If you have not declared your position on the bailout, check in here.

[Subdivisions]

Personally, I'm a career metal tradesman and newly-minted web admin. I don't know the first thing about how economics at the level we're seeing it works. A lot of people here seem to know all about it. If you don't, or if you have not declared a position either for or against the bailout, what do you have to say?

As for me, I'm so completely confused that I cannot take a stance one way or the other.

[marylanddem]

1. Me neither (or me too, whichever)

I don't think we have much basis to believe anyone on this...not enough information is being shared...just a lot of fear-mongering...

[lostnotforgotten]

2. Not No, But Hell NO! - I Was Unemployed For Five Years During

This administration. No one, and I mean No One, lifted a hand to help me.

These Plutocrat, Fat Cat, Democrats and Republicans, Businessmen and Wall Street Shysters that got us in this mess can go to hell!

I hope that was strong enough for you!

[Sherman A1]

3. I have written both of my Senators & Congressman

requesting that they not support any bailout. While I do not pretend to be an economist or fully understand all the nuances (I really don't think even the experts do so). I am against this on the principle of fixing what the so called experts screwed up. I understand that my position would include considerable pain and perhaps a depression, but I think that it is really just a matter of time before that happens in any event.

[stray cat]

4. I don't know whether to believe its necessary or not

I would like a personal interview with Buffet, Obama and Hillary but I don't think thats going to happen. I'm skeptical of people who "know everything" about it and "know" they are absolutely right.

[adamuu]

5. i don't think Dems have any choice. n/t

[lostnotforgotten]

6. One Video Interview - Naomi Klein "The Shock Doctrine"

Says it all - This was all by design!

http://blip.tv/file/521421

[immoderate]

7. Count me among the skeptical.

I think things are headed for a crash. The Democrats have few choices. The chose to sign on to the Bush admin "solution" rather than be seen as "obstructionist." I think they have no good choices.

--IMM

[robinlynne]

15. I think there are choices. Instead of bailing out the banks, the gov't could buy

the actual properties, the mortgages themselves. And rent the homes back to the people who lost them, or renegotiate a decent mortgage. The banks might lose some moeny if the properties/mortgages were sold at market rate (the bailout is paying way more than they are worth, and the real owners are still out on the street!)

there are plenty of people in this country who need homes, and the houses are being left to fall into pieces, while the banks will get all their money and then some.....

NO BAILOUT!

And if there is even a discussion of a bailout, or the purchase by the public, all those millions of dollars Paulson and the Ceos took need to be returned first, obviously!

[immoderate]

29. Agree. The money should go to the bottom.

While some have proposed this, nobody in the negotiations apparently has gone for this type of solution. Unfortunately, this plan has not been considered by the Democratic leadership. The Republicans would not be on board, and Bush would probably veto it.

--IMM

[TwilightGardener]

8. I'm pretty confused, but there's some pretty smart Democrats/progressives,

economically-speaking, who support some form of the bailout. The "let them drown" folks on the right (the House Rep caucus) make me suspicious that the Wall Street folks won't really drown--they'll find a way to get their treasury money anyway, and nothing will change regulation-wise--sort of a back door bailout that does nothing to keep the greedsters from pulling the same shit later. After all, we've already bailed out individual companies and most of America doesn't seem aware of that, or upset. A legislative package that CHANGES THE RULES and gives Main Street something back is in our best interests.

[glowing]

9. A debt society will colapse..

If the people who buy things at the basic level, cannot, then eventually, the top will crash.. ADD to that the war in ME, Medicare/medicaid, and social security... well, you have one gigantic mess.

But sometimes you have to debt yourself, to lift yourself... Like the New Deal programs.. It put people to work, but then returned the value overtime..

I don't know enough about this mess either, but its apparent to me, after speaking to people in the industry, that a bit of oversight would have been a little nice.... I mean taking out a 200% loan on a property should be illegal, right? AND pushing sub-prime loans onto people who could qualify for a fixed rate because it made the mortgage broker and everyone up the chain more money, should have been better regulated... Sub-prime loans are for speculators or house flippers; not for people who want to reside for more than 2 or 3 yrs in their home...

[lynettebro440]

10. How does anyone know exactly when this is going to happen?

That's my question and problem with this whole thing. We have an election going on, I don't know about you but most of us down here are already scrapping to survive. The biggest problem I think for most people is not bailing out "or energizing" however you want to face it, but our biggest problem is giving this to bush and his asswipe cronies. I don't understand why we don't go borrow some of this money from halliburton or all the rest of the big companies (oil) that have been raking in huge amounts each quarter. Are they trying to speed this through before tax cut for middle class will go into effect?

