Reader comments
Hope reviving for a bailout
50 comments | Read story
Which Party? | 2:49 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Which party wants to take credit for a 700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street
that might not even work at all? Know one on either side of the ailse really has
a clue.
NO NO NO NO | 3:20 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
It looks like Senator Hatch does not understand and is ready to bail out his
rich buddies on Wall Street. This is not about finding the arsonist, it is about
not selling out our kids, their kids, and the Constitution. We are not a state
run society where government controls business and citizens have no rights. As
the lack of a bailout has drawn on, Wall Street is actually coming up with some
ideas that does not include the government. The governments role should be
minimal. Maybe fire Cox for falling asleep at the wheel. The bail out will not
help Main Street. Not at all, if we think this money will trickle down we need
to have our heads examined. The market is reactionary and thinks it is the only
game in town. Well it really isn't. If it is not a safe place to invest and
grow money, guess what, money will go somewhere else.
Please call your Representatives and tell them NO. It is time for the Robber Barrons of this century to stop running this country into the ground!
Please call your Representatives and tell them NO. It is time for the Robber Barrons of this century to stop running this country into the ground!
Comments continue below
Bennett doesn't get it | 3:43 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
NO, NO, NO on the bailout of the financial markets with taxpayer money.
Do not sell out my children's future to prevent pain today. That is not the American way and the taxpayers will remember when the markets and economy struggle with or without the bailout. You and I both know that this will not benefit Main Street, the new buzz word for the taxpayer. The money will go to benefit the wealthy and will not trickle down nor help people looking for credit, jobs or security.
Please DO NOT loan taxpayer dollars and put the country further in debt chasing a quick fix to a correction that is long overdue. Sure the markets reacted and dropped, bounced back and will surely drop again, that is what markets do... react. What will you do if this bill passes and the markets continue to drop? Throw more taxpayer dollars at the problem? No thank you.
If anything is to be done I suggest looking at increasing the FDIC insurance levels to slow down the runs on the banks.
Please vote NO!
Do not sell out my children's future to prevent pain today. That is not the American way and the taxpayers will remember when the markets and economy struggle with or without the bailout. You and I both know that this will not benefit Main Street, the new buzz word for the taxpayer. The money will go to benefit the wealthy and will not trickle down nor help people looking for credit, jobs or security.
Please DO NOT loan taxpayer dollars and put the country further in debt chasing a quick fix to a correction that is long overdue. Sure the markets reacted and dropped, bounced back and will surely drop again, that is what markets do... react. What will you do if this bill passes and the markets continue to drop? Throw more taxpayer dollars at the problem? No thank you.
If anything is to be done I suggest looking at increasing the FDIC insurance levels to slow down the runs on the banks.
Please vote NO!
Go On Vacation Already | 3:51 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
It is time for the lawmakers to go on vacation isn't it? I am tired of the
political grandstanding in this election year. Go on vacation and let the market
figure itself out. The bill is just getting filled with more and more
"pork". You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. Let the
pig roll around in the mud until after the elections and if it has not figured
out a solution, let it roll around some more without taxpayer dollars. The
dollar is worthless as it is but that doesn't mean, go ahead and decrease
it's value even more by increasing the national debt another Trillion
dollars.
kcrich | 4:22 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
There are what, 300 million people in this country approximately? Instead of
giving 700 billion to the financial institutions give every single American
citizen 1 million dollars with the stipulation that anyone with any financial
debt (home,credit card,etc.) has to use the money to pay it off. That would
total 300 billion dollars, saving 400 billion, getting American citizens out of
debt and well off and lesson the hit that the financial institutions take (as
for their larger business and corporate investments gone bad they'll just
have to take their losses and deal with it).
Call your senator and congressman and throw this idea at them.
Have a nice day.
Call your senator and congressman and throw this idea at them.
Have a nice day.
awsomeron | 4:25 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Bull! The Tax Payers (Voters) Wept at the thought of a Bail Out and the overt
step towards Socialism. We are leaving our children in Debt that is beyond
comprehension. This is taking from the Poor and giving to the rich. Next we will
be told that it was really what we wanted to do, however we did not know it at
the time because we are Main Street and we just do not understand. In other
words we are just poor average people with out, our foot in the Stock Market and
we need to be guided and directed by our more knowledgeable brothers and sisters
on Wall Street, because they know so much, which is why we need to bail them
out.
I weep at the thought of what I am leaving my children to deal with in Americas Future. The Government needs to stay out of Private Business and let private business take care of its self. "we are one the verge of "Businessfare" which is kind of like welfare only far more expensive."
