To be or not to be, or in this case to approve or not to approve

Let'em fail...in business if you can't keep up, you die.

Unfortunately if it's a bank it affects a shitload of people...so maybe a bailout is better?

Then again, risk is all part of life.

Choices, choices...

I don't know...I'm not one for all that financial crap.  I just worry about paying for college.

~Zoo

Thanks for leaving me exactly where I was if not worse zoo.

Its going to happen because the businesses involved will soon not be able to meet their payrolls. Personally I think we should be giving them a loan and not sucking up junk securities. If you look at what is happening you'll see what a scam this really is. For example Berkshire Hathaway is fixing to invest big in Goldman Sachs because Buffett knows as soon as they pass off the bad securities he makes a ton of wealth almost overnight. Notice how both candidates mentioned Warren Buffett as someone they recommend to oversee what the treasury wants to do. Hmm.The shit stinks so bad these days they don't even try to hide it anymore.

The only good thing that may come of this is we get a few good laughs if the FBI can finger a few politicians during their investigations of this.

As far as college the government has already dictated how the average Joe will need to do it....If you live thru a few tours in Iraq or Afghanistan and lose a limb so they cant stop loss you, then you just might be able to get a college education.

Actually no, the FDIC?  Remember?  Besides,so far it has not been banks, but brokerage houses (indeed Banks are eating them up).  So the bailout is not about banks.  And the bailout would not be helping "people" but bad businesses (they business is losing their money, not the entrusted client money).

And that is as insulting, condescending and stupid as I have seen.  As the old saying goes, you may be thought a fool, but you dont have to open your mouth and prove the point.

For the record, neither I nor any of my siblings, cousins or children used the military for college money.  We took another route - we worked for it!  I know that is very surprising to a "I want it nooooowwwww" liberal mentality, but it still occurs when people want to be proud of their accomplishments, and not condescend other's life decisions.

Disclaimer:  "worked for it" is not meant to imply the GIs do not, only that there is more than one job in the world.

Come on people, hows about we get some answers here. What do you honestly believe should be done. Me? As bad as the idea of the stock market crasing sounds, I am a bit torn on this issue which is the reason why I am asking. I think we should just let them fail (you do the crime, you do the time) but would not want wall street to crumble like a house of cards either. So I wanna know what others think as well.

As much as I hate the thought of it, I think the bailout is needed. These firms have their tentacles woven into the entire fabric of the economy. Not just investments but jobs are at stake. But I don't feel money should just be thrown at this either. The gov. should take control of the assets (properties and interests) hold them, and then sell (liquidate) them when it can make the difference up. At least the taxpayer (hopefully) will get something for their money in the future. I do not like the creation of increased bureaucracy, but it looks like no other choice here. Also fix the problem to prevent it happening again and no rewards for the trouble makers. Sounds simple, but it isn't I know.

The bailout is one of the worst ideas this administration has ever come up with.  This financial crisis was completely avoidable and the only reason it wasn't avoided was greed.  Why in the hell should the tax payers be on the hook to pay for the poor practices of the greedy?  When the sub-prime meltdown first started about a year or so ago the banks involved should have restructured ALL of the sub-primes loans so that the people could keep their houses and home values wouldn't plumit due to increased foreclosures.  How hard would it have really been to refinance all of the sub-prime loans to be fixed rate and extend the term of the loan out to be 80 or 100 years if necessary.  At least that way the paper isn't just dead weight on the financial institutions.

The bottom line is that these investment firms took risks and now they are paying for them.  If I invest in the market and end up losing everything is the government going to bail me out?  Hell no, I would be expected to deal with the situation that I got myself into.  Yes this is bigger and involves a lot of people who may lose their jobs but the investment firms deserve whatever they get.  The burden should not be shifted onto the American taxpayer plain and simple.

Let's keep in mind that this is something almost everyone believes is necessary while not exactly wanting to. Let's face the reality that everyone has their hands dirty on this one, we can't really say with out a doubt either Republicans or Democrats are fully responsible for this. Greed does not have a party affiliation.

This was a major mistake, and as humans, is not a surprise to be honest. So I think rather than pointing fingers at something that already happened, is impossible to reverse and that this finger pointing will do no good at the moment, we should be focusing on how to fix it (the best possible way), how to avoid this repeating and making sure no one truly benefits from this.

This is a real problem, not some minor situation that should make or break a party. This is everyones fault. plain and simple.