[dkofos]

11. NO WAY, NO HOW, NO BAILOUT

[TwilightGardener]

17. There WILL be a bailout either way--we are already bailing out companies and banks--

that isn't going to stop. That's what the Republicans want--they want the taxpayer money to go to Wall Street QUIETLY, under the radar, without the changes in regulations and any benefit to the taxpayers, AND they don't want to have to attach themselves to this mess politically--that's why they are arguing against the legislated bailout. They DON'T want an official bailout package from Congress because then there would be regulatory changes, oversight, and control over how that money is spent. When conservative Repubs want something, you have to question it--they are NEVER on the side of the average American, they are ALWAYS on the side of the corporations.

[NeedleCast]

12. For

However, it should have never gotten to this point in the first place. The choice has become, at this point, between two things that sucks, so we have to pick the road that sucks the least. Democrats have gotten enough influence into this bill that it no longer really resembles what Paulson originally wanted, which was basically a blank check.

[L. Coyote]

13. No confusion. Bush tax cuts created the real estrate bubble .....

Previous tax cuts in the US were tied to investing in producing jobs, industrial investment, production of goods, etc.
The Bush tax cuts created extra free capital in the hands of lots of greedy individuals, who act in self-interest,
and invested in property, creating a bubble that drove more people into property investing.

This is a bailout of the rich who own the mortgages, not a bailout of the mortgagees!! We are paying for the Bush tax cuts TWICE.

[Incitatus]

14. There seems to be some validity to their argument.

I am not convinced that it is absolutely necessary. If enough banks fail, and it becomes extremely difficult for anyone to get credit and when they can the rate will be very high, that would have a negative impact on the economy.

Are there enough responsible banks out there to pick up the pieces and move us along or is the problem so widespread that we will face economic collapse if nothing is done?

[tjwash]

16. Great idea! Lets pass the hat in the bleachers to send champagne to the luxury suites.

Poor billionaires.

The people that the government just put first in line to be saved bailout aren't the poor, but the greedy profiteers who had the biggest hand in impoverishing others.

We're saving those who have accumulated more money then they could spend in several lifetimes, because they were able to game the real estate market to the point where honest working people in cities all over this country can now barely afford to live in the places that would be unlivable without their daily efforts. So workers, whether laid off or forced into accepting a pay-scale set in China, now must pay artificially high prices for shelter.

Great idea...things are only gonna get better now. :eyes:

[liberalmuse]

18. I'm not totally against a Bailout...

but I'm not for it, either. I'm against Paulsen's initial proposal, that's for sure.

I know one thing: I do not like the way this is being rushed through Congress. It is too reminiscent of the way 'The Patriot Act' and 'IWR' were railroaded by Bush/Cheney. I also disagree with the amount Se. Paulsen is requesting. That's a figure the Bushies have admitted they essentially pulled out of their collective asses.

This is the wrong administration to fix this problem. They can't be trusted to do anything right, or even come up with a real solution. All they do is use fear and strong arm tactics in order to get what they want, which in the end, comes down to money in their cronies' and their own pockets, with little thought of the consequences for the rest of the world.

Why aren't the American people being told what is in the plan? We should have a few days to review it before Congress takes a vote. I don't like what has leaked so far. The provisions are still too vague. We need specific language where the Bushies are concerned, or else they no doubt will take huge liberties, doing what they damn well please.

I'm angry and sick about this. Who here wants their grandchildren saddled with Bush's folly? It is a sad day, and the worst part is, the economy will likely melt down anyway, and within a short time of the Bailout's passing. I really don't mind if McCain wants to take the credit for this. So be it. Either way, it's lose/lose.

Also, if anyone is thinking of withholding their Federal taxes from their paycheck in protest, forget it. I think the Bushies have probably already thought of this. This gouge will deducted from our paychecks just like 'FICA' and 'Medicare', but probably under, 'SCREWN'.

[WePurrsevere]

28. This pretty much sums up how I feel.. I think there's a better solution out there...

the more they push and try to raise the panic levels the more I want to wait and pull on the chest high waders. I personally think putting that kind of money out to American households making under $150k or into helping create and keep jobs here would be of the greatest long term benefit over giving any more money to big corporations and these "Wall Street" skunks.

