All of the campaign fervor generated this election season has been momentarily derailed as a result of last week’s financial debacle and the massive bailout under construction by Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke. Working directly with federal lawmakers around the clock to pass legislation, it appears inevitable that unprecedented action will be taken to restore credibility to financial markets and investment firms through government control of the mortgage industry. Members of both political parties have approached this issue with caution and skepticism, as E.J. Dionne states:
“Liberal Democrats are in agony over bailing out Wall Street. Conservative Republicans are in agony over massive government intervention in what they like to call the free market. Yet neither side wants to be blamed if the financial system implodes.”
Many Americans are shocked by the depth and magnitude of the financial crisis even though most people were aware of the declining housing market. In reacting to this crisis, people are first trying to gain a better understanding of the most effective remedy for this situation and then are looking at its impact on the presidential election. Read through the three articles linked to the post to weigh varying perspectives, and then answer the two discussion questions.
Discussion Questions:
1. What, if anything, should the federal government do in reaction to the collapse of the financial industry?
2. As the presidential candidates continue on the campaign trail, how would you like to see them respond to this situation as prospective executive leaders of the United States?
These economic events should send a clear message to the candidates as to what is the most important issue in the country today. The United States doesn’t hold much credibility in the world if it is imploding in the fashion that it seems to be today.
We are in an awful economic downfall and Americans must realize this. I’m not saying that we need to all be frightened and shaking in our boots (even though technically we should), but to me this situation is going unnoticed by a huge number of people in our country. Either that or, as I’ve stated before, they believe that it will iron itself out and there is no need for concern.
I strongly agree with Obama’s statement before about not letting one man make this bailout decision for the entire country. We should be creating a sort of board of respected members of the government – in a bipartisan vote – to set up a sort of web of accountability and to get at least some sort of assurance that these hugely important decisions are being made on a bipartisan note.
The amount of greed in the corporate economy doesn’t surprise me though. That’s why I didn’t take too much note to the fact that CEOs could oppose this plan (the bailout) due to possible objections at salary cuts that could occur following the rescue plan.
The government should obviously take concern over this issue but I don’t think that supplementing the CEOs who put us into this mess in the first place with $700 billion in taxpayer money is the right way to go. Let the greed-ridden CEOs bathe in their bad investment decisions. This bailout will return money to the men who took advantage of the deregulations in the first place, and where does that leave us? Not only that, but from various sources I’ve discovered that the turnout would mean thousands of dollars PER taxpayer.
It’s a funny thing to talk about our investment decisions in the country when all we have, in effect, is imaginary money.
As to Barack Obama and John McCain, I would like to see FAR more bipartisan movement with respect to the economy. We saw finger pointing at the republicans for the deregulations, but we should get past that and move the heck on. Bickering with the house on fire isn’t going to get much accomplished, except in turning your home into a pile of rubble.
I’m sort of happy to see Obama and McCain on the same page with the issue, both realizing the problems at hand and the possible downfalls with the bailout. When it comes to issues at home we need complete bipartisan cooperation to ensure that American interests are truly being kept at heart and are not being influenced only by partisan feuds.
All I’m saying is that this is no time to be wastefully throwing blame as we are in a CRISIS. That’s right people, we are in a bad, bad, bad situation now, and Americans need to wake up from hibernation to realize that. Our dollar has a flat value and our economy is running offmoney that doesn’t actually exist. We have unemployment, a crumbling housing market and an overall struggling economy.
We could see capitalism in all of its glory, or we could see its faults come into full view. Only time (which is quickly become more and more scarce) will tell how the situation, and the future of the U.S. economy, will pan out.
I think the bailout is necessary. If Congress were to fail the proposed bailout the economy as we know it, even in one of its worst conditions would spiral down so bad, this would be the Great Depression all over again; jobs would be lost b/c companies don’t have any money and than families wouldn’t be able to afford the necessities like food, clothing and college wouldn’t even be a thought in our mind.
However, I do think that this is something that should not be rushed where we all sign into something because Bush told us to and than we get ourselves into even worser shape because we wound up bailing out all the CEO’s who caused all these problems and give them 20 million dollar bonuses.
I think what we need to see BOTH campaigns do is to get to Washington and make sure everything is as perfect as it can be and that the American people (Main Street) will benefit too.
This is definatley a situation in which we need to take great care in coming up with an appropriate decision. If we rush into anything at this point it could have dire consequences, however we need to work fast as to get a solution (or even just a semi-solution) rolling.
I don’t think all of our economic woes will be relieved any time soon, but we need to start realizing that we need to put in place some reforms to get the credibility back into the banks and to ensure more security in the mortgage community.
Then again a lot of problems like this can be avoided if people simply take great care in realizing where they are taking loans from, getting information on the adjustable mortgage rates and making responsible decisions about their money placement.
Banks also need to take great care as to who they are loaning money to, as issues concerning this are what caused the need for a government bailout in the first place. Making sure people keep track of their money and making sure that they realize that rates can go up will allow people to paint a better picture as to what they will eventually have to put up in total for their house.
I’d just like to say, very plainly, that I understand close to nothing about this issue. In fact, I think to fully grasp it, I would have to be a Professor of Economics (and even then it would be difficult, so I’ve heard). Neither candidate, nor the Congress, nor Paulson, nor the President, nor anyone is fully able to rein in the situation. But, let me try to give my two-cents.
I think we could use the bailout. I wonder though, if we do, could we possibly bring up charges on the CEO’s for gross mismanagement of company funds? If at all possible, that would at least eliminate the higher-up’s bonus.
As for the candidates, I can’t say I expect anything from ether of them, because they don’t know a whole lot more than most in Washington. Canceling the debate for this would be a mistake. It won’t help anyone.
Perhaps the economy should just be left alone. I am not advocating defeatism, but a mixed capitalist economy occasionally must suffer from stagnation and tough undercurrents. Maybe the federal government’s main goal should be to to minimize the symptoms instead of trying to cure the disease.
One more thing that I’d like to add is that I believe that this issue is a very big plus for Obama.
I think that the republicans are given the most grief over our current situation because they are associated most with the deregulation of the banking industry in the country.
To me, McCain brings back a lot of bad memories in the minds of a large number of Americans who would associate him with those decisions makers who decided to deregulate the industry.
For the sake of unbiased argument, I don’t necessarily believe McCain to be a blast from the past, but I think many Americans will see him to be and this will hurt his campaign.
It’s a full on cliche to talk about Obama being a representative of new, drastic change, but I think in a dire situation like the one we are in now, and will continue to be in for a while until the housing market creeps back up, people will tend to see more with Obama’s more liberal principles.
I agree with the previous users in that a bailout is necessary, but only because it seems to be there is no alternative, and if we don’t, then the economy may completely collapse. That being said, I have a major problem with the government bailing out the CEOs and bankers, with their already high salaries, with taxpayers money. I wish there was an alternative that would only benefit the homeowners. But it seems that there isn’t. For that reason, I believe that the government should buy the mortgaged backed securities at a low price and sell them high. I believe that we need a plan that is going to benefit the tax payers. I also agreee with the first article in that Wall Street should be changing how they compensate their investors to discourage them from making risky investments. However, I don’t know if Wall Street will be doing this anytime soon, so I would not oppose government regulation in this matter.
I agree with yanksbarak in saying that the government needs to be careful in what the sign because after AIG had their bailout which pretty much allowed the highly paid CEOs to keep going about their business and still make more than millions of dollars, this can not happen if the government decides to bailout the economy and wall street because the majority of the people being hurt in this economic spiral are middle class workers who have majority of their savings in these stock markets hoping it will grow. They are the ones going to need to be bailed out but of course the majority of Americans, the middle class, are not cared about as much as the upper class is.
For the candidates I think that this is a great opportunity to shows us how the next four years financially will be because right now the economy is probably the number one thing on all Americans minds so if one of the candidates shows us exactly what they think the would do in this situation then they will be probably be voted in, but I don’t agree with McCain’s backing out of the debate because I think that he should show the people that as a President he would be able to balance all the different commitments he would have but by backing out he is showing us that he cannot.
Personally, I am skeptical, as are many others, about the overall bailout plan. The last time a government official was given a blank check, we ended up spending enormous quantities of money for the war in Iraq. Although I trust Paulson more than Bush, I fear the outcome of the “blank check bailout” will not solve the problem completely and leave many minor portions unsolved. However, I do agree with the necessity of the bailout plan and Senator Jack Reed’s proposal of “…granting the federal government warrants to acquire stock in financial firms that profit from the bailout…” As a result of this, taxpayers would share the gain if the industry suddenly picked up again. This plan would protect the citizens also, in regards to the feds paying too much for a company’s bad debt; on the same note, if a company prospers due to a grant of excess money, the people will still get some money when such a company’s stock goes up. Therefore, I believe, with all the kinks worked out, the bailout plan is the most effective, however, I don’t think that this proposal would go smoothly now; due to lack of preparation but by the end of this weekend, I believe the government will have made detailed plans and thus, the project will run smoothly and effectively.
I think both candidates are doing the correct thing being in Washington with Bush right now, however, I am interested to watch the debate tonight and see the course of action they plan on continuing. Personally, I feel they should keep Paulson in office until the situation is improving, mainly because he is one of the most trusted men in the government, and he seems to be a wise man. I wouldn’t ask anything more of them except to state the truth about their intentions, undoubtedly they will say what they think the public wants to hear, however, this situation could determine who wins the election, and changing the plan up once in office could be devastating.
I feel like the bailout is necessary because the larger private banks and firms for the most part are not being willing to help out in this crisis. Sure Bank of America bought Merril Lynch and JPMorgan Chase has bought out Bear Sterns and WaMu but those are just a few of the many businesses to need help and will need help soon. Because of this lack of cooperation from the private business sector the government has to intervene in a “free market” economy. A lot of politicians don’t like the idea of the government meddling wiht ethe free market because that defeats the purpose of it being a free market. The truth is the government has had a hand in the economy for years now so it won’t be anything new.
I want the Presidential candidates to have their debate about the economic crisis in which they will each fully explain their economic policies and how they will try to fix this situation.
