• I'm against in on the surface. I think that the people involved, the lenders should have known better, and the people who got the loans should have known they couldn't afford it. I truly don't see much innocence on either side. However, I'm not sure what would happen to the rest of us if it DIDN'T happen. Either way, it looks like I'm gonna pay for it somehow.
  • In principle I'm against it, but like some wars of national survival (the nearest one to our history being WW II), sometimes we just have to bite the bullet, hit the beaches and -- start paying cash. (Don't say "Charge!", since that's what got us into the current mess -- charging and leveraging.)
  • Yes I am!!!!!!! People try to live above their means, and never plan for anything bad to happen. It is very irresponsible.
  • Happy about it? No. Is it necessary? Yes.
  • It's like cold-turkey withdrawal from a drug addition. A total crap experience that is gonna hurt like hell; but you know you have to do it or the s*it is gonna hit the fan. I hate that my tax dollars are gonna save some Wall Street fat-cat's fat a$$; but I realise that having the entire world economy melt down isn't going to do me any good. The whole greed-caused situation has me pissed-off; and those at fault will probable get off scott-free. And still we need to bailout those suckers, ughhh
  • As I asked in a question is Bush selling the family silver? Once its gone its gone, but patching a leaky roof isn't as good as replacing it.
  • The people who bought houses they couldn't afford lost them. Bad choice, consequence. The people who lent money to people they knew couldn't repay it get bailed out. Bad choice, no consequence. The people who had nothing to do with it, pay the bill. No choice, big consequence. I don't know enough to know whether the world economy will melt down if we don't do it, and I'm not willing to find out. We're between a rock and a hard place. I think the only ones for it, are the ones who are going to get their bacon saved.
  • against. i dont believe in government bailouts for situations like these. i dont want to finance other peoples bad business decisions and risky investments. i think we should have waited to see how the markets would have panned out. three major problems with this plan are: 1. that it might not do much good because no one has any idea how much bad debt there is out there. and as the economy slows, bad debts will continue to increase. the problem isnt as much of a liquidity or solvency issue as a breakdown of trust. 2. this is history repeating itself with the savings & loans fiasco from the 80s. this mother of all bailouts will put us taxpayers at far greater risk than we are even today without the bailout. and it screams socialized capitalism! it sets a terrible precedent. 3. this is a stopgap measure. this one month solution will saddle us with a decade or more of debt. its a finger in the dike. i think its time to let the big boys sink and let the chips fall where they may. hey ~ warren buffet just invested $5 billion in goldman sachs. not everyones going down the toilet. lets focus on the winners, not the losers. lets take care of the little guys, the workers who are losing their jobs and their savings, not the banks whove been sunk led by bad businessmen.
  • I think we should let them starve, that'll show em..fat cat greedy money grubbing capitalist! Let the economy crash and burn. The government shouldn't be in the business buying bad dept. Why is this "our" problem?
  • Against giving it to the corporations. It should be given to the people who were swindled or talked into investing or signing for a mortgage they are now unable to pay, or at least used to pay off their debts, instead of just handing it over to the corporations so the people up in the huge spiffy offices can buy another Bentley to ride off into the sunset in with their big separation packages.
  • We have to do something....or should I say they?....we are going in to a horrible time in America....Greed is a sin and we are going to hell fast!!!
  • Very much against. The People are going to suffer for this either way, but how does rewarding the bankers and their bad decisions every few decades stop them from doing it yet again???
  • I'm against it. We probably need it to keep any kind of stability, but I'd rather let them fall on their faces at this point. It's only prolonging the inevitable IMO. The money I give to the government should benefit me, not millionaires.
  • It's ridiculous and shouldn't have come to this, but it's a direct cause of deregulation. Maybe one day people will realize that regulation actually works, because left to their own devices companies will do stupid things. The bailout is, unfortunately, necessary.
  • Oops :-)
  • its necessary
  • Wy against it. ARe you really that strong as in the photo?
