I don't like the bailout bill, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to vote for it

[CreekDog]

It's not as if doing nothing is free either. If banks keep failing, the FDIC will be supplemented by the Treasury to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

I would rather prevent the banks from failing in as large a scale, and in return get equity in return for stopping that. If the status quo prevails and this bill doesn't pass (or anything else), my taxpayer dollars will go to protect FDIC insured deposits, but I will get nothing for that and the banks will still have failed (and all the downsides that go with that).

I just wish they wouldn't call it the "bailout" bill, I think that's a misnomer.

That said: :hide:

[lligrd]

1. I'm Tired Of Giving In And Voting For Bad

for political reasons. It is time for Dems to stand up and demand only good bills. Learn to fight for what is right.

[CreekDog]

5. I'm not saying this for political reasons

Is your money in the mattress? Mine isn't.

Do you want to pay this way or through taxes to prop up FDIC?

Think it won't cost anything, no way, that's not a feasible option.

[lligrd]

8. Oh, So You Think This Bailout Might Actually Benefit Us?

I don't mean to be mean but: :rofl:

[CreekDog]

10. I think it's better than simply propping up the FDIC with a similar amount of money

so, it's a better solution than anything currently in place.

we're screwed either way, but we're more screwed without the bill.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. We need a filabuster-proof majority in the Senate in order to do that.

We may get close this go around. Am crossing fingers.

[lligrd]

12. We Have Enough Votes To Stop A Bad Bill

and we should use them. Quit giving into blackmail.

[CreekDog]

16. what's your solution to the problem?

what we have now or something different?

[lligrd]

19. I Think We Need A Total Rework

that includes a lot of FDR-like wisdom. Perhaps only a complete breakdown will allow for it but I think it is really the only hope for America.

[CreekDog]

25. from this congress and this president! ha!!!

and i'm not comfortable with waiting for that to change.

[RichGirl]

7. The fight for the presidency has to come first.

Being distracted now has no benefit.

[lligrd]

14. Didn't Obama Say We Need To Be Able To Do More Than

one thing at a time? You sounded a bit like McCain there.

[CreekDog]

18. And not being distracted by the financial crisis has no benefit

unless you don't care about winning the presidency.

[lligrd]

21. I Don't See How It Benefits McCain

In fact, most people are against the bill and most blame Repugs for putting us in this position. If Dems pass it, while most people oppose it, how does that benefit Obama?

[shanti]

13. but but

the dems AREN'T voting for it in the form that *ush presented it. paulsen won't get his $7 billion up front. i don't support it in that fashion either.

[lostnotforgotten]

2. I Guess You Have More Money To Burn Than The Rest Of Us.

eom

[CreekDog]

4. oh well that's a good reply

:eyes:

i don't have more money to burn than the rest of you.

[Tallison]

3. 'Bailout' is a misnomer

Crafted well, the cost constitutes an recoupable investment. I wish that term never caught on in the media; it's really subverted public support for a necessary - an overdue - intervention.

[shanti]

15. thank you

intervention - i like that.

[ContinentalOp]

26. Too bad, that's the card that's been dealt us. It's now a bailout.

How do we deal with being the party that supported a widely unpopular bailout against the "maverick" McCain and still win this election?

Personally I would rather face the next great depression with Obama at the helm than face this "intervention" under President McCain.

[knowledgeispwr]

9. I agree

many people don't seem to understand that dong nothing may be worse...for everyone.

A lot of people are caught up in a pseudo-populism ignited by the term "bailout" and images of Wall St. "fat cats".

[mohc]

11. In the short term

The costs of the "bailout" bill will actually probably far smaller than what we would pay for letting these banks fail. Its in the long term where this bill is actually not in our best interests. While we may in fact recoup all the costs of this bill through selling the assets later, this policy will confirm to wall street that we will always bail them out for their mistakes. The passage of this bill, in much the same way as the S&L bailouts, condemn us to experiencing basically the same situation in the near future, probably within 20 years. The true costs of this bailout bill will not just be the immediate costs, but the costs of the next crisis which passage of this bill almost guarantees. Unfortunately our government is short sided, and would rather avoid the temporary costs which might lose them their jobs.

[lligrd]

17. Exactly! nt

[AnnetteFun]

20. The problem is the Dems now look responsible

It was Paulson's plan to begin with -- the Dems pushed a better alternative, but the public perceives it's their plan now and will blame them -- the Conservative Repubs who are voting against it speak for many many people who don't understand it and are skeptical that it's necessary. The friggin Repubs set a trap and now the Dems look like it's their deal. I'm furious about how this all went down!

[lligrd]

22. That Is How I See It Too

Why do we always fall for it?

[GarbagemanLB]

23. ...except the final bill is bipartisan, and was purposefully crafted so both parties are on the line

[AnnetteFun]

24. Oh I fully understand that, but.....

Who do we see out there pushing it -- Pelosi, Frank....who do we see saying they don't believe the taxpayers should be bailing out Wall Street -- the conservative Republicans. It is a trap, plain and simple.