The situtation that our economy is currently in is awful. Mass companies are needing to be bailed out of bankruptcy and our stock market is steeping very low. Like gvj345 said, a majority of the people who are going to be greatly affected in this economic crash are middle class Americans who are constantly ignored by the government. In order to save the economy and the stock market, action must be taken. I do not think that sitting back and waiting for the economy to get back on its feet is a good idea. It is important that the next president to be elected into office is well-educated on this issue and is determined to help fix it. I think that the government intervening, however, could potentially hurt the economy even more if done improperly. I do not have a solution that I feel would work best to solve this problem, but I hope that the next president does. Whatever action is taken must be carefully thought through and I hope that they do not rush into fixing this problem because if the next president makes rash decisions, America could suffer from another Great Depression or potentially worse.
Personally, like many of us, economics is a pretty hard thing to grasp fully. In order to even get a little amount of knowledge you need a lot. Now that that is out of the way, let’s get down to business. Personally the government shouldn’t be getting so deep in the economy. Laissez faire, something that many people try to strive for. When the government comes to Wall Street’s rescue, which really ticks me off because they are brining too much power into action. I believe that if anything should happen it should involve Wall Street paying the government for grants to bail them out. It is not only Wall Street that is causing the problem. Let’s now bring our attention to sub-prime mortgaging. This gave people that couldn’t normally afford house the chance to buy them. The only problem was that they fell behind on mortgages and had to lose their homes, causing a major problem. The government shouldn’t really be doing anything but punishing the financial industry,
When it come to the presidential candidates, I would have liked to see Obama have a little more enthusiasm on this major crisis, but I can see where he is coming from. He doesn’t really have that much history and background to make the impact that McCain made. McCain though should not have pulled out of the debate so quickly. He should have assessed the situation at least till later in the week and then decided. Personally I just hope that tonight’s debate stays on foreign policy and doesn’t migrate to the financial crisis.
I agree with the Republicans that the government has recently been interfering too much with the free market, however, I think that we need that interference right now. We need this bailout, but more importantly, we need to get to the root of the problem – mortgages. As stated in the NY Times article, “The $700 Billion Question”, we need to restructure mortgages and make it so that homeowners are at a lesser risk of defaulting on their loans. I would like to see Senators McCain and Obama realize what’s happened and why and comfort the people with not only words but plans. These are uncertain times, hence, we need to be sure that whoever is elected will actually be able and ready to get the economy back on track.
Right now people are panicking about what is going to happen on wall street and thus they are taking all of their money out of the system, thus causing a further crisis;thus, the government should pass this bail out bill so people feel that their money is secure and begin to reinvest; however, the government should punish the companies that made the bad investments and reward those that made good investments so that the precedent is not set that Wall Street Firms can make risky decisions and still expect the government to bail them out. With this bill, as stated in the “$700 billion question” , the taxpayers need to benefit from this bill as well. There should be a way to stop homes from foreclosing . The companies that made poor decisions should be allowed to fail, and smaller, good companies, should be able to rise up and take their place. As stated in “a free market fix” the only companies that should be bailed out are the ones that the people have to much of a stake in like AIG. I think the candidates should make the economy their top priority since it affects everyone. I think it was wise for McCain to go back to Washington and deal with the economic crisis before his campagin. Also, offer a plan of exactly what they would do if in office, like set up another governemental agency to make sure the economy is doing alright.
There is no doubt that over the past few months the health of our economy has been deteorating. Some even believed we were heading towards a recession. However, after the last two weeks where major corporations have collapsed, some experts even speculate a depression.
The only way we will be able to avoid this extreme example is if the government chooses to intervene. When Lehman brothers went under we witnessed the largest banruptcy in history and we don’t know how many other companies are waiting in the wings trying not to be the next to call Uncle. Unfortunately, in order to prevent this financial crisis from getting even worse the government needs to help bailout these companies. If the government does not pull through with its $700 billion bailout, the state of the economy will be unfathomable. However, it will be hard to be assured that the money we give these companies now we will get back in the future. This is why the government seems to be having so much trouble deciding what form the bailout will come in. If the government grants these companies a loan, how much should it be for? How long will the companies have to pay them back? These are questions that we will find out the answer to over the next few days.
While the crisis has already happened and we’re sure it’s effects will be felt long into the next few months, the trick is to prevent it from happening again. The next president needs to have stricter control over the banks to ensure that they are acting responsibly. Banks cannot continue to give mortgages without doing a credit check first. It’s wreckless behavior, that as we learning now, comes back to haunt you. The banks should not have had this much power in the first place and I now believe it is the governments responsibility to monitor their actions until the economy becomes healthy again.
I think it is safe to say that in this current economic crisis, something drastic must be done. While I do not necessarily agree with the idea of a $700 billion bailout plan, the “Improving Paulson’s Cure” article emphasizes a critical question: what’s the alternative?
We can all agree that time is not on our side right now and many aspects of this plan still leave Mainstreet straggling behind. In addition to the hopeful recovery of corporations, taxpayers need to be able to reap the benefits of the bailout as well. The bailout bill needs to place checks on the powers of the Treasury secretary and the overall government with regards to economics in order to make sure this crisis does not happen again. The CEO’s are the ones who should suffer the consequences of making unwise investments that apparently affected the entire national economy. Though more of a free market economy would have possibly prevented this economic turmoil, it now makes sense for the government to intervene in order to protect the tax payers. A proposal has been made granting the federal government warrants to obtain stock in financial firms. If these firms profit from the bailout, taxpayers would share in the gain. Additionally, allowing the government to have a share in companies if they succeed will also protect and possibly benefit taxpayers.
In my opinion, both candidates need to consider all aspects of this bailout plan and come up with a bipartisan agreement on what is the best way to rescue both Wallstreet and Mainstreet. I have found that Obama is more agreeable than McCain and is looking beyond party lines to solve this issue. The bottom line is that everyone is suffering from the nation’s economic disaster and the sooner these politicians take into account every possible benefit and flaw of the plan, the sooner we can move forward with recovery.
It is definitely very important that congress get all the possible information on this topic before any final decisions are made. If not used correctly, this payout could result in an unsalvagable economic disaster. While it is clear that some type of bailout probably needs to occur, one should question what type of ramifications there should be for the CEO’s of these major banks that misused the funds. These companies did not have the capital to support losses on these packaged loans.
The article by Edwin Feulner entitled “A Market Fix,” really explained the entire crisis well. It explained one of the reasons why we’re in this situation in the first place, the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market. He talks about why Congress shouldn’t have granted the 700 billion dollar get-out-of debt card.
The federal government should bailout some companies, but they need to keep these bailouts as limited as possible. The federal government also needs to recognize how our country got to this point in the first place and recognize that it is a part of the problem and thus can be a part of the solution by removing itself from the housing market.
I would like the candidates to continue with their schedules because this campaign really doesn’t need any more drama. I’d like to see the candidates take the recent events into account and figure out an excellent plan to heal our economy, but other than that, they need to continue to go to interviews, or cooking shows, and make these last six weeks as simple as possible. The entire country has had to deal with extremely early starting campaigns and the last thing we need is to seem like the most crucial time is being dragged out.
First off I would like to state that I feel federal government intervention on this finicial crisis is important. In the “Improving Paulson’s Cure” article were E. J. Dionne says that “sadly this bailout is inevitable. But it should be done right. Congress shouldn’t be bullied into passing a flawed plan that will leave the next president in an even deeper hole.” I feel that E.J. Dionne correctly states how necessary bailing out the financial industry is but at the same time stresses that it must be done correctly is. The federal government cannot just continue throwing billions of dollars into crisises because the U.S. economy is already in such extreme debt that spending billions of dollars is only going to help this debt increase.
I’m not sure how to fix a major crisis but I do strongly feel that federal government intervention is necessary and some money will have to be spent but very wisely and definitely not 700 billion dollars. Therefore our hole won’t continue to go deeper.
I feel that hardsun 424 makes a good point in explaining that there is already so much drama surrounding this election, that adding this issue to the list would make things a bit hectic. Although the candidates will need to create some sort of solution to the finicial crisis because at some point something will have to be done about this mess. A finicial crisis like this will not just heal itself. The president and federal government will have to intervene and the new president better have a plan to help our economy.
The first action that the government should take in response to the collapse of the financial industry is take the appropriate measures to insure that an event like this does not happen again. The federal government should also find out exactly who should take the blame for the downfall. In “A Free Market Fix”, it states that one way a return to free-market principles will occur is by making sure that bailouts are as limited as possible. If a private firm is so integral to the financial operations of the economy that it requires assistance, so be it. The taxpayers’ should be investing as little as possible, and company employees and stockholders should suffer the consequences of their bad investments. I completely disagree with this statement. Company employees should not suffer the consequences. My father works for AIG and whether the company receives federal aid or not, effects whether I will or will not be able to go to the college of my choice. My higher education is essentially dependent upon the actions of the federal reserve. They are now in control of the company and will choose what will happen to each branch, which is a scary thought. This financial crisis is not a result of the actions of the employees. It is difficult to pinpoint who’s fault it is. The blame should be taken by the regulators, those who protect the financial market and stockholders, but his sequence of events was unforeseen. This is why such hasty decisions were made in response.
As the presidential candidates continue on the campaign trail, it will be rather difficult for them to respond to this situation. This is because neither democrats nor republicans are in favor of this bailout, as discussed in “Improving Paulson’s Cure.” The republicans fear such regulation of the nations markets. The democrats are in opposition in agony about bailing out Wall Street. This financial downfall has proven to be a true test for the candidates. Their responses will highly effect the opinions of the voters and the candidates need to make very wise decisions in regards to how they respond.
The US economy is in a precarious position. With congress preposing a 700 Billion dollar bailout of the economy, some serious decisions have to be made. The first decision is whether the bailout should even be taking place. i believe that the bailout is the best option, but as the 3rd article says, only because the other options are worse. If something isn’t done quickly the economy could completely collapse. It seems that with every new day companies are failing. However i don’t think that giving 700 billion, with no strings attached, to Henry Paulson. That’s alot of money and power for one man to possess. Hopefully whatever congress does will get the economy out of this downturn. With the upcoming election i would like to see the condidates telling the american people what they would do in order to stabilize the economy. Also i want to hear that they care about what happens to the american people, and not just wall street.
