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, etc.

The crisis is now so pronounced that doing nothing is not really a viable option. And what infuriates me to no end is the refusal by some members of Congress and taxpayers to recognize that the consequences of doing nothing will mean more economic hardship for all Americans, not just bank CEOs, traders and New York City.

Let Wall Street burn. Let Wall Street die. Let Wall Street go bankrupt. That's what people opposed to the bailout are saying over and over.

Don't get me wrong. Wall Street deserves a lot of the blame for the mortgage mess. But it's overly simplistic and flat-out wrong to suggest that this is just a New York or Wall Street problem.


There are a lot of companies that have either already collapsed or are nearing the precipice of failure as a result of the credit crunch ... and many of them are located far from lower Manhattan. That means many jobs are on the line and they aren't just the jobs of traders, blue-blood investment bankers and CEOs.

Washington Mutual (WM, Fortune 500), which became the largest bank to fail in history last week, is based in Seattle and has more than 2200 branches across 15 states. Wachovia (WB, Fortune 500), which dumped its banking assets to Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) in a fire sale Monday, is headquartered in Charlotte, N.C.

National City (NCC, Fortune 500), which many investors are betting could be the next bank to go under, is based in Cleveland. Shares of two other big Ohio banks - Cleveland's KeyCorp (KEY, Fortune 500) and Cincinnati-based Fifth Third (FITB, Fortune 500) - also got pummeled Monday.

SunTrust (STI, Fortune 500), which lost nearly a quarter of its value Monday, is an Atlanta institution. Regions Financial (RF, Fortune 500) plummeted more than 40% on Monday. That bank is based in Birmingham, Ala.

A bank bailout plan of some sort might not stop other banks from going under but it could certainly help minimize the pain in the industry.

"If we had a bailout, it would lessen the likelihood of further bank failures. We may have some more down the pipeline but we would have less with a bailout," said Robert Dye, senior economist for PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh.

If more banks get scooped up by larger rivals or just flat-out go under, that could lead to more job losses in the financial industry. That's not good news for the broader economy.

Fears about more bank collapses have also led to chaos in the credit markets as banks are afraid to lend to each other, which makes them less willing to extend credit to businesses. That, eventually, will be felt by consumers.

"The core of the problem is with credit markets, which is one step removed from Main Street. The average guy and gal is not seeing this yet but if you are a business, you are facing highly elevated costs to borrow money," Dye said.

"And Main Street will definitely feel this eventually. We'll also see higher rates for credit cards and other consumer loans. The cost of credit will rise dramatically," Dye added.

Dye also said that if more businesses start to feel a major cash pinch, they are very likely to cut back on hiring and may even start to layoff workers.

That would add to the this year's 600,000 job losses. In turn, that could intensify the economic slowdown by causing sharp pullbacks in consumer spending.

On top of all that, the current stock market chaos does nobody any good.

I'm not trying to cheerlead the market higher. Many stocks, particularly in the banking sector, should be trading much lower.

But the credit crisis has spilled over into the broader market, hitting shares of many quality companies that are still financially healthy. As a result, $1.2 trillion in stock market value was wiped out in the wake of Monday's sell-off.

That's bad news for more than just hedge fund managers - it hurts the millions of Americans that actively manage their investment portfolios as well as the millions more who have 401(k)s or IRAs for retirement as well as 529 plans to save for their kids' college tuition.

"It's easy to point the finger at the credit crunch being just a Wall Street problem. But it's much more pervasive than that so that's why it's imperative that this be addressed," said Knapp, the investment expert. "If a rescue plan doesn't pass we will see markets sell off further."

Dye agreed. He said the biggest problem with the bailout is that it would in some fashion, allow some companies off the hook for egregiously bad decisions. Nobody is happy about that.

But doing nothing just so that Wall Street can suffer is not the answer either.

"People don't want to reward bad behavior. But we don't want to cut off our nose to spite our face here," Dye said. "This will hurt Main Street very quickly."