@banmojo:

I'd be all for that, but allowing the government to, carte blanc, take the money from the executives sets a dangerous precedent.

On the other hand, if legislation was crafted to specifically allow for the dissolution of the contracts held by these executives, we might have something.

Not just a "no", but a HELL NO!

@lpranal: Heh, good call.

Take heart, anyway: I managed to get a better-paying job and I now live with my boyfriend so the income between the two of us means that I no longer have to worry if I can eat three meals a day (and none of them is ramen anymore). Things got a lot better, even with the craptacular loans, between 24 and 27.

This isn't a real $700B, most of the assests that the plan would buy are worth something and would most likely be bought at market value. Market value right now appears to be considerably less than what the assests will turn out to be worth in the end, not all subprime loans are bad loans.

Why can't the government just loan them money at 10% interest until the capitalization issue passes? If they bankrupt then they do. Even better would be to have the companies create bonds that pay out before other bonds, but can't be superceded in turn, and buy those.

I say let the greedy banks/bankers drown and let the people who took out loans they couldn't afford become renters now (as they should've been from the start). LET THE MARKET CORRECT ITSELF! I can't believe we're actually privatizing the profits from the fraudulent 'good years' and socializing the losses now. I have about $4,000 in emergency cash in the house and own guns, so let this alleged threat of a run on the bankS happen! This threat is paralyzing people with fear and allowing the politicians to ram this save-their-asses plan down everyone's throat!

Do we get to throw rocks?

I'm against the $85,000,000,000 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in

a ''We Deserve It Dividend''.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000

bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman

and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a

'We Deserve It Dividend'.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.

So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.

That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500 in their pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.

What would you do with $297,500 to $595,000 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads

Put away money for college - it'll be there

Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.

Buy a new car - create jobs

Invest in the market - capital drives growth

Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves

Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks

who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company

that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed
Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of
trickling out a puny $1000.00 ('vote buy') economic incentive that is
being proposed by one of our candidates for President.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult
U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG - liquidate it.

Sell off its parts.

Let American General go back to being American General.

Sell off the real estate.

Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can 'never work.'

But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion

'We Deserve It Dividend' more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in
Washington DC .

And remember, The Family plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because
$25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

It also bothers me that for years these companies have cried foul at the slightest attempt at any attempt government regulation, but when things go bad, they're right inline pleading for help...and that it's all about bailing out the rich..while as usual, the working stiff gets no help with the rising cost of fuel, food, college tuition, healthcare and whatnot. It doesn't seem fair at all that the average person who is already in debt just to support themselves and keep their family fed should go into debt even further to bail out a bunchy of smug fat-cats living in Wall Street penthouses.

NO for corporate bailouts.

YES for corporate bailouts on a strict case-by-case basis.

NO,NOT on tax payer expense.

Also interesting is the fact that you damn-near quoted Obama, "Now is the time when we need to hear from each candidate the most." Keep rockin' that mouthpiece.

Imagine a group of mountain climbers, and one falls over the edge while the rest have no strength to pull him up by the rope. They have a choice: keep hanging on and everybody dies, or cut the rope and one dies.

Why the fuck aren't they cutting the rope on AIG, Lehman, and all the other idiots? They're not mountain climbers, they're corpulent corporations acting like kings expecting servants to carry them to the top of the mountain of money. Fuck the fat guy, the people carrying the litter (in this case, taxpayers and consumers) should save themselves.

Unfortunately, like all fat and lazy kings, the corporations have a military force to make the servants save their porcine selves: the government is forcing taxpayers to foot the bill.

@NightSteel: Yeah definitely need more options. I don't like it but from what I am hearing it needs to happen or things will only get worse so I guess I support it.

@tape: I was looking for that option, too.

Also the option that notified my Congress-people that this will vastly influence my vote.

@RvLeshrac: Of course you can enact them as needed. there's no need to throw $700B into the market and hope that a handful of people with no supervision and no accountability will take that money, use it appropriately, and save the financial world. If you believe that will happen, you are insane.

"As needed" is: Ok. Here's a problem. Mortgages. How do we fix this? Ok. Here's a problem. Under- or over-valued bonds. How do we fix this?

There are too many and too varied issues with this meltdown to hand over money and expect ALL the problems and ALL the issues to be effectively addressed and resolved. Take them one and a time, take your time, and get it right.

Everyone wants to be sarcastic and say "oh, it's fake money anyway" but it's not. And America can't afford to have to do this again. As it is, my son and his kids will be dealing with the fall-out from Wall Street's f*ck-up. I'm not happy about that.

