Why the bailout bill went down
By Gail Russell Chaddock | 09.29.08
Washington – A sweeping rescue plan for US financial markets foundered in the US House Monday on a combination of doubts about the plan, reelection concerns, disdain for bailing out Wall Street bankers, and a deep philosophical distaste for massive government intervention in the private sector among conservatives.
The Dow Jones stock index plunged a record 777.68 points on the day a reaction that Democrats say could pave the way for a new vote, as early as Thursday.
Despite opinion polls showing that the public was warming to the idea of a rescue plan – and efforts by congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle to round up support – the measure failed 205 to 228, with 95 Democrats and 133 Republicans voting to scuttle the proposed $700 billion bailout. Most lawmakers had been deluged with calls and e-mail from voters angry that, as they see it, taxpayer dollars would be used to bail out Wall Street fat cats.
It was clear from lawmakers’ post-vote comments, especially among conservative Republicans, that the bill represented nothing short of a repudiation of values – such as faith in small government and market mechanisms – that they have cherished since the days of Ronald Reagan.
“Inaction has never been an option, but [Treasury chief Henry] Paulson’s plan should never have been our only option,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R) of Texas, who heads the conservative Republican Study Group. “I fear that under this plan ultimately the federal government will become the guarantor of last resort, and that does put us on the slippery slope to socialism.”
Despite Monday’s loss, major players in the effort to prevent the credit crisis from worsening vowed to have another try at it later this week.
“The legislation has failed. The crisis is still with us,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a briefing after the vote. “The lines of communication remain open.”
Secretary Paulson reaffirmed the need for a rescue plan for the US financial system, pledging to keep talking to lawmakers to come up with “a plan that works.”
“We’ve got much work to do and this is much too important to simply let fail,” Paulson told reporters after meeting President Bush to discuss the bill’s rejection. “We need to work as quickly as possible.”
House conservatives had clashed last week with the White House over the shape of the proposed rescue plan, which proposed that the Treasury Department buy up “troubled assets” from financial institutions, including foreign banks. They favored charging Wall Street to fund its own bailout through a government-backed insurance program – elements of which were included in the final rescue plan.
But for most GOP conservatives, the plan would still leave the Treasury secretary picking winners and losers in the US economy.
“I’m resolute in my opposition,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R) of California. “Today we are ending the Reagan era if we vote for this, and we can’t come back and fix it next year.” The bill was also a tough call for Democrats, who resented being seen as lining up to bail out Wall Street just before an election, as their GOP challengers claimed to side with Main Street.
“We could lose seats over this,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D) of New York, who nonetheless voted for the plan.
Some Democrats on the left wing of the party repudiated the plan. “What we are considering today is still built on the Paulson-Bush premise that buying up Wall Street’s bad bets will solve the liquidity problem. I don’t buy it,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D) of Oregon.
There are less expensive, less risky ways to solve the problem, he said. “We can do better. We should start again on a new package.”
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D) of Missouri, a member of the House Finance Committee, delayed his vote until the last minute to see if GOP leaders could deliver a majority of their own caucus. They did not, and he voted against the bill. “There’s no reason for us to go in and bail Bush out if his own party rejects him,” he said.
Monday’s vote marked the sharpest repudiation ever of the Bush White House by House Republicans, who voted against the plan by a margin of 2 to 1.
In a press briefing after the bill failed, House GOP leader John Boehner said Speaker Pelosi’s floor speech before the vote “poisoned” the GOP caucus and cost as many as a dozen Republican votes that had previously been committed to the rescue plan. In her speech, Pelosi blamed America’s financial woes on eight years of the Bush administration’s “reckless economic policies.”
Responding to the bill’s failure, Mr. Bush said: “Our strategy is to continue to address this economic situation head on, and we will be working to develop a strategy that will enable us to continue to move forward.”
Meanwhile, Monday’s vote sent the US Senate back to intraparty and interparty discussions on how to proceed.
“We need to have conversations. We don’t know what the next steps are,” says Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate majority leader Harry Reid. The Senate had planned to vote on the bill on Thursday.
“The problem is not going away. We’re going to stay here until we find a solution,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. “It’s time to fix the problem, not the fix the blame.”
Associated Press material was used in this report.
<< Will Europe need its own bailout? | MainComments
2. Diana | 09.29.08
Please do NOT give Wall Street everything they’re asking for! They don’t care about anything except fattening their own calves. And since when did Middle-Class America become Main Street? Pulleeze. We’re not trying to be fancy, here. We’re just trying to SURVIVE!
3. spencer Williams | 09.29.08
I do not understand why nothing has been proposed that includes bringing home the troops and saving money by not being at war. Let Iraq use its funds now to operate its country. Why should we continue to sacrifice our taxes and our country for them, when they are not using the funds they have? Would we not save billions in this way?
thank you.
4. jim adams | 09.29.08
i think it’s funny to the point of being hilarious—President Bush charging out to lead our country into some of the worst aspects of socialism to save a bunch of megacorporations from their own stupidity. Yuucccch!.
5. jerry rubin | 09.29.08
The issue is that they are using the wrong vocabulary and principal. It should be a LOAN program in which the American public loans to the market money, like a bank, at a low interest loan - 2-3%.
This would allow the American people own part of the giving to Main Street. It may seem like socialism but it is better then trickle down economics of the Reagan era. Which Reagan and Greenspan created.
6. Samuel Adams | 09.29.08
THROW OUT ALL INCUMBENTS. IMPEACH ALL BUSHES.
THE REPUKICANS HAVE BROUGHT AMERICA TO THIS SORROWFUL PASS.
I will be voting straight Dem this year. Viva la revolucion!
7. Eric | 09.29.08
The upside? A great time to buy stocks! Get in on the ground floor, hold steady then sell when the economy shifts into high gear again.
8. zanardm | 09.29.08
DON’T BAIL OUT THE HEDGE FUNDS!
Nice work House. We will make sure that any incombent that votes for bailout, will not return. Their opponents in upcoming election can use the NO BAILOUT OF HEDGE FUNDS mantra.
9. Bryan W. | 09.29.08
While I am in agreement that something needs to be done about the current state of our economy, I was not in agreement with this proposed method of “doing something”. Spending 700 billion of the nation’s money, which would trickle down in the form of taxes on the common person, is not acceptable. Neither was “bailing out” a system that makes the rich richer. Frankly, I am glad this bill was shot down as it should have been. Now our elected officials can consider actually working on the problems of a failing system, instead of trying to sign a check to make it go away at the tax payer’s expense. No amount of pleading by bought-out politicians could ever convince me that this was ever a good idea. Especially when there was never going to be a guarantee that this “investment” would pay out for those who would be made to pay for it.
10. maximo1561 | 09.29.08
The “trickle down bail out” was a solution with few believers that was only considered because the world would supposedly end if it wasn’t passed. Well it didn’t pass and although Wall Street will tear out their hair, the world won’t end on Main Street on Tuesday. Let them craft a solution that more directly helps homeowners and businessmen with a credit crunch problem. Bailing out the banks who made bad bets is too indirect a solution for the problem. And the “Golden Parachute” restrictions were so toothless that a child could have gotten around them. Find a way to punish the greed mongers on Wall Street and it will have my vote.
11. trups | 09.29.08
What happened to the democrats? Why would they even support such a bill? Arent they SMART enough to see this is a BUSH-CRONIES GOING AWAY PACKAGE? Why should WE pay for their abominable acts? THEY ARE THE ONES WHO GOT US INTO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. As if they have not made top $$ off OUR BLOOD AND SWEAT that now they want to completely CLEAN US OUT? If they want to do something, THEN HELP US HOMEOWNERS WHO WERE SUCKERED INTO FALSE HOPES. Interesting comment I heard from Thom HArtman show by a Robbie Batra chap. He outlined a similar crash and bailout in the 80’s, 90’s and now. Also said people like GOldman Sachs BORROW $$ to speculate and play around with $$ off oil, etc? And here we are, smart (we think?) to AID THE SAME PEOPLE? It is about time CEO’s start from where we did, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LADDER WITH NO SILVER SPOON. Democracy? HUH!
12. Carl Justus | 09.29.08
The bill should ban ALL EXECUTIVES OF THE COMPANIES OF GETTING MORE THAN ONE WEEKS PAY AT THE MINIMUM WAGE, PERIOD. I DO NOT CARE WHAT KIND OF CONTRACT THEY HAD OR HAVE…
I do not want my tax dollars giving massive balloon payments to [those] executives, that would be the last straw.
If they had not been over zealous in trying to get millions in bonuses and stock options by going after inferior mortgages they would not be in this mess…
13. Patricia Lyall Hill | 09.29.08
This bail-out plan as presented by Paulson is just wrong! There were no hearings, no debate, virtually no strings so who “in H” are these foolish gamblers who invested in risky deals and why should they get help? Wall Street must pay, the foolish homeowners must pay so go back to the drawing board and draft a balanced bill for individuals and corporations that INCLUDES controls…
14. donald share | 09.29.08
without a bailout plan i belive there will be a run on all banks. that will cause a depression greater than 1929. what do we do? if i knew that i would be the next leader of this great nation. ask donald trump and do as he says. we need a great money man as our leader, not a war hero or a rookie. i love all you people that voted for george bush. have you had enough?
15. Larscars | 09.29.08
Accountability, This is happening on the “Republican watch”. Democrats should not cast a single vote for this until EVERY republican votes for it. It is a Republican problem. That’s why a Republican president is begging for help for his errors and lack of economic experience. Let those that made the error stand up and apologize. That is what they ask of their children. A simple apology from the president would go along way. The buck stops with him. Accountability!
16. TJ | 09.29.08
I have never seen such a poor display of leadership as manifested by the inaction of the Republican House today. No one “likes” the fact that in order to save our capitalist society we must resort to what looks like socialism for awhile because the Republican Administration of an MBA President and a CEO Vice President was allowed to run wild by a wimpy Republican Congress for 6 years + 2 years when they were uncooperative. They picked a poor time to stand up to their president after all of the corruption and abuse of 7 1/2 years.
I heard what the Speaker said and if seasoned politicians were “hurt” so much that they could not do their job, they do not belong there.
I propose that for each day of inaction and political posturing on this issue and on every other important issue that stalls because of politics instead of because of government, that tax payors deduct $25.00 a day from our taxes in April. We will keep our own records and if we all do it, no one can do anything about it. It is a “revolt” of sorts, since we cannot hold another Boston Tea Party in exactly the same way, but, what we have here is most certainly taxation without representation.
There has been sufficient time before the crisis hit for Republicans to prepare an option or an alternative proposal.
Beginning with their “dear leader”, McCain, they have done nothing but political posturing since Saturday, grabbing camera and mic time every chance they could.
17. umphrey e mckinney | 09.29.08
offer to buy the bonds at 10% on the dollar. then figure out who was speculating on his house and kick him out…
18. Dr. Obvious | 09.29.08
This article appears to be short on facts. What happened to the $6.6B in pork that was being slapped on the bill? And how about the long chiding by Nancy Palosi laying at the feet of Bush the blame for the current crisis? I think it is obvious that politics have set in motion the most dire of circumstances we now face. While we do not have a law against it, it ranks right up there with shouting “fire” in a theater. This convinces me that the parties are looking out for their own welfare over that of the American People who trusted and elected them. Rational self-interest should not play this role in our history.
I do not know if I would like to be in politics when the weight of this poor judgement sinks into the minds of the American people. Can you imagine how they will react when they figure out that it was poor politics that cost them their retirements, livelihoods, houses, and security.
20. Christina Holbrook | 09.29.08
Lets put the blame where it mostly belongs - on the Democrats, starting with Carter. Barney Frank, Bill Clinton Christopher Dodd. This goes all the way back to the Carter Administration and was reinforced in the Clinton Administration, but the Democrats with their typical disregard for the truth and facts and their collective amnesia try to pass the blame on to the Republicans. Anyone with any claim to honest intellect can look up the facts and see that the present administration did not lay the groundwork for this mess. I do not condone the way the President is handling the problem, though by rewarding failure and sticking it to the taxpayers. It’s not “the Government” doing the bailing out, it’s us taxpayers (as usual) that are getting the bill for what is essentially a Government screw-up. Where is the incentive for improvement when there are no consequences for those responsible for this mess. Who will bail me out for my losses in the stock market? What about my losses in the sale of my house.
21. TJ | 09.29.08
Rep Maloney (D) of New York “could lose her seat over this”, that is for sure, especially when we stop funding them and stop paying their salaries by charging a penalty of $25 a day for each day of “politics as usual”.
