are you for or against the recent government financial bailouts?

[ivan2]

for, I can not imagine what could've happen if actions weren't taken. the only problem that I have is that I am a saver myself without debt and I fear the bailout will dilutes my savings in coming years and lengthens the bear market.

 

[FoBoT]

we are quickly approaching the point where the majority do not pay any income taxes

and a large percentage of people not only do not pay income tax, they GET a check. yes, free money, er, they get some of your money (the people that still pay income taxes)

both parties are willing to buy your vote with borrowed money

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

 

[Kyteland]

I'm against the bailout, but I'm also against a total failure of our economy. At this point something needs to be done.

The thing that I don't like is that part of this bailout is going to foreign governments, such as the Chinese who are heavily invested in American debt. Our corporations aren't the only ones who made a lot of bad bets. I don't think we have a responsibility to bail them out as well.

 

[BurnItDwn]

The fed fvcked up by deregulating. Nobody else is there to clean up the mess, so I think the fed was just in stepping in.

 

[miketheidiot]

for it in principle, against it in how its being done.

krugman

 

[JS80]

I don't call it a bailout, I call it government arbitrage.

 

[soulcougher73]

I voted against just because bailing them out sends the wrong message and only fixes the immediate problems. Sometimes you have to fall in order to get back up. Tough love so to speak. Sure it would affect a lot of people but in the end i think it would be better for the country.

 

[Eeezee]

I'm for it, only because the alternative is much much worse

However, I'm also for gathering up all of the investors that got us in this situation and launching them into the sun. At best, they should all be arrested and whipped once for every dollar that they've cost the taxpayer.

 

[Casawi]

Not sure. I don't think I fully understand both cases to judge. I am not an economist, and I simply don't believe everything I hear on CNN. My NPR morning fix doesn't give enough information to judge. I know this much tho, the risk is taken either way they go. So why bailout people who made bad decisions, with the people who suffered s money? This I am against, but again without fully understanding the consequences .. I cannot say.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
The fed fvcked up by deregulating. Nobody else is there to clean up the mess, so I think the fed was just in stepping in.

The Fed doesn't set regulatory policy to the largest extent. Most of the major regulations that allowed this to happen are way outside of their purview.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73
I voted against just because bailing them out sends the wrong message and only fixes the immediate problems. Sometimes you have to fall in order to get back up. Tough love so to speak. Sure it would affect a lot of people but in the end i think it would be better for the country.

Except, in order to get our "tough love", we'd have to bring down the world. Great job, instead of punishing one kid, punish them all, for the sins of one.

Teach a lesson, prevent it from happening in the future.

 

[Modelworks]

Against. We all know where the money will go, to the top. The plan writers want no oversight, and are trying to ignore existing laws.
Hurry pass it, don't think about it, just pass it. Always a bad idea !
Giving a suit $50 million of tax payers money so he can retire from a company is wrong.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soulcougher73
I voted against just because bailing them out sends the wrong message and only fixes the immediate problems. Sometimes you have to fall in order to get back up. Tough love so to speak. Sure it would affect a lot of people but in the end i think it would be better for the country.

Except, in order to get our "tough love", we'd have to bring down the world. Great job, instead of punishing one kid, punish them all, for the sins of one.

Teach a lesson, prevent it from happening in the future.

and they lesson they are teaching now? its ok to screw over ht epeople and run the company into the ground the govermetn will take care of you (and protect CEO bonuses!)

 

[Turin39789]

agin

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: akubi

Originally posted by: waggy
at first i was against it. i really don't want my tax's going to save idiots that got themselves in this mess and giving CEO's billions in bonuses. BUT after reading more and more about it i suspect it has to be done. be cheaper in the long one. BUT i really hope they put more people watching so this does not happen again.


also they are talking on the news about adding more to it. nto just more bailouts but "riders" on the bill. ugh

the amount these guys have been paying in taxes is probably more than what you'll earn in a lifetime. I'm sure everyone knows taxes are paid as a %, not some flat fee. If they get "billions in bonuses" they must be paying millions or billions in taxes. I don't think these individual, "it's my tax money" arguments have any merit.

overall the bailout should be a good thing. as long as people keep paying their mortgages, the government will regain all the money its pumping in. that may be wishful thinking.

I think more people are just miffed about the fact that a CEO can run a company into a 600 billion bankrupcy, cause a couple thousand people to lose their jobs and taking it in the ass after their employee stock options went to zilch while the CEO jumps ship with a 6 million dollar golden parachute.

Throw the CEO in the clink and seize his assets. That'll send a proper message.