Um, not true.  Take a look at the public outcry, most people out there do NOT think this is necessary.

Who said this was a political issue to start with?  I only said that this was the worst idea the administration has ever come up with because Paulson (a member of the administration) is the one who proposed the 700 Billion Dollar bailout.  Beyond that this problem is non-partisan greed.

There is no way to fix it.  This bailout isn't going to fix anything merely transfer the pain to someone else.  This bailout is going to devalue our dollar and cause massive inflation the likes of which we have never seen before.  And it isn't going to fix the root cause of the problem, those people being foreclosed on are still going to be foreclosed on.  That in turn will continue to drop the home values which will continue to kill everyones credit and we will be right back here in another 6 months to a year.  This bailout will do nothing more than the now famous line "privitize profits while socializing losses".  It is a bad idea all around.

It's not my fault.  It's not the fault of most American tax payers, so why should we be the ones to bear the burden?

This is a mentality that certainly crosses party lines

Not really. Most of the fault lies within wall st. and in certain corporate boardrooms but there are also some politicians who I would say aided and abetted the situation.

Obviously not, it's their money after all. Well, the ones who actually pay taxes anyways. But when I say "almost everyone", I am talking about those who will vote on this. This decision is not an issue that us Americans will have a say in. This will be decided by politicians, regardless how much outcry there is because after all, we appointed them up there to do this for us, otherwise what would be the point of having Senators and Congress men if we could od the job ourselves?

Evereyone every time someone points the finger at who's to blame. This has become a political circus in a way, the way they are playing with other peoples money. This is politics at it's best, nothing but pointing fingers and placing blame. they can't even agree on how to resolve one of the greatest issues ever faced by this nation. Instead, they bicker as usual.

Talk about optimism. I never said the bailout is the solution. I said we should focus on fixing the problem meaning we need to find a solution whether it's bailing them out, lending them the money and make sure they pay it back when all is well or simply letting them rott in their own greed. Either way we have a problem and crying about what is being done while not providing a better solution is wasting time and not resolving anything. Again, they need to try anything and everything they can if they believe this could be a major disaster if nothing is done. hell, even McCain is proposing a different idea, all while Obama is concerned with the debate.

It's everyones fault. Those who bought houses they couldn't afford, those who gave them the loads regardless if they could afford it or not, those who gave insurance for all of this, those who knew this would happen but were more concerned with making as much money as possible before it all collapsed and even the average citizen is responsible for not making it their business to educate themselves and not pushing our reps to do something about it. Besides, it's not like this is coming from everyones pocket. ost taxes come from higher income earners and if it's up to Obama, it will come from 5% of the tax payer population, so in reality only those who actually pay taxes will be the ones having their money used unfairly. But hey, everyone here is now an economic expert right? All of a sudden, everyone has na answer on this site. Why the hell you all here with the naswer and not in DC trying to resolve this?

Hmm, I said everyone and you said most. Aren't these "most" part of my "everyone"? Everyone is to blame here, citizens benefited, lenders benefited, stock holders benefited, insurance companies benefited and even the rest of the world benefited. But as usual, money blinded the ignorant while the smart ones gramed as much as they could before the impending doom arrived and now we have all those who made tons (that include Obama BTW) getting rewarded for their shameful practices.

NO, it falls on the democrats.  WHo blocked attempts at reform at every turn.  Now it has come back to haunt them.  But like all in "Newspeak" they will vilify wall street and the sheeple will bleat their contentment.

I'm trying to be nice here and accept that we all had our hands dirty because of this so we can all come together and resolve this in a bipartisan way. But from what we can see, they are going to continue to point fingers so I guess we just gonna have to throw these dumb moves they did in their faces. That's what we get for being nice DrGuy.

It was actually specific democrats and republicans who do not know the difference between over and under regulation, specific republicans and democrats who were being pressured by lobbyists and either did not know enough about the issue or were more concerned with campaign contributions to be able to make a good decision.

Some saw the problem a long time ago others didn't. Some who helped create the problem tried to fix it along the way and others didn't. Most of them now see the problem....some of them are trying to fix it, some of them are trying to hide their prior ignorance, some are trying to hide their shady involvement, and most are still manipulating the issue to try to get reelected.

I will grant you that as a generic statement, but not one in this specific case.  It was clearly blocked by Frank and Schumer.

Oh really? Show the exact legislation would you please. You might as well add Dodd since much of what he has "advocated" is nonsense also. But be careful if you are referring to Fannie/Freddie. They are not the root cause of the problem, merely a symptom.

