Americans Boiling Over Proposed Bank Bailout

Moving bad debt from the corporations on to the citizens of this country is just bad.

Even good ol' Newt Gingrich is saying this is a bad idea, not the right move.

The republican trickle-down economics are now coming to fruition.

Bush is saying, everyone, take a bite of this forbidden apple and things will become better - trust me.

I'm against the bailout but if it happens, we better not see CEO's walking away with severance packages amounting to millions.
We better see heads roll with no payouts and criminal charges.

If I don't pay my taxes the IRS will initiate liens, penalties and garnishments on me; why are they so different?

Sent by Lyle K. Deere | 2:37 PM | 9-25-2008

Bailout needs an stated objective.

We, as Americans need to start asking the right questions, and so do our representatives in Congress. In order to achieve a goal you need a clearly stated objective and in order to measures its success it has to be stated in QUANTITATIVE terms.
"700 billion Dollars to save the our economy" is NOT specific enough and in no way quantitative.

What is the plan? "Buy the bad debt", NOT specific enough. Buy bad debt to what end.

If we the American people are the purchasers, what exactly are we buying?

If it is bad debt, then how is it divided? How much of it is defaulted commercial loans. How much is for primary residences? How much for secondary investment properties. How much is collateralized and how much is defaulted paper. Without understanding the problem, how can a solution be applied.

Americans deserve to know. Our representatives need to start asking the right questions and then communicating with the American people.

Sent by Aimee Davis | 3:11 PM | 9-25-2008

The so call "investment banks", were they chartered as a bank ever?, it seems to me that this came overtime, people started calling them investment "banks", instead of investment company, this came handy to these financial corporations and a very convenient marketing tool and somehow as a unduly advantage for the real banks, those that do financial intermediation.

In my view, unchecked greed fueled "creativity" to develop riskier financial instruments more and more. On top of that, hugely disproportionate short term performance bonuses make it more atractive to seek more risk every time, however, they actually did not bear the real risk, it was other peoples money.

In order to avert this to happen again, I think that a good logic to follow would be "as much free market as posible and as much market regulation as necessary"

Sent by Ludwig | 6:42 PM | 9-25-2008

Invocations of fear avoid the long term implications of ultimate consequences to the common good. How do we ignore greed as the underlying culprit of the crisis? If the plan is adopted with swift action and without authentic reflective debate, what does it truly say about the economic analysis that was not spoken of within the recent past?

Sent by Kim Alexander | 7:34 PM | 9-25-2008

Instead of writing Henery Paulson and the banks a blank check, how about filtering that money threw the American public. If the fed were to strike a deal with banks and pay $50,000 on everyone that holds a mortgage (roughly seventy five million homes) you would help out home owners by freeing up funds. This would also stimulate the economy becasue if you are paying less for your home you will spend more money on consumer goods there by stimulating the economy in general. I know if my Mortgage was nearly paid off I would be looking at buying a hybrid.

Sent by arthur kettner | 8:45 AM | 9-26-2008

Let the CEOs who have bled companies dry and walked away with millions do the bail out! Ask the oil company execs to put up some money too. Stop asking the families of this country who are already struggling with medical bills due to lack of insurance coverage, high gas prices, high food prices and so on to foot the bill!

Sent by Kim Singleton | 5:14 PM | 9-26-2008

During the great depression, my grandfathers (one in mining, one in banking) and their managers & board members, chose to take smaller salaries and cut frills in order to keep each man in their companies on the job, actually hiring more than they needed in order to help as many people as they could. I don't see the corporate managers doing this. Surely they knew what was coming. It is disgraceful that this is happening, and they should be made to pay a significant portion out of their own wallets.
And shame (once again) on George Bush for hiding the problem this long. It is my guess that he was hoping this calamity would wait until his successor was in office.
This situation sits squarely on their shoulders. Perhaps they should think of a bail out from the bottom up - relieving the taxpayer of the burdens they have been paying in his gas and oil, grocery prices and rising mortgages. They should be the ones to "Trade Places"
Shame on them, shame on our congress. Their 'Trust Me' attitude has the same meaning as a used car salesman.

Sent by Shadrack | 7:14 PM | 9-26-2008

Most Americans are deeply opposed to this bailout. But it seems like
congress is going to do it anyway, "to save us".

If we taxpayers are going to be paying the bill, shouldn't we see some
benefit from it too?
If they are going to spend the money, shouldn't they spend it in the way
that helps the most people?

What $700 billion to $1 trillion could do:
Instead of giving the money directly to the banks, the gov could send checks
for $14,000 - $20,000 to every single owner occupied home in America with a
mortgage. These
checks could be made out directly to the mortgage companies. So people could
not use it to go out and buy a car or a mink coat. The checks could only be
used to pay down an existing mortgage.

The banks would be getting the full $700 billion to $1 trillion that they
want. But it would pass through our hands first. They are spending our money
on the bailout. At least let us touch it for a few seconds.

This would:
1. Rescue the banks from themselves. (they still get bailed out)

2. Rescue private investors of mortgage securities. (they still get bailed
out)

3. Give people who are 30 - 90 days late a reprieve. They will be caught up,
and gain equity. $20,000 is more than a year of payments for most people.
(this is a bonus benefit, at no additional cost)

4. Builds equity for those who are not behind, by paying down their mortgage
by $20,000. (this is a bonus benefit, at no additional cost)

5. Removes negative equity for many home owners. People who owe $200,000 on
their $180,000 homes would now be able to sell them for the $180,000 value,
without going bankrupt. (this is a bonus benefit, at no additional cost)

6. Provide a soft deflation of home prices, rather than a crash in prices.
(this is a bonus benefit, at no additional cost)

7. Grease the economy. Those who are not behind on their mortgages and
already have equity built-up in their homes, will have even more equity.
These people will be flush with cash and will spend it on cars, washers,
dryers, etc. (this is a bonus benefit, at no additional cost)

8. Expose the mortgage brokers and banks who issued fraudulent loans. If 60%
of the "customers" of a broker or bank "don't send their checks in", they
can be looked at for fraud. Then they can be put in jail. (this is a bonus
benefit, at no additional cost).

We would all get a giant do over, instead of just the banks. We are the ones
paying for it anyway. Why should we pay the full cost of our mortgages, and
pay for the bad ones too?

Any banks that can not make it after this massive inflow of cash, they
deserve to fail.

Sent by Vic | 9:46 AM | 9-28-2008