 

[soulcougher73]

-

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soulcougher73
I voted against just because bailing them out sends the wrong message and only fixes the immediate problems. Sometimes you have to fall in order to get back up. Tough love so to speak. Sure it would affect a lot of people but in the end i think it would be better for the country.

Except, in order to get our "tough love", we'd have to bring down the world. Great job, instead of punishing one kid, punish them all, for the sins of one.

Teach a lesson, prevent it from happening in the future.

Wouldnt punishing tax payers fall under the same logic? Punish all of us instead of letting the company fail for being too greedy.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soulcougher73
I voted against just because bailing them out sends the wrong message and only fixes the immediate problems. Sometimes you have to fall in order to get back up. Tough love so to speak. Sure it would affect a lot of people but in the end i think it would be better for the country.

Except, in order to get our "tough love", we'd have to bring down the world. Great job, instead of punishing one kid, punish them all, for the sins of one.

Teach a lesson, prevent it from happening in the future.

Wouldnt punishing tax payers fall under the same logic? Punish all of us instead of letting the company fail for being too greedy.

Letting the banks and mortgage companies fail WOULD punish all of us, and most of the world.....for a decade or more

 

[BriGy86]

I'm mixed, it seems bailing them out was a lesser of 2 evils. if the companies had to get their insurance from private insurance companies rather than the government this mess could have been avoided. some people have also said to just let who ever makes mistakes fail, but companies like Freddy Mac are so intertwined with other companies that as soon as a huge issue like the mortgage crisis happens it all collapses like a deck of cards.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soulcougher73
I voted against just because bailing them out sends the wrong message and only fixes the immediate problems. Sometimes you have to fall in order to get back up. Tough love so to speak. Sure it would affect a lot of people but in the end i think it would be better for the country.

Except, in order to get our "tough love", we'd have to bring down the world. Great job, instead of punishing one kid, punish them all, for the sins of one.

Teach a lesson, prevent it from happening in the future.

I'm sure regulations will be put into place from preventing another housing bubble/mortgage meltdown from occuring in the future. However, by the time these regulations have passed, Wall Street will have already moved on to the next loophole to exploit, and the process will begin all over again. Now that they know they have something of a safety net in the form of bailouts, they might be even more willing to take huge risks.

Even now as banks are failing, I'm sure there are groups of people at the remaining banks and hedge funds looking for the next loophole to exploit.

Several years from now, we could be in the midst of yet another financial crisis, with our nation's politicians once again saying "gee, why didn't we see this earlier?"

More regulations will be passed, but the banks will always be one step ahead of the lawmakers, and will have moved on to the next loophole.

There is no solution - the banks will make quick money by exploiting loopholes and creating asset bubbles, regardless of what the government tries to do.

 

[Modelworks]

I think more people need to read the proposal, it has some seriously scary stuff in it !
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09...f=business&oref=slogin

(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:

(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;

(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;

(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.



Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

 

[Atheus]

Deposits must be protected or everyone will take their money out of the banks and we'll all be fucked.

 

[torpid]

Need an option for for some, against some.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soulcougher73
I voted against just because bailing them out sends the wrong message and only fixes the immediate problems. Sometimes you have to fall in order to get back up. Tough love so to speak. Sure it would affect a lot of people but in the end i think it would be better for the country.

Except, in order to get our "tough love", we'd have to bring down the world. Great job, instead of punishing one kid, punish them all, for the sins of one.

Teach a lesson, prevent it from happening in the future.

and they lesson they are teaching now? its ok to screw over ht epeople and run the company into the ground the govermetn will take care of you (and protect CEO bonuses!)

again, i'll quote:

[It's] like a house on fire that's threatening to spread quickly through the neighborhood, the first priority is to put the fire out - not yell at the arsonist - supporters of the bailout would contend.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soulcougher73
I voted against just because bailing them out sends the wrong message and only fixes the immediate problems. Sometimes you have to fall in order to get back up. Tough love so to speak. Sure it would affect a lot of people but in the end i think it would be better for the country.

Except, in order to get our "tough love", we'd have to bring down the world. Great job, instead of punishing one kid, punish them all, for the sins of one.

Teach a lesson, prevent it from happening in the future.

and they lesson they are teaching now? its ok to screw over ht epeople and run the company into the ground the govermetn will take care of you (and protect CEO bonuses!)

again, i'll quote:

[It's] like a house on fire that's threatening to spread quickly through the neighborhood, the first priority is to put the fire out - not yell at the arsonist - supporters of the bailout would contend.

its a cute saying. but it has nothing to do with the situation. there is no reason they can't do both.