YOu really dont even have to google  it.  Brad Gave you the link for free.

http://minx.cc/?post=274177

And no, they are at the root of the problem.  The maginitude of the mismagement (all in the name of good intenctions) is going to cause other institutions - that may have weathered a storm - to sink as well.  As we see.

The Levees in New Orleans stood for decades!  It was not like they were going to fail "anyday" just when Katrina was added on THAT day.  So it is with Financial indtituations.  WHen you count on money, and it disappears, you are going to hurt.  Hopefully you have a rainy day fund for that, but when they are the size of Fannie and Freddie, it is tough to plan for that large a storm.

Wow....pretty good distortion of the facts...or maybe just abusing the timeline and facts to make it look like it was partisan thing. Fannie and Freddie were giving contributions to almost every member of the house and senate. The house bill failed to pass in a Republican controlled congress. The senate bill was first shelved during a Republican controlled Senate.

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/532756-1.html

Here's a decent article that explains how these two bills went back and forth. Two sides unwilling to budge an inch either way.

The Hagel bill which was co sponsored by McCain was a better bill, yet it never even made it to the floor.

Then when you go on to the next round of bills in 2007 its the same shit over and over. Neither party willing to budge an inch.

Get it into your thick skulls.....This is both parties screwing us not just one.

In any case the GSA's did not cause the problem. They were regulated in the amount of sub prime mortgages they could hold. The problems are the subprime mortgages most of which have been made through the investment banking industry. 80% of these mortgages are subprime and are what is wrapped into the mbs's and cds's that are causing the current credit crunch....CDS CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP.   In otherwords the investment banks made mbs derivatives out of subprime loans had the rating agencies put AAA on them and then they packed them into the mutual funds and investments of unwary investors. They were also packaged as CDS Rated AAA and traded on the market into hedge funds and also to Corps like AIG to hedge their main businesses. The investment banks have failed because they can no longer sell them. AIG failed because they cannot sell them to get cash to pay off claims(most likely from the the last two hurricanes) and so on and so forth.

So I hope you checked all your investments because these assholes both Dems and Reps are about to finish off the demolition.

Don't bail out a bank automatically just because it is failing and/or affects lots of people, because that will just mean those banks know in the future they are likely to be bailed out if the same thing happens again.

Instead, the justification for a bail out IMO should be one based on information - that is, that the government (with the information available to it) believes the banks assets are worth a certain amount. If others give in to speculative panic and end up making banks go bankrupt due to no-one wanting to lend to the bank (/deposit money with it) even when the government knows that the bank itself is sound, then there is a case for intervention. For example if you know an asset is worth $100, and it is valued at $80, there is a case for you buying it since long-term you can expect to sell it and realise a profit.

On the face of it though it seems as though the case for the bail out is simply to avoid the short-term pain of banks going under, and hence I'm not strongly in favour of it. However I'm not fundamentally opposed to it either, and can see some reasons for the $700bn bailout to go ahead.

The bailout will simply drive us further into debt, allow these corrupt companies to continue their poor practices, and ignite inflation.  No more privatizing profits and socializing costs, let's take the bump on the head and keep going.

The government should set up a trust fund and use the estimated $700 bill tax debt to get preferred shares and warrants from the financial institutions in exchange for treasuries instead of using the shotgun proposal of the administration. If the financial institutions are forced to keep their lousy derivatives then they will have less of an incentive to simply create and/or buy more further fueling the problem. Preffered share purchases would significantly boost the values of the companies shares from the get-go as well as provide the amount of liquidity that the institutions seek.

I cant believe the crap that is being proposed by the party (B)leaders....All it will do is keep the credit markets going until after the election. Both parties deserve to have the administrations shotgun pointed at their heads. Instead they will all head back to their districts to campaign and proclaim how they just saved the world. Looks like the taxpayer is going to get railroaded once again.

I guess that is your only defense now (and if you are an independent, you sure are sensitive to democrat criticism).  WHen you cannot deny the facts, say they are distorted.  Want to go to the congressional record?  You will lose.

I don't think so I have researched the issue for a long time

I just try to point out some falsehoods, misleading information, and ignorance in what is mostly a blogsite filled with the republican flock.

When Im posting to blogsites that are mainly geared towards the democratic flock I point out some falsehoods, misleading information, and ignorance found within  their flock.