I do not want to pay for this, and I do not want my kids paying for it either.
I weep at the thought of what I am leaving my children to deal with in Americas Future. The Government needs to stay out of Private Business and let private business take care of its self. "we are one the verge of "Businessfare" which is kind of like welfare only far more expensive."
I do not want to pay for this, and I do not want my kids paying for it either.
Anonymous | 4:25 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Never mind. Bad math.
Bob G | 4:44 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
The first vote was correct and still is the best means of economic stability.
All this bailout and still no regulator laws and controls to end the nightmare
that our financial industry has forced on the nation. In just a couple of days
the markets and Wall Street are adjusting and bringing reality back into our
economy. Saving the banks does not mean it will save the economy and consumers.
We don't want credit, we want a decent income and job benefits and to keep
government out of our lives. Hopefully our legislators will continue their
actions not to support any more bailouts to save an economic sturcture of
unregulated financial and market greed. Raising taxes or tax credtis will not
help either, it will only deepen the effects of bad economic growth. A growth
based on debts is a no growth economy. They need to save americans and save
their jobs from all the illegal foreign nationals wandering out country causing
mass destruction of our economy. No more bailouts, regardless of what companies
go under. With free enterprise some one will replace them with perhaps better
ideas. Stand by the NO vote and use common sense in your decisions.
brejol | 5:17 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
What evidence that voters regretted it? Kill it. A much better treatment would
be an elimination of capital gains tax, cutting the corporate tax in half, and
elimination of the mark to market accounting method. The bailout is just
another looting of the American taxpayer by the politicians, to go along with
the prescription drug benefit, the farm bill, the s-chip thing, ethanol
subsidies, stimulus package, and just about anything else they spend money on.
Its a media and politically fabricated crisis.
Science Teacher | 5:29 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
In a nutshell:
Nyah, nyah, nyah. We didn't hear the tens of thousands of calls and emails.
We're going to bail out the Wall St. fools anyway!
ALL incumbents have lost my vote. If you aren't part of the problem, you are still part of NO solution.
Oh... and where's my bailout check? You know, the one I get for NOT living on credit and for paying my bills on time.
This ant would like to off the grasshopper.
Nyah, nyah, nyah. We didn't hear the tens of thousands of calls and emails.
We're going to bail out the Wall St. fools anyway!
ALL incumbents have lost my vote. If you aren't part of the problem, you are still part of NO solution.
Oh... and where's my bailout check? You know, the one I get for NOT living on credit and for paying my bills on time.
This ant would like to off the grasshopper.
Anonymous | 5:53 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
I am outraged by this plan and I think all middle class americans should ban
together in revolt by not paying our federal taxes.
No Bailout | 5:57 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Ill-conceived federal policies caused the current crisis. The federal government
chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; the nub of the problem.
The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on
their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.
Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Democrats in Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry obliged, because it assumed federal backing, and subprime lending soared.
This sub-prime lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.
Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.
The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.
Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Democrats in Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry obliged, because it assumed federal backing, and subprime lending soared.
This sub-prime lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.
Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.
The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.
Andrew Teasdale | 6:00 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Oh please, who writes this stuff? Did the article come directly from Bush's
office?
The letters from the people are overwhelmingly against this - even after the 700 pt. drop (something like 95%). How in the world did the writers get the idea that public sentiment has swung in support of this massive transfer of wealth.
Yep - I'm going to take a hit. My in-laws are getting creamed. However, it beats the alternative.
The same fools (either that, or they're dishonest) that were telling us just weeks ago that we'd pull through are the same ones telling us to cough up trillions (have no doubt - $700b is just the first installment). I didn't trust them then. I don't trust them now.
The letters from the people are overwhelmingly against this - even after the 700 pt. drop (something like 95%). How in the world did the writers get the idea that public sentiment has swung in support of this massive transfer of wealth.
Yep - I'm going to take a hit. My in-laws are getting creamed. However, it beats the alternative.
The same fools (either that, or they're dishonest) that were telling us just weeks ago that we'd pull through are the same ones telling us to cough up trillions (have no doubt - $700b is just the first installment). I didn't trust them then. I don't trust them now.
Nan B W | 6:30 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Our retirement is seriously impacted by this mess, but a bailout still does not
seem correct in principle. Why should the government take responsibility for
irresponsibility?
Fed up | 6:41 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
And the exact details of the bill are??????
A bad bill is worse than no bill.
NO MONEY FOR ACORN OR SIMILAR GROUPS CAN BE ACCEPTED!
NO PORK!
NO GIVE AWAYS, just loans!
If Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer like it, we are getting shafted AGAIN.
Let the free markets work and keep meddling politicians out of it.
A bad bill is worse than no bill.
NO MONEY FOR ACORN OR SIMILAR GROUPS CAN BE ACCEPTED!
NO PORK!
NO GIVE AWAYS, just loans!
If Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer like it, we are getting shafted AGAIN.
Let the free markets work and keep meddling politicians out of it.
wayne | 7:01 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
why has is bob benit and others not considering geting rid of market at market
and go back to market a time of sale? many have suggested that this accounting
change forced on lenders by government is a the root of the problem of
liquidity. getting rid of market at market and returning to market at sale may
be all the fix we need.
I would like someone who supports the bailout to explain why this is not part of the solution package being talked about in washington. why a bail out and not a work out like has been done before. why not simply change the accounting rules and save my great grand childrens from this tax burden.
I would like someone who supports the bailout to explain why this is not part of the solution package being talked about in washington. why a bail out and not a work out like has been done before. why not simply change the accounting rules and save my great grand childrens from this tax burden.
The State is a protection racket | 7:02 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
"Give us $700 billion or Main Street will start to hurt."
I agree with economist Jeffrey Miron ... let the failed firms file bankruptcy and punish those who took excessive risk."
I agree with economist Jeffrey Miron ... let the failed firms file bankruptcy and punish those who took excessive risk."
Investor | 7:20 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
All of you nasayers must not have one dime invested in the stock market.
Kevin | 7:42 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Because the markets are expecting the government to take on these high-risk
securities, market participants are taking a wait-and-see position. This may
be exacerbating the lack of liquidity in the credit market. People will make a
buck on the bailout, so they're holding onto their money until it comes.
THE U.S. TREASURY IS NOT A HEDGE FUND! I hear all this talk about the "investment" taxpayers are going to be forced into, and all the fear-mongering of what will otherwise happen. It is risk, high-risk. If the U.S. can buy these high-risk securities of voodoo valuation for 60 cents or even 20 cents on the dollar, then let the free market buy them.
THE U.S. TREASURY IS NOT A HEDGE FUND! I hear all this talk about the "investment" taxpayers are going to be forced into, and all the fear-mongering of what will otherwise happen. It is risk, high-risk. If the U.S. can buy these high-risk securities of voodoo valuation for 60 cents or even 20 cents on the dollar, then let the free market buy them.
cb | 7:43 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
So to get the bill passed they load it up with extras. The bill is even worse
than the first one.
Dutch | 7:54 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
I am close to the same opionion as others here on the board. However I am very
concerned about the credit situiation - If nothing is done the wheels of
business are seriously impacted. No company will have money to invest in
captial imporovments thus no construction or machine purchases - this is not
about your personal Visa card this is about the blood supply to business in the
form of short term loans to generate opportunity. Yes serious mistakes have
been made and now it is time to pay, but the credit pipe line has to be opened
up - The more and more I read and study this - this situiation goes way beyond
give aways etc
Craig | 7:58 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Dear Bob Bennett:
Your extortionist scare tactics won't work on us. We are aware of your desire to control everything in sight. We are not happy with the irresponsible way the federal government has been run for the past decades that has left us with more debt than we can possibly imagine. You are not the hero. You are the goat. Retire now or face the same fate as Chris Cannon earlier this year.
Your extortionist scare tactics won't work on us. We are aware of your desire to control everything in sight. We are not happy with the irresponsible way the federal government has been run for the past decades that has left us with more debt than we can possibly imagine. You are not the hero. You are the goat. Retire now or face the same fate as Chris Cannon earlier this year.
Re Investor | 8:04 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
On the contrary. I have a 401(k) & and IRA. But this isn't about my
retirement. This is about doing the right thing for our country's future,
not for my personal gain.
My children did not make this mistake. Why should they pay for it? Why should a CEO get a golden parachute for making bad choices? Why should we set an evil precedent in the market that as long as you are big on Wall St, you can do what you want? Even if it's wrong, because the government will step in and clean up the mess? These are not good ideas.
The short-term loss is better than the long-term mess we create by doing this. Get over your investments. This is about doing the right thing for our children.
My children did not make this mistake. Why should they pay for it? Why should a CEO get a golden parachute for making bad choices? Why should we set an evil precedent in the market that as long as you are big on Wall St, you can do what you want? Even if it's wrong, because the government will step in and clean up the mess? These are not good ideas.
The short-term loss is better than the long-term mess we create by doing this. Get over your investments. This is about doing the right thing for our children.