22. armando sandoval | 09.29.08
I am a democrat(for whatever that means) and I feel that the rescue for the finantial crisis is necessary. But, Will this mean that we are to rescue those entities that got us into this problem? We must avoid the depression by any means, but we have to analize the source of this situation and put things under a democratic control. Absolutely, a democratic (for and by the people) control and put a tight control on the way things are to be handle for the good of the nation and not for the good of those that brought us into this criminal situation.
23. Steve Veltkamp | 09.29.08
700 billion to bail out Wall Street - no way!
Helping America would not take nearly that much. Two very important steps would cost us NOTHING.
1. Bring back the usury laws that limit APR to something reasonable, like 12%
When people are in trouble and miss a payment, upping their rate to 30%+ simply drives them further into trouble. Most states have or had usury laws, but the Congress enacted a sweetheart deal for banks that have ‘National’ scope that removes them from it.
2. Repeal the bankruptcy law changes made recently that makes it harder for ordinary citizens to escape from debt hell - a hell often created by the situation in #1
3. I agree with prior comment, we should not GIVE money to bail out Wall Street, we should LEND it - at the same rate and terms the banks would charge on credit card cash advances.
24. John Root | 09.29.08
The problem is that the currency is created as loans. Because only the principle is ever created there is never enough money to pay the interest. All the money to pay the interest has to come from new principle. No wonder we are all over our heads in debt, that’s where the money is. Watch Money as Debt at video.google.com to get a really clear understanding of this.
25. Henry F | 09.29.08
No, calling it a loan from the public is not a good solution. One of the key elements of the plan was that the government can take a the major equity share of these bad and greatly discounted assets, and thus over time be able to make a profit on enough of them that the losses are offset. A low interest loan arrangement does not afford the ability for gain — it exposes the public money to high risk without any possibility of an upside. A low interest loan would have truly been a bailout — Congress’ plan was actually an investment trust and much more prudent.
26. Greg | 09.29.08
Why isn’t abolishing the Federal Reserve being discussed? The US Treasury borrows money from the private Federal Reserve at interest! The US Constitution calls for the government to create money, not a private bank. The revenue collected by the IRS goes towards the Interest on this debt. Don’t giggle and laugh, look this up on your own.
Abolishing the IRS and Federal Reserve, and following Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution would have never got us in this mess in the first place.
27. D. Mayo | 09.29.08
True—I’ll bet many don’t even realize the alterations to the original Paulson plan, e.g., that if the money is not restored in 5 years, the banks make good on it! And where’s McCain when things are truly rudderless and in need of leadership? It’s pathetic that in a TRUE crises, nobody believes Bush anymore—certainly they question the competence of anything he would propose to solve a problem.
WHY CAN’T THEY MAKE THIS TEMPORARY? SOMETHING TO COME UP FOR RECONSIDERATION (E.G., LIKE THE PATRIOT ACT) SOME TIME DOWN THE PIKE?
28. Realista | 09.29.08
Ten Reasons to Oppose the Wall Street Bailout
1. In a market economy capitalists justify their profits by the risk of losses that they take. Gamblers cannot keep their profits and pass their losses to the taxpayers. They have to take responsibility for their bad decisions.
2. Much of the toxic (garbage) debts were based on fraudulent practices – opaque financial instruments unrelated to real assets (but which generated huge commissions). Bailing out swindlers only encourages more swindling.
3. The US Treasury will purchase worthless paper, the private banks will retain any assets of value. We buy the lemons, they drive the Cadillacs.
4. The chance of the Treasury recovering any value from their purchases of bad debt is near zero. The taxpayers will be stuck with paper with no buyers.
5. The long-term effect of a bailout will be to double the public debt and undercut funding for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education and public health programs while increasing the tax burden of future generations.
6. The dollar will devalue as the government debt will decrease its attractiveness overseas, increasing the cost of imports and resulting in an inflationary spiral which will further undermine working people’s living standards.
7. The channeling of funds to Wall Street will divert funds from getting us out of this deepening recession.
8. The bailout will deepen the financial crisis because, according to the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, it will expose the fact that many institutions may be carrying many more ‘toxic assets’ and reveal that those institutions are not solvent. In other words, the Treasury and Congress are freeing up bad debts to insolvent institutions.
9. The bailout is aimed at facilitating lending; but if the problem is not credit but (as the Congressional Budget Office has shown) the insolvency of the financial institutions, the solution is to create solvent financial institutions.
10. The bailout totally ignores the financial needs of 10 million homeowners facing foreclosures; the bankruptcy of small enterprises facing a credit crunch and the loss of workers’ jobs and health plans for their families because of the recession.
29. drew | 09.29.08
Yeah, its like a LOAN, a LOAN that you have to manditorily buy into, with no chioce where the government LOANS thier money to….and you will get back the money in interest payments every month.
Sign me up, and I will tell them where to mail my LOAN checks.
30. carol luecker | 09.29.08
WE DO NOT NEED TO BAIL OUT WALL STREET.. THEY GOT INTO THIS MESS, LET THE OVERPAID CEO`S WORK FOR THEIR MONEY. I WOULD NOT GIVE THEM A PENNY…YOU HAVE CORPORATIONS BUYING INTO ALL THESE COMPANIES. LET THEM FIX THEMSELVES. IF I GET INTO A MESS THE GOV`T WILL NOT BAIL ME OUT. IF A PUBLIC COMPANY IS IN TROUBLE WE(TAXPAYERS) SHOULD NOT BAIL THEM OUT. YOU HAVE AUTO CO. LOOKING FOR BAILOUTS AND YET THEY ARE BUYING LAND AND STARTING NEW FACTORIES. WHY?? CAN`T THEY USE THEIR OLD FACTORIES THAT THEY SHUT DOWN?? ALWAYS THE EXPENSIVE WAY. NEED TO LEARN HOW TO MAKE A BUDGET AND STAY ON IT. NATIONALLY!!!! IMAGINE A BALANCED BUDGET. IT WILL BE MY GRANDCHILDREN PAYING FOR A 700BILLION BAILOUT..
31. John | 09.29.08
I’m an independent but hate the idea that our money will go to those greediest of people that caused the problem. Firstly, I understand they gutted the bill of capping CEO pay which I thought was absolutely necessary. Secondly, do you want to give the executive branch, which has consistantly lied and failed the average American, more power. I don’t trust them. Ane finally, can you imagine a government which has ran up an almost 10 trillion dollar debt pointing fingers about fiscal responsibility; saying they can fix the problem; using wording like the American public might get some of it back. Give me a break. I say let the chips fall where they may. One final note: Did anyone actually read the bill. I understand it’s hundreds of pages and was voted on hours after its publication. I’d feal a little more comfortable about it if any one actually read the thing. No on this one.
32. pugilistswine | 09.29.08
I am deeply saddened by the institutional ignorance over basic economics - it is stunning to think that these [people] appear to believe that this problem is solvable without having the people of the USA and the rest of the world suffer for the excesses caused by central banking and fiat currency. They can be relied upon to blame everything other than the actual problem which is the system itself. These guys are running around saying there is going to be a depression if something isn’t done - there is going to be a depression anyway! This is not an either / or situation, they wont fix it because they cant fix it - it is the inevitable hangover that must come after repeatedly inflating the economy (the fed is the CAUSE of the problem! not the solution!) and increasing government spending. You want to FIX it? then a total review of currency, fractional reserve banking and massive reductions in government spending need to take place. When it really hits the fan… when we have a major market crash and extensive inflation problems and all the social destruction it causes - Ironically capitalism will take the hit instead and we will bury ourselves further; when free markets would never have allowed this to happen, constant government intervention to “stabilize” the free market has caused all of these ills. These are very very sad days indeed.
33. Eugene Schilling | 09.29.08
Has anyone checked as to how much other employees are being paid in the excess? Seems as if the complete pay scale should be revised to reasonable wages.
34. hop holmberg | 09.29.08
Yes, vocabulary is a problem: “bailout” creates opposition.
But “LOAN” won’t work because a loan becomes another liability on the sick balance sheets of these financial institutions. Buying the doggy assets helps clean up the balance sheets and make it possible for those institutions to get back into the business of granting credit and facilitating the functioning of the economy.
35. Brigitte | 09.29.08
There are other ways to solve the problem. An intriguing way was outlined by Galbraith in Washington Post about a week ago. He suggests to not bail out the banks but to increase funding for FDIC and Moneymarkets and invest more money into infrastructure projects to create jobs so the crisis will work itself out in 3 years instead of the 10 years, which he projects under the bailout.
Converting the high interest mortgages to more reasonably priced and structured mortgages would also stop a good portion of the problem for less cost. Coppled with a lowering of credit card interest rates so people actually still can pay those loans back, would create more new stability than just refilling the banks with cash without addressing the wrongs. If people can’t repay their credit card loans a lot more banks will fall.
I think the major problem which was overlooked in all the politicization of the meltdown is that the crisis was brought about by the skyrocketing oil prices which priced the U.S. consumer out of consumption, thereby starting the avalanche which now buries the banks.
A bit more regulation to reign in the oil speculators, so the oil price is more in line with reality instead of future extreme profits by a few, would solve the problem for less. That the oil price has not much to do with demand is obvious since the price came down because the bailout was rejected, not because consumption changed. Most people of limited means have already reduced their consumption of energy to a minimum, so consumption isn’t going to change much anymore other than upwards if the economy improves. Which proves my point of the speculators.
36. Watch CSPAN | 09.29.08
Over 1/3 of house Ds and the majority of house Rs voted this down. Pelosi wasn’t even on the floor during the last debate and vote! Shows how much she cares. The financial agencies testified before a Congressional committee months ago swearing they would work with borrowers to redraft their mortgages. They have done nothing of the sort! Now they want the taxpayer to buy all this bad paper? AND bail out FOREIGN banks who were dumb enough to buy the bad paper too? The industry has not worked in good faith to try and solve this issue to this day, and they have continued to foreclose instead of working with borrowers. If taxpayers are going to jump in with their hard earned money, feet need to be held to the fire a lot more than in today’s shaky offering!
37. jems | 09.29.08
Accountability. It’s pretty simple.
Of course there will be pressure, since the BIG BIG BIG BIG players in this snafu own many votes. Politicians are struggling between doing what is right, and doing what will keep them in office.
39. Dennis | 09.29.08
It is so disingenuous that the Republicans claim fiscal responsibility and blame the Democrats when they had no problem voting on budgets and spending for the last seven years that created the largest deficit in the history of the US,as well as the largest government.
-Dennis
40. dom | 09.29.08
The bailout bill went down because Bush made a big public play for it. He has zero credibility. When faced with a complex issue, all you need to do is see who’s for it to determine if it is a good thing.
Bush-Pelosi-Frank. No way.
Both Obama and McCain took a step backwards with their support of the bail out.
What interested me ironically about the proposed Wall Street bailout was the long-term potential for the US taxpayer to actually make some money from it. I read where democrats saw that potential and wanted to earmark 20% of any gain to provide ‘affordable housing’ while republicans wanted 100% of any gain to be returned to the Treasury.
Anyone voting for this bail out, democrat or republican stinks, but already-stinking democrats chomping at the bit to spend money in the future to provide loans to people who can’t afford them (sound familiar?) once again prove McCain/Palin is the lessor of the two evils.
41. Kennon | 09.29.08
This problem was created because of government intervention. More Government intervention is not the solution. Thank goodness there are enough people left in Washington that understand this. If Greenspan and Bush had just let the economy deflate a little instead of keeping it propped up with fiat money and lowering interest rates we would have had a minor recession a couple years ago and today the economy would be steaming along just fine. I hope they learned their lessons this time. Lets just ride this thing out for the next 5 years and learn from our mistakes without nationalizing the banking system please. If I wanted to live in Europe I would move there thank you.
42. Vic | 09.29.08
I lost one year of my working life in the market today from my retirement fund. I will scale back my spending to try to make up that ground. The local coffee shop will lose a few bucks a week from me and everybody else who goes there. Somebody will get laid off, this will happen in all facets of the economy. My companies customers will scale back, I might get laid off.
Tomorrow, I might lose another year, so might a lot of other people.
If you don’t own stocks, and think it is just a bunch of scoundrels in NY that are suffering, you are sorely mistaken. A previous poster mentioned trickle down, this suffering is going to trickle down. If you are paycheck to paycheck, you very well could be on the verge of homelessness if the market continues to plummet and people start to scale back.
This is scary…
We will all go down together.
