Comments:Senate Committee hears bailout proposal

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Hell... No...

What are we going to teach our kids if the feds step in for 700 BILLION dollars. "Look kiddies, if you fuck up bad enough, the government will step in and save your ass. Never mind the fact that everyone knew those loans were a bad idea in the first fucking place". Oh, and then there is the fact that the treasury dept is getting way too much power. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 04:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

When I was growing up credit cards were rare and the credit taken out by 'ordinary people' was to buy a house or car, and perhaps a payment scheme to get things out some catalogue. You never heard of people taking out loans to have two holidays a year. The view from this side of the pond is that being a homeowner was integrated into the American dream as well as the concept being sold as a sure-fire investment. I tend to think, "wasn't the Mac and Mae nationalisation enough? Doesn't the bailout of wealthy investors show that unfettered capitalism relies on misery for the common man?"

In 1966, Seven percent of the UK's population owned 84% of the wealth; the U.S. wasn't much better, and the statistics have got even worse. Is this bailout not just going to help keep this morally repugnant status-quo in place? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing what this criminal administration wants from its people. I would have Congress pose this question to W. "Either Iraq or Wall St., not both!"

The Bushies do not care how deep in debt it has pushed the American people, even deeper if we allow this bailout. Bushies don't care if they have violated and/or revoked your Constitutional rights. Bushies don't care if they betrayed a CIA operative to create a civil war in another country and terrorize its populace. Bushies don't care how they have set up our service men and women to fail by sacrificing their lives in a war with no end. Bushies don't care if they win the war at all as long as the military industrial complex is profiting from it. Bushies DO care if their friends are on the hook for their losses due to the greed and corruption that has plagued this nation.

Now, Congress must act quickly to save the potential fall out and give the Treasury without any safeguards or oversight and don't question how things are done. My god is there no limit to the abuse this redneck inflicts on this country? The "Hurry up and get it done" attitude displayed by the administration has demonstrated once again the failure of Bush policy. This president will leave this office thinking he has done a good job. That is because he lacks a soul or conscience to guide him.

The only thing positive about this situation i s that the voters now must take an active part in their government or suffer the consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.76.128.217 (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I may be a simple American citizen, ignorant to the real facts and fallout issues if we don't bail these investment companies out.

My understanding is that the "everyday Joe and Jane citizen" will be paid back for the losses in their investments. I DON'T think the Government is thinking about saving the investment companies themselves- At least I would pray that isn't the case!!

I can say one thing for darn sure... If even ONE of these CEO's or investment managers are paid a flippin' dime from the tax payers bailout money, our country is heading toward a revolution and I will be on the front lines. Holy Mother!! Let me say that again!

If even One (1) plastic pocketed, stuffed shirt, pencil neck, Ivory tower, pencil pushing, desk jockey, money manipulating, non-contributing, xxxhole receives a thin dime of tax payers money, I would go out of my mind.

Please, someone with a background and complete understanding of this bailout reply with an explanation...

I may have to start organizing the troops —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.230.138 (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Organize the troops. This is a bad idea. Every single person I've talked to about this is against it. Not a peep in favor. An investment broker for a bank, a guy who puts together safe investment packages for nice old people, wants this to go away. The essence is this: morally and fiscally irresponsible. This devalues the hard work and good decisions of everyone else for a select few who are holding our economy hostage. This is not a partisan issue. $700 billion dollars is one TENTH of all currency currently in America. This isn't a bailout--it's a hijacking. 216.231.159.16 01:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see so many other people against this. Btw, if you live in the U.S., contact your friggin' representative. Fephisto (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ehh..

We really need to reconsider our efforts in capitalism. If this is the payout after nearly 100 years of Fed Reserve control, it is time to try something new. Influxing cash into a broken system will only point out the leaks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaidennett (talk • contribs) 23:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

FDIC ain't broke

The FDIC says nothing is wrong : http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2008/pr08084.html meaning they're happy to keep handling troubled banks by taking control of them, paying off the depositors, selling off the functional components, etc. So what is the point of Paulson's bailout?

Paulson wants to buy only the bad debts, not the whole bank. FDIC bailouts needn't cost huge amounts of money, as you get the good with the bad, and you sell the assets off again at full value. However, buying only the bad debt is much more expensive, like 1-4 trillion dollars, and will cause inflation.

Also, we're not even looking at a total economic meltdown here. The Great Depression started when congress created, and maintained for 4 years, a liquidity crisis by deciding that margin trades were immoral and should pay much more interest. No one will be so stupid today. What can happen in modern economies is runaway inflation when foreign investors pull out.

Republicans throw this country into debt whenever they take power because no one calls inflation a tax, plus it doesn't react immediately, and it doesn't hurt their friends as much, but inflation is a tax on people's savings. Inflation is also more dangerous than normal taxes because foreign investors who can't be controlled can cause even worse runaway inflation by exiting the dollar.

To put it most simply, Paulson wants to save Wall St. *from* the FDIC by taxing savings. Only Wall St. bears the risks when the FDIC cleans up since the FDIC can't cause inflation, but everyone bears the risk of an inflationary disaster if congress saves them.

Democrats are trying to mitigate the damage caused by the bailout by installing poison pills, such as limiting the compensation of executives of firms that take the bailout, but honestly I just don't see any need for any bailout given that the FDIC has said they're doing fine. Nyarlathotep (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)