How many agree with the bail out here... or disagree?
What's your reason for either or..??

| View Poll Results: Do you agree with the 700B Bail out?? | |||
| NO (It's just a Wall St.. Bail out of G.W.B. Buddies) |
|
15 | 55.56% |
| YES (it's required, needs to be passed) |
|
1 | 3.70% |
| RENEGOTIATE (Agreement needs to be changed) |
|
11 | 40.74% |
| Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll | |||


They (the bankers) are the architecs of this mess- the deal should be renegotiated to include prison terms, massive fines and heavy regulation. If they don't get that then I would say let them fail. Funny how Americans are so antisocialist but they will give welfare to corporations without batting an eye.

Not everyone agrees with this bailout garbage.
This whole deal has been like me asking you to buy me $2000 of lottery tickets, if I win nothing you are out $2000...
...but if I win the big one I'm still keeping all the money and you can kindly go "f" yourself...
makes lots of sense doesn't it?

Let the ones who made obscene profits from this absorb the loss - every single entity and individual that profited from this short sighted, glutenous behaviour.
Take their personal savings and investments. Liquidate everything possible and apply it to the debt. Then do whatever it takes to send the bass turds straight to jail. Every stinkin' single one of 'em.
I heard a comment in a news clip last night - I was half asleep so I can't remember who said it. The gist of it was:
"The American public is being asked to assume the cost of this party, and they never even had a place at the table."
that about sums it up imo .

Can't Bush deal with anything without putting mushroom-cloud fear tactics into it.

That's a good idea- Although the banks would whine because they would have to be accountable to the average joe/jane

Your poll doesn't make much sense saying they are George W Bush's buddies on wall st...
The bank wouldn't (OK, shouldn't) hand out
its $$$ without some kind of securities. If the taxpayers have to pony up the cash, then the
taxpayers should ALL become shareholders in all of these banks and companies being
bailed out. The banks and other companies can buy back shares at fair market value IF the
American taxpayers are willing to sell them at a future and more stable time. I'm not talking
about the Government becoming a big shareholder in these many companies, but the actual
taxpayers...with papered (tradable) stocks. It's the taxpayers money, not the Governments.

This "Bail-Out" can't happen without collateral. The bank wouldn't (OK, shouldn't) hand out
its $$$ without some kind of securities. If the taxpayers have to pony up the cash, then the
taxpayers should ALL become shareholders in all of these banks and companies being
bailed out. The banks and other companies can buy back shares at fair market value IF the
American taxpayers are willing to sell them at a future and more stable time. I'm not talking
about the Government becoming a big shareholder in these many companies, but the actual
taxpayers...with papered (tradable) stocks. It's the taxpayers money, not the Governments.
What is currently being proposed is pure insanity. Zero collateral = Zero deal.

This "Bail-Out" can't happen without collateral. The bank wouldn't (OK, shouldn't) hand out
its $$$ without some kind of securities. If the taxpayers have to pony up the cash, then the
taxpayers should ALL become shareholders in all of these banks and companies being
bailed out. The banks and other companies can buy back shares at fair market value IF the
American taxpayers are willing to sell them at a future and more stable time. I'm not talking
about the Government becoming a big shareholder in these many companies, but the actual
taxpayers...with papered (tradable) stocks. It's the taxpayers money, not the Governments.
What is currently being proposed is pure insanity. Zero collateral = Zero deal.

The bailout is a way for wallstreet to "externalize" their losses onto main street. It is a very poor move that will only deepen and prolong the inevitable fallout. The extra capital generated is likely to seek safe havens over seas while it is still valuable and, as a result, the extra liquidity isn't going to have much long term impact on the US. This move is best for China and I can't help but wonder if they (China) didn't play a larger role in this policy than the White House has let on.

Look, they claim this will stop a recession.. maybe so.
But I think it will just slow down a pending recession allowing for "certain" people to get out without losing their shirt.
As far as the rest of your comment.. yeah the democrats are totally responsible for this and Clinton.
If Clinton had not repealed the Glass-Steagal Act in 1999 that was put in place right after the Great Depression to protect taxpayers and investors... non of this bull **** would be happening.
If Clinton took that **** when he had the chance to kill Obama, then 9/11 would not have happen..
.