43. SL | 09.29.08
It’s completely unfair that Pelosi puts this all on the shoulders of the Bush administration. How easily she forgets the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)… boy, what a nice, friendly, feel good name…. that the likes of Carter and Clinton whole-heartedly supported. If I had the chance, I would ask Pelosi if the support of these Democrat-sponsored acts had nothing to do with the current crisis. The CRA is a classic example of a Democrat “feel good” bill that has a long term implications. Expect more if Obama gets elected.
44. John Doe | 09.29.08
I’m really glad that most lawmakers saw this bill for what it is. Giving more money to the banks will not fix the underlying problem or make the Mortgage-backed Securities look any better. As long as there are too many overvalued homes with no one to pay for them, investors foreign and domestic alike will go for other securities (eg: crude oil). The “plan” would have only delayed our economic meltdown. Refinance the mortgages so that people can pay back those loans! Bail out the people, not the overpaid Execs that created this mess in the first place!
45. Douglas | 09.29.08
All economics is “trickle down”. Whether it is a free market or a government directed economy, money does not flow up. It cannot. I would rather see this plan actually sold to the American public than shoved down our throats in panicked rush to stave off an alleged second Great Depression. I think it is the duty of our elected servants to show us that of all the groups and individuals this will benefit none will be politicians who created this fiasco some 30 years ago with the Community Reinvestment Act. For far too long, both the major parties have played politics at every turn, creating crises and then using them to further (or gain/regain) power. In 2006, the Democrats promised reform, prosperity, and peace. Instead they more than doubled the cost of oil (from $50 a bbl to over $100), popped the real estate bubble, and blocked a swift resolution to the war. Kick them out. Give the reins back to the Republicans and give them 2 years to turn things around or they get kicked out. No more career politicians.
46. David Weisenfelder | 09.29.08
I’m really glad that most lawmakers saw this bill for what it is. Giving more money to the banks will not fix the underlying problem or make the Mortgage-backed Securities look any better. As long as there are too many overvalued homes with no one to pay for them, investors foreign and domestic alike will go for other securities (eg: crude oil). The “plan” would have only delayed our economic meltdown. Refinance the mortgages so that people can pay back those loans! Bail out the people, not the overpaid Execs that created this mess in the first place!
47. Jeff Pike | 09.29.08
every US citizen should be required to read Thom Hartmann’s political columns..Why is there not a (very small)stock transaction tax like most countries have to stop reckless specualation & to help pay for things?..
48. Keyser Soze | 09.29.08
Better than the Reagan era? I think not, but your plan is not socialism in any case, it is capitalism at it’s finest. It would actually reduce socialism, by reducing the financial slavery taxes oppress the populace with, by letting the govt earn it’s own money. One small problem though, the interest rate needs to be higher than inflation, 5% interest minimum.
49. Traci Isaacs | 09.29.08
While I see some value in this failed legislation, I don’t support it in any shape or form. I have serious doubts whether this would even work now. The risk is too great for vague promises of reward. If this bailout was a project proposal for my company, I’d pass.
As a side note, I must say I’m discouraged to see political posturing replace conviction and doing what’s right for all us, regardless of party.
My husband is a conservative Republican, I’m a left-wing Democrat (so he says), we do what’s right for “us” even though we don’t agree politically. We run a company together and you know our philosophical ideas are vastly different. Now I wish our elected leaders could put the aisle aside and act like they deserve the jobs we’ve given them. It’s really shameful to hear useless bickering in our nation’s time of need.
What I’d like to hear after a vote is why, not who.
50. tom | 09.29.08
It is not a “loan” or a secured loan.
We are buying failed investments. We ar purchasing Junk Bonds on the assurances that they will someday make a profit.
what do large corporations do in this case?
They take the aid, shift the debt, split the corporation with part of it
holding th bad debt, then send that into insolvency and bankrupcy and
take it as a loss. The issue is the loss will be taxpayers after they rearange the corporate structure.
It’s a no intrest loan. As in “It’s a wonderful life” maybe it’s time to help the Tom Baily’s and small banks set up vs the “potters” who seek to control it all.
51. Mary Porter | 09.29.08
I find I am not as distressed by this outcome as I would have expected. It smacks somewhat of democracy, in that legislators’ reluctance to back the package was based on their constituents’ opposition (whatever political spin they put on it).
The Republican proposal to escape “socialism” by insuring the debt (for eventual payout at a huge loss to taxpayers) is a ploy to rescue their capitalist cronies. I am queasy at letting ANYBODY in the Bush administration administer a $350 billion boondoggle. So lets take it a step at a time for a while, so that the Democratic majority can actually have hearings on each step, and deliberate with the care this situation requires. I have come to think the markets might be able to calm themselves a little once such steps are embarked upon - I suspect financial speculators of blackmail when they all threaten to hold their breath until we turn blue.
52. JR Heptonstall | 09.29.08
To our Federal Government,
Stop bickering. If the patient is dead no operation will get him back to life. First order of the day is to restore trust and confidence into the financial system. You can work on preventing re-occurrence and - if you have to - assign blame - later. Take a sell-able stake in the organizations you rescue, in the end the bill to the tax-payer could very well be minimal. But rescue we must. It is ludicrous to cut your nose to spite your face - and that is exactly what is happening in Washington at the moment. If nothing is done this week, we face the very real prospect of a very serious world-wide recession with a very sharp decline of our own economic leadership position and economic future role in the world as final result once everybody comes out of this recession. Guys get moving NOW, otherwise everything that comes out of Washington is too little - too late (even if you approve more than 700bil in the end).
53. nic | 09.29.08
Part of what our country stands for is individual accountability. I feel we should let this crisis happen and let us rebuild. There was irresponsibility by the banks, and there was plenty of irresponsibility by the consumers taking out the loans. Let people accept the consequences of their actions. If we take away the consequences this time, something else will burst and there will be a bigger problem to solve tomorrow.
Live within your means and don’t take out loans you cannot afford.
54. kurt | 09.29.08
Agreed, any help should be in the form of a loan, at the same time every executive from CEO on down should held accountable in the form of asset loss.
KEEP ON MAKING YOURSELF HEARD MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS!
55. josh williams | 09.29.08
Mr. Rubin: If it’s a “loan” that the government is providing, what if it’s a bad loan? How can we be sure that any money that’s “loaned” to these companies will have any return, whatsoever? I think many of these banks got in trouble because of bad loans– and they’re the experts, with a stake in their profitability. Once in the loan business, I doubt the government will ever function as efficiently as a bank that’s run for profit. Some of these banks could easily go bankrupt despite government intervention, and then we’d have to bail them out (or absorb the cost somehow as a society) when they file for bankruptcy.
It’s a shame we’re at this stage. But George W. Bush has zero credibility in my book: how can he sell this as an impending crisis when he lied to the American people to justify the war on Iraq?
In my opinion, this entire issue is too complex for the average voter (myself included). And as much as I’d like to have faith in our elected “leaders” to sort through this mess, the majority of those leaders are corrupt and ruled by self-interest. The entire system is corrupt, and I think we’re all going to pay for it.
56. Rose Newburg,Jena,Louisiana | 09.29.08
No bail out. Where ever the money went that caused this shortage (Over priced real estate, CEO salaries,ect.) trace it out. Get the money back from whoever is responsible, and charge the wrong doers, not the innocent average working American.There has to be a lot of fraud/theft involved, spend time checking this out and correcting. Let the responsible ones suffer the loss.
57. Bob Manginga | 09.29.08
The way the federal government provides cash to the economy should not change drastically by infusing $700 billion dollars to bad banks. I thought Wall Street was measured simply by the profits it makes not the losses. Good companies made more money bringing value to their stakeholders, bad companies making horrid decision going under the same way. Where does the bailout come in when Citigroup can buy Wachovia, and Warren Buffett can buy up to $10billion of Goldman Sachs?
58. Lewis B. Sckolnick | 09.29.08
Let the banks pay us back all of the late fees etc. The banks made their choices on loans so let them live with them. In the foreground though is the rise in the price of gas which fueled this entire mess thanks to our friends the Saudis.
59. David T. | 09.29.08
Yes vocabulary is important, so let’s get it right. The “bailout” package, at voted on today, was neither bailout nor loan. It was structured as an investment. Just as an investor today can buy bonds and other securities, We the People were considering buying up a lot of loans that individual banks were no longer capable of carrying. After some analysis it appears this may actually be a good investment for us to make. More importantly, it would have avoided the sharp pains we experienced just after the “no” vote.
A little time taken to understand this (frankly uncomplicated) bill would have saved a lot of trauma today.
60. Steve Brown | 09.29.08
The problem not only causes suffering to those who created it, but also others who trusted the creators of the problem.
So, the solution should not make the problem creators happy. No reward for misdeed or bad deeds. The problem creators need to suffer as that is fair.
And those who help solve it, the solution should provide them reward/benefit.
The US $ needs to have a base like gold on which to print money. It is like sin to just keep printing money without tangible thing to give back in return.
If all ask for gold for the bills, I think the gov cannot give. So, much of it is just false promise on the promisary notes, I think.
And there should not be more gov. expense than the income.
If the above view is not correct, I am open to know it.
God bless all.
61. Tim | 09.29.08
The tragedy that I see in all of this is the failure to communicate.
Of course it’s being seen as an attempt, by government, for main street to bail out the fat cats on Wall st - I saw no effort made to portray it otherwise.
The Washington insiders seem to have had a blind spot regarding the enormous amounts of adverse emails and phone calls they were getting in opposition to the (badly named) bailout.
Why - at some point didn’t someone stop and say - the public aren’t buying this, and that any smart politician would be well-advised to listen to his/her constituents - and make the whole matter clearer, at the very least.
Finally - who learns by their mistakes in this entire enterprise - the fat cats (popping their champagne bottles at the thoughts of a successful bail-out) or the already stressed taxpayer?
62. cassius king | 09.29.08
It was a bad bill that wouldn’t have accomplished anything. The mortgages and other bad loans need to be mark to their value. At that point the financial concerns (lenders) need to raise capital to acceptable levels. that is all there is too it. To accomplished the former one can lower the principal on all home mortgages to 90% Loan to Value and reset the rate to 5 1/2%. This keeps people in their homes. The financial concerns take a hit which they will have to no matter what. The lenders then raise capital by stock rights offerings which the treasury can backstop with preferred and warrants. To induce new loans the warrants can be cancelled provided the lenders have asset growth (new loans) meeting a predetermined amount. Some lenders will have to be liquidated-too bad. Also foreign concerns can have their own governments bail them out or be liquidated by us.
The problem is over-leveraged bad loans whether criminally originated or not. The mortgage loan problem can be laid directly on the Congressional leadership which refused administration proposals to rein in FNM and FRE shenanigans.
63. Larry clifton | 09.29.08
bush is gone, we need a new congress - house and senate. these bitterly partisan democrats have used their power to investigate republicans, not the stock market… liberal media needs to go away and be replaced by fair and balanced media….
64. Fred | 09.29.08
Yes, a loan-type deal could do. And the creditor (us) fixes the value of the collateral! Further, the execs in the financial houses need to give back - in terms of salary, past excess compensation, reduced present and future rewards, and including a rewrite of their golden parachutes. No more win if you succeed and win if you fail deals.
Corporate directors on the comp committees can play a little less footsie with the execs and take back when they don’t perform. After all, when you go to the casino to gamble, nobody makes you whole if you bet and lose!
65. Robert Fuchs | 09.29.08
A lot of the discussion regarding the “bailout” is very lacking in specifics–so lacking that it is impossible to make an intelligent assessment of the situation. “Toxic assets” are blamed for the lack of liquidity that is freezing up our financial system. Presumably these are residential mortgage backed securities, but no mention is made of how large this asset class is, what percentage of these MBS are in “sub-prime” and “Alt-A” loans, who are the owners of these securities, and why the senior owners cannot sit on these assets and collect their share of the payments that do come in (not all the loans have gone bad at this time) and let the junior holders of these securities go without? The same thing applies to the commercial mortgage backed securities, the credit card asset backed securities, and the student loan asset backed securities–which presumably the vague language relating to the Treasury Secretary’s ability to acquire would cover.
If someone would provide a table of the breakdown of these various asset classes, the likely percentage of poorly underwritten loans in each class, the holders of these securities, etc., then it might be possible to guess if the proposed $700 billion purchase might have a reasonable chance of stabilizing the market or will be a drop in the bucket which will do nothing but help out preferred institutions at the expense of the taxpayer.
Further, although it was reported that AIG, which was “bailed out” with an $85 billion commitment, had to be saved because it had engaged in large amounts of credit default swaps, there has been nothing written about this situation with respect to the $700 billion bailout. These CDS instruments have been reported to be more than $60 trillion in the aggregate. This promises to be a much bigger problem than the residential mortgage backed securities, yet there is no discussion of the extent of this problem. Other classes of derivatives, such as interest rate swaps and currency swaps, total more than $380 trillion, yet I have seen no discussion of whether these, too, might be subject to major problems if a major counterparty were to go bankrupt (of which we have plenty that have taken place or are about to happen).
