For or against the "bailout" and why

Do you support the bailout?

  • Yes, it needs to be done

    Votes: 6 26.1%
  • Yes, but serious changes need to happen first

    Votes: 7 30.4%
  • No way in hell

    Votes: 9 39.1%
  • undecided or no opinion

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • Total voters
    23
It appears that the plan is that there will eventually be profit in this, and this is earmarked for the people. On the other hand, any eventual losses must be made up by the banking system. Also, there must be no benefit to those looking for big bonuses and large pension pay -offs.

That seems to be the main direction; that one way or another, the people should not lose.

This has earned Obama's positive recommendation, as a necessary evil, and McCain goes with that too.
 
700 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of bad and undersecured loans out there. Banks were making low interest mortgage loans for years to satisfy the Government's pork barrel projects that would put any and everyone in a home, even if they couldn't afford it. When the interest coming back to them was lower than prime, they found themselves with insufficient funds to pay stockholders and the Feds. Walk aways started growing, they had reposessed homes but couldn't resell them in a bloated building boom. Banks don't need homes, they need the principle and interest income from them. I'm against it.

What's your alternative? The lending between banks has virtually frozen over. The housing market still hasn't bottomed out.

The US taxpayer may very likely make a profit out of this in the long term.


You may not have been present at the meeting about using all caps in your posts so I'll cut you some slack. I will warn you now so you won't be surprised next time when you receive an infraction for same in the future. Consider this your last heads-up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am less keen on punishing homeowners even though they borrowed more than they should have, here's why:

When you go to a financial institution or a bank and ask for a loan you should be given an honest answer of how much you can REASONABLY borrow. You shouldn't be told you can borrow more than they can really pay and use people's ignorance as a tool for the banks take risky gambles on the housing market. If we all had in-depth knowledge of finance we wouldn't need to go to a bank for advice would we?

Its similar to a doctor that pushes expensive surgery on patients without informing them of all the risks. Doctor and Lawyers who abuse their clients get the licenses taken away, why should it be any different with financiers? They too are playing with people lives.

Banks make money on mortgage portfolios whose value is based on the NUMBER of mortgages held by the bank. The more loans the banks hold the more money the make, and it doesnt matter how risky the loans are as long as the market continues to climb. Therefore, the banks had every incentive to cheat as much as they could. Of course if the housing market goes down and collapses then you get the situation we are now in.

That's why its Governments job to make sure to regulate the banks to make sure they don't get too greedy. And this is where the biggest failure was. The lack of Federal Government Oversight. The banks wouldn't have taken the risks they did if they felt they wouldnt get away with it. There is a specific section of the Treasury that regulates banks, and I am positive they were told to lay off certain banks that had certain political ties.

I do favor a bailout, but the taxpayer shouldn't just get ripped off for other peoples greed. I think its only fair that the government hold shares in the companies that get taxpayer help and that it has oversight in both who gets a share of the $700 billion, and how the companies can spent. Using it to pay executive bonuses for example should not be allowed.

I am deeply suspicious of the Bush Administrations "$700 Bailout with no strings attached". And they more they argue it the more suspicious I am.
 
Last edited:
Well there should not be any strings attached.........................................



There should be Mooring Ropes and braided steel cables attached that ensure goverment oversight.

Strings are too easy to cut. IMHO.
 
This isn't a perfect solution, neither way is a good way initially. Unfortunately, I think this is going to be a trial and error to fix it successfully.
 
The big question is, have they left it too late? A positive vote on Monday or Tuesday may have generated sufficient confidence into the market. Dithering until today, Friday, and perhaps not taking the vote even then, may have done untold damage already. Damage to the people of America.

We will soon know, let us hope recovery is possible still.
 
No matter what bill is passed, I believe it's going to be some trial and error, and that going back and forth to fix it time could be painful until something gets going that eventually shows signs of working successfully.
 
If it ain't done, it's the end of America as the world's most powerful country. At least, the absolute beginning of it. Also it means your way of life is going to be very, very different.
 
Well the bill is passed. You wouldn't think so the way the Dow reacted but then as they say, buy on the rumour sell on the story!
 
If it ain't done, it's the end of America as the world's most powerful country. At least, the absolute beginning of it. Also it means your way of life is going to be very, very different.

So the pork added about tax cuts for wooden toy arrows, race tracks, and rum makers were need? Also no over sight on this what so ever.
 
There isn't going to be oversight. The guys involved in the mess are the guys who are with the "inner party" if you will. They don't go to jail for sh*t.
If there was no bailout, the only loser would be the regular American like yourself. Those guys will be off to Tahiti partying 24/7 until they get bored of playing and decide to go back to work.
 
Back
Top