It is time for a DU POLL: Do you agree with the bailout ?

[Trajan]

I will leave it up to responders to define their feelings and 'which' bailout they are referring to.

I am personally reluctant to support bailing out BANKERS and INVESTORS using public funds that they REFUSE (as much as is possible) to contribute to .... They HATE taxes ... They have found MANY ways of avoiding taxation ... and now: They want to use OUR taxes to protect their investments ?

I say : BULLSHIT ....

I am completely FOR using the resources of our government to promote the development of citizens, through public schooling, through family support (when needed) .. public infrastructure: roadways, mass transit, energy development, et al ....

But WHY should we use public funds to protect investors who despise the very idea of taxation ?

IF this is allowed, there should be stiff conditions attached: Taxation on 'the wealthy' is restored .... Restoration of Glass Steagall .. Repeal of the Bankruptcy laws .... Return to credit laws that limited penalties and interest .....

I haven't seen a poll on this yet ..... So: Where does DU stand on this issue ? ....

I left the 'YES/NO' positions as open as possible ... Replies should define which aspect of the marketplace should or should not receive support of the public common treasure ....

(ADDED: Don't Know ... Let's keep it simple ...)

[mediaman007]

1. The rich have more to lose than I do!

[napi21]

2. I answered YES BECAUSE not doing so would affect everyone's

401K, anyone, prevent even with a good downpayment from buying a home or a car, & small businesses from borrowing operating capital. I don't want to give any benefit to the greedy, the stupid, or the mismanagers, but I also don't want to severly harm the general public!

[dem629]

5. Exactly. Great answer.

[Trajan]

11. Fair enough ....

But maybe there is a different way to directly defend the general public with that $700 BILLION other than giving it to bankers ....

I agree with many here: There should be HUGE conditions attached .... including re-regulating the markets .. disallowing the loan backed derivatives .. restoration of the Glass Steagall act ... repeal of the Bankruptcy law ... restrictions on Credit Card companies that matched those in the 60's and 70's ....

HUGE conditions ..... Yes .. But necessary to correct the malfeasance of the last 3 decades ...

Maybe $700 BILLION could be better used by restoring 401K's hurt by the failure of investment vehicles .... I dont know ....

[gravity]

15. It also affects employment

If businesses can't get the loans needed to do business, they will have to lay off workers. This isn't just about individual investments, it affects everyone in the economy

[1776Forever]

3. Would have liked a 3rd choice - Not sure at this stage - Need more clarity

After what I am reading on DU it is becoming pretty clear that there are loads of "stuff" in the bill that favors the take over of the government with even more "no bid contracts" and good ole' boy tactics! Who the H does one believe? Where is Michael Moore? I will listen to what he says before the talking heads!

[dem629]

4. Yes, no doubt about it.

I'm not a libertarian, so I don't believe the market "corrects itself" or is best to remedy failures. I trust people like Paul Krugman and Jim Kramer when they talk about how much of the various economic sectors are touched by these companies and the risk of just letting them fail. It's not just rich fat cats who are at risk here. Too many individuals at too many socioeconomic levels would be hurt if we didn't act. Now it's time to put strict regulations back on these companies.

[pleah]

6. No, the money should come from those that got obscenely rich from it. n/t

[damntexdem]

7. The American worker has a lot to lose -- much more than the rich.

There should be a bailout. That bailout should be monitored in ways that a GOP administration will not, so Obama must be elected. An Obama administration needs to keep on top to assure that the government doesn't get taken for more of a ride: e.g., in selling off AIG's assets, that good prices are received -- we don't need AIG sold off the way mineral rights have been.

[gravity]

8. The is 100% necessary

or else the economy will collapse.

This has nothing to do with principles or ideals, but protecting our own asses from ruin. This is why both republicans and democrats are jumping on board to sign this. It isn't a joke.

[Trajan]

17. Maybe we need to be careful ....

and NOT throw good money after bad .... Stop fishing and cut bait ...

$700 BILLION is no joke either ....

Is there some other way of protecting the marketplace ? .....

I expect MORE than what I am hearing ... and LESS of the amendments that are apparently attached in fine print which would fundamentally change the balance of power ....

[gravity]

20. It is the lesser of evils

They tried other methods of relieving the crisis, but without success. There is too much bad mortgage debt out there, and this bill is getting at the root of the problem.

$700 billion is a lot of money, but having the credit markets freeze up will cost the economy even more money.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Not enough data to make it compute.

The economy is interdependent....and we must be cautious here, because the consequences could be a real tragedy.

[mdmc]

10. I voted yes

but admit that I don't know the specifics of this deal.

I don't mind a bailout, if it helps the average American.

I'm a liberal, so I don't mind big government doin its thing

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. It's a bailout for the politicians. They can screw us and tell us it's for our own good.

Straight from the P.T. Barnum School of Sucker Economics.

[DumptyHumpty]

13. Let the economy collapse, to hell with it.

[kentuck]

18. If the economy collapses anyway...

We will have less resources to deal with it....because we gave it all to the banks..

[mrcheerful]

14. Hell no unless the billionares have to give up their bank accounts, sell everything they own of

value to pay for their screw ups in order to get a governmental handout. It's what poor people have to do to get a measly few hundred dollars a month to live on, so why should the rich be treated any differently then the tax payers? Besides the fact that the poor have paid their full share of the tax dollars they get from welfare, can the rich say the same?

[ThomWV]

16. Last winter I read a lot of this state's history - including accounts from the Great Depression

And so I voted yes. I don't like it and I do not think it should be used in any other than the most dire of emergency cases but this is one and it buys time until next spring when I expect the Democratic Senate, House, and White House to do a major overhaul of our regulatory system as concerns finance to make it not only inclusive but also enforceable.

[SmokingJacket]

19. There should be a bailout, if necessary, in the NEXT administration.

I don't trust Bush with my money, period.

[Thomas246]

21. Poll

Money quote:"I say...bullshit."Agree 100%.Which aspect of the marketplace should receive support from the public(taxpayers)?I don't know.That's a big question,and i must admit ignorance-i'm not an economist nor have any business savy.I do know one thing however:def no bailouts for financial institutions that make idiotic(fraudulent/illegal)business decisions to line their own pockets.I hope others are as fed up as i am!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

22. This poll is not specific enough. As it is, I do not trust the powers that be to handle this.

I believe it is all very deliberate and meant to rob our treasury blind.

[Trajan]

23. It was meant to be simple ...

According to your response : You voted no ....

Or : Dont know ....