We are told that the large international banks are heavily invested in our toxic mortgages, but are U.S. institutions also invested in theirs as well? How much bigger is the world problem than the U.S. problem, if at all?
Is the reason that no specifics are publicized because the prospect is too scary? If the Treasury Secretary insists on dealing only with the abstract, why can’t the press investigate this information and provide a sensible article so that the average person might get a sense of the magnitude of the problem?
66. boardhead | 09.29.08
Extreme left wing, partisan behavior by the Speaker of the House didn’t help. She made a speech prior to the vote that blamed everything on the other party. While there is plenty of blame to go around for both sides of the aisle is that she, and the Dem’s, killed a bill that would have limited the weak mortgage growth of Freddi Mac and Fannie May several years ago.
Ms Pelosi puts politics ahead of what’s best for the economy and the people …. and not accepting any responsiblility for her own actions…
67. Maria | 09.29.08
To Jerry Rubin-
Hmm! That is a good idea. Well said! It is a shame a bunch of bickering children are the ones who have all the control here. And ‘Papa’ is the weakest link of all.
68. Candice | 09.29.08
How did Greenspan create this exactly? I am simply wondering because if I do remember it was Bill Clinton who pushed the subprime loans and Alan Greenspan warned him of the consequences of an enormously booming economy because eventually the bubble has to burst. It just so happens that “that bubble” burst on Bush’s clock.
70. cta | 09.29.08
This Republican party is no longer the party of Lincoln and Roosevelt, it has become the party of Hoover.
71. armand agresti | 09.29.08
Do you mean the same Regan who started all this deregularation.My how conviently we forget the root cause.
72. alex bokal | 09.29.08
@jerry rubin’s remarks:-
Your comment reminds me of Bush euphemisms like “waterboarding”, “extraordinary rendition”, “enemies of freedom”, etc. Haven’t they done enough by misleading the citizens? How are you so sure that Trickle down -only economics will work? Economy, like any complex logical problem/challenge should be approached top-down and also down-up. It was the blind one-sided Reagan economics that created this mess.
73. Bob A. | 09.29.08
Unless Obama or McCain starts promising to raise taxes we are going to have to borrow this money to loan them. If we can sell Treasuries at 1% then that would work.
74. Tyrsten | 09.29.08
…at an unsecured low interest loan to institutions with a proven inability to accurately assess risk or responsibly plan for predictable changes in market conditions. The primary positive force of a free market is decentralized authority: organizations are free to quickly make their own decisions and rise or fall based on the merit of those decisions. The primary negative force of socialism is the sheer inert and inept mass of government bureaucracy and the lack of accountability in the name of ‘fairness’. If you take away the single greatest fear of the free market: fear of failure, then you take away the natural force of responsibility. If you have the government sign for the risk, the government will institute controls that destroy the freedom of organizations to quickly make their own decisions. Our quality of life is largely dependent on the speed and natural forces of our economic system. ‘Being nice’ is not a natural force, and it’s consequences forfeit speed, initiative, culpability, and virtually every other value that keeps America’s quality of life, political strength, military strength, scientific competence, etc.. at a level far above that which our population, natural resources, and level of productivity would otherwise support. Sometimes you have to think with your mind instead of your heart…
75. John | 09.29.08
I agree with Mr. Rubin. It’s not an easy thing to swallow but I believe that understand that it is necessary. I’d like to see some more done to stop foreclosures.
People say Socialism like it’s a dirty word. Many of our European allies have some socialism in their systems. It’s not like we’ll wake up as Communists all of a sudden.i’d rather my tax money go to solve a problem that affects us all than get stuffed in some defense contractors pocket on a no bid contract. Forget Earmarks, check the Defense budget for real waste.
76. PuWeiTa | 09.29.08
Loans need collateral, without which, it becomes a give away. Wrong vocabulary indeed! I give credit to the American people for not biting, this time.
Law makers take notice - your vote on this issue WILL be REMEMBERED on your re-election.
77. msgijoe | 09.29.08
Jerry, that sounds like a good idea to me and not far removed from what they are trying to pass. Why would not bankers think like bankers? It seems in this day and time, if something makes sense and an average person understands the principle, it is too simple for Wall Street.
78. The Rock | 09.29.08
Perhaps it time to reorganize the whole lending,and finance system. Usury is at the heart of the matter. Financial greed is enabled by usury. It is bad enough that the private banking entity, the Federal Reserve System and its enforcement arm, the IRS have replaced the U.S. Government as the “sole authority” for establishing the value of U.S. Currency. Now on top of that, when this worthless paper has been exposed by its greedy moneylenders’ shenanigans, they want us to give full financial control to the very same agencies (Federal Reserve et al) that enabled it. ..
79. iam | 09.29.08
Hail the end of reaganism. These ideologues would reather protect thier “reagan era” than avoid calamity. How could we have been so blind these last 28 years.
80. Coburn | 09.29.08
Just as American judgment in geopolitical security matters is under question following Iraq, with the rejection by the Congress today, I think America lost much legitimacy in their claim to be stewards of global capitalism. It has dented what little confidence foreign investors had in US leadership. It is upsetting normally inert investors in Asia. In the absence of rules, global credit markets are becoming a free for all. We’ve got to this position due to amazingly lax oversight by US financial regulators in recent years; and a US media more concerned about Greenspan hero worship than critically analysing HIS decision to adopt a policy of benign neglect as the credit bubble grew (where other central banks did not). And to top it off, we see Republican aversion to government regulation, painting it as return to “socialism”. The plane is going down guys, and your politicians are arguing about whether to pull the joystick or prepare for the afterlife. This is a time to be pragmatic, not a time for rhetoric and ideology. Get your act together America or prepare to endure your own “lost decade” marked by much higher real interest rates, chronic asset deflation and a very weak dollar.
81. ash | 09.29.08
I think equity in the companies is better than loaning. And loan does not really fix the core issue of bad assets on balance sheets.
The program was advertised as a ‘bailout’ package, that’s the first mistake. No one likes to ‘bailout’ anybody! And the republicans probably see it as a last chance to show they have some principles and ideology. They dont show this sort of financial jurisprudence when the prez asks for money for the war.
By not passing this I think the common man will be hurt ore than some wall street big shot.
82. justamoment | 09.29.08
It wasn’t Nancy Pelosi’s speech before the vote that caused the bailout to fail, although her speech was pretty stupid and completely unnecessary … it was just another attempt to influence voters in the election. The reason the bailout failed is that fact that the members of congress are afraid of losing their seats if they go against the will of the people. The people of this nation are tired of the “do nothing congress” … they are now in a position to let congress know that enough is enough. We don’t want to bailout the criminals of the financial world and Wall Street. Let them find a way to get themselves out … perhaps they should ask some of their highly paid CEO’s to reinvest in the market.
83. Michael Kennedy | 09.29.08
Reckless speculation should be dangerous. Let the house of cards fall. Don’t be fooled by the doomsday propaganda, they will be bailing out the wealthy. Not you and I.
84. Pete | 09.29.08
We got cash $$ when we privatized companies, we should be getting companies now that we’re giving them cash. Public banks, run for the people. Savings interest rates equal to loan interest rates - that would be an amazing thing.
85. Bryan Whitlock | 09.29.08
The government must stay out of this. Even if you pump this fictitious $700B into the market, you will absolutely not fix the problem long term. It will be a temporary mask over a much larger issue.
If you let the market truly dictate itself here, you will see housing prices finally check themselves. I know this [is unpleasant] for a lot of Americans out there, but I, as a 26 year old, soon-to-be-married, with cash in the bank, would love to see it happen. I see houses for sale that should be $100,000 and the owners asking for $500,000. People have gotten out of control.
We cannot trust our government to bail ourselves out, and as a capitalist country, THEY SHOULDN’T. It was very refreshing to see this Bill fail, and by such a large margin.
86. Liz | 09.29.08
I like the idea of the government keeping, say 30%, of the stock, and using the yearly dividends as a tax money. Many of these huge companies pay far less than their fair share to the IRS. If the government kept the stock, it wouldn’t have to run the banks, but it could make them more responsible.
87. Jacqui Quinn | 09.29.08
I agree completely that any and all monies should be loaned and not given. It is not fair to reward the very people that benefited and caused this whole mess. Our grandchildren won’t see this debt paid off if we finance a $700 billion bailout.
88. Jay Sandhu | 09.29.08
Its not congress or people’s fault that they didn’t understand the plan, Paulson and Bernanke did poor job of selling the plan, they were blunt, rude and value in asking for $700B. In my view they didn’t even try to sell the plan to congress and people of america.
They both needs to be replaced.
I do think that the plan that was voted on and failed was much better than Paulson’s original draft. I expect even much improved plan to be proposed and approved. Though, I would like few other options to be floated around to fix this crisis.
In the spirit of true capitalims, I do think that no action is the best action.
89. Chua | 09.29.08
Shouldn’t the lawmakers be subjected to background checks to ensure that there is no conflict of interest?
90. Jeff Fischman | 09.29.08
there are other methods available to get the credit squeeze corrected. One only has to be sure the money is spent in a way that will actually accomplish what is in the public interest. If we want home mortgages to be made, make federal mortgage insurance available for the type of mortgages we wish to create. If we don’t want foreclosures of housing mortgages to occur, insure the loan to the bank in return for a much lower interest rate to the homeowner. If we want banks to lend to other banks, make loan insurance available for the desired type of loans–only. Don’t depend on the banks to to what is the public good, their decisions have to made for their own good (and this is a legal obligation they have to their shareholders). Don’t depend on the treasury department to figure out what is going to work–create a commission of experts to oversee this project.
91. mike | 09.29.08
Why should we the taxpayer bail out the very business that would kick you out of your home in a new york minute.George bush and his oil baron buddies just want more money dumped into the economy so they can soak it up at the pump.Tesla motors has an electric car the australians are developing a machine that powers itself while generating electricity.Each home can have a number of solutions,but we absolutely can not let these clown crooks drill in alaska.Why do you think black gold got canceled,americans prob dont want to see an oil company drilling a well sourrounded by twenty xisting wells and their gonna make a hundred barrels a day? Please wake up america. WE THE PEOPLE.. WE SHURE DONT NEED OR WANT TO SUPPORT ANY LOSER COMPANIES THAT SENT YOUR JOB OVERSEES.
92. Joyce Watkins | 09.29.08
Reagan and Greenspan didn’t create the policies that led to this crisis. And the American people shouldn’t bail out banks and lenders and members of the Democrat party which pushed bad loans and then denied that there was a crisis brewing in Freddie and Fannie and other lender institutions. The Barney Franks of Congress led us down this path and Bush and McCain called attention to the fact back in 2002 that Freddie and Fannie needed fixing. And if I was Senator Pelosi I would not ask for support of any bill and then spit in the eyes of the folks who might have helped. A savvy woman, huh?
93. Jim G | 09.29.08
The bill went down because GOP representatives acted like children. Talk of passing the bill, then the tantrum over Palosi getting on a soapbox blaming all the troubles on the Bush Administration. While I agree Palosi needs to cork her soap box speeches and facilitate the House agenda, that is no excuse or reason to change your vote on such a critical issue. If we are on the verge of a depression, there is no time to play games. These sorts of games are played in elementary school. High school students know better. It just adds insult to injury regarding who the Nation has elected to represent them.
94. Herbert Hoover | 09.29.08
Like many Americans and Congressmen who voted against the bailout, Jerry Rubin is clueless about economics and the consequences if the financial markets shut down credit. Economic policies conducted by our government over the last twenty-five years have contributed to growth and world-envy prosperity. No one wants to go back to the way economic policy was conducted before Reagan and Greenspan. We have learned so much about economics since then and especially since The Great Depression. Herbert Hoover had faith in market mechanisms, and he was wrong. Our Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, knows what he is doing and what is right for the country. God help us all.
95. hp | 09.29.08
None of these leaders can determine pricing, only the market can do this. No Central Committee is smart enough to do what they claim they can do. In any case it is the currency that must be saved, not any particular market or institution. If we allow the $ to be trashed further, we are asking to have the Amero shoved down our throats. We will take it voluntarily, we will plead for it. Our savings and pensions, our social security will be worthless. We will have no choice. Let the markets alone, let the banks fail. Bring the troops home, and save the dollar! That means, kill the FED. They injected .6 trillion into the global market today without so much as a by-my-leave!