@camille_javal: My main issue with this is the huge price tag that can't be associated with any actual costs. There are other banks out there that are still going strong, and a lot of credit unions and other institutions that didn't blow their wad on hinky mortgage-based bullshit investments. These are the insitutions we need to save.

The others...they're collateral damage to their own board members and CEO's greed. Let them burn. The market will right itself in time, and yes, it's a hard road to walk, but it's not right to just give away the bank, hoping that it will do something (anything).

My government loans are under 3% I just wish these private loans would be much lower. $420 a month for one and $300 for the other bleh. Cannot afford it and it's crippling me financially.

I cannot imagine trying to save for my future right now the way things are.

If you truly don't support this bailout then prove it and vote for Barr... I doubt many people will put their vote where their beleifs are but it's definitely an interesting paradox. Incidentally, do you support getting paid by your employer, getting a loan if you need one etc because if there is no bailout, there will be no credit and that will mean a whole lot more "nos" for all of us. Now I don't need a loan, a house or a car anymore, but I do want my company to be able to continue to access credit to pay me so I have no choice but to support the bailout given my personal wants/needs.

FUCK THAT SHIT!

I suggest that ALL the people responsible for this clusterfuck liquidate ALL their assets to be used to pay for the bailout. THEY made this mess, THEY should clean it up.

Also, all credit card and student loan debits should be forgiven, so that the public can stop rolling the rock up the hill like Sisyphus. That $800 a month you used to pay student loans can be put into a savings account instead!

It's like having a poll saying, "Do you support taxes?"

...what else would be reasonable quid-pro-quo for a jagillion-dollar handout to Wall Street?

That's what drove me crazy during the boom... prices went through the roof, but salaries stayed the same. Add health care, insurance costs and higher taxes to the mix, most people are worse off, but with large mortgages.

We are in for hurt for a long time, until salaries can rise to the point where daily life is affordable again.

@HFC: Good businesses not having access to needed credit. Companies borrow all the time and must be able to do so if they are to continue to succeed. If they can't borrow, you don't get paid. All of which can lead to a run on banks which leads to chaos. No one wants increased inflation but given the paths we have to go down, it's the lesser of two evils.

@bbbco: Yeah screw the cap. The executives should be fired. Sarbanes/Oxley made them sign off, but apparently they still didn't read what they were signing. Either that, or they were just to greedy to give a shit.

What the hell ever happened to business ethics in this country? People use to actually give a shit about one another. Now they only care about Benjamin Franklin.

That said, 12%?! I consolidated my federal loans the week after finishing my undergrad program and, thanks to two years of flawless repayment, am down to 2.25% interest on those. Even my utterly usurious go-burn-in-hell-please private loans are only at 8.25%. Is there a way you can consolidate those?

Why bail out companies that need 'credit' when they shipped production overseas? Why help investors that speculated their tails off and got burnt? Why help people that have more money than the entire consumerist forums readers will earn in a lifetime?

So now unemployment is soaring and banks are failing... Do we think giving firms money will bring jobs back? Will the companies do the right thing for US citizens or just continue the run of theft?

They should also make the top level execs put some of their own money into this. Considering they made oodles of money while destroying this countries economy.

Said it before: Only agreeable bailout is one which includes executive pay and benefit caps and cuts out the "no review" and "blank check" provisions.

I support *A* bailout, but definitely not the current one.

@RStewie:

Unfortunately, you can't enact changes "as they're needed."

We'll be lucky if we get a responsible bailout package within the next month. Congress cannot act fast enough to put out a fire, they can only work to (hopefully) prevent it.

My choice would be option #3 - get in a time machine and intervene to an lesser extent when that would still be enough - but it's too late. If we don't put money into the system, it will stop. Banks will not lend money. Businesses tend to operate on a constant flow of lent money - there are very few businesses without debt. The economy will pretty much grind to a halt.

As many others above mention, I believe in the government investment bailout, along with obviously increased oversights (hey, how about 99% of your assets not be in liabilities?). But the repercussions of just letting them burn involve a lot of people who had nothing to do with any of the investment banks getting laid off, and that affects all of us.

One thing I do think, is that John McCain would rather not be in the public eye right now, and that is why he does not want to continue with the debate. I find that to be bull-shit. Now is the time when we need to hear from each candidate the most. I cannot vote for someone who wants to bury their head in the sand everytime trouble comes their way. I don't understand what role either candidate could take right now to help the crisis that would require so much time they couldn't adress the american public for an hour.

Maybe the government is trying to make the national debt an even 10 trillion before Bush leaves office? I kid, I kid.

The market is supposed to have down and ups in the system. That's how it's designed, and it has happened that way for about the last 225 years. Though it may be painful, perhaps this is what is needed to get things back on track.

