Bailout is ridiculous

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Doug
    Oct. 3, 2008 1:17 p.m.

    Not one economist or politician can articulate the ramifications of using the system already in pace, Chapter 11, to support these failing companies instead of taxpayer dollars.

    Not one intelligent attempt has been made to provide a hand up, say $100B, rather than a hand out, $700B.

    There's no reason whatsoever to commit American Taxpayers to this kind of communism.

  • Emily Kime
    Oct. 1, 2008 6:59 p.m.

    About half of you reponded to my comments ondescendingly because of my age (and thus i could not possibly understand the issue and this could not possibly be my opinion! I must have been brainwashed). Do not disregard me because of my age. I know we have a big problem on our hands but the solution is not to give our bureaucratic and wasteful governement the control of the entire mortgage sector.

    Not only would that fail to fix the problem but it would precipate numerous others. the biggest one is this. By controling these companies they would effectively control the mortgage sector, (while continuing to run these companies into the ground)that means they would control practically half our economy. I don't know about you but i'm not a big fan of socialism.

    We cannot reap the benefits of a capitalistic society and then refuse to take the occassional hits that come with it. another thing wrong with the bill is that the same corrupt people who caused the problems are the ones the government is putting in charge. doesn't that seem just a little ridiculous?

  • Bang Dollar
    Sept. 30, 2008 7:29 p.m.

    Don't worry, the Fed will just print $700,000,000,000. They're REALLY good at that.

    I wish I was an ink salesman.

  • Honesty
    Sept. 30, 2008 1:56 a.m.

    Bailout = long term pain (see depression and government intervention)

    NO Bailout = short term pain. long term economic benefit and strength.

    The answer is obvious.

  • Hey Hypocrisy
    Sept. 30, 2008 12:33 a.m.

    Historians and economists agree; the Great Depression wasn't caused by the stock crash of '29.

    It was caused by the policies of Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt and by the Fed's credit tightening in the aftermath of the crash.

    Likewise, it isn't a 777 pt drop in the Dow that will lead us into Depression, but what the government does next.

  • FYI
    Sept. 29, 2008 11:22 p.m.

    Just wanted to throw in my two billion cents:

    The House killed the $700 Billion bail out plan-

    The market value lost $1,200 Billion, about 7%. ( Markets dropped 4-8% in Europe, 7% in Canada, and similar losses are seen in Asia and Australia.

    It makes $700 Billion seem not so much.

  • Re:statetheobvious
    Sept. 29, 2008 9:52 p.m.


  • statetheobvious
    Sept. 29, 2008 7:40 p.m.

    ......To sum up (I ran out of my 200 words) "Well done" to those of any party who resisted this power grab by the administration regardless of party.

    I will assume good motives for both Matheson (a Democrat) and Bishop (a Republican) for voting against the bailout. Shame on Cannon, but no great surprises there; he always seems to vote contrary to the cause of freedom.

  • statetheobvious
    Sept. 29, 2008 7:31 p.m.

    I for one certainly do not get my information from Rush Limbaugh who I think is a pompous male donkey. Neither do I from Glenn Beck who was first for the bailout and, so I hear, apparently changed his mind.

    What I find encouraging is that many people from both the major parties and other parties too, independently came to the conclusion (or just used their common sense) to decide that bailout was "ridiculous" and immoral and abuse of government power.

    I get a little tired of the patronising attitudes of so many of those who favor this unconscionable course, and their false assumptions and allegations as to why those who see things differently are doing so. There are false premises, non sequiturs, straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacke. I feel that they would be happier in a high school debate with those who are just learning to think and can receive the prasie of their 'liberal' teachers. "Emily" had to be somewhat independently minded to survive high school brainwahsnig.

    I also get tired of being scolded by news readers who cannot stick to their job but who must be forever interposing their own statist views into news stories.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 29, 2008 6:51 p.m.

    Unfortunately, many of those who have been responding to this letter, are gravely mistaken on the casue of the crisis and the remedy for it. I, with most people that are able to use reasoning and logic, do not believe that a depression in any way shape or form is desirable. And whatever means are nessecary to reach some sembalnce of a stable financial sector seems to be the only way to avert disaster. What might happen, hopefully not, is that credit will become very tight, hurting all forms of comerce wether in the real economy or on Wall Street. This, my ill informed friends, if left unchecked would be a major hurdle for any economy to get over.

    I think it is sad that so many of the people on these message boards get thier news and info directly off of Rush Limbaugh. The government bailout is not a massive step towards socialism, but rather, another manifestation of the required mixed economy of the United States. Dont let the talking heads fool you into believing that third way economics are some kind of evil throw back to the USSR. We have firmly entrenched representive democracy, far from a dictatorship.

  • Thomas
    Sept. 29, 2008 5:41 p.m.

    A fifteen-year-old isn't old enough to understand all the sophisticated reasons people offer in support of doing colossally stupid things. It's a great advantage.

    As for the knee-jerk first poster: look, mate, government can do good, and it can do harm. It does good when we keep it within its legitimate and proper sphere as a referee, not a player. Reasonable people can disagree about the extent of government's proper role, but a man who's not at least somewhat wary that government might aggrandize itself at the expense of liberty is a slave-in-waiting.