96. AG Musgrove | 09.29.08
The insufferable arrogance of many Americans in influential places never fails to amaze.
They dream up and misuse the nonsensical derivatives, pay themselves unbelievable bonuses, they do not understand the concept of risk, and when it falls apart all over the world they then expect the poor American taxpayer to bail them out, whilst still running a dumb/stupid war in Iraq that puts everyone at risk …….
They, then seriously contemplate electing a cooke like Sarah Palin who believes the world was created in 6 days!
If it wasn’t so desperately serious it would make a great comedy show.
Lord, Give us all strength.
AGM
97. Chris R. | 09.29.08
hey glib Jerry, trust me they understand the loan idea, if you’ll recall its what the gov just did for freddy mac and fanny mae! No one has a memory too short for that. But like freddy any fanny should know … from failed mortgages, a loan is just a handout if it can’t be paid back. We’re giving $ to an entity who’s credit is in the tank. No one is using the wrong vocab because this isn’t about semantics as you imply but about the principle not the princiPAL as you put it.
98. W. Raymond Mills | 09.29.08
Paulson did not define the problem correctly. He recommended a solution that would not solve the problem.
Banks will not loan to each other because they do not know the ability of their potential partners to pay back the loans. It makes sense to refuse to loan to a company that may (may - not will) become insolvent. Each bank guards the information as to how many toxic loans they have. What seems prudent for each individual bank is poisoning the banking system.
If the problem is lack of information, the solution is to provide the missing information.
The Congress should work on the question, what can the Federal government do to make public enough information about the assets on the books of financial firms to solve the lack of information?
99. Marianne Layng | 09.29.08
This has nothing to do with using the “wrong vocabulary.” The strategy is just wrong. Socialism will never solve economic problems. Socialism will stall the economic engine that churns so powerfully and productively in the free market system. Let’s not continue to put bandaids on a bad strategy; it’ll still be a bad strategy, albeit perhaps not quite so bad as it started out. We need to have a public discussion of alternative solutions. Let’s consider Newt Gingrich’s proposal. Let’s listen to Shelby. Let’s review various entirely different proposals. That could result in the a genuinely good strategy that would support the rebuilding of a strong economy under the principles of capitalism.
100. VASANT RAJA | 09.29.08
It was totally immature and ignorant of both John Boehner and Eric Cantor. These guys are not team players. They talk big and loud but most of it is total crap. These bozzos blame the speaker but did not have the courage or the leadership to get the republican ducks lined up.
101. Erik Olson | 09.29.08
You can’t fix a problem if you can’t diagnose it.
The American people won’t authorize their Congressmen to vote for this package until Congressional leaders (to say nothing of President Bush) can honestly sell it to them.
To start with, Barney Frank and others on financial committees must tell what they had to do with creating all the toxic debt that no one wants to buy. They could have started when we were obliged to seize Fannie and Freddie.
The people are angry and don’t trust Paulson implicitly - we are not his ex-employees and certainly didn’t vote for him. The House has to respect that, because it represents popular opinion - unlike the Senate, which is supposed to go its own way.
102. Mike S. | 09.29.08
Part of the problem is the media has failed miserably to explain the problem and what the bailout is designed to do.
CNBC is just as responsible and ABC, NBC, and CBS failure to communicate. They are much more interested in “sound bites” rather then real news and analysis.
Ask people on the street what “mark to market” means? What the results of failing to bailout the banks will cause?
What “leverage” means and why it is important to banks and the market?
Ask them who Bill Gross is and why he thinks we could make 7 to 8% annually on %700 Billion.
Just my 2 pennies worth.
Mike S
103. Joseph Everett | 09.29.08
I’m an Independent Conservative, I’ve folowed the Bailout closely, I know a political football when I see it, Dobn’t ask me what the score is in your game, I might tell; you. Also I spent 40 plus years in TV Broadcasting Management…I’ve been around that game also. So, what are you going to do. Which ever party votes this Bailout down can believe this , “that party will never have power control or a president win in their life time. Your failure to pass this Bailout will cause this economy to tank. You love this great country, or you hate it…we need togetherness now, not political gambling. Get it right guys, the election is just around the corner. Wish you would get this to the politicans. They need to hear it in writing.
104. Jack Coppedge | 09.29.08
I think congress first needs to tell the truth about how we got into this situation. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were pushed so hard by mostly democrats in congress to make home loans available to minorities, that they had to dumb down the application process to ridiculous levels. They had to devise loan programs that did not require proof of income, and in some cases not even proof of a job. The debt to income ratios were lowered to make them work for poor people. They offered variable interest rates to make it more affordable for the first 2 or 3 years. They allowed you to finance all of your closing cost to make it appear like you had no closing cost. The only thing the borrower was concerned with is how much a month, they were so happy to get a new house they agreed to anything. Without these programs most would never be able to buy a new home. The lenders knew the borrowers could not afford the payments for a long period of time but with the rising home values the lenders thought they could foreclose and sell the home to easily get their money back including all of the foreclosure fees. However when the real estate market fell into a steep decline the lenders ended up with a lot of losses. The Banks and other mortgage lenders could not have had these programs if Fannie and Freddie were not willing to purchase those loans. Fannie and Freddie would not have done that without the encourgement of congressional democrats.
105. Norm Baker | 09.29.08
Woppi Goldburg of the View has the answer. Start from the bottom up. Use that money to pay off, one half of each one of the mortgages, on new homes purchaced from 2003 to 2007. This would reduce the risk of the subprimes from failing! This would put money back in the pocket of the Main Street people who would spend and rejuvenate the economey. Recovery would be almost immidatly. Few would take the President’s ‘Debt Forgiveness’ which is at the root of all foreclosures! (www.irs.gov Check it out! Walk away from a mortgage with no tax liability? WHY IS THIS NOT IN THE NEWS AS A MAJORITY CONTRIBIUTOR TO OUR CURRENT PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Another great Bush idea.)
Why not bail-out Main Street for a change instead of continuing, as through the years, of bailing out Wall Street. Those guys need to go to jail for the greed that has placed us here…. We should recall all golden parachutes to help with the recovery. That would reduce the government’s role in this current mess.
When are we as a country, going to start helping Main Street and start punishing Wall Street?
106. Sakae Nomura | 09.29.08
Why is the media trying, through repetition, to get me to understand that “socialism” = bad?
And why is every move taken to insure the welfare of the American public by its own elected government suddenly extended the label, “Socialist”?
Is this supposed to condition me into repulsion at the notion of the Government doing anything at all to help or protect me, leaving the door open to greedy, self-interested, immoderate capitalists to rape me more than they already have- and this time with my express media-coerced permission?
I think that, by now, the average American bearing any intelligence at all has already figured out that everything is good in moderation. Profit, nationalism, etc. So the ideal system will incorporate the best attributes of EVERY political technology, to INCLUDE Socialism.
Stop telling me that Government involvement in anything is bad; I ELECT the Government to represent the will of the nation’s majority on Capitol Hill. They had BETTER be involved in EVERYTHING, guaranteeing that what criminally greedy Republicans pulled over the past 8 years never happens again.
I am so angry.
107. Jack Coppedge | 09.29.08
Continued. They offered variable interest rates to make it more affordable for the first 2 or 3 years. They allowed you to finance all of your closing cost to make it appear like you had no closing cost. The only thing the borrower was concerned with is how much a month, they were so happy to get a new house they agreed to anything. Without these programs most would never be able to buy a new home. The lenders knew the borrowers could not afford the payments for a long period of time but with the rising home values the lenders thought they could foreclose and sell the home to easily get their money back including all of the foreclosure fees.
108. poorsoldier | 09.29.08
It don’t matter to me. I will be poor if this passes or fails. I now use cash, and know my little Army paycheck isn’t going away. I think the Rich who mad the profit should suffer and pony up to cash, or rescue the economy from the bottom up, give the tax payers 700billion, that will help the people loosing there house pay the bills and maybe stop the problem, at least more than that pay the rich scheme
109. Carl Pfeiffer | 09.29.08
This crisis is the extreme result of a basic flaw in the modern capitalist system. This may sound like heresy, but we have to recognize that there are flaws in every system. In the case of modern capitalism, the basic flaw is OPM (other people’s money). By “modern capitalism.” I am referring to the use of corporations as the means of building businesses. Corporations allow business executives to take much greater risks than they would if they were limited to their own money. We have used this to advantage in building our economic structure. It has facilitated great economic expansions. Without it, we would still be in the dark ages. However, there is a dark side. When businesses take on too much risk, they fail. This is healthy in small and middle sized companies. But when a large company fails, the effects are widespread. And when the company is very large, as these recent financial failures, the effects are devastating, as we all know. What I’m suggesting is that we need to find some way of controlling large companies, such that the corporate executives have less leeway in risking OPM. I’m not an economist, and I don’t know much about sophisticated financial dealings, but I am confident about this basic flaw. By the same note, I do not have a solution, but I can sympathize with those congressmen who voted against this bill. It is, at best, a band-aid solution and does net get at the root of the problem.
110. Dakota Duke | 09.29.08
The issue is NOT WORDING. Are you kidding jerry rubin? The issue is letting the markets make the decision and not having any more government manipulation of the markets. The issue is to not give billions of dollars to the people who have already taken billions from the American People. No BAILOUT. NO NO NO!!!
111. Graeme | 09.29.08
Bailout should not even be in the vocabulary. This nation needs a collapse so that it can rebuild, and it is inevitable that this will happen. We are going to experience economic, political, and social disintegration, and it will be for the better. These crooks on Wall Street and their friends in Congress must be defeated. Third parties will rise up and these puppets we call Democrats and Republicans will not see what has hit them. We need a real economy, one built on manufacturing of creative labor and truly useful products, not this mindless service economy built on selling people crap that they dont need so they can waste credit. This economy, this society has been a big bubble that continues to blow up. We continue to build up more debt, continue to squander our precious natural resources, continue to take more anti-depressants to cope with our purposeless existence. Its a vicious cycle and eventually it is going to have to end. The bubble is about to burst, and the time has come when we must find out what we truly want to be.
112. w3 | 09.29.08
It is time for some trickle up economics. We have tried trickle down for twenty of the last twenty eight years and it has failed with the same results during each of the republican administrations. The SL bailouts with Neil Bush in the mix and now the Wall Street Bailout with Andrew Mccain in the mix.
How much more can this party be duped? If you want to pony up 700 billion dollars send it out to the working people in the form of debit cards that must be spent to claim. It goes back into the system as mortgage payments and groceries and gas, let it trickle up from there.
113. Rebelle | 09.29.08
Let them fail! Use the 700 billion to really jump start the economy! Give it to the tax payers to pay their bills and let the ceo’s and the bankers worry about thier own bills!
114. John | 09.29.08
This is clearly a defeat for democracy.. Democrocy works by give and take policy.. Looks like the current admininstration wants to enforce the ideology over this issue. If you are not a majority lay aside your idealogy and enter into a negotiation of give and take. What will you lose by brining a cap on CEOs of these big companies.?? I don’t think the Government or the administration lose anything. If the current administration wants co-operation from everyone they should not dictate terms.
115. Dave Brownscombe | 09.29.08
A “loan program”, rather than a “Bailout”, makes a lot more sense but why should the American people only receive 2-3% while the failing institutions (who’s greed and poor decision making got them into this mess) charge the American people 2-3 times this much for a loan, and this is, of course, only to someone with an EXCELLENT credit record.
Rewarding these poor business decisions and greed is like loaning a bad uncle money because he lost all his playing poker, it’s not going to solve the root of the problem.
Something must be done, there is no doubt.
If the American taxpayer is forced to take such a risk then the reward should match that risk. Take it or leave it failing institution.
Just my 2 cents,
Dave
116. daniel beck | 09.29.08
Reagan’s trickle down economics that commentator Jerry Rubin criticizes actually worked - That is exactly how this problem should be handled. A look back at the economy during the Reagan era clearly shows that the trickle down works and corrected the nations crippling trajectory that was created by the Carter administration. Take a look, the numbers don’t lie.
This bail-out (loan) is an attempt to stop a flood with water. Basically, bad loans given to people who couldn’t handle them got us in this mess and giving more loans to Wall Street, who has proven they can’t handle their own assets, will only dig us in deeper. If a business proves that it can’t handle its own assets, why in the world would we be willing to give them more??? Now we are expanding the American entitlement attitude to include welfare for wealthy inefficient businesses.
A simple solution would be a temporary elimination of certain capital gains taxes. If people are afraid to invest (one reason why the markets are crashing), why not create more incentive to invest. The elimination of certain (not all) capital gains will give investors greater incentive to invest in failing companies - the risks may be greater but this is offset by the potential rewards also being greater. An equilibrium would be established and the markets would regain their strength.