Cheers!

When I was a student I spent all my Student Loan money on alcohol, junk food and video games. Luckily my parents bailed me out and sent me an infusion of cash... it never happened again, and hopefully neither does this.

I'm not going to give a $700 billion dollar check to someone who inists on it being "no questions asked".

The thing that really ticks me off is that this "bailout" is being postulated as the one and only option available by both the government and the media. How can they get away with pushing this through so quick without a real analysis of alternative options? Do you realize what will happen when the government gives away $700 Billion? The only way the government can get this money in the first place is to print it, which will thereby decrease the low value of the dollar even lower!

So has anyone taken any time to consider some of these alternative options? Former Presidential Candidate Governor Mike Huckabee wrote a blog about his frank disappointment with the way his party (the Republicans, President Bush) has handled this crisis. But he does not just criticize, he offers some alternative suggestions:
"If Congress wants to do something, here are some suggestions:

1. Eliminate ALL capital gains taxes and taxes on savings and dividends right now. Free up the capital and encourage investment. This is the kind of economic stimulus the Fair Tax would bring and if Congress is going to lose money, let them lose it with lower taxes, not with public dollar bailouts of private market mistakes.

2. Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has failed. It was supposed to prevent this. It didn't. Kill it.

3. Demand that the executives who steered their ships into the ground be forced to pay back the losses of their companies. Of course, they can't, so let them work and give back to the government and they can live like the people they put on the streets or kept there. It makes no sense to put them in jail-that's just more they will cost you and me. I'd rather them go out and earn money-just not get to keep so much of it this time. I'm not talking about limiting CEO salaries---just those of the people who now are up in Washington begging for help because they ruined their companies."
[www.huckpac.com]

Another option I have heard is about something on the table in Washington to "change the mark-to-market accounting law and to extend insurance but extend no loans." Supposedly, doing this will help open up the market for a far less price. "If the government insured those mortgages, they would then be marketable. And could sell them. And the companies would stay afloat. And we, the people, don't have to get into the mortgage business."
[www.daveramsey.com]

So why have we not heard about any of these as viable alternative options?

We the people of this nation should not be punished for the greed and misconduct of the companies and executives as a result of their asinine gambling and risky stakes that they have taken because of their corruption and greed!

Ah, that's just my thoughts...

It's throwing money down the drain. Using the govt's rationale (of buying bad debt to allow more lending) why don't they just spend the +$700 billion to pay off consumer's credit card debt?

At the end of the day the $700 billion would have purchased nothing. No properties, no notes on the properties, and no equity in the corporate recipient's business.

Trickle down didn't work and that's all this is - "trickle down". Throw $700 billion at rich guys and it will trickle down and help everyone. Fool me once... don't get fooled again...

I completely agree with you. It's a slap in the face to people that work hard, live within their means and borrowed knowing they could repay the debt. If I know my heard earned money is going to contribute to a $22 million dollar paycheck for some Wall Street suit then I'm going to be pissed.

The stock market is up, sure, but there is a difference between the financial markets and the economy. Stock prices will rise on speculation that banks will turn themselves around with a big check from the government and our problems will be solved, but that doesn't meant it will happen. The Federal reserve's primary concern should be the economy, i.e. the fundamentals of our financial system, not the swings in the currently volatile stock market. It worries me to hear The President on TV speaking about movements in the DJIA. The markets should react to The President and The Fed, not vice-versa.

Currently the 'bailout' is a blank check that the Treasury Dept. can do with as they please. That's just a bad idea all the way around.

Even if it changed to reflect a slightly more sane regulated bailout that is more in line with AIG's loan, it would simply prop up banks that have proven, time and again, that they are not fit to survive, let alone continue regulating our money supply.

I am in favor of allowing them to fail because, while it will cause huge tidal waves, we need to eliminate things that do not work from our system, otherwise this will happen again, and probably much much worse.

My econ teacher, (yes, I opted to take more econ classes than necessary for my degree because of this issue and because of the Consumerist) made a statement about the US economy... this is a permanent restructuring of our economy. That our economy is going to radical alter it's form, much the same way it did after the Great Depression. I wonder if it will become even more socialized now...

Tossing more money into it is only going to make the collapse bigger, because now there would be an additional $700 billion tied up in it that could and should have gone to their regularly scheduled departments. That our taxes will rise to cover the extra expense, and if you think it will ever come down against significantly... you're dreaming.

so I just voted "no".

They've been telling us for how many years now that by what, 2015 or something, social security will only be able to afford to pay people $.48 cents on the dollar, yet they can come up with a solution to bailout these banks in a matter of 3 days.. yeah, that sounds about right.