I do not believe that the Government should bail out Wall street. I think that by bailing out failing companies (which could not survive without government intervention), we are setting up a future economic crash which could potentially be much worse than what we are facing today. Think of it as a sort of “economic darwinism”- by letting the weaker companies fail, we are insuring that, in thelong run, the economy will be much stronger. Perhaps the market cannot support so many banks and financial firms. Bailing them out is only prolonging the inevidable downfall. Also, as the first article stated, “it is not the government’s job to make sure that people have houses.” I believe that eventually, the “Warren Buffet on steroids” will emerge, and a private investor will be able to do what the government should not do. Also, I am sure that we all realize that 700 billion dollars is an astrological sum of money. Spending it all in one place (as the saying goes) is not a good idea. That money could be VERY helpful in other places…namely education or healthcare.
The bailout is currently taboo on the campaign trail. I believe that candidates should touch it as little as possible (if they know what’s good for them). As potential executives, I would like to see one of the candidates actually explain the economic situation to the public. It is incredibly complex, and the best thing for the public would be for them to fully understand the problem, which would all them to make more educated decisions in the future.
I agree with you drraoulduke, the candidates should not address this issue often at all. And maybe it couldn’t hurt for the public to be a little more educated on the topic. After all the current administration may handle the market problem and perhaps by the time one of them take office the problem will be dealt with (wishful thinking.) As for the current administration, as of right now we need to keep our government out of the market. There is a reason it is considered a free market and if our government were to interfere with that balance things might get worse. If the market were to crash and our country goes into a state of extreme depression similar to the one prior to world war two, then we should start to hear talk of involving our government to bail out our economy. Until then we need to stay out of the market and hope it can repair itself.
I believe that the government should aid in the recovery of our financial market, but not to the extent that is proposed. $700 billion is a lot of money to be spending on one project, and with the state of our economy and national debt, I’m not quite sure that using such a large chunk of the tax revenue would be a wise decision at this time. However, I also believe that due to the enormity of the crisis, it is the government’s duty to help figure out a recovery plan. People in the Midwest are protesting such a move, but they fail to realize that even they, so far removed from Wall Street, will be affected by the failures of Lehman Brothers, etc. Others have exaggerated the problem and have decided to be precautionary by removing their savings from banks, a move that caused the downfall of Washington Mutual and the biggest bank failure in the history of America. Does the FDIC mean nothing? We, as Americans, need to calm down and figure this out. I believe that John McCain had every right to call for the postponement of the debate from last night in order to focus on settling the bailout plan. I believe that the immediate issue that the next president will have to deal with will involve the economy. Focusing on the issue at hand is what I would like to see my next president do, and also is necessary for the candidate and their character.
It is a sobering that, that the entire US economy, as well as the entire world economy, could be allowed to collapse, merely because the US government is afraid to act decisively. This is a crisis of ignorance just as much as it is a crisis of confidence. If Wall Street fails, Main Street takes a bigger hit. People do not see the connection here. Yes, 700 Billion dollars is a lot of money, but to save the country – to save the world – it’s certainly worth it.
The fact of the matter is, at this point, pragmatism must override principles. The Free Market and Laissez-Faire economics are simply not practical when the system they allegedly preside over is falling apart. To allow a true market crash – which is, at this point, to allow the markets to take their course – will result in worldwide disaster. The last time that the US permitted calamity on this scale, fascism became popular as a result. And though I am certainly not a fan of this bailout, anything is better than nothing.
The presidential candidates, therefore, must develop positions, and must do so quickly. This issue is controversial, but pertinent. We cannot afford – literally – the kind of political dodging we saw on Friday Night’s debate.
While a government bailout of Wall Street using taxpayers’ dollars is not the best looking option in the world, it is the only option if we want to avoid a complete and total financial meltdown. The best-case scenario would be for the government to make money off of the securities that it purchases in the bailout and then return some of that money to the taxpayers. Senator Jack Reed’s plan, which gives the government the option to acquire stock in companies that profit from the bailout, seems to be the best way to go. One thing that should not be allowed to happen, however, is for the CEO’s of these failing financial firms to be allowed to get off scot free. There should be no golden parachutes, and the CEO’s should have to suffer the consequences of their actions, just like the company shareholders did. The bottom line is, while no one wants to spend $700 billion of taxpayers’ money to bail out irresponsible investors and investment banks, there really is no other option if we want to keep our economy from failing.
I think the presidential candidates have done just about all that they can do at this point with regards to helping the economy. They were both present at the White House trying to hammer out a deal with Congress and the President. The fact of the matter is, Obama and McCain do not have any real power as presidential candidates. They can say what they’d like to do, but until one of them is sitting in the Oval Office, all they can do is offer suggestions. That being said, it is beneficial if the candidates have a plan of action going into the White House. The candidates’ economic plans should be detailed and comprehensive. After watching Friday night’s debate, it seems as if Obama has the better plan for our economy going forward.
The federal government should help out the companies that are failing right now in this country. I am not a huge fan of giving out $700 billion dollars, but it is something that must be done in order for our country to survive at this time. I don’t agree with this bailout because I feel that money will be going straight to the CEO’s who allowed their companies to fall apart and get our country into this mess. The $700 billion, should be used wisely and little or none should go to the CEO’s in my opinion.
To avoid giving money to those who don’t need it, our government needs to put a lot of time and work into the bailout plans so that our country actually benefits from this. Our country can’t keep giving out billions of dollars every few days to save companies, but if we invest wisely we can save our economy and save a disaster that would spread across the globe.
As for the Presidential hopefuls, they need to realize the situation that we as Americans are facing. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work as we can see right now, and both McCain and Obama need to find ways to help out those in need. both men need to find new ways that are quick yet effective enough to pull our country out of the dumps, and back into a better place. These event have shown both men what our country needs to survive, and who ever finds the best way to solve this crisis will probably win a lot of votes.
good points Jeff K. this is a major problem, and actually the most important issue in our country right now. if we don’t come to the right solution for the economy and fix the mortgage, insurance, and housing problems, domestic troubles will undermine our country. And if the bailout is successful (or at least successful enough that the immediate crisis is settled and we can work on it over time) the next step is to prevent this from happening again. The government needs to keep an eye on the shifting mortgages, bonds and investments and which have gone bad. that way, there won’t be another event like this in which so many people own bad mortgages and huge financial corporations are destroyed.
I feel that in order to solve this crisis, a bailout is necessary. However, i don’t feel that 700 billion dollars should be invested into the bailout. In my opinion, I think government officials should focus on trying to come up with a minimal plan that will stabilize the economy. Then, I feel that officials should focus more on passing stricter legislation that will prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again. I would like to see the presidential candidates show to the American public that this issue is on their top priority list and they fully intend to do everything in their power to resolve it. Furthermore, I would like them to begin to propose the necessary legislation needed to be passed to insure that a crisis like this one will never happen again.
While many would like to point out that it is in no way the tax payer’s responsibility to bail out these financial firms that were put under by their own shady practices, it is necessary that they are saved. As more firms go under, confidence in domestic and foreign markets decreases. This leads to people taking their money out of markets. This leads to a further drop in confidence, and a cycle begins. The government has to bail out these companies if confidence in the markets is to be reestablished. If the government doesn’t respond, a 1930s like depression will almost certainly occur.
The actions I would like to see out of either presidential candidate would be an increase in the regulation of our financial industry. A completely free market, while a great ideal, can’t work. When there is a system that lets executives get multi-million dollar bonuses, while their company goes under, one should know there are flaws in the system. Of the two candidates, Obama has preached regulation more consistently, while McCain has championed deregulation during his political career. At this point in time, deregulating our financial system would be disastrous.
This bailout plan is a fundamental part of saving our economy. Ever since the American economy as shifted from producing goods to supplying services, the financial industry has been a major player in the economy. Having the financial industry implode will cause massive and possibly irreparable damage to the global economy because the financial industry has its hands in so many things. $700 billion is a lot of money and will be a great burden to bear, but when we analyze what the possible alternatives are, this truly is the lesser of the two evils.
I would like to see the candidates present plans that will create safeguards against something like this from happening again. The government regulation should not be too strict so that it puts a stranglehold on the financial market but it should be able to closely watch the activities of these companies to make sure that nothing shady is going on.
Like every other time a market collapses, at the end of this one we will end up with a few massive financial companies that will dominate the industry. Hopefully, these companies will remain stable and the economy does not have to go through another crisis.
As many of the users have stated before me I feel as though the bailout is a necessary evil. While ideologically I have my reservations about “bailing out” big corporate Wall Street firms and their over compensated executives, I agree with Representative Barney Frank that there is no other alternative. The question which was posited in the third article, wondering “why bail out Wall Street and not help those who are losing their homes in the sub prime mortgage fiasco?” is one that has caused me to ask whether the bailout is ethical. I really wonder whether the government should have the ability to decide who is important enough to save from financial mistakes. I do not think it is fair that the government is so inclined to pass out $700 billion to people who know the risks of the taking a job on Wall Street yet many representatives in Congress are morally against public assistance programs that benefit poor people.
My primary reason for supporting the bailout is because I believe in the end it will help the greatest number of people. I also believe that in the end the government will get a major chunk of the money back. We are risking far too much by not taking the bailout. In a worst case scenario we could be headed for economic depression.
I believe that Congress should put politics aside and focus on creating a nonpartisan plan. I think that Congress should also take their time and examine every possible scenario. I think the candidates should be more open with the public with their take on the plans instead of avoiding the question every time it is asked.
I agree with govluv91. Obviously, the bailout is necessary because of our deteriorating economic status. As of right now there is no other option that can occur besides the federal government stepping in to keep the ‘free market’ from collapsing. However, before the government acts they must put regulations on the $700 billion; the tax payers should not have the burden of bad investments from the employees, stockholders, and the homeowners. With this being said, the government must also act quickly; the political parties should not argue with each other about personal issues and beliefs, but instead think about the good of the people and the potential danger that is arising. I realize that the federal government has to intervene because of the economic crisis we are in on Wall Street but this crisis should never have happened in the first place. The risky business that occurs on Wall Street has allowed the employees to profit at the time but it is now drastically hurting our economy. Our major banks and CEO’s need to regulate themselves and make sure an economic crisis like this never occurs again.
