PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Are You For Or Against The $700 Billion Bailout Plan


The Rick
09-25-2008, 03:18 PM
Just an informal, anonymous poll regarding the direction being taken.

** This poll is specifically in regards to The White House/Congress choosing to spend $700 billion to buy up the bad debts from Wall Street. **

For example, if you think we should bail out Wall Street, but only by offering insurance against the bad debt, then you should vote no.

The Rick
09-25-2008, 03:19 PM
Just want to judge how well The Planet is being represented by Congress and The President.

The Rick
09-25-2008, 03:21 PM
Give me the dunce award...I meant to vote "No" and accidentally voted "Yes" on my own poll.

:stupid:

The Rick
09-25-2008, 03:24 PM
Give me the dunce award...I meant to vote "No" and accidentally voted "Yes" on my own poll.

:stupid:
Can a mod change my vote to "No"?

Also, can we change "Yes" to "For" and "No" to "Against"?

bsp4444
09-25-2008, 03:41 PM
I'm afraid I don't have the info to vote. My thoughts are that while it is bad to rescue companies from bad business practices, the fact that they have become so large means that their failure would drag down a lot of innocent people with them.

Nightfyre
09-25-2008, 03:47 PM
I have called all three Montana congress people and informed them of my dissent.

eazyb81
09-25-2008, 04:09 PM
Everyone knows by now that I am in favor of this bail. My only question is who else on here voted yes, as I haven't noticed any other CP member come out in absolute favor of it.

chiefforlife
09-25-2008, 04:15 PM
My first instinct is to vote no, but honestly I dont know enough about it to know what would happen if we dont bail them out.
If certain ruin is real then we have no choice, at least that is what they would have us believe.

StcChief
09-25-2008, 04:21 PM
depends on "WHAT" the bail out consists of...they way the congressmen operate, likely to get FU.

Joe Seahawk
09-25-2008, 04:23 PM
Everyone knows by now that I am in favor of this bail. My only question is who else on here voted yes, as I haven't noticed any other CP member come out in absolute favor of it.


I'm a yes. I actually think it could be a win-win.

Hydrae
09-25-2008, 04:24 PM
My first instinct is to vote no, but honestly I dont know enough about it to know what would happen if we dont bail them out.
If certain ruin is real then we have no choice, at least that is what they would have us believe.

They are pushing it like a used car salesman needing to unload a former flood car. And I trust them about the same, maybe less.

The Rick
09-25-2008, 10:16 PM
Interesting. If the Planet is at all representative of the rest of the country, then Washington is on their way to making a decision that goes against the wishes of the majority of the country.

Do they think we're just too dumb to know what's best?

Cannibal
09-25-2008, 10:20 PM
I think the Markets really need to crash in order to truly correct themselves, but in my line of work (Architectural/Engineering), developers won't be able to build if it happens. I'd could possibly lose my job. So I am kind of torn on it.

irishjayhawk
09-25-2008, 10:27 PM
Nope, let them fail.

Taco John
09-25-2008, 10:29 PM
It's a stupid idea, and a bad investment for the American people.

Mr. Laz
09-25-2008, 10:30 PM
so far i don't think we really know the crucial parts of it


i'm reluctantly leaning to yes ..... but i don't like it.

ClevelandBronco
09-25-2008, 10:30 PM
I cannot support this plan at all. This isn't a slippery slope to additional bailouts, this is a water slide free fall.

I have little confidence in the people who were sitting around the $700 billion conference table today.

eazyb81
09-25-2008, 10:36 PM
Interesting. If the Planet is at all representative of the rest of the country, then Washington is on their way to making a decision that goes against the wishes of the majority of the country.

Do they think we're just too dumb to know what's best?

It's probably a good guess, considering average citizens helped us get into this mess.

SBK
09-25-2008, 10:37 PM
Absolutely not.

In fact, if it goes through I'm going to keep track of the people around here who voted for it and vote for someone else.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-25-2008, 10:40 PM
well as Dr. No stated..NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

Nightfyre
09-25-2008, 10:40 PM
It's probably a good guess, considering average citizens helped us get into this mess.

Really? It wasn't Paulson and Bernanke denying the existence of a bubble as recently as a year ago? It wasn't the same "high-minded" politicians insuring unscrupulous mortgages through Freddie/Fannie?
Surely you jest.

eazyb81
09-25-2008, 10:42 PM
Really? It wasn't Paulson and Bernanke denying the existence of a bubble as recently as a year ago? It wasn't the same "high-minded" politicians insuring unscrupulous mortgages through Freddie/Fannie?
Surely you jest.

