Bail Them Out, Or Let Them Die A Natural Death? *Let Them Die; They Cost Too Much!*

It IS very upsetting.

The Bush plan is to let billionaires just walk away with many millions apiece of U.S. money in their pockets, so they don't take any losses. They took and took as it was to become greedy billionaires (nobody can work that hard). I hope Congress can fix that. I hope. I hope.

IN the meantime - it's VERY upsetting.

TAX THE RICH !!!

I agree, Peter, totally, but who always gets stuck with the bills? Those who cannot afford them, that's who.

Congress needs to change that. And it won't be Republicans, for sure.

The really awful thing is that it's gone too far to let the market sort it out.

Eat the rich.

Eat the rich? Indigestion, Nippy.
I too, think it's gone too far, whatever gets done now is well after the fact and will only benefit the crooks that let this happen in the first place.

Some of them are a little fatty. The ones with personal trainers who really follow their exercise programs are pretty tasty as long as they maintain a reasonable BMI. Gotta have a little marbling, you know.

Just tax them a lot. That money needs to get back into circulation, and badly.

The rich still pay more taxes than any of the rest of us.

I don't know if bailing the companies out is a good idea or not. What about all the poor people that do work for these companies (and I don't mean the bigwigs)....they probably had no clue either. That would be thousands unemployed....

Overall, I agree. But I was under the impression that letting them fall would create more havoc too. I dunno, the whole thing just sucks all around.

Boy you are brave after the other day!! lol

People when we tax business's more they pass the tax on to us!!!! Why don't some people get that.. Same thing with the big oil companies.. The liberals say tax them more and more!! Why? So again we are paying more. Come on people think of who really pays..

i think its a wrong move to bail them out thats alot of $$

I feel that letting them fail would hurt a lot more.

How about if the financial institution dies, the American people's debt dies with them? If they owe good people money, I'd back the government bailing that part out. I was against the Chrysler bailout years ago. If the government won't bailout a person, why the heck should the government bailout a corportation. Let 'em swing.
<center>
Myspace Funny Hello Graphics</center>

Carol
All the government does is bail out people.. Welfare, foodstamps, housing, the list is endless...

The government should start cutting back on some of these bailouts as well..

thanks for sharing

Compare the money spend to "help" corporations and the rich with the money spent to help the poor. If you eliminate Social Security and Medicare, which we are in some sense paying for before we need it via payroll deductions, the money spent on the few rich is far more than the money spent on the many poor. The owners of 98% of the privately owned assets in America pay far less than half the taxes. Somehow that doesn't seem fair.

I also saw (on Glenn Beck) that foreign held banks are also included in the bail out.

How stupid is that???

I cannot even get my mind around this one.

Take Action Against the Bailout!

10!

Maeilyn good article

I agree with you that bailing out Wall Street is not the answer. We should be bailing out the homeowners that are being foreclosed on at the rate of 10,000 a day. The People at the top of our government and financial institutions are responsible for this disaster. So I see no way to trust that these fools will save us by giving them even more of our money to lose. Instead give it to the people at the bottom the homeowners maybe by saving them we can save all of us..

once again the "gamblers" (no i do not consider most folks on wall street to be investors) have made bad bets (just like they did in 2001 on internet stocks) and now they want us to bail them out. why should we bail them out? they participated n making loans that never should have been made because they wanted to make more money, they did not make these loans for any other reason. and juts like in the internet bubble they convinced themselves that it would go on forever and that they had to jump on the bandwagon or lose out on millions of dollars. well they made a horrible choice but now we are supposed to make it all better for them. i say NO, at least not as proposed and not without making it so the people that participated in this latest stock market meltdown find another profession. anyone who was packaging and selling these risky "investments" should not be allowed to sell stocks for at least the next 5 years.