Create incentives for the private market to fix itself - it worked before. That is my solution.
117. David Farnell | 09.29.08
I would like Boehner to give us a list of those 12 Republicans who supposedly changed their vote simply because Pelosi hurt their poor little feelings. I think their constituents should know that they’re represented by people of so little conviction.
118. bobby | 09.29.08
Republicans and Democrats who voted against this plan overwhelmingly cited constituent feedback as the basis for their vote. I call this representative government, which is our Constitutionally mandated form of Democracy. In refusing to be strong-armed by party bosses who are, apparently, immune to the desires of their constituents when Big Money is involved, the Republicans and Democrats who sent this bill to defeat deserve our thanks.
119. ace | 09.29.08
The Republicans are in danger of turning what was a close race into a Democratic landslide.
120. Michael | 09.29.08
Does any one find it Ironic the dow dropped by 777 the numbers of the holy trinity? Is god telling us something
121. Steve Real | 09.29.08
Selfish left wing democrats and right wing republicans
are single handedly destroying the US and world economies.
These people know nothing about Wall Street economics,
not to mention their own Main Street economics.
They’ll understand now…
because we’ll all be on the unemployment line.
What a bunch of ignorant stunads.
It’s really quite unbelievable that
these hillbillies were voted into office.
122. Rob B | 09.29.08
Well we know what the cause was. It was loans made under Fannie and Freddie type organizations. Which was started by democrats and over seen by Democrats and not following the same checks and procedures of other programs. Also these organizations buying legislation. From Obama, Clinton’s, among others. Look back to a hearing from 2005 where McCain tried to fix Fan & Fred Democrats blocked the fix. Bush tried fixes in 2002 2003 same blocking by Democrats. This looks a lot like sabotage by Democrats. You can look all this up in Congressional records.
123. David | 09.29.08
Agreed on the loan idea. It worked wonderfully for Chrysler under Iacocca and they even paid back the loan early (and Congress had NO idea how to accept or cash the check, they never expected it would be paid back! It’s a neat piece of history and a good tale to boot.)
Although I think they should pay a higher interest rate, more along the lines of, oh… what’s VISA charge me? 15%
124. David Dellinger | 09.29.08
Jerry, that 2nd car really knocked your brains around, huh?
The American public cannot loan money to anyone. There is no “American Public” there is only a federal government passing itself off as “the people,” and all the money it has to loan is fiat currency created out of thin air. You are merely suggesting more double-speak, more debt.
The right thing to do is nothing. We’ll get through a year of a recession and maybe the government will learn to live within its means; the great unwashed need to learn to do this as well.
What happened man? You were a Yuppy when we planted you. Did you revert to your Yippy stupidities on the other side?
125. Tim Wodzinski | 09.29.08
The principal is that the Bush organization did nothing to help the economy or created Jobs and reduce the need for Oil demands. However the American people seen prices increase and Double. If Bush would have made a mandatory effort to rebuild our military equipment. All parts to be built and made in the US only.
This would have created Jobs, like New Steel Mills in Cleveland, Michigan and
Pennsylvania. Using a couple of billion dollars for the Steel Mills and other Jobs for future technology to reduce Oil needs.
American Government has become reactive -vs- Proactive Towards Planing for the future for all Americans.
This President Bush wanted to have Social Security of all Americans to be invested in the stock market!!!!! He would had double the trouble and probably would of only bail out the Banks. The American people would have been really fixed and would of took major losses.
Jobs are the key to run this American Government by paying taxes. If the Economy was strong people would be paying the mortgages no matter what the interest or rate, or would had good credit to re-finance their loans.
Bush could not delegate Security issues after he Stabilized our Country. This
caused the Failure towards are Economy goals and needs witch in turn caused the United States to be in Financial Destruction.
Main Street nor any company should not be bailed out by the American Tax payers or the US-Government. The Banks involved should Write off the losses or file bankruptcy like all normal companies and American people.
Sorry No Deal Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
126. Judi P. | 09.29.08
I don’t want my grandchildren to have to live under a dictator type of socialism as was how this deal was carried out. Following the directions of George Bush, Nancy Pelosi ordered martial law in the House and literally a blank check to the administration. When did Nancy Pelosi suddenly start trusting the administration? The only text given to legislators looked like something written by a communists state run by corporations. Both parties of late have all but ignored ‘we the people’ and now due to a mess of their own making would not have allowed us ANY choice? Would we have made a loan to crooks by choice? Not I.
127. Oyate | 09.29.08
This article stretches the credible imagination. How does a vote to kill legislation that grants sweeping new powers to government, the treasury and the PRIVATELY HELD, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION KNOWN AS THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK constitute a “repudiation of values – such as faith in small government and market mechanisms”?
How does squashing a bill that relied on government control (perhaps in favor of letting the market fix itself perhaps) repudiate the same?
And of course, the entire Lamestream Media is lining up to explain how McCain or Pelosi might have slipped in some diplomatic nicety and scuttled the bill. House reps weren’t pressured by calls from angry voters, they were DELUGED. We clogged up every voice message box, every email inbox, every fax line on the Hill and we kept it up 24 hours a day for days on end. It wasn’t bailin gout billionaires that galvanized us.
SEE IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THIS. THE FED IS BAILING OUT BILLIONAIRES EVERY DAY. TODAY IT WAS OVER $650B TO FOREIGN BANKS. LAST WEEK IT WAS $25b FOR AUTO MAKERS. THE WEEK BEFORE THAT IT WAS WALL STREET. TOMORROW IT WILL BE ANOTHER WEALTHY POWER BROKER.
WE OBJECTED TO A NON-ELECTED AND UNACCOUNTABLE AGENT OF A PRIVATE BANKING CARTEL BEING HANDED CARTE-BLANCHE POWER OVER OUR ECONOMY.
WE OBJECTED TO AN ILLEGAL–YES CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL PIECE OF UNMANDATED “LEGISLATION” DETERMINING OUR FUTURE AND OUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE.
You guys just don’t get it. That’s why we’re rendering you irrelevant.
And that’s why your bailout failed. You never even saw us coming.
128. rgb | 09.29.08
According to Paulson and Bernanke, the critical problem is that banks are not willing to lend money. Without being able to borrow money, business will grind to a halt, jobs will be lost, and a depression will occur. To avoid this, Paulson proposed to put the banks in a position where they would be willing to lend by buying up the bank’s bad investments at above market prices.
Paulson’s proposal raised a moral problem for most Americans: rewarding those who caused the problem. His proposal also raised a free market problem: eliminating the penalties of failure. The reaction was visceral and angry. No one really liked the proposal; many vehemently opposed it.
We need an alternative. Why not expand the Treasury’s lending activities to become a lender to any qualified individual or company? This would eliminate the critical problem of a credit freeze without raising the moral and free market problems. Let the banks that have failed fail. Let the banks that have succeeded succeed. When the crisis is over, the Treasury can stop lending money and sell off their loan assets to the successful banks.
This is a simple, easy to understand intervention. It is more equitable and more consistent with free market principles than Paulson’s failed proposal. It may be too simple - I am not an economist - but if the critical issue is credit, it would seem to do the job.
129. Karen Essay | 09.29.08
The problem is never going to go away. The present administration can pour in all the money it wants, but it won’t cure anything. MBE said level wealth with honesty, then life as it should be on this planet will work.
This modern invention of the stock market, housing market, whatever market you want to call it will just go on and on until each individual realizes that stealing is the same as lying. They have their affects and they aren’t pretty, as we see and feel them now.
Do I feel sorry or anyone, I don’t. Would I bail out someone who has been stealing from me for as long as Wall Street has been from the American people, I think not. I urge your newspaper to to print the real story. The story that will make seekers of truth, honest.
130. Jason | 09.29.08
Wall street and America doesn’t need the bailout. I’m not loaning my money at 2% to anyone, I have my own debt to get rid of
131. K | 09.29.08
Although, we can see many mistakes made by the Bush administration; this is Wall Streets’ problem and not Bush’s. Yes, the SEC should have been paying attention to all the warning signs, but a President is only as good as those who do their job properly. The witch hunt needs to STOP! Has the SEC been monitored or regulated before Bush became President?
This is a global issue of bad decisions by loose purse strings. Yes, we should NOT be responsible for the actions of others, but ultimately we are going to suffer either way. One way will give the government control; the other is losing our way of life as we know it. How many people are still living who went through the Great Depression who will tell us that we won’t be buying those new vehicles, GPS gadgets and un-necessary things?
I am interested in knowing how many of the people complaining about this bailout have 401K plans and are in jeopardizing those balances. How many really realize that if this bailout doesn’t come to fruition they will ultimately be affected down the road by not being able to get loans for cars, housing, etc. and how their employers won’t be able to meet their payrolls without loans?
The fat cats they refer to; provide jobs and economic growth. Do the ones who complain so much have the funds to put thousands of people to work and meet a million dollar plus payroll or even enough to employ themselves?
I don’t believe in heading toward a Socialistic Government; however, if the people hired to do the job can’t do it and you’re not going to fire them, then you must instate a way to monitor their actions. I believe everyone is in agreement that Congress should not just turn over a blank check and there should be checks and balances, but let’s stop the blame game, get over themselves.
At this point our lawmakers have decided to cause more failures for Business owners, personal growth and ultimately have said to the world that the United States can’t see past their party lines and are turning American lives into a political soap opera. Lawmakers are stealing a phrase from, Gone with the Wind - “Frankly my Dear, I don’t give a damn!”
Off the subject…
Who really cares about what Sarah Palin is wearing, does anyone comment about what Joe Biden is wearing or how he is wearing his hair?!
132. Dan | 09.30.08
None of this surprises me, since our president is a man who ran 3 oil companies into the ground.
The scary part is there are people out there who still think he’s doing a good job.
McCain says that “the fundamentals of our economy are sound.”
I’ll bet the Bushies will vote for him and Palin, too.
People need to DROP the party loyalty and look at the situation.
Anyone who votes Dem or Rep because of party affiliation is the problem.
But people won’t think.
133. Scott Dunn | 09.30.08
Wow. I’ve never seen *both* parties so nervous about voting on a bill in Congress. They both have something to pick at. Republicans don’t like socialism, even if it’s for their benefactors. And Democrat’s don’t like to look like they favor the financiers in Wall Street over the common man.
Either way, they are showing us the tragedy of not allowing third parties to participate in public discourse over public policy. What would the third parties have to say? How about it, Libertarians? Greens? Rest in Peace, Natural Law Party.
Maybe it’s time for the Democrats and Republicans to share the stage with the other political parties in the country for yet another point of view. Why? Because the expression and diversity of human opinion is essential for our survival. A thousands eyes make every problem shallow.
Scott Dunn
134. Andrew | 09.30.08
I like the loan idea. That would be fine with me.
And frankly, there is no slipperier slope to socialism than instilling fear in the public to the point that they pass something like the patriot act. This bailout is not a road to socialism, nor is nationalized health care or pubic education for that matter.
Slippery slope to socialism. LOL! Where do these people come from? Did they just crawl out of the shelter they built during the Cuban missile crisis 46 years ago? Hilarious! Mao, Stalin, Castro all built their socialist states out of FEAR…not out of public education or public health care.
135. J G Duker | 09.30.08
(The Bureau of the Budget was instigated in 1921.)
Four score and seven years ago our predecessors brought precedent on this nation, a new Bureau of the Budget, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that people can mind their money.
Now we are engaged in a great financial fiasco, testing whether that Bureau, or the present progenies such as the Office of Management and Budget so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great political internet of that fiasco. We have come to dedicate a portion of that net, as a final resting place for those who gave their real and virtual lives that the nation might be solvent. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should elect leaders to do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not elect – we can not establish – we can not compel this priority. The brave visionaries, living and dead, who struggled here have established it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little text, nor long save what we message here, but it can never delete what they promulgated here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated to soundness in language and math in the pursuit of monetary policy concretely and accountably searched sent and received. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that in our predictable election cycle we recognize geopolitical fiduciary vagary and the need to negotiate from solid global platforms so that modern communication will bring this nation, under God, to continuous rebirth of freedom – and that government of people, by people, for people, shall increase.
J G Duker
136. David L. Hagen | 09.30.08
In 1992, Clinton and the Democratic congress established a “speciall affordable housing goal” in 12 U.S.C. §4563. By 2000, Clinton’s HUD required that 42% of all taxpayer backed mortgages had to go to those below the area median income. 40% of multifamily mortgages had to be affordable to “very low-income families” ie with incomes at or below 60% of the area median income.