Right now the candidates should be focusing on this crisis more than other issues because the way things are negotiated and turn out is how the public will view them in the final weeks before the election. This is a time for the candidates to take control and demonstrate how they will lead if they become president. So far, Senator Obama and Senator McCain are taking an initiated by being in Washington during these proceedings. By the end of the week we should have a deeper opinion on how things were handled and which candidate handled it better.
I believe that the 700 billion dollar bailout is the only solution that could possibly bring the country out of the current economic crisis. Governmental involvement is clearly necessary, no matter which party you support; at this point, no one corporation is strong enough to continue giving out loans to those who need them while sustaining the business itself. In addition, I disagree with previous bloggers who have stated that federal officials cannot “rush into this decision.” Given the current state of the economy, we cannot afford to wait. Wall Street is on the verge of collapse and waiting for a solution instead of acting on that which has been proposed will send the economy into another Great Depression in which companies nationwide will no longer be able to sustain themselves due to widespread unemployment and thus rapid decrease in consumerism. Obviously, we cannot wait for the next president, Obama or McCain, to remedy this issue, as it will be too late. What we should be looking for in our next president is an economic plan that will provide for more (not total) regulation over federal banks and corporations, so that the country can avoid situations like this in the future.
2. As the presidential candidates continue on the campaign trail, how would you like to see them respond to this situation as prospective executive leaders of the United States?
In my opinion it’s a little too risky for the federal government to be “handing out” $700 billion. This plan of action does not guarantee that the economy will recover. The federal government would have to borrow money from the federal bank, in order to buy the banks’ and financial institutions’ debts. The taxpayers would then pay back the loan from the federal bank in forms of taxes. This process would be perilous because the tax rates may increase and leave citizens with less money to spend, causing another economic down turn. It seems as if both solutions may cause more chaos. Perhaps the federal government should not buy all of the banks’ and financial institutions’ debts, but only enough to keep them sustainable. In addition, the federal government should develop and implement better controls and regulations on financial products offered by banks and financial institutions.
There isn’t an awful lot the presidential candidates can do in this situation. Yet, they should announce what they would do to ameliorate the dilemma. The candidates do not need to be in Washington D.C. since experts are trying to figure out a plan of action.
I agree with the federal govenrments’s decision to buy out the bad assets of the financial companies in an effort to stabilize the economy and create a sector to oversee the process because otherwise it will be felt even more by your average Americans. The entire system is failing as credit restraints are tightening and banks are refusing to lend out money. Simply because the average company was overwhelmed with their greed and bought up so many bad mortgages is no reason that the reprecussions should be felt throughout the world economy. Also, it is not so much a cost as an investment. Yes, the government is in debt, but that debt is not going anywhere if the economy goes into a depression. Regardless, I feel we are looking at a staggering economy for the next couple years, but I think a downright financial crisis can be avoided if the government handle’s this well and with enough oversight. sometimes government control is necessary, and I believe this to be an appropriate situation; the current system clearly needs some help.
As the presidential campaign continues, I would like to see the candidates support the decision that is made by Congress and do their best to inspire tranquility. Panic will do nothing but aggrevate the situation, so the country needs a leader who can encourage your average consumer to continue to buy as well as create a situation where banks can lend people the money to spend.The entire system needs a stimulus and the presidential candidate needs to be a figurehead for it, all the while ensuring that it does not go to far. They also need to maintain a healthy international relationship because the world wide market is taking a hit and we are all financially interdependent; therefore, the government needs to keep itself in a situation where it can borrow money if need be (though that is the last thing we want to do).
One of the most interesting lines from one of the articles presented in conjunction with this blog is that the US Congress has a remarkable history of “doing nothing” or “over reacting.” While this an intriquing line that I do have to somewhat agree with it seems that in this situation there is going to have to be some arduous debating, which is occuring, to meet a middle ground. Do I htink the bail out is necessary? I do not know, Im not going to feign that I truly understand all of the repercussions, positive and negative, of the bail out….. but I do know that something needs to be done, and that something should protect the tax payers without rewarding corporate executives. Clearly this is easier said than done… the bailout should be dont slowly and cautiously and furthermore once a the proper desicions have been made the economy must not be ignored, Congress must continue to work with Chairman Bernanke to ensure that this does not happen.
In response to Presidential Candidates they must display how pressing this issue is and show that they understand how the economy’s condition is going to affect their future plans. Hopefully they can articulate clear action plans that will show their competance on the issue, and include in their platform a plan to continue analyzing the economy to make future preventative reforms to the economy.
Obviously a bailout of some sort is necessary. However I do not believe that bailing out Wall Street with 700 billion dollars will necessarily end the best. There are so many things that could go wrong with that plan and as of now these kinks have not been worked out. There is so assurance that the money wont just let these executives who have messed up their own companies to walk away scot-free. Also this plan doesn’t seem to give any safety to taxpayers. There should at least be the possibility that they will get some of their money back. And what about the future and stopping another financial crisis? Some say that this very act of government involvement was what got the country into this mess in the first place. But I think that something needs to be done soon and if this is the plan they have I think they should go with it. Doing something is better than nothing. Even if this plan is not the best, it will help to at least temporarily stabilize the economy and buy our government some time to pull together a better solution.
I think that the two candidates just need to show the country that they understand what is going on and that they would be able to handle this crisis as they would be entering office in a few months. They should clearly explain what their action plan would be if they were the acting President. Also they should explain what they will do to prevent any type of this crisis from ever recurring.
I think the Federal Government should not interfere with business as much because that’s why corporations are going overseas because there are fewer restrictions. Both candidates should announce to the public what plan they have to help the economy rebound and should pledge to carry out their plan.
The whole idea of a bailout is left out of either candidate’s agenda. I delfinitely think that we need this bailout to rescue our country from a seemingly imminent depression. I’m no financial expert, but if the government doesn’t step in in some way, there could be disasterous consequences. On the other hand, however, lending the Wall Street CEOs who got us into this mess $700 billion doesn’t exactly sit well with me either.
I think that te candidates need to come up with a plan to aid our country’s financial woes and present them. Their plans could even be the deciding factor in voting for president.
With an economic crisis this large, there is no quesiton that it is necessary for the federal govenrment to take actoin and try to reverse our economy’s current state. While a buyout is probably a good idea, $700 billion dollars may not be the right approach. That is a lot of money to be giving out, and, like the 1st article said, it is important that the government chooses the ocmpanies it helps wisely. A company should onyl be helped if it is necessary to the economy. When dealing with an economic crisis, it is vital to be careful and onyl spend money when needed.
Also, it is important that the deals made benefit the taxpayers. There is no reason for CEO’s or large sotck-holders in companies to reap benfits when their company is bought out. This does nothing to help the eocnomy. The rewards should be given to the taxpayers.
One idea that is also a possibility is a bank holiday. This was last odne by F.D.R. during the great Depression, but it helped revive hundreds of wildcat banks in the 1930s and, with all of the troulbe major banks are seeing these days, it could help to bring them back above the red.
The eoncomy has recently surpassed the War in Irag as the most pressing issue in this election. As both candidates continue on their campaign trail, I think that it is necessary that both candidates present thorough plans. Just having ideas at a time when immediate action is needed is not good enough. I would like to see the candidate’s have plans that they can enact as soon as they enter office. Also, I would like to see them have multiple options and ways to attack the crisis in case one does not work.
Also, now is not the time for a laissez-fairre type of government. McCain is keen on not having a lot of federal involvement in the businesses and economy. The way our country got out of our last major econmic crisis of this magnitude, the great Depression, was through F.D.R.’s New Deal and extensive government participation and role in the economy. I would like to see a president with a plan that involves federal involvemnt because I think it is necessary to get ourselves out of this crisis.
This economic disaster has really taken priority over the overall presidential election. I believe that a plan for a government 700 billion bail out isn’t very appealing for tax payers. It does seem a little ridiculous to lend all this money to the same people that caused such a incredible fall out, but at the moment, there isn’t really much of a choice. The believe that the government can take a hands off approach to the problems and return everything to a free market is appealing, but I don’t think plausible. The government needs to find middle ground between taking no action at all and overreacting completely. This difficult task may carry over into the new presidents term, but hopefully the economy crisis will be worked out soon rather than later. Even if the economy doesn’t change before the election, I don’t believe that it will impact the election in too huge of a fashion unless one canidate has an extremely impressive approach to the problem.
As of now, I believe the economy is definitely the number one issue in America and the candidates need to focus more of their attention on the issues we are facing. Now, by no means am I an expert in the financial district or economy in general. Even after taking an Introduction to Economics course, the issues at hand today are still very hard to grasp and understand; but the way I see it, this is just history repeating itself. This time is a little different, though, since the government is actually trying to step in and, in a sense, prevent another depression. My heart says, “Yes,” to government intervention, since millions of people are involved in this mess and lives will be ruined, if not destroyed, if the federal government does nothing; my mind, however, is completely opposite and says, “No,” to all this and so far, I’m leaning more towards what my mind is saying. I don’t want to sound like an anarchist or someone who has no consideration for the general populace when I say this, though. But time and time again, we have found ourselves in some sort of financial meltdown, whether it be something as big as the Great Depression or some of the recessions we’ve had in the past half-century or so (though some obviously not as severe or known as this one). Although many people probably won’t agree with this, I believe the government should not react much, if at all, to the collapse of the financial industry. People need to see the reality of the messes in which they find themselves as harsh as they may be and must take responsibility for their actions. Additionally, even when our government has tried to step in and regulate businesses, it has been met with stiff resistance and protest and has led to the whole “laissez faire” policy and further behind-the-doors deals that lead to even more messes. Even if these actions affect me, my family, my friends and millions, possibly even billions of others, it will hopefully get a point or two across to the American people (although it still seems we still need to learn) that personal reformations are required in the near future.
From what I’ve seen from the presidential candidates, however, is just more of “beating around the bush” type of attitude. I think that because many Americans this time around are less decisive and more apt to vote differently (in a sense); both candidates are trying to make a decision that will please both crowds and views. But seeing as though we are all human, we all have different opinions and will be next to impossible to please everyone. So essentially, I would like to see them take firm positions with outlined and detailed plans of their stance, views and future actions which, unfortunately, neither candidate has proposed thus far.
