Do you think they should have passed it? Would you have voted yes or no to it?

__________________
"A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked." ~ Bernard Meltzer

Well, in the end we all pay. I voted no.

No. Not now, not next week, no.

dl

I don't know enough about the specifics of what was included. I think that IF it's passed, that going after the CEO's of the failed companies and recouping some of the "golden parachute" money should be on the top of the list. Those companies failed for a reason and the leadership of the company was a big reason. They ultimately have to stand behind the decisons they made for their company and they should NOT have parachutes and retirement accounts that are filled up. That's MY opinion of coarse.

I don't think our country will survive without some sort of bailout no matter how much against it I am

__________________
Proud to say I haven't shopped at a Wal-Mart since Sept 2003

We are all going to pay if nothing is done - just look at how the market ended today.

__________________
There are so many colors in the rainbow
So many colors in the morning sun
So many colors in the flower and I see every one!
-Harry Chapin

Something to consider...The Federal Reserve TODAY pump in over $600 BILLION into the global and US markets and it didn't do any good. On top of that the Federal Reserve has loaned banks BILLIONS last week.

Something needs to be done BUT it needs to be careful thought out. I do not trust the ones that caused this mess to come up with the solutions.
We need to listen to the people that has warned for years that this was coming because of the mistakes made in government involvement.

Amen!

.

__________________
No outfit is complete without cat hairs!

~~~MsMiser

Sadly I would have voted no but I see a real need for a complete overhaul in more areas than just spending and when the bailout does happen the officials should not be paid millions as a going away "present" a simple "that's a fine mess you are leaving us in " is sufficient.

God help us "you ain't seen nothing yet".

I'm not sure I understand it either.From reading bits and pieces at the election board it sounds like to me the rich ,who borrowed money to get richer ,now want the poor to pay so they can get even richer.
It doesn't seem very fair to me that I should pay for someone elses lavish house and luxury lifestyle while I live in shack that I don't even own just struggling by to get the bare nessesities in life ,just so the rich can have their luxury lifestlye? I would vote no.

Anyway,we're already bailing out our landlords luxury lifestyle paying an extremely high rent for a crappy house that they can't sell to pay off their 2nd morgage.

__________________

Something needs to be done.

I don't trust these people to know what to do though.
They went from 3 pages to 100 pages in hours and who knows what they added in there? Or how many pages they are at now??:

NO, NO, NO!!!
Why should they give the money to the people who started this down fall, these companies who were giving mortgages to people who ultimately could not afford them. They should give the money to the people who were promised the american dream from the companies who they want to bail out! The government should buy the mortgages from these people and set them up with 50 year mortgages and help them get out of the situation they are in!!! Just my opinion!!!

__________________
The times when you have seen only one set of footprints in the sand, is when I carried you - Mary Stevenson

And I thought 100 pages was a lot, but it was over 400. And full of pork!!

Some things like this-

Tax breaks big and small sweeten financial bailout - Yahoo! News

I'm not sure what post on the election board gave you this idea, but I don't think it's an accurate picture of what the bailout really is.

We put our money in banks. The banks then loan that money out and charge interest on it. People make payments on their loans and that's what keeps everything liquid. It's highly unlikely that *every* person with a checking and savings account would walk in on the same day and withdraw every penny in every account, so the system isn't likely to crash. And in the case a bank *did* crash, the federal government provides insurance so that $100,000 of a person's money is insured and if the bank goes belly up, no one person should lose more than $100K.

Banks were loaning people money for mortgages that were way too high. People presumed real estate values would continue to climb and that it was no big deal to borrow $300K to buy a house because it was soon going to be worth $500K and they'd have all sorts of equity into it even if they hadn't made but a couple of years worth of low-interest payments. And for the past ten or twelve years, that game was one many played and played just fine.

But there *was* a ceiling to all of this, and eventually banks had loaned so much money *out*.... and had so many people finding themselves unable to make their mortgage payments that the money wasn't coming *back*. People expected the money to be in their savings or checking accounts, and banks didn't have enough 'in the safe' (figuratively speaking) to break even on what people wanted to withdraw and the cash they had on hand. And it was getting worse by the minute as more and more people were walking away from mortgages they never should have qualified for in the first place.

It is my understanding that what the bailout does is has the government buying up those debts that are going bad. Essentially what that means is the banks get cash from uncle same so they can once again *have* cash both to loan out and as cash on hand for those whose money *should* be in checking and savings accounts without having to out-and-out pay up on the $100,000 FDIC insurance.

And in exchange, the government then holds title to those properties that are being foreclosed upon.

And eventually, hopefully, those properties will be worth something again and the government can actually *make* some money on the sale of those homes to recoup the money they had to put out there to buy them.

While I don't like the idea of a bailout in the least, I think that the reality is if the banks go under and all loaning comes to a complete halt, it's bad for the country. Lots of businesses have revolving lines of credit that they use to pay employees, pay for materials, etc. During their busy months each year they pay it back, spend several months in the black, and then as they expand in the off months (or just keep going) they have to borrow until it's their season again and they pay that loan back and are in the black again.

If suddenly they are unable to do that, businesses go under and people are out of work.

While I'm not for helping those who made terrible financial decisions, I think this may be the only way to keep *others* who were not at fault in a position to do banking as they need to.

If I have it correct and the banks don't get the money *and* the titles to those properties, in the long run it could work. But I do believe there need to be much more strict requirements on money loaning. It was actually a congressional attempt to help the poorest of the poor buy homes that started all this "No down payment" stuff that led to people without a solid income getting into homes with big balloon payments that they simply couldn't pay. I do think there is something to be said for demonstrating discipline through saving for a down payment before deeming someone an acceptable risk.