BUT Congress did not fund this increased risk.
Then in 2005, OPEC slowed growth in oil and then cut back oil, on top of Non-OPEC declining oil production. That caused oil to quadruple in price from 2005 to 2008. Increasing fuel costs soaked up disposable income and increased unemployment. This triggered the sub-prime crisis and that the financial meltdown.
So the Democratic Congress and OPEC are the cause of this financial crisis. Now we have to pick up the pieces and rebuild financial sanity.
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act is a band aid fix. It does not yet fix the underlying problems of Congress needing to explicitly fund the higher risk of requiring very low income housing - or to pay for rent rather than mortgages.
138. Ransome | 09.30.08
They told us the world would end if there was a no vote, so as the world prepares to end, I’m going fishing. The rescue plan only propped up a bad system at great expense. To restore confidence, Wall Street must reform itself. There must be more transparency. No matter how much money you throw at it, confidence will not return until there is reform from within. Who wants to deal with a bunch of cunning crooks and con men wearing suits.
139. olivio oliviera | 09.30.08
regans thinking (oxymoron) got us into this mess. he belittled the role and importance of government, made it an enemy in the eyes of 1/2 of america and proceded to damage or dismatle important aspects of its function (while increasing spending) he dismissed the importance of balanced budgets and taught us that if we stuffed the pockets of the weltiest, a point ould come where we would all get rich off the loose notes that fell out. no… the congressmen are grasping at the tattered rags of a failed phiosophy. this is the logical result of regans ideological nonsense.
140. Tom Fernando | 09.30.08
Jerry Rubin’s idea is commendable. It makes a lot of sense.
Pay nothing to the CEOs who have not done their job. They should be treated like any other worker in our country. Let them start again. They have enough money. They will never starve. Put their money back in the company that is strugling financially. I hope Our political representatives will make sure that the CEOs of failing institutions do not get paid when their company is asking the public to bail them out. Why is government robbing from the poor tax payer to pay CEOs who have not done their job?
142. Getzel | 09.30.08
A better plan to fix liquidity for less than $700 Billion : 1)Moratorium all mortgage payments on all residential real estate for 5 years or until the houses are sold. This is cheaper and guaranteed to jump start the economy. 2) raise the FDIC insurance to $1 million on bank accounts; this will get money out of treasuries and into bank deposits: liquidity. 3) Means test all new home loans on 29% and 33% debt ratios and minimum down payments from 10% to 33% depending on the home cost. 4) Home equity loans should be for home improvements only.
5) Credit cards should be on net 30 basis only; if you can not afford it do not buy it. 6) special finance arrangements should be available for longer term purchases like cars, but not toasters and certainly not soap.
143. Randy Clark | 09.30.08
So…now, the stocks have tanked (as predicted) and the only people with PLENTY of extra cash laying around (could that be oil companies…or maybe the Saudi Government…)are buying up stocks at bargain basement prices. Pretty neat trick.
144. Randy Clark | 09.30.08
700 Billion dollars divided by 300 million Americans equals 2.3 million dollars per citizen. Now, if they had given the CITIZENS the money…it would have gone into the system anyway and there would be no need for credit, or the “bail out”. No…this was about driving the market down prior to the election. A parting shot for Bush and his oil friends. Saudi has now got a good lead on diversifying its economy away from oil…..just like George wanted.
145. Derek | 09.30.08
Oh, kinda like the interest free loans we give the government every week under the name social security? You know how badly the federal government mismangages that. Why should we give them any more? BTW, Bush is not solely to blame for this mess. You gotta go back to Carter, Clinton, and Bush to see the whole picture.
146. Interested Non-American | 09.30.08
It amazes me that some conservative Republicans blocked the bailout based on the blind ideological conviction that governments should not intervene in what they view as the sole domain of the private sector. Is it not painfully obvious now that it is this unswerving faith in the free market and limited intervention/regulation that led to this financial meltdown? The Federal Government has a fundamental role to play in providing adequate financial regulations and oversight. When the “free market” (there is no such thing) is left to its own devices, greed and self interest prevails.
As unsavoury as it is, federal government financial intervention is desperately required and required quickly. Some degree of confidence must be restored and unfortunately the massive bailout, loan (call it what you will) is required.
147. Ted | 09.30.08
If the good affects of Wall Street are suppose to trickle down to Main Street according to the Reagan purist why would not the bad affects of this myth. And it is myth and ideology which has motivated the hard right as it often does the hard left. What people of middle America are left with are broken financial savings and retirement plans. Like most ideological views of the world these demagogues of the free market have not only punished the greedy but the innocents as well. Talk about collective responsibility. Each no vote reputiated the belief that a modern democracy needs to do “what is necessary and proper.” Believe me I will remember this on election day!
148. Keith | 09.30.08
Jerry, the government is going to own ALL of the securities it buys in the current plan, if passed. It may seem like socialism but it is better than trickle-down economics of the Reagan era. They’ll be buying, essentially, macro-sized pieces of the mortgages that have become insolvent because of the housing market burst. Banks have paper, mortgages and the like, that has become less valuable in the last year than their face values, meaning they can’t sell them except at a loss. They are locked in to those, and don’t have the cash reserves they need to make regular loans at regular interest rates because of this. It would have been nice for the Congressional banking committees, SEC, FASB, and other regulatory agencies to prevent this over the last 20 years, but we’re here now and need someone to inject cash to keep the system from crashing.
149. Carrie | 09.30.08
As a voter this is what I see! Bush republican yelling the sky is falling we have to have this money now and clean. NO Go on the Blank check both sides agree on that. Then I see both sides working together
And we have a deal, that was a good thing. Then the republican party who said the sky is falling said no.
As a voter that tells me that they really didn’t need the money because if they did they would have taken it.
As a voter I thank that they don’t feel it will work and they don’t want their names put down as the ones who got it passed.
So if we have to have it I hope the Democrats put one together that has solid regulations across the board attached to it along with more protections a lot stiffer than the last one.
If the republican party still thinks the sky is falling then they will take the money. If the sky is falling and it doesn’t pass then we are going to hurt our families and parents are going to hurt.
It will be a mulit-generation lesson that won’t be forgotten. Wall street and the banking industry won’t be trusted that will hurt them for generations.
Those that yelled the sky is falling and then refused the money that won’t be forgotten either and the republican party will carry the wait of the falling sky. A Loan would be better
150. Don Marti | 09.30.08
Jerry, that’s nice in principle, but no self-respecting Wall St. fat cat is going to let any security worth anything go to the government. Everything that the government ends up with will be worthless, hard to figure out the worthlessness of, and about as easy to re-sell as a vacation time share.
151. joebloww | 09.30.08
The bottom line is rich people created this mess and now they want the American people to pay for it. It’s criminal. I can’t afford to buy a single piece of stock, or invest in anything; I can’t afford to buy my own home, because CEO’s pay us pennies while they pay themselves millions. LET THEM BAIL THEMSELVES OUT. When will lawmakers stop pandering to the banks? They already charge us a fee for every single thing we do. They even charge us fees for collecting fees! I’m sick of the government allowing corporations to charge us for everything! Who protects the public anymore?
FASCISTS OUT!
152. Ron | 09.30.08
There’s one question I would like the Christian science monitor to ask Treasury chief Henry Paulson. That question is where has he been? Where was he six months ago a year ago, why was this allowed to continue until the bubble burst? I haven’t seen anybody asked this man where has he been. And why suddenly it’s an emergency.
153. Vitaly | 09.30.08
It is evident from the above comments that these people know very little about how banking is related to the economy. Instead of giving a lesson. I highly recommend picking up a text on banking. Almost everything mentioned in the comments is nonsense…what a shame on our education system.
154. Ron Right | 09.30.08
Now, we can get the right bill — one that does not call for the Fed to buy failed mortgages. Rather, the Fed should be insuring the loan for the company who made the bad loan, with the Fed getting either stock in the company or a payback plan over, say, five years. That will free up some money to move from one bank to another and free up some money for Main Street.
To hell with the fat cats on Wall Street. Put a strong limit on the size of “golden parachutes” like the one that gave the 17-day president of WaMu About $20 million. Shameful.
I’m proud of the 94 Democrats who bucked their party to vote against this idiotic bill, and of the 133 Repubs who stood up for the voters in their areas.
155. Springfield | 09.30.08
The greed driven CEOs that are responsible for this should be brought up on criminal charges. They should be made to pay back the bonus money and golden parachute money. Next the regulations that were undone to allow this need to be put back in place. Banks should not be brokers. Brokers should not be banks.
156. Catherine | 09.30.08
Ron Paul put it so well in his statement on the House floor:
“In conclusion, there are three good reasons why Congress should reject this legislation:
a. It is immoral — Dumping bad debt on the innocent taxpayers is an act of theft and is wrong.
b. It is unconstitutional — There is no constitutional authority to use government power to serve special interests.
c. It is bad economic policy — By refusing to address the monetary system while continuting to place the burdens of the bailout on the dollar, we can be certain that in time, we will be faced with another, more severe crisis when the market figures out that there is no magic government bailout or regulation that can make a fraudulent monetary system work.”
157. Ron | 09.30.08
The comments on this site are examples of how little the American people know about economics, and how they have trusted those in Washington to do the work for them. As a result we have this failure.
Democracy requires that you understand and participate in the debate with good ideas coming from knowledge
A recent study showed less than 5% of the US population could describe the capitalist system, and no wonder with kids telling you that WWII was fought in 1970
The US system requires like all system that all the parts work, so when the banks fail you fail. This means no credit cards, not auto loans and yes, not mortgages.
If you seek to understand this you will have to go back to 1982 when CMOS ( the debt that failed) was invented to overcome record high rates in the late 1970s.
The banks were in trouble then due record high rates.
Then move to the late 1990s when Clinton passed the lower standards to allow people who did not own a house to buy one- sort of stupid, they did not have a house because they did not qualify so we let then in
Then when the issue of Fannie and Freddie came up for review BOTH sides let that slide. Next we have 911 and low rates and most people lost half their money in the market only to buy real estate- “because it never looses money” Stupid. Housing boom with low rates easy credit and Wall Street happy to package it
We get a turn down and all bets are off. Contraction loss of jobs and too much credit card debt as well as national debt and we are in a jam
Sadly, we face either a crisis or allowing the Federal Reserve to bail us out- This doesn’t make it go away it just spreads out the pain to make it less painful
Like chemotherapy, you can not dose the patient too much or you will kill them
All of you- you need to read, and learn and understand and demand that your children do so as well- the Chinese and the rest of the world are in fact smarter than us and the greatest nation in the world will be lost if you do not.
We must come together and pass this or you will be very sorry you did not.
158. Mike | 09.30.08
Actually the fix for the banking problem could be quite simple and far less costly than the proposed bailout. First, change to mark-to-market rule to a three year rolling average rule. This would immediately revalue the bank’s mortgage portfolio and increase liquidity. Second offer the banks mortgage insurance for their portfolios, maybe the cost of the insurance could be split 50/50 with the government. That would insure that the banks would have a was to recoup the majority of any of the losses that they might incur from foreclosures.
159. Ron | 09.30.08
Please, folks, if you want to blame someone for this mortgage failure mess, get the facts right. The problem started with Clinton’s bill to encourage home ownership among lower income people. Good idea, but the requirements were too loose and foreclosures started up.
After Clinton appointed Franklin Raines to head up Freddie Mac; Raines illegally “adjusted” the accounting to show more profit — because his pay was based on profits; he made $90 million in six years. Raines was forced out and now is one of Obama’s financial advisers!! In 2005 Senator McCain supported a plan that would tighten the requirements for mortgages, but it failed. Unfortunate. So now we pay the piper for dancing with the devil, greed.
160. Kelcy | 09.30.08
While I agree something needs to be done I`m not convinced the best course of action it to save the big guys on Wall Street. There must be a way to get money moving starting at the lower level of the economy where small businesses uses short term loans to meet their operating expenses between bursts of consumer activity.
Furthermore, I don`t believe that working to save foreclosures is the right answer either. The housing market needs to sink to where it should have been before artificially accelerated by lenders that were more than happy to lend to anyone for any amount so long as they were able to make a profit off it by selling it up the chain. We need to go back to the old rules of thumb of not allowing someone to take on a mortgage if said mortgage (and I think insurance and taxes were in that amount) exceeded 30 percent of their gross income.
161. Dianne | 09.30.08
This is insanity if our “representatives” go along with this betrayal of the public trust.
Save the big guys and dump bad debt on the American taxpayer? NO!