    Finally, notice that after the bailout was voted down -- which its supporters warned would result in the apocalypse -- was followed by only a mild down day on Wall Street, less than 1/3 the percentage drop of the 1987 crash. We survived that correction with only a mild recession; why are we to believe this correction -- a milder one -- will yield a worse result?

  • John
    Sept. 29, 2008 5:23 p.m.

    This editorial is a great observation. In order for the government to give $700 billion dollars away, they first have to take it from someone else: us.

  • statetheobvious
    Sept. 29, 2008 2:07 p.m.

    Well, Emily is probably reflecting the views of parents and others but that is very common. The great thing is that not all parents are teaching their children to look to the Government for handouts. It will take a while to raise a generation as sensible as Emily.

    The vast majority of the people of America are very much against the bailout. It is a bit shocking that so many of their elected representative let them down by voting against their wishes; nevertheless a small but clear majority voted as their constituents would have wished.

    What a wonderful victory; let's hope that the administration will take no for an answer; yet their elitist arrogance seems to know no bounds.

    The people know better than all their self-interested "experts". We'll weather the storm and not make it worse by encouraging the reckless greed of Wall Street, or further inflating the economy. If things get tight prices will fall, and people will learn not to rely on constant borrowing. House prices will fall if we do not interfere; what a relief to first-time home buyers!

  • Jeffrey
    Sept. 29, 2008 12:28 p.m.


    If a depression is what would result from not bailing out these irresponsible and failed institutions then that is what MUST happen.

    It is not capitalism for America to operate on the foundation of privatizing corporate profits, while socializing corporate losses.

    These companies were irresponsible, unethical, and completely mismanaged and they deserve to feel the brunt of that. If it means that millions who got into debt irresponsibly lose their possessions then that is what needs to happen, as well.

    Our entire economy is built around play money - currency that only means something because we say it does - and this is one of the startling evidences of that.

    Of course the government is fighting tooth and nail against the people's wishes to bail out their corporate buddies, because they know the gaping holes in the system, and are scared to death of them being exposed.

  • Randy
    Sept. 29, 2008 12:20 p.m.

    My plan calls for comprehensive reform. The financial systems are a convoluted complex mess allowing people to skim, manipulate, and obtain billions cyclical bail outs. In software engineering it's called spaghetti code, a kludge. Yes it might take a few weeks extra to resolve, which is not to palatable in todays short attention span I want it now society.

  • Jud
    Sept. 29, 2008 12:16 p.m.

    Look at history. FDR set up a restoration fund that went through each foreclosure and renegotiated the terms so people wouldn't lose their homes and the lenders got their money back. This is needed now. Government might properly referee this mess, but shouldn't take ownership of anything.

  • Athena
    Sept. 29, 2008 11:20 a.m.

    Alternative | 9:33 a.m,

    All right, so what's your plan?

  • Alternative
    Sept. 29, 2008 9:33 a.m.

    The effective, beneficial alternative is to come up with a plan and not just "toss a bunch of money at it".

    This from regarding the $700 billion figure:

    "It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

    I agree we need to do something, but do we really have to support a number just because its "really large"?

  • Athena
    Sept. 29, 2008 8:31 a.m.

    Well, Emily, what are they supposed to do? Let us sink into depression, which would be a thousand times worse?

    If you have an affective, beneficial alternative, I'll be happy to hear it.

  • Joe Moe
    Sept. 29, 2008 8:27 a.m.

    I was stunned when I got to the bottom of that letter to see it was written by a 15-year-old. I don't know if she came up with this line or borrowed it from someone else, but it should make us all think: the more the government gives us, the more it can take away.

    Obviously this isn't a hard and fast rule that should govern all governmental decisions. But it does highlight one of the pitfalls of dependency and entitlement.

    I for one am beginning to think Ron Paul and Bob Lonsberry might be right on this: the bailout solution may be worse than the problem.

  • RedShirt
    Sept. 29, 2008 8:20 a.m.

    The more I see the government get involved, the more I think that maybe a depression would be good for the country. We have become too used to our excessive wealth. In many ways, we have become a prideful nation, which, typically means that downfall is iminant. The nation could use a good humbling experience.

  • Kevin
    Sept. 29, 2008 7:45 a.m.

    Hearing a 15 year old say this is the very first sign of hope I have seen in this malaise.

    The first person to comment on this letter obviously has no clue the degree to which the executive branch of government, which includes the Treasury, has seized power. Ironically, this person is probably a Democrat.

  • DBG
    Sept. 29, 2008 7:37 a.m.

    Emily is spot on. So is 1:08. Why should taxpayers be responsible for reckless behavior? It gives no incentive for personal responsibility. Under the current plan, the companies go unpunished.

  • Hypocrisy
    Sept. 29, 2008 4:21 a.m.

    Emily clearly doesn't understand the situation.

    Although I hate this bailout, we have no other choice. The alternative is a near guaranteed depression.

    Atleast now, we give ourselves a chance...

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 29, 2008 1:08 a.m.

    Right on Emily!!!

    A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of mans self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of mans deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.

  • Sorry, Kim
    Sept. 29, 2008 1:04 a.m.

    Another Utahan brainwashed at an early age against "evil" government. What a shame.