Comments:U.S. Senate approves revised bailout package after controversial additions

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

Do you think the bailout bill will help the US economy, hurt it, or be a waste of money?

A waste of money, though it may help a little, or hurt a little. It's frustrating that it's being called "socialism"--but socialism is helping the lower and middle classes that make the world go round. Capitalism is when you give the upper class handouts ;) This waste of money and pork barrel spending is ridiculous, and it's obvious that our government, overall, no longer really works for us but for big business. --Poisonous (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Capitalism, in its purest sense, has nothing to do with government. Government, if it even exists, can let natural markets be free, or it can impose itself by various means, including regulation and corporate welfare. Capitalism on its own is nothing more than two people voluntarily engaging in a trade perceived as mutually beneficial, and has nothing to do with anyone else. Anything beyond that is not capitalism. The only reason to attribute the various effects of governmental (or another criminal organization's) coercion to capitalism itself is to seek to destroy the free market -- the ability of those two people to voluntarily engage in their transaction -- presumably to impose something like socialism, where a third party forcibly decides whether that transaction should take place, and if so, to take a cut from it. When you have a government taking over banks, or other private entities, rather than letting them succeed or fail on their own, that's socialism. When you have someone speculating on whether someone else will be able to pay off a mortgage -- otherwise known as gambling -- and then, when that speculator ends up losing the bet, having the government forcibly take money from other people (who had nothing to do with that gamble) in order to cover the gambler's losses, that's socialism. I'm sorry if that "frustrates" you. A lot of things frustrate me -- like the rampant socialism in the world today -- but that's just the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.238.26 (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get your stupid definition of socialism? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm ... what's yours? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.45.112 (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Working towards the creation of an egalitarian society. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Can that be accomplished without the use of force? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.45.112 (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not even democracy or democratic decisions can be accomplished without force some of the time. But you're looking at America, a society that has democratically chosen socialist ideals over pure capitalist ones. For you to complain that it would take force--yes, and so does capitalism, democracy, and just about everything that involves large groups of people--is ridiculous. It takes force to enforce the laws against murder, shall we abolish them? As for what capitalism and socialism is, that was more a joke and observation than anything. We do not live in a pure capitalist society, and never will thank goodness, so your point about what pure capitalism, is moot. Your ideal of socialism is exceedingly pessimistic and not realistic--take a look at welfare, for example. Half of welfare recipients are only there for about a year, many are children or seniors. Let us imagine that the economy is bad, so you're laid off through no fault of you're own. There are no jobs and there is nothing you can do to feed your family. Would it be so bad to help you out in your time of need? Especially at such a time like this when so many people are losing their jobs and homes through no fault of their own? --Poisonous (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump on that one. Interesting that you assume democracy is desirable. Whether the tyranny comes from a dictator, an elite, or the masses, it's still tyranny. Majority rule is, in the classic example, two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. My primary concern pertains to choice. If you have a group of people, whatever the size, who decide to get together and pool their resources for their mutual benefit, more power to them. The problem comes when those people try to force their way on someone who didn't choose to participate. (Simply being born into it, incidentally, does not constitute signing any nebulous "social contract" -- a mythological document whose purported contents vary from one claim to another.) Further, I have absolutely nothing against the idea of banding together to help those in need. Such cooperation is what has allowed our species to make the advances it has. And one day, it may be you and yours who benefit from the passing of the hat. But there's no virtue in being charitable when there's a gun to your head, and at the very heart of it, that's exactly what state welfare is. As for people now losing their homes "through no fault of their own": if someone decides to bet the next thirty years of their future that they'll be able to dig themselves out from under a massive debt, and then it turns out they were wrong, that sure sounds like their own damned fault to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.238.26 (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't define socialism there. I was simply pointing out some of its behaviors with regard to the present economic situation. Socialism is, very roughly speaking, the idea that a coercive central government should exist to redistribute wealth amongst those it governs, ostensibly in the interest of the "common good". (The fact that such redistribution inevitably favors those involved in the governmental apparatus is, while interesting, beside the point.) Whether explicitly stated or merely as a practical effect, the concept of individual rights (and not just property rights!) is superseded by the "collective" (government). When Mary and Joe agree that he'll wash dishes in her restaurant and in return she'll give him some money, and then Joe decides to exchange some of that money for a promise from Frank that, if Joe ever needs to have heart surgery, Frank will pay for it -- that's an example of capitalism. When Joe votes for Ralph because Ralph promises to steal money from Mary to pay for Joe's heart surgery -- and, of course, to take a cut for himself, for his trouble -- that's an example of socialism. And when Mary points out that, because she'll end up paying for Joe's heart surgery, he shouldn't be allowed to eat certain foods, Joe starts to regret voting for Ralph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.238.26 (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems a bit off topic, shouldn't you be discussing the bailout as opposed to libertarian/socialist values? Quite simply, if you're not on topic, who cares? That being said, In my opinion the bailout will surely have serious adverse effects, but it may have been the only way to avoid a more serious or complete financial collapse. Also it would seem to me that a global recession is not too far off the horizon, look around the United States isn't the only country having issues. We as a country have to be extremely careful as to where we step, but I think we just stepping in dog shit as opposed onto a land mine. —Halfpenny (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that this bailout will prolong and amplify the underlining problems