I believe that the bailout is necessary in order to help this economic situation. It is unfortunate that what seems like the only working option is one that could make the already successful executives even wealthier; however, there is no other alternative. If we choose not to follow through with the bailout for this reason, we could be looking at another depression. I think part of the problem has come from the fact that our country has become so geared towards getting people exactly what they want. For example, years ago people couldn’t get credit cards unless they applied for them and proved themselves to be responsible owners of them. Now, my parents get letters in the mail every day from credit card companies offering their business. The mortgage crisis is due in part to this same idea. It became much easier for people to own homes so that less people would be homeless–something that probably looked like a good idea at first but has resulted in major problems. There possibly needs to be some more restrictions on what banks can and cannot do in terms of how much money is lent out to the people in the future so we don’t return to this type of a situation again.
The economic crisis is one that surprised everyone, even though we should have seen it coming. While we can point fingers at different groups of people for the blame, no one actually knows what really caused this current situation. I would like to see the presidential candidates devote a lot of time and effort into figuring out what went wrong so that it doesn’t happen again and an effective remedy can be executed.
This crisis we are in right now, is the modern Great Depression. The unemployment rate is about 6%, the worst it has been in 5 years, and unless something happens soon it will only continue to plummet.
The buyout is, like the 3rd article states, the best out of the few approaches. However, it needs to be thought long and hard which companies are getting saved and why. AIG was only bought out because it is the largest insurance agency worldwide would affect the economy too greatly. AIG employees million and millions of people, so 85 million dollars was well spent. But to buy out every company on wall street would not help the economy. Money only needs to be spent when actually needed.
Our future President needs to have a plan that will involve the government more in the economy. Just as FDR got us out of the Great Depression, was big government and large participation in the economy.
I believe that a bailout is needed. While the $700 billion dollars does not guarantee a secure escape from our financial crisis it will help as long as there are checks on it. President Bush had been trying to giving Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson almost umlimited power over the money, which means no checks on a man who is not even an elected official. Also, we, the taxpayers who are supplying the money, should have some sort of gain when. hopefully, peace returns to our financial world. Yes, we are bailing out numerous companies, but we can’t allow the money to make it’s way to all the CEO’s and shareholders of the respective companies.
I wish I could say to let the market fix itself and everyone who was sitting and doing nothing pay for their mistakes but this cannot be done. The market is in a situation beyond heal, the only way to stabilize the market is to have government involvement. I think the only thing to do at this point is to agree on the 700 billion dollar bailout because if the government doesnt do anything this situation could turn very severe very fast. Finally, for the future I think the government should regulate the activities of some of these companies so that people don’t get loans they cant afford. As for the presidents on their campaign I think they need to stay active and continue to talk about their plan and their way of “saving” the economy. This topic could very well be the main focus on who gets elected it would be smart for the candidates to use this to their advantage. Finally, I thought it was good strategy by McCain to almost leave the debate to help get an agreement on the bailout.
What should the government do in reaction to the collapse of the financial industry? Clarifying a loaded question, let’s agree that what the government has been doing is not a reaction to a collapse, but an attempt to prevent a collapse. What we have to date is the fall of several companies and a credit freeze, not a collapse. And that’s what the bailout is meant to do: stop total collapse. Many companies are still standing, such as JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo, as well as smaller banks. They diversified their risks and as a result have weathered the storm thus far, even though they had their share of bad mortgages. The bailout will keep them going so that the economy will still be working in the future. The alternative is that we just say “good luck” to these banks, and pray that they survive. What nobody seems to be saying is that if they do go under, it will be much, much harder for people to take out loans, to borrow money. When an economy no longer has lenders, the flow of money stops, and then there is no economy. If the government does nothing, then these banks will probably fail not through their own fault, but because the markets are freezing up, and people will lose faith in the bank system. (Does this sound familiar? It sounds to me like the Great Depression.)
Let’s define something. The bailout is not the government giving away $700 billion, but the government willing to buy up to $700 billion of assets that banks own. (The government is buying them cheaper than they would be sold in a healthy economy, so when the economy recovers, the government may make a profit.) The money is not “bailing out Wall Street” but the entire US economy. Most people view the bailout as just helping the CEO’s, managers, and anyone else high up in Wall Street. The truth is that the money is not going to individual people, but is going to pay off depositors or be lent by the banks. Yes, it is taxpayer money, but what government project isn’t? The government stands to gain money from this, so it will ultimately save taxpayer money. More importantly, if the economy goes down the tubes, there won’t be taxpayer money to collect.
The bailout is just another initiative by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to introduce liquidity into financial markets, which is the Fed’s job. In other words, the government will buy assets from banks so that they have cash, so that there isn’t a financial panic, which there would be if the banks didn’t have the cash to pay for the withdrawals of depositors. (An aside: If these banks went bottom up, the government would be stuck paying the FDIC deposit insurance of up to $100,000 per person, which would add up very quickly, and would be possibly enough to rival the price tag of the bailout.)
I’m going to capitalize this last part so that as people scroll down, it will stand out.
THE BAILOUT IS FOR BANKS WITH MANAGEMENTS THAT HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB SO FAR. THE BAILOUT IS MEANT TO TRADE CASH FOR THEIR ASSETS SO THAT THEY CAN PAY BACK DEPOSITORS. IF THEY GO UNDER, THE ECONOMY GOES WITH THEM. THE MONEY DOES NOT GO INTO THE HANDS OF THEIR CEO’S, BUT TO THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WITHDRAW MONEY OR TAKE OUT LOANS. BOTH CANDIDATES KNOW THIS, SO IT ISN’T A MATTER OF POLITICAL OPINION.
Sorry about that, as I do realize it gets annoying reading all caps.
As for the presidential candidates, I could care less what they think. The best thing the candidates can do is announce who they would appoint as Secretary of the Treasury and other important positions, so that people will know who they are getting as the next Paulson. Other than that, the candidates are not in charge yet and so have no power of real consequence in this matter. They will not act to save the economy, but rather try to look good screwing it up. All they need to do is let the Federal Reserve do its job, and not try to be populists.
Our economy is in such turmoil at this point, it seems as if the only reasonable option would be to follow through with the proposed plan of a bailout. However, it is rather unfortunate how neither candidates have a chance of winning over the American public for everyone is in the most bitter pits of morale nowadays. Perhaps the only option is to appoint the most experienced of people to handle the financial crisis our economy has come down to. The point in the matter is if the presidential candidates do not take some plan of action, the financial industry will continue to crumble as the eyes of America will soon grow even more frantic– searching for the ideal executive leader.
I feel that after all is said and done the bail out plan is our only option. Is it right to give the men who put us in this financial disaster $700 billion? No but at the moment it seems to make the most sense. Obviously the tax payers are going to take a considerable hit and it won’t sit right to them. The belief that the government should lay off and return it to an open market is interesting, but not sufficient. The government needs to become involved as soon as possible before its to late. As far as the candidates stand I would like both of them to make the economic crisis the basis of their campaign and give their ideas o how this situation will be avoided in the future.
As comforting as a bailout sounds, when you think about it, who is it going to be helping?
Yes, it would save us a lot of time and maybe even money compared to dealing with a “Second Depression”, but all the bailout is doing, is giving all of the big-wig companies a breather. As companies begin to buy the other one out, they put their capital on the line, which really, doesn’t solve the problem – this acts more like a Band-Aid
The tax payers who are providing this immense amount of money (700 BILLION DOLLARS??) get nothing in return, while the stock holders have all of their past problems and mistakes essentially, wiped away.
As much as I don’t want to give into the idea of giving all of the stockholders and investors, such an easy way out, is there really any other option?
If the affluent members of the American community can make a mistake so large, that anything they do will ultimately be paid out by US – where is the reason?
Sadly, for both McCain and Obama, whoever is elected into office, they are going to have to sort through a gargantuan amount of mess that the Bush administration has left them with. I would like to see both candidates listen to the people, because surprisingly, that IS their job. After seeing the debate on Friday, it seems like Obama has the better plan on dealing with this crisis. I feel like America is 50/50; those who support the bailout, and those who believe that its just an easy way out for the wealthy people who have made this mistake. We, as a community, need to figure out an effective bailout that will aid the crisis, but not “overdo” it. Right now, all we need is SOME type of plan, so we can begin the arduous process torwards recovery.
I agree with one argument made by the first article. I think that bailing out these companies is important to save our economy but I don’t think it should fall in the hands of the tax payer. The first article talks about if this bailout is going to happen it should be paid for by the CEO’s who made the bad investments that caused these problems. We can’t just do nothing because these huge companies control our economy but I think that these problems should be paid for by those whose caused them.
In this upcoming election I think it is very important to see what McCain and Obama propose to do. These problems are a very pressing issue and no matter who caused them the next president in office will have to work very hard to fix them. I think that the campaigns have to concentrate on informing the American people how they plan to deal with this issue because it is on the mind of every single American.
These companies need to feel the consequences of their ignorant actions. Many of these banks that have gone under, such as Lehman Brothers, gave loans that they knew could not be paid back just to make a profit. The men and women responsible for this need to face criminal charges. Because that is pretty much the only thing that the tax payers will get in return for the combined 700 billion dollars they are paying. As NAUSTIN said, these companies are having all of their problems erased and arent really paying for it. So if it goes unpunished I would pretty angry with the way this government runs itself. I do think that the bailout is necessary, because it is not only us who be affected. Much of Europe would feel the drawbacks of the collapse, so it’s essential to prevent that from happening. A second depression is the last thing that anyone wants. The citizens of this country don’t deserve to suffer for the actions of a select few who think they are impervious to the law. It’s a sad reality, because many of these people’s actions will go unpunished.
Both McCain and Obama, whichever man wins, will not have an easy first term. While this is true, atleast they have some form of preparation. They have had some limited amount of time to piece together a solution. The best plan that they could figure out is to provide a bailout, but under certain circumstances. One is that these companies will have to pay back the government and the tax payers for the loan. As I see it, we are loaning them money. And it should be paid back. That is what a loan is, although clearly many of these companies don’t understand the meaning of the word. The road to recovery won’t be easy, but either way, the future president has his work cut out for him.