The average citizens didn't play a role in this mess by willfully agreeing to ridiculous mortgage loans that they knew they couldn't afford? Really? Come on, you're intelligent enough to know that everyone played a role in this shitshow we're in now.

Guru
09-25-2008, 10:42 PM
against it.

Nightfyre
09-25-2008, 10:43 PM
The average citizens didn't play a role in this mess by willfully agreeing to ridiculous mortgage loans that they knew they couldn't afford? Really? Come on, you're intelligent enough to know that everyone played a role in this shitshow we're in now.
Not all of us, no. I'm not for bailing those fuggers out either, though.

Guru
09-25-2008, 10:45 PM
The average citizens didn't play a role in this mess by willfully agreeing to ridiculous mortgage loans that they knew they couldn't afford? Really? Come on, you're intelligent enough to know that everyone played a role in this shitshow we're in now.
There are plenty that took on debt they plain couldn't handle. Then there are those that took on the debt expecting a higher return. Hence, gambled and lost. Neither deserve a bailout much less the companies.

eazyb81
09-25-2008, 10:46 PM
Not all of us, no. I'm not for bailing those fuggers out either, though.

And not all bankers or politicians played a role in it either, but people have absolutely no problem throwing them all together in the blame game.

The fact of the matter is that greedy bankers, citizens, mortgage brokers, government employees, etc contributed to this mess. It was not one person or one group.

Taco John
09-25-2008, 10:47 PM
It's probably a good guess, considering average citizens helped us get into this mess.


How? By taking the credit that was being made freely available to them? They were rational actors in the market. The problem was the warped market that was giving easy credit to anyone and everyone with a last name.

This problem is NOT the fault of the average American.

Nightfyre
09-25-2008, 10:48 PM
And not all bankers or politicians played a role in it either, but people have absolutely no problem throwing them all together in the blame game.

The fact of the matter is that greedy bankers, citizens, mortgage brokers, government employees, etc contributed to this mess. It was not one person or one group.
I will throw them all under the bus with equal ferve, by not bailing them out. government encouraged this mess, however. expecting that government will be able to solve it is the definition of insane. They are trying to prop up a bubble. Thanks.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2008, 10:49 PM
How? By taking the credit that was being made freely available to them? They were rational actors in the market. The problem was the warped market that was giving easy credit to anyone and everyone with a last name.

This problem is NOT the fault of the average American.

QFT.

alnorth
09-25-2008, 10:49 PM
If many of you get your wish, you will likely live to regret the decision to do absolutely nothing, and wonder how we ever could have been so disastrously wrong.

Maybe we just need to go through a depression once every 3 or 4 generations to remind us that they must always be avoided no matter the cost or the principles involved.

eazyb81
09-25-2008, 10:50 PM
There are plenty that took on debt they plain couldn't handle. Then there are those that took on the debt expecting a higher return. Hence, gambled and lost. Neither deserve a bailout much less the companies.

The companies are getting bailed out to save Main Street, period. If these were widget companies, we wouldn't blink watching them burn, just like we didn't blink watching the tech bubble burst. But banks provide an important service to this country, and if they fail then this country is f'd for years if not decades. Unemployment will skyrocket, small businesses will fail, many people will lose their homes. I understand being against this plan due to principle, but I don't see how someone with a pragmatic point of view can honestly think we should do nothing and let this country go into Great Depression Part Two.

Mr. Laz
09-25-2008, 10:51 PM
i don't give a crap about AIG or any of the other financial business tbh.

i'm worry about the collateral damage

Guru
09-25-2008, 10:52 PM
The companies are getting bailed out to save Main Street, period. If these were widget companies, we wouldn't blink watching them burn, just like we didn't blink watching the tech bubble burst. But banks provide an important service to this country, and if they fail then this country is f'd for years if not decades. Unemployment will skyrocket, small businesses will fail, many people will lose their homes. I understand being against this plan due to principle, but I don't see how someone with a pragmatic point of view can honestly think we should do nothing and let this country go into Great Depression Part Two.
Hence why I said "deserve."

eazyb81
09-25-2008, 10:52 PM
How? By taking the credit that was being made freely available to them? They were rational actors in the market. The problem was the warped market that was giving easy credit to anyone and everyone with a last name.