Rather than fixing the fundamental problems of our economy, I think that this bailout will postpone the collapse that we've been seeing recently, and allow this economic cancer to continue to grow and not die. There will likely be even more inflation, and increasing oil prices. Perhaps to a certain extent the bailout will be a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that some financial corporations would take advantage of the situation by creating artificial needs that would not have existed if the bailout did not pass. There could be even more unforeseen abuses. Meanwhile the most important aspects of our economy will continue to be neglected. The current approach to our economy consists of the following:

• Increased spending
• Increased expenses
• Increased importing
• Increased outsourcing
• Increased oil use
• Decreased domestic manufacturing
• Decreased exporting

This leads to high inflation rates, a weaker dollar, a higher cost of living, astronomical debt, and other ill affects. This approach is wrong, simply for the reason that its unstable and ultimately will fail. America is currently functioning by draining from it's great momentum that has been built up over time. While its momentum is astronomically large, the momentum is still finite. If America is going to continue to prosper, advance, and be a super power, the age of coasting will have to end.

The recent financial crisis is in actuality an opportunity for us to become aware our errors and steer clear from irreversible disaster. We should be contributing towards our momentum. We should be focusing on bringing manufacturing back to the United States, for manufacturing is one of the few economic sources. We should search for new sources of energy, and new technologies that improves life and advance humanity. We should decrease economic sinks. We should export more, and import less. We should become more self-reliant. We should decrease unnecessary expenses, like directionless wars. We should keep employment and purchases domestic.

Globalization did have a positive side, in that it advanced many other countries so that competition is more on an intellectual level, rather than through the means of physical war. In order for America to survive as we know it, now is the time for America to join the intellectual global war. While physical war always results in destruction, intellectual war results in creation, because in such a war our true enemy is the same as our competitors' enemy, which is extinction.

I hope that despite congress' recent great blunder that is this bailout, we the American people still have an opportunity to correct our current course. If necessary, all the Senators and Congressmen who voted in approval of this bailout bill will have to be replaced in the coming elections by people who understand where American efforts and resources need to be focused.Sparky1 (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree --65.92.16.143 19:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also agree. I wonder if this bill can be fought in court? Jade Knight (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

IT WILL HURT THE U.S. WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THE PEOPLE IN THE U.S. SOME OF WHICH DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY BASIC THINGS THAT THE NEED OR THEIR CHILDREN NEED. PEOPLE OR SO WORRIED ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES BUT WHO IS WORRING ABOUT US? THEY DID NOT WORRY ABOUT THE SIMPLE PEOPLE WHEN THEY BAILED OUT AIG BECAUSE THEY SHURLEY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SPEND THE MONEY CORRECTLY. WE HAVE PPEOPLE ON FIXED INCOMES THAT CAN NOT EVEN AFFORD THEIR MORAGE PAYMENTS EACH MONTH. I DO NOT SEE YOU CARING ABOUT THEM, OR THE PEOPLE WHO CAN NOT EVEN AFFORD TO BUY FOOD FOR THEIR FAMILIES. SO WILL IT HURT US I WOULD BELIEVE SO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.240.47 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)