Economist | 8:02 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
I'll say it - most of the people commenting here have no idea how deeply
our economy is dependent upon a robust financial system, or really how that
system functions. When good, solid, solvent businesses have a hard time growing
because their line of credit has diminished, perhaps the cumulative effect
thereof will begin to sink in.
When most other nationss around the world are begging the US Congress to take action, it's an indication that there is a serious problem that requires (unfortunately) a very large action.
One positive(?) thing from all this will be a move away from America as the financial center of the world economy. It's unreasonable to expect Joe & Jan six-pack to have to understand & offer wise direction on the world economy. Leave that to the PhDs in Finance & Economics in Shanghai (that we educated!)
To the poster who said we should get the best experts together to figure out what to do, Bernanke is one of the foremost experts on the Great Depression. (But what does he know, really?)
When most other nationss around the world are begging the US Congress to take action, it's an indication that there is a serious problem that requires (unfortunately) a very large action.
One positive(?) thing from all this will be a move away from America as the financial center of the world economy. It's unreasonable to expect Joe & Jan six-pack to have to understand & offer wise direction on the world economy. Leave that to the PhDs in Finance & Economics in Shanghai (that we educated!)
To the poster who said we should get the best experts together to figure out what to do, Bernanke is one of the foremost experts on the Great Depression. (But what does he know, really?)
Do the right thing | 8:11 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Bennett and Hatch will be violating core values and their constituency by voting
yes. They have to vote yes to avoid government seizure of the banks. However,
after the vote they can each resign in disgrace.
Re: Investor | 8:20 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Nearly EVERYONE has investments of some kind.
But investments are inherently RISKY. If you can stand the risk invests in T Bills. If you're in the stock market and getting creamed, well, that is how the market corrects.
I HATE seeing what is happening to my investments. But You think it will be BETTER than the long term damage from re-monetizing?
All the bailout does is soften the blow for the fat cats. We are still going to feel this. Hard.
But investments are inherently RISKY. If you can stand the risk invests in T Bills. If you're in the stock market and getting creamed, well, that is how the market corrects.
I HATE seeing what is happening to my investments. But You think it will be BETTER than the long term damage from re-monetizing?
All the bailout does is soften the blow for the fat cats. We are still going to feel this. Hard.
Kevin | 8:35 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
@Economist | 8:02 a.m.
Maybe people on here have no idea. Maybe they do. Economics is not deterministic like, say, Newtonian physics (which isn't determinist either, if you get down to it).
Many don't believe credit will go to zero. They have good reason not to believe it will. I think a lot of them are aware people will lose wealth, jobs will be lost, and that the economy may enter a depression.
They're willing to accept that to prevent this extraordinary government intervention. I'm standing with them.
In all of the brouhaha, I haven't heard an explanation of the incredible risk the government is about the burden the taxpayers with.
As for all the Ph.Ds moving from the U.S., fine. Europe and Japan are in just as bad shape. Did the Ph.Ds at Lehman, Bear, Fannie, Freddie, Wachovia, AIG, Wamu, and the over 280 mortgage lenders that have failed since 2006 "understand and offer wise direction on the world economy?"
Maybe people on here have no idea. Maybe they do. Economics is not deterministic like, say, Newtonian physics (which isn't determinist either, if you get down to it).
Many don't believe credit will go to zero. They have good reason not to believe it will. I think a lot of them are aware people will lose wealth, jobs will be lost, and that the economy may enter a depression.
They're willing to accept that to prevent this extraordinary government intervention. I'm standing with them.
In all of the brouhaha, I haven't heard an explanation of the incredible risk the government is about the burden the taxpayers with.
As for all the Ph.Ds moving from the U.S., fine. Europe and Japan are in just as bad shape. Did the Ph.Ds at Lehman, Bear, Fannie, Freddie, Wachovia, AIG, Wamu, and the over 280 mortgage lenders that have failed since 2006 "understand and offer wise direction on the world economy?"
Re Economist | 8:36 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
I understand something has to be done. But honestly. Bernake is the genius to
do it? If he's so smart, why didn't he see this coming years ago.
For too long he allowed interest rates to be low, thus devaluing the dollar and
making bad credit decisions all too easy. Having been a CPA in CA during the
2000-2007 timeframe, I knew it was a dangerous bubble. How can a home sell for
$700K that is 50 years old and 1500 sq feet when the median salary there is 80K?
It just doesn't make sense.
Since Bernake wants this bailout, I am inherently wary of it. Either he's a pretty stupid fellow for not seeing what was coming, or he's a fraud because he knew it was coming and didn't take steps to rememdy the problem. He could have raised interest rates and restricted loans to central banks to cool off the bubble, yet he didn't.