This problem is NOT the fault of the average American.

So citizens don't have to be responsible for the own loans they sign up for? We should just count on big brother to make sure we don't sign up for ridiculous ARMs that are completely out of our price range?

alnorth
09-25-2008, 10:52 PM
i don't give a crap about AIG or any of the other financial business tbh.

i'm worry about the collateral damage

Ditto.

The cause and the blame is freaking irrelevant right now. We can have that debate later.

Nightfyre
09-25-2008, 10:52 PM
So citizens don't have to be responsible for the own loans they sign up for? We should just count on big brother to make sure we don't sign up for ridiculous ARMs that are completely out of our price range?

That is what the bankruptcy laws say presently. Not that I support them, mind you.

eazyb81
09-25-2008, 10:53 PM
I will throw them all under the bus with equal ferve, by not bailing them out. government encouraged this mess, however. expecting that government will be able to solve it is the definition of insane. They are trying to prop up a bubble. Thanks.

And as I've said many times now, you have that right. Personally, I think this epic situation requires a pragmatism over theory, though.

BucEyedPea
09-25-2008, 10:54 PM
If many of you get your wish, you will likely live to regret the decision to do absolutely nothing, and wonder how we ever could have been so disastrously wrong.

Maybe we just need to go through a depression once every 3 or 4 generations to remind us that they must always be avoided no matter the cost or the principles involved.

We'll get a depression with the bailout anyway—signed and seal deal.

They're trying to prevent real prices from manifesting by keeping them inflated up. That's exactly what Hoover did that brought on the Great Depression. Then FDR made things worse doing the same and more.

Prices need to come down to reflect their true worth, and then recovery will begin again. I'd rather have a nasty recession that lasts a year, than a ten year Great Depression. There was one in 1920-21 from the inflation caused by the central bank to pay for WWI, but it was over with in a year. That's why we never hear about it.

Obviously, you're a Keynesian.

Guru
09-25-2008, 10:55 PM
So citizens don't have to be responsible for the own loans they sign up for? We should just count on big brother to make sure we don't sign up for ridiculous ARMs that are completely out of our price range?
That is what pisses me off. I pay my mortgage on time every time. I didn't take on more than my family could afford. The fact that people are getting bailed out on my dime really irks me.

eazyb81
09-25-2008, 10:55 PM
That is what the bankruptcy laws say presently. Not that I support them, mind you.

Bankruptcy laws have nothing to do with placing blame for this crisis. The banks are responsible for allowing credit to get so out of hand, and average joes are responsible for signing up for massive loans they couldn't afford. It's a two way street.

alnorth
09-25-2008, 10:58 PM
We'll get a depression with the bailout anyway—signed and seal deal.

That is just looney tunes. We'll have at worst a temporary increase in our national debt

Nightfyre
09-25-2008, 11:01 PM
And as I've said many times now, you have that right. Personally, I think this epic situation requires a pragmatism over theory, though.

Our credit is getting tighter. It needed to because of the malinvestment this lax credit policy spawned. The credit market will stabilize after this bailout one way or another. Right now, the prospect of the bailout is preventing the markets from even valuing these securities. There are plenty of conservative banks out there who will be ready to lend and the market is indicating at present that they are more rational.

What I would like to see is an analysis of how much of our GDP growth has been caused by an increase in credit and national deficit versus real growth. We have been living beyond our means for decades. The result is this financial crisis; the next will be the fall of the dollar; then social security. America is done: Keynes killed her.

Nightfyre
09-25-2008, 11:02 PM
That is just looney tunes. We'll have at worst a temporary increase in our national debt

If we continually bail-out the financials, as will inevitably be required as this situation worsens and worsens, our dollar will die. Your answer is inflation, which will be far more traumatic to the economy than this (relatively) paltry crisis.

BucEyedPea
09-25-2008, 11:03 PM
That is just looney tunes. We'll have at worst a temporary increase in our national debt
No it isn't. It's right. You don't understand monetary cause and effect.
No one outside of the Austrian's do. Not the Economist even.

Nightfyre
09-25-2008, 11:04 PM
Bankruptcy laws have nothing to do with placing blame for this crisis. The banks are responsible for allowing credit to get so out of hand, and average joes are responsible for signing up for massive loans they couldn't afford. It's a two way street.