  • I'm against it and this is why: I've been speculating all week that the pressure being used on the Congress to pass the Paulson Plan is the threat of Fed illiquidity. As of two weeks ago, the Fed had lent out more than $600 billion of its $800 billion balance sheet Treasuries against crap MBS collateral. The Paulson Plan would have allowed the banks to unwind the repos putting the Treasuries back in the Fed, get cash for the crap MBS, and get more Treasuries from the issues financing the $700 billion funding of the Plan. As a bonus, the Paulson mark-to-maturity price becomes the implicit Level 3 price for capitalisation of all the firms and banks in the system, giving them some breathing room to stay in business. Everyone wins except the poor American taxpayer. The Fed is very close to being illiquid. That is the fear factor we are seeing at work, and the reason no one will discuss why the bailout is needed - only emphasise the urgency This moment in time is our country's best shot at ridding ourselves of the Fed...simply by not doing anything other than planning for a return to constitutional government, real money backed by gold and silver....the elimination of fractional reserve banking......we have the oportunity to take back our government from the criminals. We are entering a depression, possibly a total collapse....regardless of any actions taken to counter the natural economic forces in allowing the Fed's demise there will be huge benefits for our children and country once the recovery begins. I have waited a long time for the coming of this moment. Hang 'em high
  • For. It really isn't about protecting the banks and executives it's about the next step in the economic meltdown. Most businesses rely on lines of credit to assist in meeting short term obligations like PAYROLL. We are already seeing a lot of banks tightening down on this. If a company can't borrow they stop paying there vendors there vendors then can't make there payroll. This leads to job losses and more people who can't pay there mortgages because the income they counted on to make the payment is now gone. Basically you will become the "Irresponsible" person that many seem to want to blame. If more banks fail it is true that the average Joe will have his account protected by FED but how long can the average Joe wait to recover these balances. The FED is not going to set up a withdraw location on every street corner those affected will have to submitt claims and hope for an expediant resolution, which is highly unlikely. Basically the bailout is not about giving money to these banks. It amounts to purchasing assets from the banks that have become highly unstable. It is risky but could also be extremly lucrative. We could loose the $700B, we could in a few years regain that money or as one economist suggested if the bailout is as successful as hoped the taxpayers could stand to gain $2.2 Trillion over ten years. The real issue is not who your bailing out but making sure that the package includes the appropriate oversight. It has been proved over and over that banks can not self regulate.
  • Firmly against. This mess just goes to show where liberal policies lead. See: Community Reinvestment Act
  • This question has been asked many different ways.
  • So if 80% of American taxpayers are against it and only 60% of American workers pay federal taxes, then only 48% of the American people are against the bailout. I think you meant to say that 80% of Americans are against the bailout. I am NOT one of those people.
  • since it passed today, we really don't have a say so in it anymore but I think it's a waste of money that could be used for something else.
  • Yep. All the private corps. (WaMu, Lehmans, etc.)seem to be finding homes under more successful private entities. They will survive. We are only bailing out government programs(Fannie & Freddie). I'm sick of government programs. Also, remember the S&L scandal? They asked for an $80 billion bailout. Before they were through, they'd squeezed around $500 billion out of taxpayers. God only knows how much this one will cost us in the long run....
  • Against!!!! Dave Ramsey has said it best: The Common Sense Fix Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. As a tax-paying American citizen, I will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. Instead, I submit the following threestep Common Sense Plan. I. INSURANCE a. Insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying FHA-type insurance. Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity. b. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things: 1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage. a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes. b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. In the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives. 2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING and FUTURE CEOs and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. This keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs. c. This backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal. II. MARK TO MARKET a. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime Tier III bonds/mortgages. This keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate. b. This move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing. III. CAPITAL GAINS TAX a. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing. b. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. This will enable all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down. This is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. It’s time for all of us, as Americans, to stand up, speak out, and fix this mess.
  • Warren Buffet said it's needed. And, he said things will be a little tough for a while but then things will be better than they were before. He said the basic formula America has is solid and that it's just a crisis. He also said if the bailout hadn't have gone through, it would have likely been a real disaster. I'm not an economics genius or anything but everything he said made sense to me. And, it's Warren Buffet after all....

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy