Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsFriday, September 26, 2008 8:51 PM CDT
Comments Comments (146) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
Troubled bailout talks restarted - with urgency
By Julie Hirschfeld Davis and David Espo
Associated Press
Advertisement

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Bush administration and Congress anxiously revived negotiations on a $700 billion financial bailout on Friday, one day after the largest bank collapse in U.S. history provided a brutal reminder of the risks of failure. | Video | Interactive graphic

"There is no disagreement that something substantial must be done," declared President Bush. He urged lawmakers to "rise to the occasion" - and quickly.

In one small sign of progress, House Republicans dispatched their second-ranking leader, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, to join the talks after their objections to an emerging compromise had brought negotiations to a standstill the day before. They also demanded "serious consideration" for a plan of their own, involving less government intrusion and lower cost to the taxpayers than the $700 billion that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has been seeking.

The legislation the administration is promoting would allow the government to buy bad mortgages and other sour assets held by investors, most of them financial companies. That should make those companies more inclined to lend and lift a major weight off the national economy that is already sputtering. But a significant number of lawmakers, including many House conservatives, say they're against such heavy federal intervention.

Under their plan, pushed at a White House meeting Thursday by House Minority leader John Boehner, instead of the government buying the distressed securities, it would insure them.

Presidential politics weighed heavily and unpredictably on the election-season effort to stave off a full-blown economic crisis.

After announcing earlier in the week he would suspend his campaign and return to the capital until there was an agreement, Republican John McCain abruptly reversed course and departed for Friday night's debate with Democratic rival Barack Obama in Mississippi.

There were fresh signs of urgency at both the White House and the Capitol, one day after an unusually tempestuous White House meeting and the collapse of Washington Mutual, the largest failure in U.S. banking history. The Seattle-based institution had invested heavily in the now-moribund mortgage market.

Bush made his brief remarks in hopes of projecting calm for the financial markets. And the Dow Jones industrials were up slightly near the end of the trading day.

"We're going to get this done, and stay in session as long as it takes to get it done," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said afterward Bush's statement.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., added, "I think anybody who got up this morning and looked at the markets, especially the credit market, had to take a deep breath and say, 'this is serious, we better do something.'"

In days of negotiations, the administration has accepted demands from lawmakers to give Congress considerable authority to oversee the bailout. Additionally, Paulson relented to requests to limit the severance packages that corporate executives can receive from firms benefiting from the government bailout.

Also, rather than provide $700 billion upfront, as Paulson initially requested, Congress would approve $250 billion, with the president able to certify the need for an additional $100 billion on his own authority. The final $350 billion would become available with a second presidential certification, although this time Congress would have authority to block it.

Any compromise is also expected to require the government to obtain partial ownership of any company it invests in.

Democrats, too, signaled they were considering jettisoning some of their own priorities.

Frank indicated they might ultimately drop a requirement that a portion of any profits from the rescue be funneled to a fund to build housing for low-income people. That mandate, deeply unpopular with Republicans, "is not an essential," Frank said.

Additionally, Obama said earlier in the week he hoped Democrats would not press a proposal giving bankruptcy judges the power to ease mortgage terms for homeowners.

Beyond the specifics of any legislation lie political calculations in the shadow of hard-fought presidential and congressional campaigns.

While Democrats control a majority of both the House and Senate, their leaders have made it clear they will not force their rank-and-file to vote without Republican support on a bailout advanced by an unpopular president on an unwilling public.

In an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll, only 30 percent of those surveyed expressed support for Bush's package. An additional 45 percent were opposed, with 25 percent undecided. The survey was conducted Sept. 25 and had a margin of error or 3.8 percent. It was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and followed with online interviews.

Aides to lawmakers in both parties say telephone calls from constituents are running heavily against the bailout - in some cases nearly 100-1 against, making the vote a potentially tricky one for a candidate in a competitive race.

Ironically, though, many House conservatives who are most opposed to the measure are in safe seats, thus free to resist the daily calls for action - and the warnings from Bush and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that a recession looms without a bailout.

Opposed to direct government purchases of assets, they favor tax breaks and creation of a new government insurance program that would give private companies an incentive to make the purchases on their own.

"Our goal here in attempting to come to an agreement is to do our best to protect American taxpayers," said Republican leader Boehner of Ohio, after a closed-door meeting other GOP lawmakers.

Inside the meeting, Boehner received a standing ovation from fellow Republicans, some of whom expressed anger that Bush and his administration had effectively shut them out of negotiations and tried to force them to support an unpopular bill.

"He got a standing ovation because he stood up to the president and Paulson," said Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill. "Now we're a part of the game."

Said Boehner, speaking of a White House meeting on Wednesday: "If they thought they were rolling me, they were kidding themselves."

Frank saw it differently. "I didn't know I was going to be the referee for an internal GOP ideological civil war," the Massachusetts Democrat said on CBS' "The Early Show."

Take a look
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., left, and Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., speak to reporters after a meeting with Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson on the financial crisis Thursday on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)
President Bush, forth from left, meets with presidential candidates John McCain, far left, and Barack Obama, far right, and congressional leaders Thursday in the Cabinet Room of the White House. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 146 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

excuseme wrote on Oct 5, 2008 9:19 PM:

" I just can't beleive that John McCain voted for all this pork???? "

abramj wrote on Oct 5, 2008 2:30 AM:

" Someone should run the theives out of the Fed. gov. Obama-Palin for president!

"Real haters don't even like family values." "

OGS wrote on Oct 3, 2008 11:38 AM:

" Goldman Sachs literally "bought" Senate votes for the Bail Out plan. See the video on YouTube. "

OGS wrote on Oct 3, 2008 3:35 AM:

" Let's hope that the House listens to the People and denies this theft. Their is a much lower % of crooks among We The People than those in the Senate. The only logic that can validate the demise of the dollar and the U.S. economy is the pursuit of a globalist agenda! "

Patriot wrote on Oct 2, 2008 4:05 PM:

" Republican Representative Burgess of Texas says he's gotten more phone calls on the bailout than anything else EVER. He says he's gotten over 1,000 phone calls and only FIVE were for the bailout. I'm glad most people know a theft when they see one. "

OGS wrote on Oct 2, 2008 1:43 PM:

" This bail out/rescue plan should be more aptly referred to as;

NO BANKER LEFT BEHIND! "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Oct 1, 2008 3:24 PM:

" Section 109 of the Bill:

Foreclosure Mitigation Efforts.

MODIFICATIONS: In case of a residential mortgage loan, modifications under paragraph (1) may include...

(A) reduction in interest rates;
(B) reduction in loan principal; and
(C) other simular modifications

It also includes changing terms of the mortgage!

Sounds more like a get of debt free card to me! File BK, rewrite your loan, keep your house. get lower payments, owe a lot less, with more favorable terms, and wipe out all other debts in the BK. Fresh start and in two years if you make your payments on time you are like brand new in the credit world and get to start all over with new credit cards and auto loans!

Thanks Obama! "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Oct 1, 2008 3:13 PM:

" Has anyone read this bill??? I have and it looks like it will be Christmas for those that have mortgages tied to this mess! I see new ads coming from BK Attorneys! They are going to have a field day with this one! This will only create an even bigger mess with a rash of new BK filings!

Do you owe more than what your house is worth? No problem! Just file BK, get your mortgage rewritten with lowering the principle balance to the current market value, lower interest rate, new terms....and since you are in BK just go ahead and wipe out all that credit card debt too!!!!

It looks like they left huge loopholes in this one! The poor get out of debt and the middle class get to pay it off with taxes! BRILLIANT!!!! "

The Cat wrote on Oct 1, 2008 1:10 PM:

" FTC: (un)reasonable doesn’t even understand the sun rises in the East and sets in the West so don’t expect (un)reasonable to understand truth and facts that conflicts with un’s world view that everything bad is Republican and everything good is “progressive” Donkey. "

mickwd1 wrote on Sep 30, 2008 11:46 PM:

" GET ACTIVE DO SOMETHING- I commend you, and I agree wholeheartedly. I, too, challlenge all of you, instead of wasting your efforts at bickering with one another, do something that will contribute to force the outcome we the people want-make noise. Call legislators, call friends, call family, and most importantly, please, educate yourselves on this issue instead of simply taking for granted that what is being told you is the gospel. I have logged onto several newspapers from various states just to comment and share this message. We can deliver the outcome necessary for the American people to prevail on this, and the only outcome to ensure that we don't lose our economy to private interests.
It is the peoples' turn to campaign now. Let's rock the vote.
NO BAILOUT. "

Meh wrote on Sep 29, 2008 9:49 AM:

" albundy54, in this entire thread have you seen me support the Democrats or their plan? I don't see it. I'm opposed to the bailout whether the plan comes from Republicans or Democrats. People from both parties were screaming deregulation and free markets. Now its time for them to take their medicine.

But after the dust settles, I'm going to support the Democrats in their efforts. Being evil elitist atheist intellectuals who believe in socialism (did I miss any slurs??), their solution is going to be far better than the Republicans who would simply let the lobbyist foxes keep minding the hen house. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Sep 29, 2008 8:59 AM:

" tatbtime wrote on Sep 28, 2008 3:16 PM:
" There are no winners in this, no matter what happens. "

Oh there absolutely is winners! The crooked politicians that created this mess are winners. They still got their donations and promised job positions after they leave office along with the CEO's that made their millions! There are no tax payers that win from this no matter what happens.

They are wreckless with this whole thing because they admit they don't even know if this will work! Read between the lines of their BS! OF course this won't work! This only only a temporary bandaid fix. This just delays the problem to get through the election. You honestly don't think this will solve the problem do you?

All they did was throw hundreds of billions into the fire. They done nothing to correct what caused the problem and the loan defaults will still keep coming in adding another hundreds of billions to this. Then what? Just print and throw another trillion until after they paid for every single bad mortgage over the next 10 years??? "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Sep 29, 2008 8:53 AM:

" let's be reasonable

LOL. You are so blind it is isn't funny! The dems wanted to shove there plan through on the first day! Did you already forget that? There plan had no provisions and they also tried to slip 20% in there to give to their ACORN group. The republicans would not go along with their BS! Now Obama is running around spreading more lies how he made sure they had provisions! Typical democrat! Steall the credit by lying and cheating on the problem they created to begin with! "

let's be reasonable wrote on Sep 29, 2008 12:35 AM:

" It is revealing that the administration fought tooth and nail against the idea of stopping Wall Street executives from walking off with millions of dollars. They wanted NO restrictions on the greed in Wall Street just the taxpayer's money to pay for all their mistakes. Even some of the republicans troops in Congress were appalled. The end result are strict limitations on salary benefits for the republican pigs on Wall Street thanks to the democratic leadership. The lax republican standards for fiscal integrity is the basic problem. "

tatbtime wrote on Sep 28, 2008 3:16 PM:

" There are no winners in this, no matter what happens. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Sep 28, 2008 1:15 AM:

" For all you dems and anyone else wanting to know what happened with this wall street mess and the people behind this there is a video on youtube that provides good facts and where you can look them up and verify them.

Go to youtube and search "Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?"

Are you SURE this is the kind of CHANGE you want? If you think this was bad just wait and see what happens if you allow government to get involved with national healthcare! "

OGS wrote on Sep 27, 2008 1:31 PM:

" to the Controller/Decider
You are correct that I made the mistake of confusing $700 billion & $700 trillion in a previous (2) post. My apologies to all for being human. Just the same, the bailout will only prop up the mess and more will be needed later, scratch later,,,very soon. No one really know the extent of the funds needed. The guesstimates of $1-$2 quadrillion are just that, "guesstimates."

Worse yet, Paulson wants immunity from any responsibility before being granted the key to the U.S. Treasury. So he can spend with NO limits! He wants us to trust him.

And BTW Controller/Decider I am not going to participate in your childish game of posting definitions. Still you did not respond to my post from 9/26 2:05. My guess is that you were well rebuffed on that post and ignored the questions hoping they would go away. You did not answer because you could not. Whatever. Go play your reindeer games with someone else, there are plenty of willing participants here. "

The Cat wrote on Sep 26, 2008 10:29 PM:

" Facts may be painful to you anti-Bush wacko “progressives” but here are a few whacks of the facts whip to wake you up on this issue. The basic problem goes back to the Community Redevelopment Act of 1979 (Carter and a Donkey congress). Bubba expand the bad features of that act (lending to those in so-called “redlined” areas) with a big push by his HUD Secretary Cuomo and his Reno Justice Department. Meanwhile, Donkey pols (Dodd, Obummer, Shrillary) got big contributions from the likes of Fannie and Freddie that just happened to be mismanaged by the likes of Raines, Gorelick, and Johnson (all Bubba administration hacks) who cooked the books for big bonuses. Any attempt by the Bush administration or congressional Republicans (including McCain) to investigate the mess or establish controls were blocked by the likes of Dodd, Smucky Schumer, and Barney Fwank (boy friend also working at Fannie). BTW, the donkeys controlled the Senate in 2001-2002 and could filibuster anything from 2003-2006. BTW also, many current and former Wall St fat cats are Donkeys including the likes of Rubin, Corezine, Lousenberg, and Paulson. "

albundy54 wrote on Sep 26, 2008 6:30 PM:

" Meh, this proves exactly how igorant you really are and here is why. If this was a republican issue; why would all of your beloved democrats drop and run to a Bush meeting to attempt to clear this thing up? Truth is Meh your left wing lug nut leaders took more money from Freddie and Fannie than any republican on the hill. Why to you think you mindless idiot that it was the republicans that walked out if this bailout proposal? Here is why Meh the moron, because your dummycrats took more money and allowed Fannie and Freddie in power in the administration of billy clinton. This proves despite your ignorance that republicans still have the Americans peoples; best interest first and foremost. Bye Bye Meh, you are truly beyond reason. "

albundy54 wrote on Sep 26, 2008 6:19 PM:

" Everyone of these left wing liberals who are jumping to the support of this bailout is in it for one reason only, they were the ones who had the candidate in the White House when all of this conglomeration began. Now this is what confuses me. The democrats are always saying that big government is responsible for all the hardships of America. Yet they are the largest recipients of the spoils of big business in government. I challange Meh, Patriot, LOL liberal, Lindini, Vic Connor, or any other left wing extremist to please tell me why your elected heroes are the ones who are fighting so hard for this bill to pass. If this was a complete republican debacle you androids would be in here ranting and raving about how republicans have caused this disaster. The fact you are not proves the fact that this all stared with BJB, that would be Bill Clinton. As the demorats took over the "nothing congress" things did not change at all. Now why are the real citizens giving these democrats and republicans backed people our money? I welcome any response on this matter. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Sep 26, 2008 6:04 PM:

" Fourth, the "cover" argument shows what a non-factor Obama is in all of this. The Dems complain (preposterously) that McCain has riled up House Republicans or failed to bring them around. Meanwhile, no one seems to be asking why Obama hasn't helped the House leadership obtain sufficient support from House Dems.

There's a reason why this question isn't being asked. Obama is lightweight from whom leadership is not, and should not, be expected "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Sep 26, 2008 6:04 PM:

" The Democrats counter the second point by saying that a majority of House Dems won't support a deal unless House Republicans provide "cover." But this argument raises more problems than it addresses. First, it is a serious condemnation of House Dems (too gutless to do what they think is right, even in the face of a potential economic meltdown). Second it is a serious condemnation of Nancy Pelosi (too ineffective to whip her troops into line even in the face of a potential economic meltdown). Third, it casts serious doubt on the wisdom of the deal that McCain is falsely accused of scuttling. If the deal made sense, House Dems wouldn't believe they need "cover" from House Republicans. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Sep 26, 2008 6:04 PM:

" Hoping to cover for their "follower" of a presidential candidate, Democrats are claiming that McCain has done more harm than good in the legislative debate. Although this is always a possibility with McCain (and, indeed, just about anyone who is willing to lead), the Democrats' case is absurd.

Their argument is that Congress was on the verge of a deal until McCain entered the picture and caused Republican House members to block it. The problems with this script are several. First, there is no evidence that House Republicans were ever on board with any deal. Second, the support of House Republicans is not needed to pass bailout legislation. The Democrats control the House. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Sep 26, 2008 6:03 PM:

" McCain also had the right line on the Russian invasion of Georgia (though this was not a legislative issue). As Rudy Giuliani recounted at the Republican Convention, Obama waffled for a while and eventually adopted McCain's view. McCain led; Obama followed

Most recently, McCain figured out that he needed to get back to Washington to engage, and if possible provide leadership in, the momentous issue of the financial sector bailout. While McCain opted to help make something happen, Obama said he could be reached by phone if anything did happen.

Obama's position was untenable, so he eventually followed McCain back to Washington. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Sep 26, 2008 6:03 PM:

" McCain leads, Obama follows

The neat thing about a presidential race between two Senators is that voters can make direct comparisons between the candidates that otherwise are not possible. This year, the comparisons work in John McCain's favor.

McCain pushed for the "surge" in Iraq. Obama opposed it, saying it wouldn't work. When it worked, Obama said he knew it would work, but defended his vote anyway.

Two years ago, McCain warned that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were in serious need of reform and he so-sponsored legislation to reform it. Obama did not support this legislation, which the Democrats blocked. Obama was near the top of the list of recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and two executives from these outfits were among his campaign advisors. "

airhead wrote on Sep 26, 2008 5:49 PM:

" Lieberman was just on tv and McCain saved the day. Superman! He decided nobody there in all the hundreds of people had enough brainpower.He went to a meeting and said nothing til the end but still he saved the day! Superman! And the sad part Fox News will twist and turn it until many believe he did. He did absolutely nothing except show himself for being an overreactive erratic individual. If he was truly putting country first he would have quietlly gone to Washington or had several conference calls and then quietly gone to the debates and said we reached an agreement that I didn't think we were going to reach. Instead it was a major production by suspending his campaign. Technically can he debate tonight when he has suspended his campaign? Otherwise Hillary is still running? She suspended hers too. He apparently ordered the president to have a meeting which accomplished nothing while he just sat there. Then he decided he had done enough so he could leave and go to the debates. What a joke! "

Meh wrote on Sep 26, 2008 5:46 PM:

" ofc313, in what world do the Democrats have a fillibuster proof majority? "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Sep 26, 2008 5:43 PM:

" leroymom

We are bailing out the government for their laxed policies, the banks for their wreckless lending and greed, the people that took out mortgages they could not afford, the people that refinanced homes to consolidated debt and ran up their debt again, people that took out adj rate loans to buy more house than they could afford betting on the come their home would increase in value and refinance it later, but it all basically started with our corrupt government all the way back when they started the federal reserve and illegally ratified the 16th amendment and began taxing American people on their earned incomes from their hard labor! This began the cycle of destroying the money supply in this country. Now the money they print and borrow has no value because they have no gold to back it up with. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Sep 26, 2008 5:35 PM:

" Controller

NO, the republicans do NOT want to vote for the plan. If they did it would have been done! It is because of the republicans NOT wanting to vote for this why it has not been done yet.

Sure, they want a PLAN to vote on, but not THIS plan! They said this plan was a BAD plan! So the dems try to pass blame saying they had a plan but the republicans unravalled it after McCain got there. McCain didn't do a thing! So how can he have done it? He hasn't stated where he stands yet. The Obama says they put politics into it which messed it up. Obama put the politics into it. They can pass it as is if they want. But they are afraid to do it alone without most of the republicans support. Must be pretty BAD if they feel that way. I guess the republicans were right. It was a BAD plan! "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Sep 26, 2008 5:25 PM:

" Greed

They are BORROWING the money. The government has the power to print money but they don't. They get their money from the federal reserve. They granted power to the federal reserve to print money. The federal reserve is NOT a part of the government. The federal reserve is owned by a cartel of private banks. They print the money, LOAN it to the government, we pay it back with interest. This is where the money for the war comes from, the money for this bailout will come from and where all the money comes from. It was the biggest hoax on Americans the government pulled on us along with the personal income tax. "

Jarhead71 wrote on Sep 26, 2008 5:23 PM:

" JUST SAY NO! "

ofc313 wrote on Sep 26, 2008 3:57 PM:

" Earth to democrats. The Dems have control over the house and the Senate. They have the numbers to really do what they want but even they know this is a bad idea as it stands and is political suicide if they pass it and it fails. EVERYONE needs to come together on this and leave the blame at the door to fix this "

Meh wrote on Sep 26, 2008 3:50 PM:

" BJR, are you kidding? The Republicans want to put some lame insurance policy on these securities. Would State Farm give you insurance on a car you already wrecked? That would be a very expensive and poor decision on their part. I see the Republican solution as an attempt to shift the bank collapse 6 months down the road when the Democrats are in office. Sure, their plan doesn't cost us a dime now, but it will, just in time for President Obama. Playing politics, as usual. What happens when all those insurance policies on these failed property comes due? Who's on the hook for that? Us.

If the Republicans paid more than lip service to their rhetoric about free markets and socialism, they'd let the banks fail. "

leroymom wrote on Sep 26, 2008 3:42 PM:

" Who are we bailing out, the companies or the ignorant people who decided to live beyond their means? I guess I am just sickened by the fact that nobody is coming in to bail my family out of an ecomonic crisis. Nobody's going to come in and make my house payment. Those people who agreed to having a fluctuating interest rate on their loan and morgaging more than what they could afford should have to suffer the consequences. You don't see me going out and buying Porche's or $1 million houses. Why? Because I can't afford it. I choose not to live beyond my means. When you make the choices to do that, then you live with the consequences. A wise man once told me, "you make your bed and then you lie in it." This whole deal just makes me so mad. I do not think that we should bail everybody out. If you want to stimulate the economy, find a more productive way to do it!!!! "

Controller wrote on Sep 26, 2008 3:40 PM:

" FTC,

First off I'm an Independant who supports Obama, not a Democrat. I've voted for plenty of Republicans including Bush the first time. I actually agree with alot of what you said, but again you're putting all the blame on Obama and the Democrats and excusing Bush, McCain and all the Republicans who do want to vote for the plan. Can't have it both way. Both parties have failings and if you can only see the failings of one party than you have a bad case of partisan blindness. "

JimmyChooGirl wrote on Sep 26, 2008 3:36 PM:

" I'm glad we spent ????? on the MLB steroid case...Roger Clemens being on roids is way more important than our economy. DOH! "

JimmyChooGirl wrote on Sep 26, 2008 3:32 PM:

" If the government wants more of my hard earned money to bail out the super rich fine, but I want something in return....

Right now my credit is horrible (too many shoes) so I want my credit score to be put at 850. Seriously if the government can decide what to do with our money, I think we should have our own demands...it worked for the guys in Armagedon (Steve Buscemi comes to mind) so maybe it will work for us. : ) "

Controller wrote on Sep 26, 2008 3:26 PM:

" Smart move OGS, turn tail and run when you figure out you're overmatched. And if you think your post at 2:05 'clearly rebuffs' anything, I'd like to know how. Let’s review:

1. Your response to my mocking of your quadrillion remark was to state something about ‘$700 trillion’, even though the proposal is $700 BILLION. Yes, they’re both big numbers but there is a great difference between the two. Let me show you.
700,000,000,000
700,000,000,000,000
Just ask if you’re not sure which is which and I’ll help you out.

2. You ‘rebuffed’ my challenge on derivatives by saying ‘Pay up, cause you lose.’ Ok, you’re an expert. So let’s hear it, explain in detail how the financial derivatives market will cause the price of the bailout to rise exponentially?

We’re all waiting with rampant anticipation… "

kl wrote on Sep 26, 2008 3:22 PM:

" If the democrats wanted to push through legislation forcing the bailout, they could at ANY time. They have the majority in both houses. Done deal, right? So why aren't they doing it??? Because they know that the bailout is going to fail, and they want to be sure to be able to say it was the fault of the Republicans! They are lying through their teeth and will say ANYTHING. Now they're saying the agreement failed because John McCain showed up...well, the whole thing failed hours before McCain ever got there. LIES!! Wake up, America! The democrats can only succeed if they assure you we're a failure! "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Sep 26, 2008 3:12 PM:

" Controller

Earth to controller. Bush can not pass the plan. The dems want to pass the plan AS IS. The republicans don't approve of that. The dems have the power to pass it through regardless of what the republicans want or say. The dems control the majority vote! But unless the republicans agree to hold the dems hands and go along with it the dems won't push it through even though they want it AS IS.

Some leadership you got there! They can't make a decision on their own without the support of the republicans. It was a BAD plan the republicans know it! They want to protect the tax payers all they can. The dems say the heck with tax payers. They tax us to death anyway, so what do they care? But without the republicans they won't have anyone but themselves to blame when it doesn't work. Some confidence they have there, eh? And this is what you want in charge of running the country??? God help us if you people are that foolish to elect Obama! "

OGS wrote on Sep 26, 2008 2:22 PM:

" to the Controller/Decider
My post from 2:05 am clearly rebuffs your earlier post, of which you clearly avoided any reply. Anyone who visits this site and cares to catch up on the previous posts posted per article can see the utter nonsense of your attacks on me. Rather than revel in ridicule, when you mature to the point of a respectful discussion I would welcome same. "

arete wrote on Sep 26, 2008 2:00 PM:

" The GOP is revolting? I've thought that for a long time! "

Controller wrote on Sep 26, 2008 12:59 PM:

" OGS wrote on Sep 26, 2008 11:56 AM:
" To Follow the Constitution
Are the lame hit piece posts from the Controller (decider) amusing you as much as they are me? What a goof! "

You don’t like my posts, no problem. As an easy target I can see why. However, I’ll continue to use a dash of humor to highlight the clearly ridiculous and utterly absurd comments I see. What about you, do you still think the 700 billion dollar bail out (which I don’t even support) would cost a quadrillion? Have you figured out what financial derivatives are yet? Call me ‘the decider’ if you want (Sounds like it should be a TNT series) but if you knew what a Controller is then you’d know you’re clearly outclassed in any financials discussions between the two of us. "

OGS wrote on Sep 26, 2008 11:56 AM:

" To Follow the Constitution
Are the lame hit piece posts from the Controller (decider) amusing you as much as they are me? What a goof! "

BJR wrote on Sep 26, 2008 11:55 AM:

" Meh, as usual, you haven't paid attention to the facts. The republicans like Boehner are looking out for you and I. Their plan sets forth more oversight and doesn't burden the tax payers. Unfortunately, Obama is mad because his crooked ACORN buddies don't get $200 billion to continue their voter fraud registration as the dems proposed in the bailout. "

Controller wrote on Sep 26, 2008 10:49 AM:

" FollowTheConsitution said: "The dems want to shove this bill through now. The republicans want to make wall street liable for this instead of tax payers."

Earth to FTC, Come in FTC... This is Bush's plan!!! Remember him??? I know you'd like to forget, but Bush and his appointees proposed this plan. Some House Republicans don't want to vote for the bailout, but even McCain is trying to get it passed. Hey, I don't like the plan either but trying to say it's all the fault of the Democrats is ridiculous!! I've seen your posts and EVERYTHING is partisan to you. How sad to not have your own thoughts and be forced to accept and defend whatever your party is selling. "

diamond cutter wrote on Sep 26, 2008 10:31 AM:

" You know who I feel sorry for? The women in their early 20's who thought their freshly minted husbands were going to deliver million dollar houses and 3 SUVs in the driveway like their decade(s) older counterparts did on credit. How do you expect them to live in affordable housing and drive sensible cars? That's not the way they want it, the government had better fix this. "

OGS wrote on Sep 26, 2008 10:24 AM:

" Instead of Congress talking about a bail out for the elitist bank robbers of Wall St., they should be SETTING BAIL! Let the market fix itself and treat the crooks as no better than the Al Capones,,,or better yet, much worse than Capone. "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Sep 26, 2008 10:14 AM:

" bearslose

If the democrats what the crappy bill they have passed the republicans can't stop them. The dems have the majority vote! What I find interesting is how Obama blames politics for being put in the middle of this that is holding it up. Really??? Then WHY is OBAMA using politics to hold it up??? LOL

The dems want to shove this bill through now. The republicans want to make wall street liable for this instead of tax payers. The dems have the majority vote to push this through if they want to. But the dems are saying unless they get at least a 100 republicans to support this with them they won't push it through. So they are blaming republicans for this not going through which the dems have the majority vote to push it through if this is what they want! What are they afraid of??? Are they afraid the republicans are right and afraid to take responsibility when it doesn't work? Even when the dems have control and the power to do want they want they still try to twist it and blame the republicans! LOL "

bnilguy wrote on Sep 26, 2008 9:53 AM:

" So how are we going to pay for this? Isn't 700 billion in more debt, just making things worse? It's like every person in the country getting a bill for $2,333.33. Can't pay? No problem..we'll send it to your grandkids with interest added "

Burns wrote on Sep 26, 2008 8:57 AM:

" I'm kind of curious if this thing does breakdown and there is no bailout, can we get $700 Billion for curing cancer, alternative energy, or a 10,000 foot wall around Hollywood? Apparently the money's available sitting on someone's dresser. "

Dave wrote on Sep 26, 2008 8:55 AM:

" Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party President candidate, said the battle isn't between liberals and conservatives or even democrats and republicans but between the common working person and the elitists.
All these bankers like Bernake and Paulson and their buddies are elitists. They know regardless if America is a capitalist, socialist, communist, fascists or whatever other ists, they will always be in control of the money and will always be rich. The kind of economy or government ruling is incidental to them.
I've seen the merger of the two parties brewing for many years-actually since Reagan.
They have one goal and that is to run the economy of this country into the ground then benefit when weary, hardworking citizens bale them out. Of course the bail out will add money to their portfolios and saddle us with a worthless dollar and higher taxes plus eventually inflation as high as pre-WWII Germany's.
Getting everyone to argue about whether this is a republican, democrat, liberal or conservative issue is exactly what the elitists want. "

Meh wrote on Sep 26, 2008 8:33 AM:

" Right, albundy54. The Republicans want just enough money to bail out their rich friends and not a cent more for regular Americans. Thanks for reinforcing my point.

I think we should let those banks collapse and let the market do its thing. Then maybe a generation of Americans will realize that complete deregulation is as stupid as letting a fox run a hen house. "

Rivers wrote on Sep 26, 2008 7:57 AM:

" Doesn't anyone remember a chain-eMail cartoon from about 2 years ago about how the investment banks were bundling these mortgage-backed securities into class A,B,C investments for their clients and how no one understood what they were and would never pay off? They were laughing at everyone then, and they're laughing at everyone now. "

American wrote on Sep 26, 2008 7:50 AM:

" Way to go GOP!! I think we should stop this bail out all together. "

bearslose wrote on Sep 26, 2008 7:48 AM:

" Republicans are the reason that we are in this mess in the first place and they are the ones stopping the bail out plan from even starting up. They are at fault because of all the deregulations that they have got passed in the last 15 years. It makes me sick to think that they have the gaul to even suggest that more deregulations need to happen with their new insurance bail out plan. No american likes the fact that we have to this but think of what will happen if we do not do anything. A majority of small and large companies do even something as small as payrol with rolling credit lines. If this deal is not done quick have fun dealing with imediate layoffs. This is not going to be slow in hitting main street it will be a tidal wave that will wipe out everything in its path. I can not believe that I am saying this but I hope that republicans listen to Bush and get this thing in motion. "

kcmoore5 wrote on Sep 26, 2008 7:46 AM:

" Our Government does NOT work for the people anymore. These fat cats sitting in D.C. and on Wall street are getting fatter every day while the every day people out there continue to feed them with our tax dollars.

I for one am NOT happy that my hard earned money is going to purchase a bunch of worthless debt from greedy Wall street moguls who could give a rats a$$ that they have destroyed our economy for their own personal gain.

What angers me the most is that I truly do not have a say in any of this. The Govt. will continue to take their money from my pay checks and tax the crap out of me for every purchase I make I have no control over where that money is spent. Isn't that taxation without representation ???

I think we should all demand that Congress put this bill on the internet and allow all Americans to view it and vote on it before it is signed.

We should all be scared. We are moving from a Democratic Nation to a Socialist country. "

ONLY IN AMERICA wrote on Sep 26, 2008 7:42 AM:

" Here's an idea: FIRE any member of congress who took money from the low life people who scammed the financial system. Then prosecute Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal. Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed 'extensive financial fraud.' Raines made millions. Fannie Mae collapsed. Taxpayers? Stuck with the bill." And YES he has given OBAMA guidance for financial advise..... Barney Frank & Christopher Dodd have both taken money from the system that now burdens all taxpayers.
THE DUMBING OF AMERICA CONTINUES DAILY - THANKS BARNEY !!!! "

dman wrote on Sep 26, 2008 7:27 AM:

" more AP liberal slant from the states most liberal newspaper.
Tell me this, why is it ok for you to try to push your political views on us a through a media device that is supposed to be just reporting the news? "

Ummmm wrote on Sep 26, 2008 7:26 AM:

" to Common Sense. How long have the democrats been the majority in the senate? Not too long I think. How long have the republicans run the senate? Far too long I know. "

DT wrote on Sep 26, 2008 7:21 AM:

" Barney seems to ignore the fact that the dems wanted to change the plan from saving the economy to saving every idiot who ever made a mistake, while earmarking 20% of the money that should go to retiring the debt to be paid to some groujp called ACORN instead. Apparently, ACORN's main function has been to use tax money to finance slum lords whose buildings are not maintained and get condemned and to provide valuable experience in milking taxpayers to community organizers. "

Ummmm wrote on Sep 26, 2008 7:09 AM:

" I'm sorry but I don't think that a building made of bricks and mortar is worth 300,000. I don't care which neighborhood you live in. All of this keeping up with the Joneses or the Smiths is just stupid. My parents didn't raise me to be better than everyone else or have more than anyone else. They raised me to be a good person and respect others. The problem is that the generations after mine (and I was born in the 50's), have wanted more than they're willing to work for. "

Ummmm wrote on Sep 26, 2008 7:04 AM:

" Rivers... I agree with you totally. It's like the little kid with a ball and if he doesn't get his way he'll take the ball and go home. Bush has screwed up this country so bad that even the little kid with the ball doesn't want him on his team. It's a great big kick in the butt and see ya and wouldn't want to be ya attitude that this so called leader of the free world is giving all of us. "

anchor wrote on Sep 26, 2008 6:48 AM:

" The Market will fix itself. It'll hurt...but it will fix itself. "

Annienap wrote on Sep 26, 2008 6:34 AM:

" I heard last night that the Republicans came up with a plan that will not cost the taxpayers any money at all. Their plan is basically insurance paid by Wall Street. I can't explain it all in this short area, but it makes sense to me. BUT, Barney Frank says it won't work and so does Paulson. I'm now wondering if some foreign investor is wanting payment as of October 1 since Paulson's plan seems to need the money right now. Why else is there such a big rush? I think there is a LOT more to this failure than we are being told. JUST FIX IT and don't use my taxes!! "

workingclasshero wrote on Sep 26, 2008 6:29 AM:

" put the blame where it belongs, on greenspan. "

Archie Goodwin wrote on Sep 26, 2008 6:05 AM:

" The blame game may not be productive at this point, but those of you blaming Congress have it exactly right. Doesn't anyone remember banking hearings in the Clinton Administration? Both houses of Congress called in bank and lending company CEO's and castigated them for not making loans in risky neighborhoods. The favorite term of the day was "redlining", and bankers were threatened with all sorts of bad things if they did not take on these more risky loans. ARM's and other low interest strategies were devised by the lending industry in order to keep Congress off their backs. Now these same politicians want us to trust them to fix it? Well, I don't. "

albundy54 wrote on Sep 26, 2008 6:04 AM:

" Meh from what happened at this meeting I would say your precious democrats are willing to do anything to throw our tax dollars away. At least the repbublicans said enough is too much and walked out after seeing this to be too much of a burden on taxpayers. I am so glad Meh that you represent a very small minority of our people as I have always liked to think that the average American has half a brain. You and your left wing loonies are now and always will be the minority in all aspects of life. "

jorge bush's teechr wrote on Sep 26, 2008 5:44 AM:

" Hmm.... a financial crisis caused by Republicans' demand for deregulation proven through sweeping legislation for such by Phil Gramm in 1999 and 2000, who also happens to be McBush's economic policy advisor. Now House republicans are screwing up the entire agreement. talk about the dumbing of America. If deregulation was the cause of this mess, why shouldn't americans demand more regulation by the FEds? Dems are coming into power on 11/4. thank GOD!! "

Greed wrote on Sep 26, 2008 5:36 AM:

" Double-speak. You know what it is. 4 years ago The Bush people and Congressional Republicans were saying Social Security was running out of money in 2047. There was a big hoopla to privatize it, and give everybody a stake in Wall Street. The press is 95% Republican, otherwise how would Republicans get away with the crap they pull. No money? Bush found cash to finance 2 unneeded wars. And now $700+ billion for Wall Street. Maybe houses and cars could be sold if buyers came up with an old fashioned down payment. BTW, they are not borrowing the money from anyone. They are printing it. It will inflate the currency by a lot, and maybe make the foreclosed properties worth something again. After Republicans get done with this spiel, they should revisit the "Death Tax." The way Democrats are caving to everything, there is a chance for it too. "

OGS wrote on Sep 26, 2008 2:05 AM:

" To the Controller
or do you want to be the Decider?
First of all, are you arguing the point of a guesstimate of $1-$2 quadrillion, or just using the quote? While holding your teddy bear, do you feel safer with the $700 trillion number? Do you even know how much a quadrillion is?
Second, although I did not spell derivative correctly, how does that lead you to believe that I "haven't a clue?" Pay up, cause you lose.
Third, I NEVER said that "there was no income tax." I put up several posts speaking of whether I thought it was legal or not, but I never made the statement that you claim.
Last, there you go with trying to create humor as a distraction to cover the fact that your post offers no real content. "

A C Herron wrote on Sep 26, 2008 12:57 AM:

" WAIT>>>>WAIT>>>>>>>>>>>>WAIT
What happened to the Bail out for Social Security? I guess the little folk don't rate.
It must be nice to run a business into the ground, walk away with millions in salaries and bonuses and let the later generations of poor Americans pick up the tab. If we (America) go broke, will we have enough money to give our troops support over seas and eventually bring them home? "

OGS wrote on Sep 26, 2008 12:18 AM:

" Quick! Do it quick before they figure out how bad we're puttin' it to 'em! "

juan wrote on Sep 26, 2008 12:04 AM:

" Common Sense wrote on Sep 25, 2008 4:10 PM:

" Congress is responsible for this MESS and they are controlled by DEMOCRATS! "

And you see an almost even split as Democrat controlled? Teach me your version of math. It might come in handy when I'm paying for the mistakes and malfeasance of the party who had been in a real majority until November 2006. "

Controller wrote on Sep 25, 2008 11:26 PM:

" OGS wrote on Sep 25, 2008 5:35 PM:
"The real numbers once you consider the dierivitves and such will climb to another guesstimate of $1-$2 Quadrillion OR MORE!!!"

1. I'd place big money on the fact that you have no clue what a financial derivative is. (When you Google it to prove me wrong, make sure to spell it right.) ;)

2. Quadrillion???? Oh wait, you're the same one who claims there is no income tax. It's all starting to make sense now.

This is just a guess, but do you have the aluminum foil up in your windows yet? "

excuseme wrote on Sep 25, 2008 11:19 PM:

" But..But...But...I love Bush:) "

Controller wrote on Sep 25, 2008 11:15 PM:

" Good thing McCain 'suspended' his campaign and flew back to Washington so he could sit through almost the whole bipartisan meeting with the President without saying a word. Obama actually had to call on him and ask what he thought before he said anything. We should leave him alone though, McCain may have just had a 'senior moment'. "

Dave wrote on Sep 25, 2008 11:08 PM:

" One congressman said 90% of the people in his district opposed any kind of bail out and he was fearful about any kind of vote.
Calling the house and senate switchboards works. I made some calls today. They all took my name and address and gave me the opportunity to express my displeasure in this whole mess.
The only consolation I get out of this is being able to say Ron Paul was right. "

primmie 53 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 11:07 PM:

" Any money I've ever borrowed I've paid back. I live within my means. That's what every body has to learn, especially the federal goverment. Why should hard working people have to take on an extra 3,000.00 dollars on their debt just because some people decided to live beyond their means. I read where a man and wife who together said they made 42,500 dollars and they bought a 250,000 dollar home. Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy. I also think Barney Frank should keep is mouth shut and butt out.
The two biggest players in this mess belongs to Obama. They are Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson. "

pseudo-intellectual wrote on Sep 25, 2008 10:25 PM:

" The latest fear is that consumers, out of ignorance or hoping to get out of their obligations, who are still paying off their mortgages will quit doing so, leading to even more foreclosures. People need to realize that if their mortgage company or bank goes under they are still on the hook, and they could lose their credit rating as well. Of course, if things get bad enough, none of us will be able to get any credit, including credit cards. Could that "doomsday" collider in Switzerland be causing this? "

pseudo-intellectual wrote on Sep 25, 2008 10:18 PM:

" Friday could be a SUPER-BAD day all around. The markets were up Thursday because of the prospects of a bailout, in spite of uniformly bad economic news. If chaos continues to reign tomorrow morning, it could be another Black Friday. "

Voice of Bloomington wrote on Sep 25, 2008 8:32 PM:

" The bailout may as well be 700 bazillion dollars. No one really has an idea of what this kind of money means. I've become numb to how much this country is really spending on idiotic stuff like this. Just print up more money. "

OGS wrote on Sep 25, 2008 7:04 PM:

" Geez, people,,,get over your republican/democrat blame game for craps sake, will ya?

GET ACTIVE! DO SOMETHING!

I called 24 Senate offices today and spoke with staff members at 18 of them!

Now I challenge you people to,,,Get on the phone and CALL!
Thank you! "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Sep 25, 2008 6:19 PM:

" mdorf4

Its not entirely people that couldn't afford. Most could afford at the time. Lenders taking advantage of people with their low adj mortgages and prices falling to where they could not refinance later because their homes went down in value is part of it. A bad economy with people losing jobs is part of it. Credit card companies shoving multiple credit cards down peoples throat is part of it. People that just have bad habits not paying their bills is part of it. Giving those people credit in the first place with such poor history of paying their bills is part of it. Crooked mortgage brokers, realtors, apprasiors, lenders involved with inflating values that were not there, showing phony income amounts on borrowers, etc, are part of it. Its a long list of things that created this mess! And all started from the top down! "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Sep 25, 2008 6:10 PM:

" OGS

$700 TRILLION????

It would be better to just give every person $1 million dollars each and everyone could pay off all their debt and have lots of money left over! All mortgages, credit cards, student loans, car loans, personal loanas, etc....all paid in full! That ends the mortgage and credit crisis as everyone is flush with no debt and banks are cleared to start over lending money again. The economy would have the biggest boom in history! "

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Sep 25, 2008 6:06 PM:

" ILuvBMI wrote on Sep 24, 2008 1:27 PM:
" The banks should not be running the country."

Where have you been? The banks have been running the country since they started the Federal Reserve! Who do you think the Fedral Reserve is? Most people think it is a part of the government. It is not! It is a private bank owned by a cartel of private bankers. The feds just have someone sit on the board, but it is not a part of the government. They have been controlling everything from, money supply, interest rates, inflation, deflation, wars, etc. They are behind everything!

They are who collect most of your tax dollars. The government BORROWS their money from them and we pay it back in interest only payments from our tax dollars collected.

Abolish the Federal Reserve and you solve most of the corruption! "

maybeso wrote on Sep 25, 2008 6:04 PM:

" Lets put all our CEO's and Politicians on a contractor/commissions salary. You get a percentage now and you will get the rest of your money once the job is completed to our "tax-payer" satisfaction. That should free up some money to not only bail out the economy but also pay for better education, solve the health care crisis and put a little money in savings. "

ktlin wrote on Sep 25, 2008 5:57 PM:

" to common sense: The Republicans can't wiggle out of this. And besides it is very similar to the Keating 5 scandal in which John McCain and 4 other senators tried to stop the investigation and he was in up to his elbows. That cost the taxpayers several billion back in the 80's or whenever it was. With inflation it is very similar. Maybe that is why he thought he should rush there. He does have experience on this issue. Complete with a lobbyist on the payroll secretly of course. So far he hasn't explained that one yet. I am sure he is hoping it will be forgotten. But it won't be. "

Jarhead71 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 5:54 PM:

" mdorf4, you are an optimist hiding behind pessimistic fortune telling. These multimillionaires are not going to pay a dime for any of this. They are not going to be held accountable at all no matter what happens in the Congress. If the Congress bails them out with our money, they are merely giving their businesses a bandaid and the CEO/CFO will keep on drawing millions in salary. If the Congress does nothing, their business will go belly up MAYBE and they will get another job at another bank or insurance company paid in the millions and nobody touches their personal assets. "

ktlin wrote on Sep 25, 2008 5:49 PM:

" And what aggravates me the most is McCain realizing finally that there is a problem and then he stops everything. Screech! To go to Washington because instead of other 250 votes he missed those on the committees suddenly can't handle things themselves. It is perfectly okay for him to weigh in but to try to promote fear for votes and to act like bully bigshot is revolting! I think he has just a little too much self importance for my taste. He acts like those there are ignorant. They may be but he would be included in the group. He is such a piece of work. Sarah is turning out to fit right in with him. I have never seen the like. "

The Real MRK wrote on Sep 25, 2008 5:43 PM:

" Common Sense, the Congress was controlled by Republicans for 6 of the last 8 years. Although both of your statements are true, they are totally unrelated. "

OGS wrote on Sep 25, 2008 5:35 PM:

" $700 Trillion was pulled out of thin air as a guesstimate folks. The real numbers once you consider the dierivitves and such will climb to another guesstimate of $1-$2 Quadrillion OR MORE!!!
This (bailout) will only prop up. The big banks are in far too deep for us little guys to help them out. Just stop the bleeding already. Yes it will be very painful, but no where near the pain that our country will feel if these arrogant bankers get bailed out scott-free. "

Common Sense wrote on Sep 25, 2008 4:10 PM:

" Congress is responsible for this MESS and they are controlled by DEMOCRATS! "

Annienap wrote on Sep 25, 2008 3:55 PM:

" I'm not for bailing out anyone, but I am FOR saving the country from a total disaster later on down the road. There are no guarantees with anything that this government does and I, for one, have absolutely NO faith in our government. Maybe this will be the beginning of a much needed revolution in this country and also in the total cleaning out of Washington, D.C. and starting over with a totally NEW government. I say we need to fire everyone in Washington, D.C. and have an exorcism of every building that is there. Us little people MIGHT survive then. "

pseudo-intellectual wrote on Sep 25, 2008 3:20 PM:

" It's always good to have a little more time to think things over. You do wonder if we might have been better off dealing with things piecemeal (one failed institution at a time) as we have thus far, instead of (in effect) writing a check for $700 billion to cover every toxic mortgage. What if it turns out $700 billion is way too much? Knowing government, won't they be tempted to spend everything we gave them? When big government is tempted it always gives in. "

arete wrote on Sep 25, 2008 2:57 PM:

" They should just allow these banks to fail. These were investment professionals who made these loans, securitized them, and invested in them. Anybody with half a brain knew they would be a problem and many, many people have been saying this for years. These institutions can sell these securities at market price right now but they don't like the price. They want somebody to pay too much. That's us.

Remember last time we had this sort of urgent rush? We got ourselves the Iraq war, another $700 Billion (so far) unfunded error. I can't believe the House and Senate are going along with these weasels. Let the banks take the writeoffs, we already guarantee the deposits up to $100K.

And in case you hadn't noticed, we're about to have ourselves a tough recession no matter what happens with this bill. House prices are going to come down more, more securities will be impaired, more loans will be written off. The losses have to be taken. This is a panicky response being urged on us by an administration with no credibility and it will not work. "

mdorf4 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 1:15 PM:

" Jarhead
Not to mention the fact that it is a little late in the game to be focusing on financiers over the voters. This is way to public to hide from the voters. They are going to do what they think is best (or at least what they think we feel is best) or they won't be in office in January. I thought I was cynical, but some of you make me look like the eternal optimist. "

mdorf4 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 1:10 PM:

" You guys act as if the only people who will suffer if we don't do this are the multimillionaire financiers. If our banking industry collapses, everyone suffers. For better or worse, we live in a world of credit. Not just as individuals, but businesses, too. I'm not willing to destroy our economy to teach a relatively small number of people a lesson. You also seem to forget that the people who took out these bad loans share at least an equal amount of the blame. Just because someone allows you to borrow $"x", doesn't mean you need to take the full amount. Aside from the damage to their credit score, they aren't paying for this, either. I could have borrowed more than I did, but I chose to buy a house I can afford. Everyone is quick to blame "the man", but noone wants to accept responsibility for themselves. Just like the election coming, this is about choosing the lesser of two evils. To me, the bailout is the lesser evil. "

Jarhead71 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 12:36 PM:

" mdorf4, who are you trying to kid? the Congress has their campaign for re-election financiers in mind with this corporate welfare move. Americans are resilient people, let the chips fall where they may, we will be better off on the other side of this WITHOUT a bailing out of multimillionaires getting a tax funded retirement plan complete with 3 to 5 estates a Beamer and 2 MBs in each of their garages. These "best and brightest" finaciers brought this upon the country and they are paying nothing for doing so, NO PERSONAL CONSEQUENCES at all. You and I and every working American are footing the bills. Even Illegals get a free pass on this one. "

diamond cutter wrote on Sep 25, 2008 12:30 PM:

" That's my point. If we do this bailout, we will go back to the practice of 'People with an income of $60,000 were getting approved for $300,000 loans.', within 5 years, maybe less. They are not trying to save "our economy". They are trying to save a form of credit speculation that doesn't work (because you can't assume housing prices will aways rise and trickle down increases in related industries' growth). "

annagraham wrote on Sep 25, 2008 12:11 PM:

" to Middle of the Road:

What century do you live in? In 2005 the US Census Bureau reported a population of 305mil, with 73% being 20 or older. $700bil divided by 222mil is $3,153. "

mdorf4 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 12:01 PM:

" diamond cutter
What do you think created this mess in the first place? They were giving out loans to anyone for whatever amount they wanted. People with an income of $60,000 were getting approved for $300,000 loans. Yes, the bailout sucks, but if we don't do it, we will cripple our economy for a long time. Look at what the stock market is doing. As soon as they pass the bailout, it will shoot up (making my 401K go up and recouping most of what the bailout costs me personally). And "middle of the road", you might want to check your math. It's roughly $2,333 for every American. While all of those people aren't adults, you get my point. I know we all complain about the politicians, but this is getting backed by both parties. I think they actually do have our country's best interest in mind. "

clarkbar wrote on Sep 25, 2008 10:43 AM:

" nothing like a crisis to get a lot of smart comments here. We have become a lazy voting or no voting nation. although someone has provided numbers to call I'll put money on it that hardly no one does, and when it comes to voting in Nov, I'll bet that a lot of incumbents will be voted back into office because we are so lazy. We have the power to end this, go vote and don't vote an incumbent back into office no matter what. Look at Rod, he got voted in even though we knew he was rotten after the first term! "

Rivers wrote on Sep 25, 2008 10:38 AM:

" Doesn't anyone else get the feeling that this is the Bush Administration just sticking it to us one last time? The timing just seems too strange. I mean, who else would think to say "Give me $700 Billion" without any accountability and no oversight and basically say "Trust me"? "

middle of the road wrote on Sep 25, 2008 10:24 AM:

" this bail out works out to about 1/2 million dollars per adult american "

Seymour Butz wrote on Sep 25, 2008 10:02 AM:

" If you have not yet done so, write your congressman immediately and tell them to vote no on this bailout or you will never vote for them again. "

diamond cutter wrote on Sep 25, 2008 9:11 AM:

" From what I gathered from the prez's speech, banks aren't lending money because it's too risky right now and that's freezing up everything down the food chain. Banks make money on interest charged for lending money. If they don't lend money, they won't make money. I really can't believe that they wouldn't 'loosen' up when they realized no one was coming to the counter to order. They would intentionally go out of business? I don't think so. Let the free market thin out the herd, we don't need to bail anything out. We only need to bail out the interests that want to preserve the false economy that got them into this situation. It'll just happen again in 5 years once inflated (now meaning subsidized) real estate starts rolling again. "

Meh wrote on Sep 25, 2008 8:57 AM:

" Bend over America. There's no money for health care, no money for schools, no money for bridges (except to nowhere), no money for alternative energy, but there's plenty of money to bail out a bunch of rich guys who screwed up.

The only way I'd tolerate a bailout is if all the companies involved were nationalized and all the executive teams stripped of personal assets and imprisoned. Then after stabilizing the companies, sell them back to private investors. That'll never happen, because that would be socialism that benefits America and not just the rich. "

OGS wrote on Sep 25, 2008 8:43 AM:

" Senate switchboard 202-224-3121
House switchboard 202-225-3121
Situation EXTREMELY CRITICAL
CALL NOW and tell the Congress
NO MORE BAILOUTS !!! "

2tired wrote on Sep 25, 2008 8:06 AM:

" I bet these investment banks have the weapons of mass destruction. That they couldn’t find in Iraq 8 years ago. As long as the CEO of these banks still get their $millions$ in bonuses I would hate for them not to be able to buy caviar for the holidays. "

candy wrote on Sep 25, 2008 7:48 AM:

" I'll agree to this as soon as the CEO's start earning what their employees earn. I can't beleive we wouldn't make them take a SERIOUS paycut. We are paying for this, while they still earn MILLIONS. It's just not right. "

turtlelover wrote on Sep 25, 2008 7:41 AM:

" To temp,
I think you're missing the point. The compensation limits are for those who have been at the head of these companies, ie. those who ran the companies into the ground. In other words, the CEO and other executives of these companies don't get 6 or 7 figures "bonuses" when the government buys them out.

But even with this, the whole plan stinks! Why should my children and I have to pay for the mistakes and bad judgement of others. This country is supposed to be Capitalist! Plus, I'm now worried that my parents might disappear! :) "

alwayssomething wrote on Sep 25, 2008 7:27 AM:

" I say go back to when we were first in "the hole" and starting then hold the ones that put us under responsible....maybe if they knew they would be held accountable for their spending this wouldn't happen...heck if I knew I could keep writing checks and never have to worry about going under I'd be doing it all the time! Just a thought. "

anchor wrote on Sep 25, 2008 6:40 AM:

" Well, nothing like a huge blunder to bring everyone together. We cannot get together on REAL issues but both Dems and Reps. can lay down their differences to spend a trillion dollars ini a Bipartisan fashion. Perfect! Privatize the gains and make the losses public. "

PayDan wrote on Sep 24, 2008 9:44 PM:

" If your mad at the CEO's and mad about the dollar amount, remember that in the voting booth.

The bailout dollar amount is nothing compared to the growth in the National Debt since 1999.

09/30/1999 - $5,656,270,901,615.43 09/25/2008 - $9,794,144,095,056.10 thats a difference of $4,137,873,193,440.67 Per year that's $459,763,688,160.07 per year and $1,532.54 per person per year. Now tell me who should lose their golden parachute.

So while you may want to punish the CEO don't forget about the politician.

This brings up all those sayings;

Which came first the cart or the horse?
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
That's like the pot calling the kettle black.

Don't bail them out and allow for the redistribution of wealth. Then vote them all out of office, well except for McCain and Pallin.

This is just my humble opinion, and I approved this post. "

Generation Bleach wrote on Sep 24, 2008 8:00 PM:

" Speech summary: A whole bunch of rich people got really greedy and were writing checks their backsides couldn't cash. Now I am asking you the American people to please foot the bill these companies that side-stepped regulation laws by way of legal loop hole need assistance. By the way this $700 Billion gives no guarantee that out economy will recover but will give these people one more chance to make a quick buck before the second coming of the great depression. See ya suckers I'm out of here in 117 days. "

Jarhead71 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 7:10 PM:

" temp, who are you trying to fool? The "best and the brightest" got our economy into this mess. I think it is time for a commoner with more common sense to step in. No bail out until the best and brightest that got us into this mess sell all of their mansions and estates except for just one and use the proceeds against the bad debt that they financed. Now they want tax payers to foot the entire bill? I know, lets let all of the bad decisions implode onto the greedy financial istitutions that set this up and the loans can all be cancelled and deeds surendered to the home owners whose taxes are going to be used to bail these snobs out. "

temp wrote on Sep 24, 2008 5:39 PM:

" O