Nope, free market means there's bad times along with the good. If you want changes, add regulatory procedures, but that's it.

The last swift ("trust us, we know what we're doing"), bi-partisan response to a national crisis got us the PATRIOT Act. And that's worked out great for everybody involved.

Fix the problems, but please be transparent. Everyone involved has gamed the system for their own benefit for the last 5 years. I have very little faith that this will solve anything.

Only if we roll the laws back to say 1990 versions and put people into enforcement who are NOT "pro-business". Anyone with a need to know why should listen to NPR's This American Life recent show about the SEC's Chris Cox and the lack of enforcement of SEC rules.

To let Wall St. essentially fail yet provide money directly to tax payers would cost infinitely more money in the end for it to have any effect. Providing a couple grand to someone with a foreclosed home will not do anything to help their situation. They may pay off a credit card, but that home will still sit there empty and the bank, if it still exists, will still be holding the bad mortgage. This is why it has to start from the top.

And for anyone who has not called their congressman to voice their opinions, here is a link to find who you should call: [www.congressmerge.com]

the financial sector insisted on deregulated open markets and freedom of 'competition'. they swallowed all the little guys and called it 'fair'

and now that they're in trouble they want a handout to 'get back on their feet'? ... they now expect to be treated just like the people on 'welfare' and 'public assistance' that they called 'freeloaders'....

I watched the address last night and had a good long chat about it with my girlfriend [who is financially set thanks to a trust fund]. I don't see how this will help the problem. $700,000,000,000 is absolutely ridiculous. Where the hell is this money coming from?

It was pretty easy to find out how much in debt our country is at $9,700,000,000,000 so I'm just really wondering where this money is coming from.

At 21, working my ass off for a devalued dollar is making paying off my student loans nearly impossible. I had to put my two 12% interest loans into forbearance with partial payments because I simply cannot afford to live anymore. When my lease is up on my tiny apartment I may have to move back in with my parents because I cannot afford to be on my own. I'd rather live at home and help them pay their mortgage off.

WTF is going on? I make decent money. Enough to live on week to week. Nothing is being applied to savings because I simply cannot! I am technically poor according to my tax filings and yet my only debt is student loans that I simply cannot afford to pay.

How is this $700,000,000,000 "bailout" going to help me? I don't have a home. I outright own two depreciating assets, a motorcycle to save on gas and a pos car for when it's raining that was given to me. Why the fuck are there CEO's of these companies getting paid millions a year for ruining our economy? They are ruining everyone's way of life and yet they are worried about their $5 million severance pay? $5 million are you serious?

So all I have to say to our government is "What the fuck"?

Excuse my language really but I just feel like we are being lead like cattle to an abrupt end. We are being stretched far too thin and soon it will snap back right in our faces.

I agree that the original proposal by Paulson and Barnanke was, for lack of a better word, bizarre.

From what I can tell, the changes that are being made should appease to a lot more people.

The market reactions should tell you exactly how this is going to play out. It went up on just the idea that Congress will pass a bill - imagine them not doing anything at this point - it will retract probably upwards of 30% - at that's just with the news and not necessarily because any other banks have failed.

@u1itn0w2day: Its not that housing prices need to get to 2006 prices. Its that property needs to appreciate rather than depreciate.

We don't need a housing boom, we need construction going on.

I would also prefer that any company bailed out by the federal government have the C members (CEO, CFO, CMO) have all their family assests seized and pieces of the company autioned off, such as computer equipment, office space, etc.

That way the stock price will be frozen and the proceeds can be used to pay the stock holders first.

I like how we use social responsibility to alleviate private debt...hmm sounds like bankruptcy, and I think those laws should be changed as well.

I keep on hearing we have to get the housing prices back up and housing contruction started again.

W T F-the 'old' housing prices or artifically high/inflated prices they're talking about were created by this subprime mess.

Then with an over supply why do you want to go on another mandated building boom.

@RStewie: Thank you!!! That's what I'm saying. It seemed as though a lot of people I know have been saying "Well, I think the bill should include X" or "...shouldn't include Y". Why is there a bill at all? Let 'em burn, dammit. Wall Street made their bed, they shouldn't be getting a CENT of my money. There are a lot of better things that could be done with $700B.

I think the 'NO' responders are probably those who believe that it should not pass as it is currently slated. Very little damage will be done to the economy if this process takes slightly longer and yields a fair and well thought out plan.

Passing legislation as a gut reaction is the kind of thing that causes problems long term. We've done that once or twice this decade, i think most people oppose rushing into something that is 'a sure thing' nowadays.

@bilups: I should have said "the market's reaction, for worse, is now linked inextricably to the bailout."