And don't think only economists can talk the talk. I can hold my own. I'm very concerned that this sets a very dangerous precedent to Wall Street that risky, failed investments will be rewarded.
Since Bernake wants this bailout, I am inherently wary of it. Either he's a pretty stupid fellow for not seeing what was coming, or he's a fraud because he knew it was coming and didn't take steps to rememdy the problem. He could have raised interest rates and restricted loans to central banks to cool off the bubble, yet he didn't.
And don't think only economists can talk the talk. I can hold my own. I'm very concerned that this sets a very dangerous precedent to Wall Street that risky, failed investments will be rewarded.
Ignorant about Economics | 8:36 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
My husband and I are near retirement and are unhappy about the hit our
retirement funds have taken. We have prepared and saved in order to be able to
take care of ourselves in our old age. the Government does not take care of the
elderly. Will the country's children take care of all the elderly? I
think not. Will the children and grandchildren have a future without a bailout?
There's always a future, but they don't realize how HARD it will be
for them if the economic system fails.
The bailout is to do that, NOT TO PAY THOSE WHO HAVE MISUSED THE SYSTEM. Secure the system, then reinforce safeguards and punishments for those who abused the system. Without a stable economic system, we're going to see problems that you cannot imagine.
My husband and I will be OK no matter what because we live conservatively and have prepared as best we can. But our children and grandchildren? If things don't change in our country they will find the American dream a nightmare.
By the way, we are not selfish. We've helped all of them out financially.
The bailout is to do that, NOT TO PAY THOSE WHO HAVE MISUSED THE SYSTEM. Secure the system, then reinforce safeguards and punishments for those who abused the system. Without a stable economic system, we're going to see problems that you cannot imagine.
My husband and I will be OK no matter what because we live conservatively and have prepared as best we can. But our children and grandchildren? If things don't change in our country they will find the American dream a nightmare.
By the way, we are not selfish. We've helped all of them out financially.
Macroeconomics vs dumb pride | 8:41 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
I am beginning to suspect that the public schools have purposefully
under-educated people in economics, macroeconomics in particular. Some of the
statements on this board are simply staggering for being so totally wrong.
For example, if $700 billion were distributed equally among the American population, that would be $2500/person. Is $2500 going to save your job, savings, retirement or mortgage? No.
Wall Street versus Main Street is a false dichotomy. Your home mortgage, your car loan, your student loans, your credit cards, your company's line of credit, your savings for college, your 401k for retirement, your 403b, your IRA, the Church endowment..., every aspect of the American economy is dependent on a healthy credit market.
It is true that the brokers and dealers who devised these Credit Default Swaps, mortgage-backed securities and wobbly Structured Investment Vehicles must be made to lose every cents of their equity in return for a bailout. But it is SUICIDAL MADNESS for working people to oppose an emergency liquidity package because this crisis will hurt you much more than it hurts Wall Street or rich folks like the Marriotts (who are lobbying for it.)
Wake up already.
For example, if $700 billion were distributed equally among the American population, that would be $2500/person. Is $2500 going to save your job, savings, retirement or mortgage? No.
Wall Street versus Main Street is a false dichotomy. Your home mortgage, your car loan, your student loans, your credit cards, your company's line of credit, your savings for college, your 401k for retirement, your 403b, your IRA, the Church endowment..., every aspect of the American economy is dependent on a healthy credit market.
It is true that the brokers and dealers who devised these Credit Default Swaps, mortgage-backed securities and wobbly Structured Investment Vehicles must be made to lose every cents of their equity in return for a bailout. But it is SUICIDAL MADNESS for working people to oppose an emergency liquidity package because this crisis will hurt you much more than it hurts Wall Street or rich folks like the Marriotts (who are lobbying for it.)
Wake up already.
confused American | 8:44 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Can someone who has the interest of the American people at heart and a brilliant
financial mind please come forward with the truth? I'm very confused as to
what is the answer for our country's economic downturn. But, I do have
comfort in the fact that we don't have a dictatorship where one man makes
the decision. At least America still has the checks and balance system of
discussion before major decisions are made. Where's the brillant minded
financial person with integrity? And what does that person say about the action
we should take with our economic crisis? It's getting harder to discern
who's right and who's wrong these days.
What stupidity is here today | 8:47 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Did not anyone read Senator Bennett talk about a car dealer being unable to make
his payroll due to inadequate money? The bank won't won't lend to
him. Even short term. The people getting hurt there are not the wall street
CEO's. It's your children and family. We are going to see more of the
same as time goes on. The company I work for is now comtemplating nationwide
layoffs of 16,000. No problem. I don't think it'll get me just yet.
I would be more than happy to see the whole financial system fall like a house
of cards IF and I say IF the only ones hurt would be the high flying financiers
who created the mess. But alas it will not be that way. The ones hurt will be
you, your relatives, friends and neighbors. Someone needs to save yourselves
from yourselves. The top financial minds in the country are trying to do that.
Why can't you see that?
Frustrated with politics as usua | 8:55 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
The article states that there will be a vote in the senate today, which is
evidence that voters and the House regretted their decision on Mon. No, I think
what it means is that the folks that have crafted this won't take no for an
answer and aren't listening to the people that elected them.
Terminal | 8:55 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
My spouse has terminal lung cancer. She smoked her whole life. I told her
multiple times she should quit or she will die. She didn't listen to me and
enjoyed the addiction of nicotine. I love her very much and could pay a lot in
cancer treatment for a chance (so the doctors tell me) of her survival. But I
tell myself "she made the decision not to stop, why should I pay all this
money to maybe help her, she should suffer the consequences".
SOUND FAMILIAR???
Ideology doesn't fly in the face of economic Armageddon. You do what it takes to get it back on track and hope for the best. How blind to take a hard line and say it doesn't matter what happens as long as we keep Gov out of out lives. Go back into your bunker.
SOUND FAMILIAR???
Ideology doesn't fly in the face of economic Armageddon. You do what it takes to get it back on track and hope for the best. How blind to take a hard line and say it doesn't matter what happens as long as we keep Gov out of out lives. Go back into your bunker.
Confused American - 8:44 | 9:00 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
"Where is the brilliant minded financial person with integrity"?
Warren Buffet has come out in favor of the plan. He said and I quote "heaven help us all if this does not pass". There is not another financial expert with more integrity anywhere in the universe. Warren Buffet has already pledged the majority of his billions to charity. Enough said.
Warren Buffet has come out in favor of the plan. He said and I quote "heaven help us all if this does not pass". There is not another financial expert with more integrity anywhere in the universe. Warren Buffet has already pledged the majority of his billions to charity. Enough said.
Anonymous | 9:11 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Before posting idiotic comments, people probably ought to educate themselves on
the facts and why the question of a bailout is even being discussed. In
principle, the bailout stinks and ridiculous that it's even being
discussed; however, the alternative could be a lot worse.
Many people say we're burdening our children with this debt, but if no bailout is passed then there is high potential that the entire banking industry will fail. If that happens, look to the 1930's to see what awaits us. Perhaps the situation won't be as dire as the Great Depression, but the situation will be very, very bad.
In theory, the bailout is essentially taking assets off of the banks books, hope for an economic rebound and the value of those assets increasing, then selling them to recoup the money spent to purchase them. On paper it looks good, but it's difficult to know if these assets will increase.
Some say that if there was value in these assets, and money to be made, why don't others take them. The answer is simple enough - credit freeze. Most do not have this type of cash sitting around, and no bank will lend it.
Many people say we're burdening our children with this debt, but if no bailout is passed then there is high potential that the entire banking industry will fail. If that happens, look to the 1930's to see what awaits us. Perhaps the situation won't be as dire as the Great Depression, but the situation will be very, very bad.
In theory, the bailout is essentially taking assets off of the banks books, hope for an economic rebound and the value of those assets increasing, then selling them to recoup the money spent to purchase them. On paper it looks good, but it's difficult to know if these assets will increase.
Some say that if there was value in these assets, and money to be made, why don't others take them. The answer is simple enough - credit freeze. Most do not have this type of cash sitting around, and no bank will lend it.
map the "No" votes | 9:13 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
The New York Times published a map showing who voted against the package and
what geographic district they represent. It is fascinating. The districts that
are most dependent on credit voted against, while the districts that need less
credit voted for it. In other words, people voted exactly against their
self-interest.
It has long amazed me that regular Utah LDS, many with large families, vote Republican even though GOP policies benefit the very rich more than anyone else. Meanwhile the wealthier Boston, New York, Chicago, LA, San Fransisco crowd (who are much much richer per capita than Utah, by the way) vote Democrat even though that party tends to benefit working people.
Memo to BYU Economics department: It is time for economists to admit that people are *not* rational economic actors, and that the models that presume rational consumption have to be wrong. The ignorant messages on this board are evidence in support of economic irrationality as the base condition.
It has long amazed me that regular Utah LDS, many with large families, vote Republican even though GOP policies benefit the very rich more than anyone else. Meanwhile the wealthier Boston, New York, Chicago, LA, San Fransisco crowd (who are much much richer per capita than Utah, by the way) vote Democrat even though that party tends to benefit working people.
Memo to BYU Economics department: It is time for economists to admit that people are *not* rational economic actors, and that the models that presume rational consumption have to be wrong. The ignorant messages on this board are evidence in support of economic irrationality as the base condition.
Anonymous | 9:15 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Actually Buffet is heavily invested in the companies that will benefit should
this bill pass.
It doesn't matter | 9:22 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Maybe I'm a little slow but I just realized this thing is going to pass no
matter what the voters want. I was pleasantly surprised when this garbage was
voted down the first time. However I now realize that this will get passed
eventually no matter what we want. It is bailing out the rich and the rich have
more power. Now the scare tactics are being played to the hilt and the voters
are buygin it. Sad. I still think we ought to let everyone suffer the
consequences of bad choices. The band aid will be applied. Everyone will go
back to business as usual and someday down the road we will have such a big mess
that this country will never recover. Better to start over now and fix the root
of the problem than to cause even bigger problem later, one that could kill this
country.
no confidence in congress | 9:31 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
the US congress has proven with the House vote on Monday that politics rules
over leadership. I would be surprised to see congress agree on anything and
actually produce a bill to deal with this financial crisis. Even if the Senate
passes the bill the House GOP will all vote "no" again no matter what
the bill looks like. The GOP is more concerned with catering to the people in
their respective states and getting re-elected in November and will most
certainly turn their backs on fixing the frozen credit markets and actually
helping the nation as a whole. I have ZERO confidence in these self serving numb
skulls.
It does matter | 9:35 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
I think this whole bailout was misrepresented to be a bailout for the rich
banks. It may seem as such, but if you look into the details, it's a
bailout of the US economy, and it's pass or fail will affect most
americans.
Many say they're against it because it's a bailout of the rich, but what happens if your employer tries to get a short-term loan to meet payroll one month, but cannot because credit has frozen? In order to meet payroll, that employer will then need to cut staff to remain in business.
This is the situation throughout the entire economy. Businesses depend on short-term credit to meet payroll or to increase inventory. If those lines of credit dry up, the businesses run the risk of failing as well. So, this bailout is not a bailout for the rich, but for everyday Americans like you and I.
See it for what it is.
Many say they're against it because it's a bailout of the rich, but what happens if your employer tries to get a short-term loan to meet payroll one month, but cannot because credit has frozen? In order to meet payroll, that employer will then need to cut staff to remain in business.
This is the situation throughout the entire economy. Businesses depend on short-term credit to meet payroll or to increase inventory. If those lines of credit dry up, the businesses run the risk of failing as well. So, this bailout is not a bailout for the rich, but for everyday Americans like you and I.
See it for what it is.
Keep Saying No | 9:52 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Let your congressman and senators know any way you can that you want a NO vote.
And remember this PLEASE voters, out with all of these incumbent representatives
next election. They are the very ones elected by you that have fell asleep and
failed to represent you and your wishes that you elected them for. Send a
message NOW and later at the election booths. Enough is enough. This fiasco has
been going on for a long time and NOW is the time to put an end to it.
Re It does matter | 9:52 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
If your employer needs a loan to make payroll, I would look for another job.
Can't you see the writing on the wall? Why are so many businesses barely
cutting it with huge lines of revolving credit?
My company does not rely on loans to make payroll. I know because I assist with the billing on my book of business. We collect well in advance. But alas not every business runs like a CPA firm.
My company does not rely on loans to make payroll. I know because I assist with the billing on my book of business. We collect well in advance. But alas not every business runs like a CPA firm.
Hope | 9:59 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
There really is a solution. Have the financal community make positive loans to
those who have the assets to suppoert their loans and can really qualify. The
government can make loans available to the institutions at a fixed rate and
fixed duration. Let the banks (etc) live with their bad debt. All loans backed
by loans from the government must meet a strict status. This will allow the car
company to get the short term loan to pay the people and industry to move on.
But the key is, control and displine over all new loans and they have to be able
to meet obligations. This will put money into main stream, but leave those who
made bad decisions with their problem to solve. We don;t need 700 billion, but
we do need a loan, with responsiblity, as a short term solution to get us back
on our feet.
Anonymous | 10:22 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
No, not every business runs like a CPA firm, but most businesses do not carry a
lot of cash on the books. So, if they have fluctuations in receivables, that
may require them to draw on their lines of credit. Or, take Christmas for
example - businesses need to increase inventory, so they draw on their lines of
credit to purchase more inventory, then payoff the loan 30-60 days afterward
when receivables come in. Also, just because a business draws on a line of
credit to meet payroll does not mean the company is in any way insolvent.