[Texasgal]

19. I'm with you.

I am confused and have no idea how to feel about it.

All I know is that I struggle to pay my bills and keep my very ill husband alive. I just try to live day by day.

[snot]

20. watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daOfYmSLW_U&eurl=http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/590-FLASH-Fed-Speaking-Out-Both-Sides-Of-Mouth.html

[lostnotforgotten]

22. Very Good Video - No Bailout, No Way, Not Today, Not Ever

eom

[undergroundpanther]

21. No Bailout

Let them fail for being criminals.Fuck wall street.

[CrispyQ]

23. Like you, I simply don't know enough about global economics to make an educated stand.

However, the fact that boosh & his cronies are for this, makes me very suspicious that we are being played.

"The Trillion Dollar Wrong Thing"
by Larry Beinhart

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/27-0

snip...

Reason #1 to be suspicious of the Big Big Bailout, is George Bush.

This is not a Bush bash, it's actually an analysis.
All major George Bush initiatives, and most of the minor ones too, have certain things in common.

#1: They're failures.
#2: They leave a big mess for other people to clean up. Someday.
#3: They make matters worse.
#4: Some small group of people profit from it, and they profit hugely.
#5: That profit comes from using the government to take money from ordinary people and give it to people who are already very rich and well connected.

[Sparkly]

24. I'm not sure about it, either.

I hear it's absolutely necessary to prevent immense pain to people, but I'm not sure I believe there aren't other alternatives. (For example, tax the hell out of the richest 1%.)

Like you, I know what I don't know -- and I don't know this level of economics.

[johnfunk]

25. Let the criminal money houses DIE. Bail out homeowners who have been swindled.

Then tar and feather both Paulson and Bernanke and send them both running down Connecticut Avenue.

Finally, three new appointments:

Federal Reserve Chairman Nouriel Roubini
Treasury Secretary Robert Reich
SEC Chairman Andrew Cuomo

And maybe, just to exact revenge for the way right wing thugs ratfucked him:
Special Prosecutor Eliot Spitzer

[lostnotforgotten]

26. Free Market Solution Right Here - Bailout Not Required!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daOfYmSLW_U&eurl=http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/590-FLASH-Fed-Speaking-Out-Both-Sides-Of-Mouth.html

[rgbecker]

27. I'm going with OBAMA on this. He's smart and he's going to have to deal with it next year.

OBAMA STATEMENT ON BAILOUT DEAL

The breakthrough between Congress and the Administration is the culmination of a sorry period in our history, in which reckless speculation and greed on Wall Street and lax oversight from Washington led to a meltdown of our financial markets. But regardless of how we got here, a failure to deal with the current crisis would have devastating consequences for our economy, costing millions of Americans their jobs and retirement security.

“To understand how this tentative deal was reached, it's important to remember how this all began. The Bush Administration initially asked for a blank check to respond to this problem, which I strongly opposed. It would have been unconscionable to expect the American people to hand this Administration or any Administration a $700 billion check with no conditions and no oversight when a lack of oversight in Washington and on Wall Street is exactly what got us into this mess. If the American people are being asked to pay for the solution to this crisis, their tax dollars must be protected.

“That is why over the past ten days, in conversations with the President, Secretary of Treasury and leaders of Congress, I laid out the four core principles I believed had to guide any solution: oversight by an independent board; protections for taxpayers to ensure that they are treated like investors and that they receive any profits - and recoup any losses - from this plan; measures to help homeowners stay in their homes; and rules to make sure CEOs are not being rewarded at taxpayers' expense. While I look forward to reviewing the language of the legislation, it appears that the tentative deal embraces these principles.

“When taxpayers are asked to take such an extraordinary step because of the irresponsibility of a relative few, it is not a cause for celebration. But this step is necessary. Now Washington has to show the same sense of urgency in dealing with the crisis facing Main Street and the middle class by passing an emergency economic stimulus plan that would create jobs by rebuilding our crumbing roads; shore up flagging state budgets to prevent drastic cuts in education and health care; and extend expiring unemployment insurance benefits for those who've lost their jobs in this downturn and cannot find new ones.

“One final point. If elected President, I will order a thorough review of this plan to make sure that it fully lives up to the principles I've laid out. And I will also move quickly to upgrade our financial regulations for the 21st century, establishing new rules of the road and tougher oversight to ensure that the American taxpayers are never again forced to put their money and their futures at risk because of bad decisions in Washington and on Wall Street.”