@ironchef: I agree. Something's got to be done, but if we are going to spend this enormous amount of money, we should also address the causes of the situation to ensure that the bailout actually changes things in the long term, not just the short term.

Man, do people not understand? This bailout, for worse, is now linked inextricably to the market. If it fails, market reaction will be overwhelmingly negative -say 20 -30% contraction. People may say "let it happen." I wonder if you'll be saying that when your banking site is down and the local branch has locked its doors, and you can't get to your checking account. A bank run is a very real possibility, and anything that prevents that is necessary. Sure, its a bad plan. At this point, doing nothing is far, far worse.

I voted Yes and I will tell you why. Without the bailout, the world economy will crash. You think things are expensive now, try paying $20 for a gallon of milk. That is the type of problem we would be facing if the bailout did not occur. We narrowly avoided this when they lent $89 billion to AIG as their collapse would have caused the same thing to occur. The financial markets and their drivers, the banks, are a fickle beast that doesn't play well with others when it is sick. Because of that, and the fact that these same markets are what is behind every business in the world, we need to be extra careful about how we proceed. Throwing money at the problem is, very unfortunately, the only solution that is likely to cause the least amount of shakeup.

Remember all those stories we've been told about the great American spirit? And how ideas laid carefully over the ideals of our founding fathers made this country great? Well, no one on Capitol Hill does, so no wonder the rest of us have lost sight of them, too.

We all need to get off our lazy I-want-it-now asses and get back to work. Innovation and creativity are tools of the people because they are free. Use them, America and maybe we won't have to have this discussion any more.

1. The federal government should be the lender of last resort. I think an agency, either public or private (preferably private), should be created to bridge the gap between homeowners and mortgage-backed asset holders and negotiate terms to ensure as little failure as possible. Only after they are able to show that they fall below a certain risk level will they be able to qualify for a loan from the taxpayers.

2. If a qualifying institution is still in need of a loan, the federal government will receive an equity stake in the institution (proportional to the size of the loan) in addition to the return from the loan.

3. Those companies that take out a loan are required to forgo any bonus programs (including severance) for their executives until the loan is paid in full.

This will fix the problems from the top & the bottom while ensuring that institutions don't fail and bonuses aren't paid with taxpayer money

Or did that idea not sound opulent enough to the hedge fund managers?

Exactly. *sigh*

@ironchef: Agreed, it should clarify wheither it is refering to any bailout-type action whatsoever, or the current 3-page $700B gift being discussed now.

As for your second statment, care to expand upon that? I'm a little confused by the oversimplifying of the situation.

I don't support it at all. Let them burn. America needs to rise up from some ashes every once in a while.

And this whole "DO IT NOW" is complete and utter bullshit. The market is working, no one is dying from these banks not being bailed out as of today. Let it go, and enact changes as they are needed.

Giving anyone a check for $700B is a bad idea, and even worse when it's paid for by the sweat and equity of America's working poor and middle class.

I don't get it.

I guess Republicans are not so much for a Free Market anymore?

@chris_l: To my mind the latter is not a bailout per se. It is the gov't investing in a troubled, but profitable business.

There needs to be a definative process for deciding to whom and when those funds are distributed. Like Sweden did back in 1992. Before the gov't would even consider giving out monies they company had to sell off all of their depreciated assetts for whatever they could get for it (generally 20% of original value or less). Then if they still felt they needed money they could ask for a gov't investment.

Given the alternative? Yes.

Also, I think it's necessary to distribute the blame for this situation a little more evenly. It's not entirely the federal government's fault and it's not entirely Wall Street's fault. There is also some culpability that lies with home owners who lied about income, loan officers who encouraged this and other irresponsible lending practices, realtors who helped to artificially inflate home values, etc...

But no way I'm supporting a blank check with no oversight, based on recent history. (see Iraq, Dept. of Homeland Security, FISA, Justice Dept., etc.)

I don't care WHAT the details are, bailing out the rich is STUPID. It's flat-out anti-capitalist, too. That they'd even suggest it is an obvious sign that our government has been taken over by corporations and their armies of lobbyists, who obviously would prefer capitalism-as-long-as-it-makes-and-keeps-them-rich.

Fuck them. Twice.

Some regulation changes perhaps but it all comes back to the GREED of the home buyers and financial institutions.

And if the regulators were doing there job with existing laws or made more minor adjustments and changes things would be a lot better off.

My favorite is 'we don't know what is in these things'-that's an auditors job including the SEC.

umm, sure if it works. and umm, no if it wont. kinda a bad poll.

Those against the bailout are simply cutting off their nose to spite the face.