Working for a CPA firm, you probably recognize the value of drawing on a low
interest line of credit for short-term uses than cashing in high-yield
investments to get the cash.
Dutch | 10:33 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008
To Re It does matter 9:52 am So I am assuming your company has cash enough to
expand, invest in captial items etc and not use short term credit to fund those
issues. If you do that is great if not you will not be growing in a credit poor
business environment
The Economist | 12:07 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008
Thanks to those who posted here today who seem to have at least a modicum of
understanding about the economy, business and financial markets. For the rest of
you, help is available. Please get an education and stop embarrassing yourselves
with your idiotic posts.
Kevin | 1:54 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008
@The Economist
Take your arguments up with the economics professors who are arguing against the bailout if you cannot be specific. Or do you have enough understanding to be specific?
Take your arguments up with the economics professors who are arguing against the bailout if you cannot be specific. Or do you have enough understanding to be specific?
Tom | 3:46 p.m. Oct. 6, 2008
Why are we bailing out these financial crooks anyway? They devised this problem,
let them get sucked down by the result. How about bailing out the average
American citizen? What about all those people who already lost their homes? $700
billion dollars in the hands of working Americans would be enough to jump start
the economy for sure. How about a direct return on our investment of blood,
sweat, and tears? How about instead of burdening us with more of their backlash
we get the cash and bail out ourselves? Stop borrowing from my descendents and
give me something back for what I've already given as an American citizen.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Tim Sloan, AFP, Getty Images
Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, Bob Bennett of Utah, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jedd Gregg of New Hampshire and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee discuss the crisis Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
Related content
- Task force to counter bombs? 11:12 p.m.
- Ski/snowboard schools 11:12 p.m.
- Mullahs consider pros of control 11:12 p.m.
- National news briefs 11:10 p.m.
- Weddle fined by NFL 11:10 p.m.
- 5 Questions: Noelle Pikus-Pace 11:09 p.m.
- Clinton urges foes to end conflict 11:09 p.m.
- World datelines 11:08 p.m.
- Agency inspects former bomb range 11:07 p.m.
- Season as owner a success 11:07 p.m.
- Apostle's wife felt comfort in attack
- Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?
- Short-handed Jazz fly past Sixers
- D-Will home for daughter
- Bench proves fruitful for Y.
- Utes excited for 'dream' game
- Crash on snowy road kills woman
- Born of water and the spirit
- GameDay in Fort Worth
- BYU happy to escape with victory
- SLC council OKs gay rights policies
358 - Editorial: Mormons and gay rights200
- BYU happy to escape with victory190
- Senators want food tax restored165
- Will state consider gay rights law?148
- Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?130
- Letters: Strange breed in Utah129
- Utes remain silent about BCS120
- S.L. vote pending on gay protections113
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges106
Maybe someone out there can help me understand how raising the state...
How do you handle kids and contests? Our oldest daughter, 7, is of the...
Advertisement
Latest comments
Both the Cougs and the Utes are posers, TCU is the real deal. Does anyone...
. . . to say goodbye to Senator Bennett -- and ALL incumbents from both sides...
There's an audience for UVU. The school has 30,000 students, which dwarfs...
Bravo to the city, the church, and the gay community for listening to and...
Still a few Freshmen on here. WELL MY MOM CAN BEAT UP YOUR MOM. Utah and...
Hilarious to read Utes boasting "at least we scored 28 points on them"!!!!...
"28 points and almost 300 yards tonight from a freshman qb...think about it,...
The MWC is weak. The y and u talk the talk but can't walk the walk. Utah...
ESPN announcer said it all -- when the score was 44-14 for TCU, "the game's...
no i expect harvey to run over rojo again and byu to win hahahaa
Advertisements
It's long past time for Congress to learn how to think ahead and consider the consequences of all their actions instead of running around putting out fires all the time. I am afraid that this bailout (let's call it what it is rather than the euphemism McCain is trying to foist on us) will cause an even worse problem/conflagration in the near future. I fear for our country with leadership like this. Paulsen and Bernanke should not be allowed to touch this issue. Instead, our nation's best financial minds should be brought in to calmly and intelligently assess this situation and ascertain what the best course is for the American people. Then, and only then, should Congress take action.
We need to pay attention and hold our elected representatives accountable for their performances. What a sad state of affairs! I truly do not know how some of them can even hold their heads up.