$700 billion bailout package

**disneysteve** · 09-29-2008, 08:45 AM

Mixed feelings. Banks brought this on themselves by making ridiculous loans to customers who couldn't possibly afford them. They certainly don't deserve to be bailed out in that regard. At the same time, though, the ripple effects of not bailing them out would hit everybody, not just those directly involved. Letting every bank with too much bad mortgage debt fail just isn't a feasible option for the country and the economy in general.

**bjl584** · 09-29-2008, 08:56 AM

I don't like it, but it is probably nescessary.

**boosami** · 09-29-2008, 09:11 AM

Some optimism to keep you going:

... Depressions have come and gone. Prosperity has always returned, and will again.

--JD Rockefeller, 1929, during the Great Depression

**boosami** · 09-29-2008, 10:37 AM

Bailout plan rejected: Bailout moves towards congressional approval - Sep. 29, 2008

**glock35ipsc** · 09-29-2008, 11:16 AM

Epic fail!

**disneysteve** · 09-29-2008, 11:23 AM

Dow down over 600 points right now.

**boosami** · 09-29-2008, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by disneysteve View Post

Dow down over 600 points right now.

I have a feeling it's going to be a rollercoaster all day.

**maat55** · 09-29-2008, 05:04 PM

I'm against it. I don't think this is the last they will come for. I would rather suffer the consequences as a free market and not get a trend of socialism going.

I do believe in gov. regulations for safe lending and borrowing practices. I think this all started with gov. prodding banks to loan to risky borrowers in the first place.

Another problem I have with the gov. is Fannie and Freddie, mortgages should be given through private companies and not gov. backed entities. You should do business knowing that you will have to eat your mistakes. I would prefer to take a stand now, against socialism.

One thing I would like to see come from this is that every elected official be voted out for allowing this mess to get this big. Between lenders eating their own mistakes and gov. officials loosing their jobs, I think the people would finally have the attention of the bureaucracies.

**Broken Arrow** · 09-29-2008, 05:15 PM

Rhetorically speaking, I too am against it.

However, I think today's historic market drop, not seen since 1987, and the overall market panic in every sector from the failed bailout vote should provide a clear enough example of how this isn't a matter of bailing out certain guilty parties. Rather, this is about stabilizing our economy as a whole.

A lesser of two evils.

Pragmatically, Capitol Hill is already committed towards a bailout of some kind. So, that's not the issue. The issue, and it's a heated one, involves the exact shape and form of the bailout, and the major points of contention are basically the same ones that have been brought up in this forum as well.

This week and the next are going to be interesting to say the least.

**maat55** · 09-29-2008, 05:23 PM

I say instead of a slow fall, lets get it over with and move on. The bailout will only delay the inevitable, at a high cost to our freedom.

**Broken Arrow** · 09-29-2008, 06:09 PM

I think that might've been an option earlier on, when the situation did not seem as severe. However, at this point, I think basically doing nothing would do a lot more harm than good, as even perfectly good banks and companies, as well as the American economy in general, is being called into question on the global marketplace.

History's controversies surrounding the cause of the Great Depression included President Coolidge's Laissez-Faire policy, which Hoover disagreed, and then FDR promptly ended by bringing in sweeping government reforms and regulations. Many of these changes remain to this day, which included the creation of the FDIC.

In those days, proponents of Laissez-Faire policy spitted venom at all the radical government changes and interferences, saying that it would be ultimately bad for a free market economy. And yet, we don't seem to question most of these measures today, taking it for granted that that's exactly what our government is suppose to do in the first place: The basic services and oversights the government is suppose to offer in exchange for our hard-earned tax dollars.

Up to this point, Bernanke has been mostly reactive, which I've politely criticized in the past for being inadequate to handle the crisis at hand. However, his proposal for this $700 bailout is a paradigm shift. An realization that being simply reactive-- much less for a free market to somehow work itself out-- isn't going to be enough. Right or wrong, I at least applaud him for finally being proactive and decisive.

I know you've brought up Sweden's handling of things, and while I didn't mention it before, but Sweden is a highly-regulated, highly-government-controlled, and highly-taxed, Socialistic country. Truth is, I do like the way Sweden handles their economy, BUT we're not a Socialistic country. But if Sweden means anything, it should also illustrate just how a strong but proper government intervention can help to subdue an economic crisis when it spins out of control.

Add it all up, and you can see basically why I am ultimately in support of the bailout program. Sometimes, some wounds are too deep to heal on its own. When wounds get that severe, we need to get help. The bailout is not perfect. I agree with that. But few things in life are, and anything is better than letting it freefall and hope it doesn't break and kill itself.

That's what I believe....

**cptacek** · 09-29-2008, 06:21 PM

The more I hear about this, the more I think if they change the mark to market rules brought about by Sarbanes-Oxley that would immediately change the game. Do that and we wouldn't need a rushed, flawed bill to be approved that could hamstring us for years.

**snafu** · 09-29-2008, 08:13 PM

Doesn't anyone study history anymore? This scenerio has been repeated several times. The banks destroyed people's lives in the Great Depression when the stock mkt tanked in 1929. My dad nearly lost everything when the economy melted in 1972-74. I recall reading about the great S & L fiasco. Black Monday was October, 19, 1987 [I think], it started in HKK and the Dow lost 22% in a couple of hours.

Now, the entire country operates on credit! Consumer spending was the only thing holding the economy together. That's why GWB sent out those cheques! If people kept buying cheap junque from China, China could keep loaning it's surplus to the USA.

The government has borrowed unbelieveable amounts from China to keep the war going in Iraq and Afganistan. China ownes 20% of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac for example. The American economy is bringing down several other economies as well.

Reganomics removed regulations and the financial industry boasted it could 'self regulate'! There was no oversight and consumer protection quickly erroded.

Why is anyone surprised? GWB obviously knew the economy was sinking. How anyone could consider voting Republican is a mystery to me.

**Maismom** · 09-29-2008, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by snafu View Post

GWB obviously knew the economy was sinking. How anyone could consider voting Republican is a mystery to me.

GWB actually knew about the economy??? LOL Sorry, I just had to chime in because I thought it was funny.

From Chris Rock's show.
"Is America ready for a black presidnet? We should be. We just had a retarded one."

I laughed so hard I was crying.

Oh, by the way, about the topic. As much as I don't like the word "bail out", the alternative seems to be worse. The market lost $1 trillion today. (so they say.) So, I guess I would support it. Well, it's kind of too late now, or is it?

$700 billion bailout package