now for a true solution:

what everyone is saying is that all these bad loans are bringing down the financial industry so we need to bail them out and maybe we do but lets do it in a way that get's the loans paid off but also puts money into the hand of the homeowners at the same time and thus puts money back into the economy instead of into the pockets of the people that created this current mess. so instead of giving 700 billion to wall street lets pay off the loans of anyone who purchased a home from jan 2005 to jan 2008 and is behind on their mortgage payment or is still making their payments but their salary has dropped since they purchased their home or their loan payment is more than 30% of their gross income . now anyone that purchased a home without providing proof of income CANNOT participate in this deal. Further the government will pay 85% of the remaining balance on the loans, the mortgage holder will just have to accept this amount since their option is 85% or nothing. This will put cash back into the financial institutions but more importantly it will free up cash for the middle class which will drive the economy back onto its feet. finally regulations need to be established concerning debt to income levels that CANNOT be broken when making loans. we need to make rules that cannot be ignored when it comes to how much debt an individual is allowed to have because yes people have the right to make stupid decisions but not when those decisions can end up effecting everyone else and all the stupid decisions that were made in wall street over the past three years hoping to and actually making millions of dollars on risky loans are definitely effecting all of us.

now if a persons home is paid off and they go to sell it, the following schedule applies to how much of the sale price they must pay back to the federal government.

if the house is sold anytime within 2 years after the mortgage is paid off, the federal government will get 90% of the proceeds
if the house is sold anytime within 4 years after the mortgage is paid off, the federal government will get 80% of the proceeds
if the house is sold anytime within 6 years after the mortgage is paid off, the federal government will get 70% of the proceeds
if the house is sold anytime within 8 years after the mortgage is paid off, the federal government will get 60% of the proceeds
if the house is sold anytime within 10 years after the mortgage is paid off, the federal government will get 50% of the proceeds
if the house is sold anytime 10 years after the mortgage is paid off, the federal government will get 30% of the proceeds

so please do not bail out wall street by simply giving them money but instead give them money by paying off (not purchasing) the bad loans. see this as a stimulus package which takes care of two problems at once.

What I want to know is that since the Treasury dept printed extra money last week, isn't it only fair that they start passing it out to us? This way we can put it away (under our mattress or in the freezer) for our great-granchildren - who are really the ones who will be paying off this debt.

I guess we need the financial world to survive, not that I understand it. But I'm pretty sure we need lots of other things too. All this focus on spending in one direction is scary, like buying the world's best pair of glasses while the patient is losing his sight.

I dont know what they should do, but the Execs should not be rewarded

I agree this is terrible to pass this burden onto taxpayers.

Nippy, I just can't eat the rich. You can have one of mine.

Hi Janet - The rich also have many more tax write-offs and money hidden in foreign accounts than the rest of us. It's a lose-lose situation all the way around for real people. As in not rich.

Phyllis? I missed something - the other day? I'm brave? What'd I miss? Prices are going up no matter what happens. Seems to be The American Way. Ugh.

Carol -- That's a thought. Really.

Phyllis - Welfare, foodstamps, housing? I'm in small-town Connecticut, there aren't any shelters around here and we've got a growing larger all the time, population of homeless, and winter's coming.
Welfare - two people (CT) $196.00 per month, EACH.
Foodstamps - About $200.00 a month, per couple, add a few bucks for each child, and keep in mind this is FOOD only, not toilet tissue, kleenex or any personal care items.
Housing? As in Section 8? It's been closed forever, there isn't any.
And yes, why are we bailing out everyone?

Hi Larry H. - Good to see you here!

Larry M. - True, but your way is much better, I've read lots of your articles.

Shannon, Foreign banks? HUH? That's beyond stupid, it's suicide! Be over to see your post in a bit.

Hi Felix! - Thanks!

Joseph, I know, and I agree with you.

Larry C. - Well thought out and enough so that I have to think about it a bit. Question, if a person pays off their mortgage "with" interest, why should the government (if they already got the interest?) own such a large percentage of the sales price, if the home is then sold? Just a thought.

JENEAN, Hi - They printed money and we didn't get any? How RUDE! (and typical)

yolanda - Hiya! Great to see you here, and the people on the bottom, middle and halfway to the top, lots of them have already lost their jobs thanks to NAFTA sending our jobs overseas. The companys are feeling it too, or should I say the people that work for them are, they really have no job security, as at anytime, your livelihood can be sent to a foreign country and done not half as good as you did it, but a heck of a lot cheaper. So wrong!