How could we not have a bailout? I’m not saying the amount of money proposed is either good or bad, but our country’s economy is on the verge of collapsing. The Great Depression was the best example of how we could turn out to be yet again. All the same, the vast amount of money would come from our own pockets. $700 billion is HUGE- one of the articles stated that this amount was about five years worth of the war in Iraq. I also agree that it is nice to see both candidates agreeing work must be done in order to try to salvage what is left of our economy at this point. The taxpayer cannot be the only factor in the issue as it would appear taxpayers would be the only ones to suffer from the plan. Bailouts must be used infrequently, and only when the economy is truly at stake. I wonder if it is necessary to have such an extreme measure taken- is there a middle ground our country can take?
If the financial system of our country were to collapse, we would obviously be experiencing the great depression once again. Only this time, us students will be able to tell it to our sons and daughters in the years to come. Something must be done to halt the spiraling down of our economy. I do believe that the $700 Billion bail out plan should be done but not at the expense of the tax payer. It just doesn’t make sense to punish those who have had nothing to do with creating the problem. Those who created the problem should be the one’s paying for this problem that has appeared over the past few weeks. This bail out plan must also not be rushed for several reasons. For one, if it were to be rushed simple mistakes or regrets could be made and the economy could go down even more. And two, this bail out plan must be done right so that as little as damage as possible can be done to the tax payer and hopefully help out the economy as much as possible.
As both presidential candidates continue their campaigns, I would like to see them discuss what they will do as president once this bail out plan is passed. I ask this because its inevitable that this plan will not be passed, since Washington believes it to be a huge problem. The candidate that discusses how the plan will not damage the tax payer and the middle class person of our nation will be the candidate that can deal with this problem the best.
Obviously, there looks to be a big problem on Wall Street. I think it is safe to say that without the bail out plan the United States could suffer. So, the bail out of Wall Street seems to be necessary. However, just like many are stressing about this issue, Congress can under no circumstance give a “blank check” to Wall Street. Any legislation passed that will buy out the failing companies must be passed with the upmost attention to detail. Only companies that are essential to the U.S. economy should be bought out and in those companies executives must not be “rewarded” by getting their money back. The American tax payer should not be responsible for financially unsound decisions. If the taxpayers are going to bail out the richest people in the country and have these companies stay in existence then the government should get equity in the companies. That way, when the businesses go on to make money, the tax payers will benefit and get back some of their tax dollars.
As far as the election goes, the candidates should not stop their campaigns. I can’t help but view John McCain’s complete halting of his campaign as a lack of trust in his Vice-presidential nominee to continue it while he was working in Washington. Both candidates should be present in Washington if need be, but they should not stop their campaigns. The voters need to be engaged and aware of who they will be voting for especially in this time of somewhat economic crisis.
Even though America is going through definite hard times, I feel that having a bailout and especially one to that caliber doesn’t help the average American. If we really think about it the bailout doesn’t help the common American. It does, however give the big company executives a reward for their carelessness. By proposing that every American, including children pay $3000 is absolutely absurd and it will hurt the average American even more. Now if a bailout is definite then I really don’t think they need $700 billion, especially all at once. How about giving them maybe $100 billion and see what they do with that. If it works then give them a little more, but if it doesn’t then it was a good thing that tax payers weren’t burdened too much.
As the presidential campaign forges on I would really like to see what they would do. I think it was a bad move when McCain said during the debate that we need to basically freeze everything. That won’t help anyone. I liked how Obama said that we don’t need to use a hatchet where a scalpel is needed. I hope whoever becomes president will be able to help America get out of this predicament.
Despite the crisis that were in, we should be happy that there IS a solution. We CAN get through this. It may not be a great plan as $700 billion is a ton of money (equaling the total cost of the first five years of Iraq) but at least we won’t have to suffer through a depression.
In theory these companies should not be given a free ride, especially at the hands of the taxpayers. Sadly, though, if these companies were to fail, so would America’s economy and Americans would have a lot more to worry about than the estimated $2,300 that each person will have to pay in taxes. However, the companies responsible for this mess should definitely be punished somehow for their actions in order to ensure that this won’t happen again.
This financial situation dates back to the Clinton administration when there was a motivated effort to use Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to expand home ownership. Bush then made it one of his priorities to get more people into homes. Obama and other Democrats should stop holding the Bush administration responsible when really both sides are to blame.
As for the candidates, it’s completely unnecessary for either one to suspend his campaign in order to help with this crisis (as John McCain has done). Neither candidate is qualified enough to make a valuable contribution to the bailout plan. They should however address the issue and not dodge any questions, because this crisis isn’t going away any time soon and the next President will have his hands full for a while. Their proposals for how they will handle this crisis during their term may be the deciding factor in what is currently a very close election.
As we all watch the economy quickly collape before our eyes, we all seem to wonder ‘how much will this cost me?’ The 700 billion dollar plan will be the government’s biggest bailout plan since the Great Depression. Who will this effect the most? Taxpayers. Should we really pay higher taxes just to help those CEO’s whose lousy bets on the housing markets got us into this mess? So then they can walk away with a huge bonus while the rest of America is left to pick up what they tore down? Yet again, the taxpayers of America are left to clean up after these elite few. I think if there’s anything the goverment should do, it should be to fully cover the expenses that these companies have lost. Very little, if anything should be placed on the taxpayer but instead on the CEO’s and such who have caused these great losses in the market to occur.
As the presidential candidates continue on the campaign trail, I feel it necessary for both to prepare extremely well for that which is to come having to do with our economy. Our economic struggles will not be fixed in a day, and therefore it is essential for both candidates to prepare for a rough and slow recovery concerning these matters.
As far as I can understand, this situation has become so serious that at this point the government has to intervene to prevent a total collapse of our economy. I would like to see a plan that a) costs the taxpayers as little as possible for the mistakes of the financial industry, b) rewards the financial industry as little as possible for its mistakes, c) does not leave people in houses they cannot afford but also does not put them out in the street. I’m not sure that all three of these can be accomplished in the same plan, but I would like to see one that can accomplish as much of this as possible. In the New York Times article, it was suggested that the government buy back the mortgages for less than they are worth, in hopes of selling them for more. This would, in fact, cost the taxpayers less than some of the other options because the mortgages would be bought for less than they are worth. It would minimize rewards to the financial industry since they would receive less money, and it would help many homeowners because the government could then reduce their payments. I am sure there are problems with this approach, but it seems to me like a good approach.
I think that for the presidential candidates, this provides a challenging but opportune moment to demonstrate their abilities to lead our country through a huge crisis. I would like to see a proposal from each candidate for what he would do if he were the executive in this situation.
The taxpayers are going to be the ones getting punished for all of this. These companies costing the taxpayers their money should be punished, but if they do fail then the entire economy might go under. As for the candidates, what they need to do right now for their campaigns is explain to the publice what is happening to the economy, and what they are trying to do to help it. Not all of the public understands why our economy is in such terrible shape right now and if the candidates want their votes then they need to make the public understand what is happening and what they are going to do to fix these problems.
Although it is not the tax payers’ responsibility to bail out the crashing financial firms, these firms do definitely need to be saved. The bailout plan would essentially save the companies which acted irresponsibly and caused the struggling economy, but it will help the country’s economy as a whole. This is extremely important if we don’t want to go into another depression as in the 1930s. I think that 700 billions dollars is a bit excessive in this bailout plan, but if this will stabilize the economy, then I believe it is necessary.
As the presidential candidates continue on the campaign trail, I would like to hear how they would handle this economic crisis. It isn’t going away anytime soon, and the next President certainly has a large challenge ahead. Both candidates should let the people know exactly what they would do if they were the executive in this crisis because it could be a huge deciding factor in the election. Whether the next President is Obama or McCain, I hope that they are already devising a plan on how to fix our country’s suffering economy now and in the long run so we don’t go into another 1930s style depression.
I think that without a doubt some decision must be made by the next president, and I think that most people would agree with that. Without a clear decision, whether it be to let the market take its course or let the federal government intervene, a 30’s like depression is more likely to arise. Personally I think that the government should intervene, as risky as this may be. The reason being because now, as the original post said, neither side wants to accept responsibility if the market bombs. This is a similar form of pointing fingers the way we did in the Katrina crisis. The only difference is that this crisis is economic, and going to hurt everyone nationwide, specifically the middle class. I also feel that because of the awful wake up call we received from Katrina and Bush not taking blame or getting other governments to help accept it, the democratic and more liberal candidate could have an advantage in the election now because people want action. If Obama can spin this correctly and propose an active solution, he could really gain a lot of support.
I think that bailing out the companies is a necessity right now. In theory it should stop the economy from getting worse than it already is. If they do not put this bill into place soon many more problems will erupt from our low financial stance at the moment. I am almost sure that if we do nothing similar events will occur that happened in the 1929. Although tax payers seem like they are going to be punished for the govt. action in the bailout it seems only sane. If the govt. does make this $700 billion bailout the taxpayers must be rewarded with security of there money. They can’t just be bashed around to keep the million dollar executives in business. Even though these companies are not making money the executives still find a way to make their millions, which to me is unethical.
I don’t really know what the candidates should be preaching at this point. I think its good that they are in Washington helping make the decision on what to do with the government. We all know that Obama has been saying regulation of big business is a good idea which at this time sounds like a good idea as to stop this from happening in the future sooner. But McCain has been preaching deregulation of big business. I will be interested to see what each candidates view on the matter have become.
Any Capitalist market is based on the theory of letting the strong flurisht and the weak fail, but when these failures could potentially lead to national infrastructure collapse, the government must interveine.
The question now seems are we going to allow these companiess to fail, or are we going to make everyone pay for their problems?
You cannot hold stockholders and employees of these companies accountable for the poor decisions of the executives. The executives should be held accountable. For this reason, the most logical decision would be to bail these companies out now and reform the upper management system inorder to prevent collapses in the future.
I agree with Obama’s comment that the crisis should not be handeled by the decision of one sole individual. The whole issue of the current crisis is that the poor decisions of a few (business executives) hurt the wallets of millions of taxpayers. From this one fact we should not to give the power over $700 million dollors to only the secretary of the treasury Paulson.
For this reason, I agree with McCain’s push for bi-partisan cooperation on creating the bill. It was, however, McCain’s beliefs of free markets and lack of governmental intervention that lead to bankers performing risky deals that brought us into this mess in the first place.
