Simply put - ANY Democrat voting for any kind of bailout of the finance sector thieves should be

[TooBigaTent]

voted out of office.

That also goes for those running for "higher" office.

If ever there was one issue that should be a deal-maker or breaker, this is it.

No bullshit of "never again" or "this is the last time" or anything else.

If this theft goes through in any form, there will be no money left for any program that we would like to see Obama push. They will have succeeded in drowning the baby.

[Eric J in MN]

1. What if Obama votes for it? NT

NT

[TooBigaTent]

3. I think I was pretty obvious in the OP. If he comes out in favor of any bailout, he will lose my

vote. And the election.

It is not just the socialists and liberals who are against this rape.

[Fresh_Start]

2. self delete

removed

[On the Road]

4. Classic Example of Cutting Off Your Nose

to spite your face.

It would be more accurate to say that without a bailout, there would be no money for any Democratic initiatives.


The conditions can be improved, and it looks like some of them are, such as the government taking equity stakes.

[Warpy]

5. I disagree. There does need to be a bailout

but that bailout needs to come with strings the size of suspension bridge cables. It has to have some serious regulatory teeth. It has to eliminate executive bonus packages and golden parachutes at any failing company. It has to prevent the kind of casino betting on loans that has led to this crisis. Mostly, it has to re regulate the crooks with stiff penalties that will leave them dumpster diving should they be caught trying to pull fast ones in the future. There needs to be a surtax on high incomes until the bailout is paid for.

If there is no bailout, we'll be in the same position, only with no banks, brokerages, pensions, insurance companies, or even functioning state governments. They'll all be bankrupt.

The main thing this package should do is regulate trading anything from or by a hedge fund out of existence. It has to spread the misery to the rich instead of sticking taxpayers with it.

[northernlights]

6. Obama's made his position clear:

no blank check bailout.

No bailout without transparency.
No bailout without oversight.
No bailout without re-regulation.
No bailout without consequences.
No bailout without reciprocity.

That pretty much sums it up for me.

One add on thanks to a smart DUer --

No bailout with fingers crossed behind back and "executive signing orders" by mr. unitary *.

[MrsCorleone]

7. Good fricken lord, People! Another bailout is needed, BUT

the terms of the bailout are where we need to stand our ground. See ribo, warpy, & northern's posts.

[westerebus]

8. NO!!!

No bailout. You folks are in denial or shock or one too many bong hits. Would you give a hundred bucks to a drunk who is about to drive down to the liquor store for a pack of butts and case of beer? He promises to come right back with your car and the change. Honestly, you need think about this in terms of what's wrong with this picture.
The bailout will not correct the course the market is on. Which is down. Drastically down. Every body is going to take a big hit. Pension funds and mutual funds and IRAs. The dollar is going down in value faster then I can type. If they want to stop this and it's that close to a bank collapse, then close the stock exchange first. Force the banks to reissue mortgages fixed for thirty years at 5%. Pass new regulations that cover all the markets in a coherent, comprehensive manner. Then capitalize the banks to cover what they need to get six months past the election cycle. Then we can talk about how to correct the junk on the books after the books have been vetted by auditors.
Anything less is bullshit.

[AdHocSolver]

10. The bailout is designed to protect the paper value of the insiders in this swindle.

The real estate that is mortgaged will not disappear. The paper value will decrease, but people can still live in the houses. The houses can still be sold. Why should the taxpayer bail out the guy who bought more house than he could afford, or the mortgage lender who gave an inflated loan to someone who could not afford to pay back the money?

You people are confusing the intrinsic, usable value of an asset with an arbitrary, artificial value concocted, in this case, by a bunch of swindlers.

Inflated house prices are on the same level as inflated stock prices that bear no relation to the profit-making ability of a company or the value of its assets were they to be sold. It is all smoke and mirrors. It is all a shell game.

The bailout is just a continuation of the Ponzi schemes that we have come to take for granted in the stock market. The value of Enron physical assets were no different when the stock price was very high than when the stock price plummeted to a few cents on the dollar. The ONLY difference was that, before the collapse, people were willing to pay, say, hypothetically $50.00 a share. A few days later, they were only willing to pay, say, $2.00 a share.

The buildings and other assets had not changed. The employees were the same. The contracts that they had signed were still valid. Because the stock price dropped, the myth was promoted that the company was now totally worthless.

The value of the paper issued by the financial institutions was inflated. Until people realized they were overpriced, they were willing to invest in these pieces of paper issued by the banks and mortgage companies.

The intrinsic utility value of the physical assets represented by the paper certificates is still there. What they are asking the taxpayers to bail out is the investment of the perpetrators and the suckers who fell for the scam. That is all.

I vote against a bailout. Protect the legitimate purchasers of actual houses, and protect the assets of innocent depositors in the banks that used the depositors' money to implement these schemes. However, do not protect or bail out the companies or their executives who perpetrated these frauds.

[westerebus]

11. Well said. n/t

[upi402]

9. Biden was in favor of denying bankruptcy protection for working class

but wants to be a bit less Draconian for the corporate elites. They stand to lose jut one of their houses, but we would be homeless losing our one and only house.

How do ya'll like your new "Dems" now?
Many here slammed me as being too negative, for not seeing how really REALLY bad the other guy is.

But this chicken wont likely vote for Colonel Sanders again, and certainly wont give cash to those that would eat my flesh. Dems aren't the fast food variety chicken servers, they take some time to set the table and say grace. Either way we're cooked though.
Stick a fork in it "Democratic" corporatist enablers. You are just the most recent dupes in the demise of our Republic.

Folks with good memory and concrete sequential mind-types are the easiest to brainwash. And the least likely to think critically of the big picture -with an understanding of the motives of the picture painter.

God I'm frustrated...