Sheila, Hi! Or making sure everyone has insurance, a roof over their heads, food to eat, heat in the winter months and gas? Oops, forgot. Electricity too.

Hi Donna,
No, they sure shouldn't.

Hi Beth - It's a terrifying thing to pass onto taxpayers. People can barely afford to live now, and I'm not talking new vehicles or homes, just basic necessities. Add more taxes to that and we've got a worse mess than we already have now.

Cori - Yes, it sure does suck! Big time.

“Wall Street Socialists”

The financial crisis gripping the U.S. has the largest banks and insurance companies begging for massive government bailouts. The banking, investment, finance and insurance industries, long the foes of taxation, now need money from working-class taxpayers to stay alive. Taxpayers should be in the driver’s seat now.

As much as it would be painful for the country and everyone in it (the rich will lose money too, it just won't hurt so much), the bailout as it is currently proposed is not the answer -- it just rewards the evil-doers.

I applaud Congress for demanding accountability in the future ... but they also need to attach earnings of current and former leaders of the failing institutions -- whether they are liquid or not. The obscene compensation packages need to be recouped to pay for this. It was their job to know -- they must be accountable.

I think of the sinking of QWest in Colorado (and its acquisition USWest) and the trial of Joe Nacchio. Why are we allowing this wrangling that has broken (and in some cases bankrupted so many) to continue? He was convicted. There should be jail, and mandatory restitution in addition to the fines. Its called "fiduciary liability".

Richard, I'll be right over to read your article, you're right -- if a normal person begged for a bail-out for financial troubles, you'd get laughed out of the bank.

Debra, You're so right. Why aren't YOU in Congress? (might help, you never know)

Excellent, Richard,

Let's take this a step farther... we do the $700B bailout and nothing gets better, which is more than likely as things took time to get into this mess (and a bunch of crooks too), and it'll take time before we even bottom out, nevermind get out of this mess, if we ever do, but it could and well may be years.
Who're we going to bail out next and for what price? It sure won't be the people who need it, you know, the people that are losing jobs, homes, etc's left and right.

@marilyn, you asked: "Larry C. - Well thought out and enough so that I have to think about it a bit. Question, if a person pays off their mortgage "with" interest, why should the government (if they already got the interest?) own such a large percentage of the sales price, if the home is then sold? Just a thought."

if the people purchased their home ion the past few years there is no way that they have paid off anything, so that is why the government would get such a large chunk of the sale price if they sold, this is to keep people from having the mortgage paid and then selling and walking away with a huge profit, which of course, is what washington juts did but they did it for the folks on wall street :( ... there are more details that my solution would have needed but the government in all their wisdom, or lack thereof is going to do something that only benefits wall street not main street.

@peter, you said "Congress needs to change that. And it won't be Republicans, for sure."

are you aware that democrats are the majority in the house and senate already? they did nothing while all this was happening and only took action after bush woke up to an issue that anyone with 1/2 a brain cell knew existed back in 2005.

I share the indignation at spending taxpayers' bucks on this crisis, but I think you need to look at this not as bailing out greedy Wall St. bankers, but rather as a way to get credit and liquidity flowing again. Without that, Main St. is going to suffer much, much more than it has already. (See my post today on this subject: http://www.gather.co/viewArticle.jsp?memberId=91806&articleId=28147497745983)

How to do it is the question...and the problem. Market solution (as illustrated by J.P. Morgan buying out WaMu's assets and Mitsubishi bring capital to the table) or Government buying dicey assets at a low price hoping to recoup later? Or both? I'd say both.

And by the way, both the GOP and the Dems bear some responsibility, as does the Fed. In the political silly season it's kinda fun to bash one or the other, but at this point it doesn't much matter. We need to study the mistakes (but we probably won't) and set up a regulatory structure that makes sense. I think it is super-ironic that, years after dismantling Glass-Steagall, which forbade banks from getting into the securities business, that Goldman Sachs, the preeminent investment bank, is going back to being a bank holding company. Reverting, in short, to the principles of that despised "1930's regulation" put in place by those awful liberal types.

Ya know all of this was known by congress (We Think) if they really read the damn thing but bottom line yeah LET'EM DIE.....