How do they justify giving millions to organizations like ACORN who have been found guilty of massive voter fraud to support Democrats, with an underlying agenda of creating anarchy in America. (Check into this for yourselves..this sounds whack but check into yourselves.) How do they fall under this umbrella? If they do, who else does and what other black holes are they dumping our money into?
This is one fraud on the taxpayer to pay for the other fraud on the American taxpayer.
God Bless America because we need help right now.
162. Chris | 09.30.08
It is time that “We the People” draw a line in the sand and tell congress both Republican and Democrats that they represent “We the People”, not “We the Lobbyist”. Their actions should be to protect the American people that vote for them not the corporations that have no vote. Pointing fingers at Republicans or Democrats is what they want us to do, it takes away from actual issue at hand. It is time that “We the People” take responsibility for our goverment, only then can we hold our elected officials accountable for their actions. Now is the time to have our voices heard and to let our goverment know that they are now being watched and will be held accountable for representing “We the People”. Responsibilty and Accountable is what we try to teach our children. To do this we must lead by example, if not, then what have we taught future generations.
American hardship has built American charachter, we now face another test of our charachter.
The people have spoken, that something has to be done to assure the cost of any bailout be placed on Wall Street and those responsible and that our elected officials protect and help the American taxpayers and homeowners you have sent them to Washington to do just that. Anything short of that will be a failure on their part to do what they were elected to do….represent “We the People”.
163. Chris | 09.30.08
Dear Christian Science Monitor,
Your left leaning reporting is not getting past me. It doesn’t matter how many times you name the Republicans and “GOP” in the article, the democrats have the majority to pass this bill without them.
How about doing some real reporting and tell us why the democrats didn’t vote to pass this bill. Your one-liner quoting a democrat blaming the republicans for he himself voting against the bill is lame.
Personally, I think that this would be a good time for congress to go home. These bankers might be looking for ways to solve the problem themselves if they weren’t just told to wait for a check from us. A good old fashion auction just might be the right call.
164. Kim | 09.30.08
I must say, the liberals on this forum are, for the most part, pretty stupid. You’re beloved Dems, including your golden boy Obama, have taken substancial amount of LOBBBIEST money from the very banks that they run to the public screaming that they are evil. You’re beloved Dems are money loving self-entitled pawns to the big businesses they say they hate. And you buy the line and follow along. The Dems have been able to make a difference and oppose the inept Bush administration, but are incapable due to their own ineptness.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is too busy trying to go home and campaign (which she could have people do while she’s working) to truely work in DC. She also couldn’t keep her mouth shut long enough to let the vote happen. Nooooooo, she has to continuely run her mouth about how bad Bush is while she does nothing to stop him. Last time I checked, Congress, not Bush, makes the laws.
BLAME YOUR DEMOCRATS AS WELL!!!!! THIS IS NOT JUST BUSH’S FAULT! IT IS THE FAULT OF EVERY AMERICAN! WE ELECTED THE PEOPLE THAT DON’T CARE ABOUT OUR RIGHTS. WE DIDN’T USE COMMON SENSE AND TOOK OUT BAD HOME LOANS. WE ARE THE ONES THAT ALLOW DC TO OVERSTEP THEIR CONSTITUTION BOUNDS.
BLAME YOURSELF!
166. Peter Mackrael | 09.30.08
VOTE NO ON THURSDAY!
When Congress meets on Thursday, the Paulson Bail-Out Legislation should not be accepted in any form! Purchasing paper that the market says is worthless is no solution at all. Setting fair prices while avoiding graft and fraud will be very costly and probably impossible. Recent bail-outs have already cost the US taxpayers about $700bn. This bill will increase US debt to about $12 trillion while doing nothing to prevent further consolidation and restructuring by US banks. Foreign lenders now hold about 40% of US debt. This bill may reassure them for a short while until they see that US debt continues to increase while GDP declines. It may delay but will certainly not prevent a recession in the US. This bill will reward and encourage further irresponsible behavior by bankers and investors. In effect this bail-out will transfer $700bn from the poorest 90% (taxpayers) to prevent losses incurred by the richest 10% (the wealthy investors who hold debt derivatives and shares in these investment banks). In addition to transferring public wealth to political friends of both parties in the Wall Street community, this bill will severely limit spending on social programs for many years to come! We should demand a better alternative.
Perhaps in anticipation of possible rejection of the Paulson plan, the five big investment banks: Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, have morphed into regular banks. In effect, the investment banks have increased their asset base while transferring their bad debt assets to commercial banks. I expect the bank executives believe the government will be less willing to allow these banks to fail.
The Paulson bill is no longer required! If these new banks require additional liquidity, existing regulations allow them to borrow from the Fed and/or sell assets to raise this capital themselves. If no private investors are interested and if one of these banks is unable to operate at a profit, we should allow that bank to fail and let any remaining assets be purchased by other investors. In the event that the remaining banks (including the many regional banks) are unable to provide consumer loans and adequate operating capital to US businesses, then and only then should the federal government buy or establish a national bank for this purpose.
Meanwhile we need to re-establish and enforce investment banking regulations. Also we need an independent investigation to understand how and why the investment banks and government got us into this liquidity crisis so it can be prevented in future. It is possible that stock manipulation and outright fraud has been committed in recent months.
167. DShetler | 09.30.08
Political parties aside! This bailout is due in large part to all-American indulgent, immediate gratification. Each citizen who takes part in borrowing on insecure loans or bad credit, with no ability to cover his/her own debt, to buy that house that’s too large, that extra car, that latest and greatest must-have gadget must take responsibility! Yeah, so what about the greedy bankers? What about those who buy knowing that they really can’t afford it? The taxpayer IS a large part of the problem! But, yet, let’s blame the government. Far be it from us to be able to think for ourselves.!
168. sharonsj | 09.30.08
Where do you get the delusional idea that people are “warming” to this bailout? Our clueless reps admit that opposition to it runs 200 to 1 because it would hand Wall Street $700 billion after Paulson already handed it $630 billion to no avail. The reason is that no bank trusts any other bank. Can you spell ENRON? There has been no proper oversight nor regulation and the SEC allowed banks to leverage their Ponzi schemes 40 to 1. Instead of handing them money, throw them all out (do no pass GO, go directly to jail), and I mean Congress as well as the bankers.
169. Alan Hoffman | 09.30.08
There is outrage over the proposed $700 billion bailout. Where has the rage been about the $4 trillion dollar increase in the national debt in Bushes 7 2/3 years in office? This “small government” administration and the Republican congress for the first 6 years almost doubled the debt of the first 42 presidents. With the money to fund the Iraq war being “off budget”, the items go directly to the debt. Don’t listen to talk about “the deficit”. This is only smoke screen. Look at the debt.
The talk about the taxpayers paying the $700 billion is off base. This generation of taxpayers won’t do that. We’re waiting for our children and grandchildren to do this and also the 9.8 trillion already on the national debt.
170. CraigF | 09.30.08
You may have seen some of these links but watch and learn then respond.
This has a lot of information pulled from a number of places on the melt down of the money bailout. If all the people can do it point at the other group then fire them all.
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial mess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related
Lou Dobbs - Fury Over Executive Bonuses
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CWBs-jVc8M&NR=1
Economy, Ron Paul Grills Bernanke, Financial Crisis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpxItPqpirw&feature=related
171. kathy | 09.30.08
To Randy -
What calculator are you using? Even if it was 700 Billion, which it isn’t, that divided by 300 Million only comes to $2,333.00 per person — NOT $2.3 MILLION — now, divide that in half for what they are really talking about now and you have $1,166.00 per citizen. Still too much without making sure that no one that created the problem actually makes a profit from the bailout, but still - doable if we must. Probably better than losing our homes and the retirment accounts, unless you are all ready to see reeaally long lines at the food banks and millions of homes left vacant while the owners sleep under the freeway.
Wanna see what happens in ‘poor’ countries? Try traveling to Central and South America and check out what their economic policies look like. The police don’t make any more money that the ‘average joe’ which is about $400.00 a month, so one may bribe oneself out of any situation. Then, the rate of theft is so high as to make simply walking down the street a hazard in any part of the country! Homes are walled-off with barbed wire fences, and cars HAVE to be parked inside their ‘courtyards’ to keep them from being stolen every single night. That is the ‘rich’ constituents — there is NO middle class, and 90% of everyone else is dirt — and we aren’t talking figurtively here - poor! No one can afford a college education, there are no jobs even if you had one, there is chaos and corruption (yes, even worse than here) and everyone that DOES end up with employment pays about 55% taxes to try and “support” everyone else that does not.
Good luck with that!
This stinks - but I really believe the alternative would be much much worse!
Just make sure the ‘bad guys’ don’t walk away with the profits — and there will be profits!
172. Chucky Wise | 09.30.08
Ladies and gentlemen, stand up and applaud the ineffectiveness of our government. This is the greatest example of the mess that we the people have put ourselves into. We have effectively stood by for the past ten years and let this happen. It is time to stand up to the People we have put into power and tell them all that enough is enough. We need Americans, not squabbling republicans and democrats, to fix this American problem. Say no to the petty politics and the non-sense that they would have us believe.
Why has no one stood up and asked for a bailout that would help the people that are actually feeling the strain of bad debt, inflation, and the absurdity of high oil prices. I say we create a plan of our own that helps the people, not the rich moguls who have effectively drove the market that was left to them down. Give the tax payers the money to put back into the lives that we cherish. GIVE US A BREAK FOR ONCE. Would it be so hard to fathom? We need it so much more than the folks that have been living the high life unchecked for so many years. We can do it. Stand up and speak for yourselves. Email me if you feel akin to my expressions of hope that we can do this if we try. http://WWW.SMITTYHAVOK65@YAHOO.COM
173. Vicki | 09.30.08
700 billion / 300 million is $2,333.33 per person not $2.3 million per person. If we all have this much trouble with simple math it is no wonder so many bad loans were created.
Note that the Democrat party and Democrats seem to yell the loudest about needing to re establish government control over the evil wall street but fail to notice that it was the GOVERNMENT that pushed poor lending practices that seem to be at the heart of the current mess.
They further seem to have missed the fact that multiple times in recent years (see comments above) the REPUBLICANS tried to have more regulation but it was the Democrats that blocked those regulations.
I also find it amusing that Democrats always blame Bush and also claim he is a moron. Well which is it. Is he the ultimate con artist or the village fool?
Oh and if you have little faith in big government try downsizeDC.org for ideas.
For myself I shall keep my faith in a God that many deny or presume dead cause they can’t understand how simple and effective the promise of “free will” is. Then again a truly free market economy puzzles them as well.
-Vicki- (libertarian thanks.)
174. amos slabaugh | 09.30.08
Unbelievable since when are we not responsible for our actions.
Why the free ride.Who’s gonna help the back street Americans.
The ones that earn their bread and butter by the sweat of their
brow.What leaders we have.
176. I_KNOW_Better | 10.01.08
Don’t try to blame this mess on republicans, you need only to look to the left for the guilty. Acrn? Fanny Mae? Freddy Mac? PLEASE, guess who got THOSE demons into our pockets. Libs, that’s who. I can’t lay the blame totally there, because the so-called “conservative” repubs LET them. Guess which presidential candidate has a deep past working for one of these bad debt power houses?
177. home owner. | 10.06.08
we are americans we do take full responable for our ACTIONS. some times in life we have some crises. AMERICAN WE STAND.repubic or demon. be fair have faith in god. people are losing there jobs companys are shutting down gas prices are going up morageges are on the rise the pay checks are not helping because we spend so much money on gas minamum wagegs arent going up i dont look for the goverment to hand out to me now iam out of a job. i put my life savings down on a house of 39.000 the bank pulled a fast one on me the find print. i was not told that my morg. was going from 7.50 to 14.50 the banks is the ones who got us in this mess.not being truthful.option one change name to AHMSI. so please help us home owners - and people who have lost there jobs.with the 700 billion bailout at this time of crises.
178. suzuki car insurance | 10.08.08
Very good webpage you have here, and best greetings to all your visitors
181. reviews | 10.16.08
Your site is a refreshing change from the majority of sites I have visited. When I first started visiting web sites I was excited by the potential of the internet as a resource and was very disappointed initially. You have restored my enthusiasm and I thank you for your efforts to share your insights and help the world become a better place.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Matthew | 09.29.08
I am proud of both Democrats and Republicans who decided such a giant intervention with taxpayers’ money should not be rushed into. Every time I hear Paulson has said, “We need work as quickly as possible” - all I can think of is the alleged WMD in Iraq. If the Feds are considering such a radical intervention, why don’t they suspend trading for a few days so that this can be discussed thoughtfully and logically without the emotional quotient of the tanking Dow Jones interfering.