Wow. Way to ignore the fact that the consequences for the consumer without bankruptcy laws are far more brutal than those with the laws.

Mr. Laz
09-25-2008, 11:07 PM
No it isn't. It's right. You don't understand monetary cause and effect.
No one outside of the Austrian's do. Not the Economist even..

alnorth
09-25-2008, 11:07 PM
No it isn't. It's right. You don't understand monetary cause and effect.
No one outside of the Austrian's do. Not the Economist even.

Sure, this obviously was never done with great success before, certainly not by Sweden recently, nor by us in the 80's

alnorth
09-25-2008, 11:11 PM
If we continually bail-out the financials, as will inevitably be required as this situation worsens and worsens, our dollar will die. Your answer is inflation, which will be far more traumatic to the economy than this (relatively) paltry crisis.

Well, first I refuse to grant that the bolded part is at all reasonable.

Second, I also refuse to accept that the inability of most people or small businesses to get credit is a "paltry" crisis that wont at least trigger the massive unemployment and 10% GDP reduction over a period of time that is the accepted definition of a depression.

BucEyedPea
09-25-2008, 11:17 PM
Sure, this obviously was never done with great success before, certainly not by Sweden recently, nor by us in the 80's

Sweden is a socialist hell hole with high alcholism and suicide rates too. They're having lots of problems from the dole mentality. How 'bout we be Americans. As well as follow our Constitution. This gives historic, unprecendented sweeping powers to the Sec of Treasury office as an overseer of the US economy.

BucEyedPea
09-25-2008, 11:19 PM
Well, first I refuse to grant that the bolded part is at all reasonable.

Second, I also refuse to accept that the inability of most people or small businesses to get credit is a "paltry" crisis that wont at least trigger the massive unemployment and 10% GDP reduction over a period of time that is the accepted definition of a depression.

Oh it will be nasty—for a shorter period of time than what' we're gonna do. But we'd be better off seeing all those liquidations. We'll make it through.

Nightfyre
09-25-2008, 11:19 PM
Well, first I refuse to grant that the bolded part is at all reasonable.

Second, I also refuse to accept that the inability of most people or small businesses to get credit is a "paltry" crisis that wont at least trigger the massive unemployment and 10% GDP reduction over a period of time that is the accepted definition of a depression.

Oh we won't see a depression. Government statisticians will see to that.

The entire banking system is not collapsing here. Only predatory and risky banks have gone under, banks who over-exposed themselves to the housing bubble. There are other, more conservative banks, whom, when the credit market stabilizes, will get us back on track at a much more sustainable rate.

BucEyedPea
09-25-2008, 11:20 PM
Sure, this obviously was never done with great success before, certainly not by Sweden recently, nor by us in the 80's

If you mean the S&L crisis that's not even paid for yet. And it still robs money from the private sector where it was better left.

BucEyedPea
09-25-2008, 11:21 PM
Oh we won't see a depression. Government statisticians will see to that.

The entire banking system is not collapsing here. Only predatory and risky banks have gone under, banks who over-exposed themselves to the housing bubble. There are other, more conservative banks, whom, when the credit market stabilizes, will get us back on track at a much more sustainable rate.

Other more credible and stable insurance firms too. Like NY Life. They have really conservative and sound practices.

cdcox
09-26-2008, 12:32 AM
I'm a reluctant yes. I can't afford a 30% or 50% or more devaluation of my retirement account at this stage of my life. I'd easily write a $7000 check (my family's share of the of the bail out) to make this go away. That would hurt a lot. But at least it would be over and we could move on. I wish it were going to be that easy.

There might be a better plan out there, but this one is on the table, apparently can be passed and has some oversight built into it. I think it is the best we can practically do and is far, far better than doing nothnig.

SBK
09-26-2008, 12:53 AM
I'm a reluctant yes. I can't afford a 30% or 50% or more devaluation of my retirement account at this stage of my life. I'd easily write a $7000 check (my family's share of the of the bail out) to make this go away. That would hurt a lot. But at least it would be over and we could move on. I wish it were going to be that easy.

There might be a better plan out there, but this one is on the table, apparently can be passed and has some oversight built into it. I think it is the best we can practically do and is far, far better than doing nothnig.

There's no oversight, no telling the American people the plan, hidden pork and no guarantee any of this will work.

Still want to pay $7,000?