Our economy has become so hyper competitive that these companies have been making risky decisions, and desperately, laying themselves on the line in order to get a competitive uperhand against competition. The federal government must restore the intergrity of these companies and prevent this competition from getting out of hand. In addition, government needs to establish laws and market regulations today that make companies present truths to their investors and hold people accountable for making bad decisions. This whole crisis started through lies and misscommunication and between executive member and investors; with such reform, we will be able to better prevent future crisises.
This $700 bailout plan really does seem like the only option. The government has to bailout the companies, and yes, the taxpayers are going to have to pay for it. It seems really stupid that we help the companies that caused the problems and make the taxpayers pay, but it really is our only choice.
Looking at some of the articles, I think that the government can place some restrictions on the bailout plan so that the companies in danger do not profit from it (and the taxpayers benefit). For example, I liked the idea of government getting stock from any company that profits from the plan. If the bailout plan works, we have to make sure that the taxpayers are satisfied and that the companies do not reap profits/benefits.
As for the candidates, I feel that the issue of “rescuing our economy” should be on the forefront. I liked how both of the candidates were with Bush to help with the plan. As the election gets closer, I would like both candidates to give specific plans on what they are going to do in office to make sure the economy is stable. I don’t want the candidates to speak generalities or about vague ideas- I want them to tell me what they plan to do in office to fix our economy.
For addressing question 2, I agree with Anna G., there isn’t much of anything the presidential candidates can do. That makes me puzzled when McCain wanted to cancel the debate to help fix the financial crisis. I honestly don’t think this is a spur of the moment quick fixer-upper: some serious legislation needs to get passed. As far as what that legislation contains, I think I’m gonna go with the bailout. This all seems spookily farmiliar to the Great Depression scenario and had it not been for the New Deal that would have caused even more problems. Although government can be a pain, sometimes I feel it is necessary to use it to it’s full potential.
I believe that a bailout is needed. While the $700 billion dollars does not guarantee a secure escape from our financial crisis it will help as long as there are checks on it. President Bush had been trying to giving Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson almost umlimited power over the money, which means no checks on a man who is not even an elected official. Also, we, the taxpayers who are supplying the money, should have some sort of gain when. hopefully, peace returns to our financial world. Yes, we are bailing out numerous companies, but we can’t allow the money to make it’s way to all the CEO’s and shareholders of the respective companies.
As for the presidential candidates, they have both mentioned that oversight is needed. While it seems that both candidates are for this idea, McCain in the past has been an advocate for less government regulation in the market. We all will just have to wait and see how their plans develop during this the next few days or even weeks, when the bailout hopefully saves the economy.
The $700 billion will most likely come back to help the tax payer in the end. The investment made by the government will come back with a nice return rate. The CEOs of wall street have been taking too much blame for this crisis when there is blame to go all around. There is blame to be placed on the people who took out loans and mortgages they could not afford, the brokers, and the banks that gave them the mortgages and loans.
I think this bailout is extremely nessecary. In order for our economy to recover in any way, our government needs to step in and help these failing companies. Even though this most likely means a raise in taxes, I agree that in the end, this will help the tax payers. Once the economy stabilizes, prices for gas, food, clothes and other every day nessecities will hopefully decrease, and the average family will be able to live comfortably again. In order for this to happen, something has to be done to get it started. If the government just left the banks and economy the way it was, things would just keep getting worse, and I believe we would be on our way to another horrible depression.
I think America needs wake up right now because everybody thinks the bailout is going to solve everything but it will create a lot of other problems. Every knows that a bail out is very neccesary and that if don’t do anything the us economy will collalpse and will have a ripple effect. The biggest concern is that the CEO’s are still walking away with millions of dollars and i don’t thats fair because a lot of people lost everthing they had and while the CEO’s who created this mess are still walking away with alot of cash. On the other hand the McCain did the right thing by suspending his campaign and trying to come up with a solution to get out of this crisis. I think that this shows that McCain can be a good leader when their is a crisis going on. I think that both candidates will do a good job getting us out of this crisis.
Although this will greatly effect the taxpayers, a bailout seems like the only logical way to get out of this economic slump without falling into a depression. Its hard to think about giving this ridiculous amount of money to the CEO’s who were the ones who got us into this mess but there is no other solution. By the time we sit and wait for a solution to come to us wall street will completely fall apart, they need to act on this right away.
No, I strongly disagree with the idea that the bailout will solve everything. It is only a step in the right direction. The economy right now can obviously not be fixed in one step, otherwise bailouts would be occurring left and right (which obviously cannot be the case). The bailout is necessary, just an unfortunate demonstration that we have to turn to such a measure into potentially helping the dire situation we now face.
In my opinion the bail out is one hundred percent neccessary. For those of you who think the bail out only saves wall street workers that is completely wrong. Our economy is like one giant circle and when one part experiences a down turn other parts will undoubtably feel the effects. Also when every major official in Washington is saying the bail out is the right thing to do I’m pretty sure its the right thing to do. That being said what our two candidates have done with this issue is the right thing, especially with McCain suspending is campaign.
With the current circumstances there is really no choice but to go through with this massive $700 billion bailout. If this bill doesn’t pass then we are looking at a complete, full scale economic disaster, one that undulate through all classes of Americans. However, there is also the argument that this bailout may only make situations worse. This raises the question, What if it doesn’t work? Surely if it doesn’t we are looking at an economic catastrophe far greater than it is right now. What else can we do though, there really is no choice.
In addition this bill needs to be bipartisan, because if it continues to favor one side or the other than a deal will never be reached. Both parties, Democrat and Republican, need to be willing to sacrifice their personal interests and take up the interest of the American people as a whole. And the American people also need to be ready to bear the brunt of taxes to bail out these failing insurance companies. The biggest problem I have with the plan is that these executives can potentially profit from a bailout. This goes against everything the bailout stands for and will most likely lead us back into this same situation and greed caused this whole problem in the first place.
Finally it seems that nearly everyone has said the same things over and over again. This includes my self but what I disagree with in most posts is that people keep saying this is the cure to the problem. It’s not. I agree with apgovstudent when he says it is only a step in the right direction, the cure will hopefully come along eventually
I’d like to restate my case, that I before said that I believed the bailout was going to the Wall Stree CEOs. I made it sound as if that were my only position on the issue.
Let me make myself clear, I fully realize the situation in the country.
If something is not done the consequences are a long drawn out deep recession where our economy, and eventually, the world economy will slow down.
A $700 billion bailout plan is NOT a good idea, but it is the only communicable idea that has come to some sort of agreement in Congress. Congress has deliberated on the issue for several days now and couldn’t think of a better solution.
I may seem to be flip flopping on my previous post, however it’s not that. It is just that I before didn’t have the whole story.
Several good things may come about, as Jim Cramer stated on NBC this morning, where the taxpayers (if the purchased assests actually do create a profit as we hope) will gain money back FROM that profit.
Like I said and will keep on saying, only time will tell.
Also realize this; this isn’t just an American interest; our economy affects many, if not every country’s economy. The Global Economy, as it is called.
If you topple one of the dominoes, the others start to go tumbling as well.
In response to the economic crisis and the bail out I feel it is necessary for the government to take action and bail out these agencies. Although they should bail out these agencies other large companies should know that they can not run to the government to bail them out in the future.This bail out is necessary at this time for the presidential candidates to understand the pressing issue at hand that needs to be worked out immediately. The presidential candidates need to understand that once they are elected issues like this will arise and will need to be dealt with immdiately but this can not allow them to push off other things. McCain wanted to work on legislation for the bail out and push back the presidential debate. This should show us as voters what McCain might be like in office,is he really ready to be in office when something may randomly come up?
Wow. I can’t believe it failed. I am at a loss for words. I guess all we can do is watch our economy continue on its path. It lost 228-205 which is definitely close, and actually in tune with the public opinion- in a recently poll, more than half of the public voted against the bailout. This is interesting because I would say more than half here in the blog feel the opposite.
For the first time in my life I am actually furious with congress. I have always had my doubts about Congress on certain issues but this really boiled over. For Nancy Pelosi to get up there one minute before the vote and throw away the entire bipartisan aspect of the bill was despicable. She didn’t compose herself as any rational Speaker of the House should and pretty much killed the bill herself. She ruined an attempt at saving the economy because she had to put politics ahead of the country.
She tried to pin the blame on Republicans when the bill wasnt passed even though Democrats are the majority and 40% of them voted against it. Pelosi doesn’t deserve to be speaker or hold office for that matter.
The next step I feel is to try to push the bill through again because it is necessary. However, should it fail again I believe it is in George Bush’s responsibilities as president to issue an executive order for the $700. If he can constitutionally do this I feel it would be the best way to get it done.
So I am upset that the bailout was rejected. I, even though I don’t really know too much about economics, agree with many who can’t really see another way out. Though I’m usually pro-capitalism, leaving the economy be is obviously not working. So obviously we need to try something new. On the other hand I definitely don’t agree that the government should bail out corrupt and wealthy CEOs using the American taxpayer’s money. However, the public seems to be pro-bailout, and it is upsetting that the government isn’t paying attention to what the public wants. I believe that the most important thing for the both candidates is to put their personal issues aside and cooperate.
So I am upset that the bailout was rejected. I, even though I don’t really know too much about economics, agree with many who can’t really see another way out. Though I’m usually pro-capitalism, leaving the economy be is obviously not working. So obviously we need to try something new. On the other hand I definitely don’t agree that the government should bail out corrupt and wealthy CEOs using the American taxpayer’s money. However, the public seems to be pro-bailout, and it is upsetting that the government isn’t paying attention to what the public wants. I believe that the most important thing for the both candidates is to put their personal issues aside and cooperate to avoid another depression
The bailout should not have been rejected. Rather than listening to public opinions, the government ended up taking other matters to another level.
At the current rate we are at, the government will only continue to get slower with each passing day. Or hour, if you’d like to think like a pessimistic.
Since the $700 billion bailout plan failed, people can only hope that something in the near future will come up to set things straight, even if they’re only temporary.
It is very sad and pathetic what has happened to our economy. The federal government must do something to reaffirm the beliefs of the people of this country. By the bailout not being passed it only weakened the people’s faith in our system. Somebody must take charge and establish something that will build our economy back up and ensure the people that their money is safe.