CHIEF4EVER
09-26-2008, 12:54 AM
I'm a reluctant yes. I can't afford a 30% or 50% or more devaluation of my retirement account at this stage of my life. I'd easily write a $7000 check (my family's share of the of the bail out) to make this go away. That would hurt a lot. But at least it would be over and we could move on. I wish it were going to be that easy.

There might be a better plan out there, but this one is on the table, apparently can be passed and has some oversight built into it. I think it is the best we can practically do and is far, far better than doing nothnig.

I can't agree with you on this one. As painful as it will be for nearly everyone involved, I say let them fold. Better an ounce of pain now than a pound of it later. Why should my tax dollars be spent on bailing out organizations who have proven they can't be trusted with the money they had? Why should they be rewarded for their incompetence at my expense? Why should we further decrease the value of an already weak dollar by printing more money to pay for this fiasco? This is a big s*** sandwich and we all have to take a bite, but I prefer my bite to be as small as possible. A bailout has clusterf*** written all over it.

the Talking Can
09-26-2008, 05:45 AM
the original paulson plan = no
the dem revision = yes, but for much less than 700mill

since the current plan is now many plans, or no plan, my waffly answer is that I would be fine with doing something or nothing as long as it is bipartisan...

if we decide to do nothing and watch the whole shitpile burn down, ok...that could be interesting...and i'm young and single (-ish) so my risk is much less than family and retirees...hey, let's crack a beer and watch the fire

but

i would prefer our representatives would actually do their jobs and design the most minimal plan necessary to carry us through...i'd like to see that they were still capable of that....

it's all in the details, too many to discuss...i want strong transparency, oversight and tax payer protections, and new regulation...i don't give a flying pig what the incompetent bankers think about anything...they failed

mostly we need a lot more info...a lot...no one is really informing the public...for instance, why $700 mill?

tiptap
09-26-2008, 05:57 AM
My off the wall solution is to Nationalize Big Tobacco. Yank tobacco out of all the Conglomerates and Nationalize the asset. This is what banks the Bail Out. The Government owned entity allows tobacco to be sold only at certain outlets and starts removing brands and is absolutely committed to seeing reduction in those addicted to tobacco and to reducing youth usage. We phase out tobacco at the same time the revenues back this bailout of the Financial Sector. You see savings down the line from lower level of tobacco related disease.

BucEyedPea
09-26-2008, 06:37 AM
I'm a reluctant yes. I can't afford a 30% or 50% or more devaluation of my retirement account at this stage of my life. I'd easily write a $7000 check (my family's share of the of the bail out) to make this go away. That would hurt a lot. But at least it would be over and we could move on. I wish it were going to be that easy.

There might be a better plan out there, but this one is on the table, apparently can be passed and has some oversight built into it. I think it is the best we can practically do and is far, far better than doing nothnig.

So giving money to the same people that created the problem is the answer?
Whatever happened to character judgment? Or basing rewards on performance?

And it won't work because these assets are worthless. To save criminals instead of putting them in jail is criminal too.

eazyb81
09-26-2008, 08:34 AM
So giving money to the same people that created the problem is the answer?
Whatever happened to character judgment? Or basing rewards on performance?

And it won't work because these assets are worthless. To save criminals instead of putting them in jail is criminal too.

I'm sorry, but you're retarded if you believe this statement. Do you even know what these assets are comprised of? By saying the assets are worthless, you are also saying every house in the country is worthless.

Mr. Laz
09-26-2008, 09:08 AM
I'm sorry, but you're retarded if you believe this statement. Do you even know what these assets are comprised of? By saying the assets are worthless, you are also saying every house in the country is worthless.

apparently she doesn't

The Rick
09-26-2008, 10:51 AM
I'm still in favor of the Wesbury-Ramsey plan:

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=192522

As eazyb81 eluded to, this bad debt is backed by homes that certainly haven't lost 80% of their value. The government just needs to do something to unfreeze the economy from this mess, not buy it all and take it over.

cdcox
09-26-2008, 06:33 PM
There's no oversight, no telling the American people the plan, hidden pork and no guarantee any of this will work.

Still want to pay $7,000?

Better $7000 now than 10x that later.

MahiMike
09-26-2008, 06:34 PM
Which one? Any way you look at it - it sucks in the long run. I say let them go down. I was recently in the real estate biz and am personally affected by it. However, for the good of the country (and our Dollar), it's a terrible idea.