I feel that both presidents are doing a very good job handling this situation but I was very impressed with McCain when he said that the debate should be canceled in order to sort out this mess. It made it seem like he truly cared about our country and its well-being. Sorting out this mess should be one of the most important issues for these candidates because whoever wins the election is going to have to deal with it.
It’s quite worrisome that what was said to be the only conceivable solution was rejected. Personally, I wasn’t a fan out the bailout solution, since there seemed to be so many flaws in it (not to mention the fact that it proposed spending $700 billion that the country doesn’t have). I’m sure everyone is anxious to see what solution they decide on.
I think another issue is the fact that this isn’t a decision that can be made quickly. Naturally everyone wants to see a quick solution, but what happens if the government makes the decision too quickly and it’s the wrong one? And what if they don’t make the decision quick enough and the situation worsens? It’s a very delicate situation and one that needs to be handled properly.
As for the candidates, I’d like them to directly address the issue at some point. I think it’d be good to hear exactly what they feel should be done because this could potentially be one of the biggest issues that whoever is elected will have to deal with.
For right now I think the best thing that can be done is have Congress put aside any party issues and work together to come up with the best plan that won’t hurt the taxpayers.
I believe that this recent economic crisis in America needs to be solved immediately. Being this is occuring so close to Election Day, the candidates need to address this issue to insure Americans that they have a plan for the upcoming months if conditions are to worsen.
One person alone is not enough to fix this problem. Obama has stated that it cannot be in the hands of just one person and whatever plan of action the government plans to take must be approved by many people. Although forming an economic plan would portray America as being a nation of Socialism, I think at this point it is far beyond the control of just leading corporations and it’s time the government steps in and makes a decision, and fast, before conditions get worse.
I think both candidates really need to identify where they stand regarding this crisis. One of the two men will be leading our nation in just a few months, and our fate will then be in their hands. I think it was a smart move on McCain’s part to almost delay the debate because he said this crisis was more important than his campaign. I think both candidates need to emphasize their views and push for the solution they would best be able to follow when in office.
I feel that the bail out is necessary because there is no other way to help our economy. The rejection of the bail out was a terrible move by our federal government since today the people are going crazy over our financial crisis. Our people need hope, yet the government is just giving us pessimism. In bailing out our economy, our government, in my opinion should make sure that its not the corrupt CEOS that are getting the money, but the struggling middle class.
This is a big issue in our country and in the debates it should be a battle. I would love to see both Obama and McCain’s ideas on how to help our economy. Both should publically speak about what they would do about our economy if they were president because we are suffering economically.
1. After reading the first two posts, I agree with the second. The economists from U of Chicago and Harvard are persuasive. Their tone is temperate and constructive. Scholars from the U of C are not known for being bleeding hearts. Isn’t that Milton Friedman’s old stomping ground? The Heritage Foundation gentleman is not. His tone is combative and dismissive and his advocacy for having the government just “get out of the way” is ridiculous. I apologize for that last word, but the idea that anyone is still trying to convince the public that all of this deregulation is a good thing really bothers me. The problem with Sarbanes-Oxley is not onerous rules but the fact that it is toothless. The government over the past two administrations has been all too willing to get out of the way. I fault the accounting industry. In any business college, the smartest kids go into accounting. I guess auditing just got too boring. Accounting firms have no business using calculus to value assets. When they need a calculator that does more than multiply, add, subtract and divide, they are going too far. I am an English teacher, but that’s a career change for me. I have a B.S. in accounting from a Jesuit liberal arts university. I have been gnashing my teeth ever since Enron broke. My students know way more about it than they might otherwise. I am writing this while my night school students work on a writing assignment. On the way to this, my second job, I heard a great interview on Fresh Air with Terry Gross, with the author of Wall Street: America’s Dream Palace by Steve Fraser http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95241895 . The notion that government can’t do anything is pernicious. It flies in the face of the evidence. My father worked for the NRC: he was a civil servant, and he took pride in his job. My cousin’s husband ended his career with the EPA helping the families of victims of 9/11. Mr. McCain’s pride in the American worker rings hollow when you know he isn’t talking about the civil service. Now I’ve read E.J. Dionne and I think he is right that the government is going to pass something by the end of the week. 2. Both candidates are supporting Congress’ acting, but I liked Obama’s promise today to fix it if it’s not good enough. I have confidence that Obama will access to reasonable advice. I have very little confidence that McCain has enough understanding to listen to the right advice.
The plan for the $700billion bailout is a huge waste of tax-payer money and at great peril. Our country and our economy is borne of capitalism. In reference to tommypickels comparing a laizze faire attitude of John McCain to what FDR did is not an accurate depiction. FDR used the funds for job creation and national infrastructure projects which allowed the country to operate more efficiently. What this bailout does is put these companies under the ownership of the government. This is a huge step toward communism! Why don’t we just take one giant leap to 1970’s Russia with the motherland?!?
This problem started with Jimmy Carter who heard about the discrimination among low income people who could not afford housing. So he started a program to assist low income people in home ownership with low money down. President Clinton then supersized it by relaxing the guidelines for mortgage acceptance. Fastforward a few years… our senator McCain held hearings on the risks, abuse and danger in allowing these loans and how dangerous it is to our economy. But of course, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd and Maxine Waters wouldn’t recognize the problem back then, only to watch it blow up in everyones face today! Especially the taxpayer. Now, these “responsible people”, Frank and Dodd, want us to hand out $700billion with no strings or oversight attached when they were responsible for the oversight of Fannie and Freddie. Now ACORN was supposed to be a 20% beneficiary of these funds. Why should we trust these people when the congress and senate are still taking care of their buddies?
The solution of the government offering insurance on these
“dead” assets where the companies pay premiums is much better. It will protect the taxpayer, will encourage capitalism, and provide tremendous liquidity.
As far as to how I believe the candidates should conduct themselves regarding this issue? This is easy…. they are still collecting the salaries as senators, they are entitled to very nice pensions, they have the best medical care that money can buy all at the taxpayers expense… guess what… this is a national crisis … GET TO WORK! McCain did exactly what he was supposed to do, work on the problem even if it meant risking the presidency. Obama did not lead… instead, he MONITORED THE SITUATION whatever that means.
What this country needs now is leadership, and a leader does not sit on the sidelines waiting for someone to call!
Unfortunately, I do not believe our country has any other choice but to impliment the $700 billion bail out plan. While there are flaws to the plan and the results it will have on the economy are unsure, congress has been unable to develop a more effective plan. This just goes to show the severity of the crisis America’s economy is currently in. I would rather the government do everything it can to help alleivate the problem than do nothing like it did before the great depression. In the future the government must have more accountabilty for those who make poor business choices. The poor choices of one should not have the ability to effect so many. The government should have more control over preventing or regulating companies from making such risk investments without consequences for their decisions, such as Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Hopefully, by doing this America can avoid a situation such as this in the future.
In addition, I believe McCain and Obama should use this as an opportunity to show the American people why they should be elected president. Both candidates need to take an active role in the solution to this crisis so that Americans will have a better idea of what each candidate plans to do in office. Each needs to be assertive in alleviating the problem in order to prove they have the ability to be the next president. While a crisis such as this can never come at a good time, it is nicely timed during the election and gives both candidates the chance to prove themselves.
I agree with Scott E. when he said “McCain and Obama should use this as an opportunity to show the American people why they should be elected president”, but I would like to add that this might be a bad thing for McCain because economics is not something he is particularity knowledgeable about. When it comes time to debate economics, McCain will have a hard time convincing the American people he knows how to fix this crisis.
I also agree with Scott E., that the candidates do need to show why they should be elected. However, I don’t know how much it will help; McCain already put negatives on his side when he wanted to move the debate, considering it is an extremely important issue. Before McCain even put this out there, just the fact that the economy is crashing before our eyes, pushes towards a change in parties to resolve this. I’m not sure where i stand on the bailout; I think that the tax payers money should not be used to bail out these companies that these billionaire CEO’s screwed up, however some sort of aid is necessary. In FDR’s New Deal plan, the federal government had to intervene to regulate the economy again. Therefore i think it is necessary to intervene, but 700 billion dollars?! Sounds a little ridiculous. But i guess we’ll see if the revised plan will be passed… although 700 billion dollars is ridiculous, if this isn’t passed, then it’s only a matter of time before our economy collapses completely.
I believe that the government needs to do something to help Americans get out of this financial crisis. Although I am not sure what is the best way to go about fixing the economy. Some people say the government should stay out of it because it is going to cost our citizens way to much money and others say that something needs to be done before the issue gets worse. I personally do not know if there is a correct answer to this rising problem but we have to make a decision about it fast. No matter what is done to fix this problem it is going to affect the young adults of our country and the elderly seeking money to live on. As the presidential candidates continue on the campaign trial I would like to see them respond to this economic crisis. Either one of these candidates could potentially be running the country next year. I want them to have a say on what plans there are to help this enormous bail out. They will be the ones dealing with the aftermath of our decision and the ones who will continue to reassure that there is hope for all Americans. Although it may seem that this bail out crisis may be being used as publicity in the campaign, I think it is vital for our candidates to make decisions regarding our future alongside our president and other important leaders in America.
I agree with Laurenn92891. We need some sort of plan to help our economy now, instead of waiting until McCain or Obama becomes president. I think that this new plan is a good idea, just to help us get a jump start on fixing our crisis. As Laurenn92891 said, 700 billion dollars is a lot of money to be putting into the country. We are already in a lot of debt and this 700 BILLION dollars will not help our overall debt, even if it helps the economy.
I agree with both Morgan N and Laurenn92891. We do not have time to wait for the next president. We need to act now in order to fix the problem in our economy before it gets worse. $700 billion dollars is a lot of money; however, we don’t have any better options at the moment. We need to fine tune the plan and try to lower the cost as much as possible, but quickly so that it can be put into effect. As for McCain and Obama, this crisis is a great opportunity for them to demonstrate how they would react to a situation like this if they became president. And, I think how the candidates react to this situation will definitely play an important role in the debate over who will become president. McCain, for example, by putting his campaign on hold proved that he was ready to put the country before himself. In this sense, his decision made him look better than Obama. This is a great opportunity for the candidates to show the country what they can do and how ready they are to take on the responsibility and leadership of our country, and it should be taken advantage of.
With the impending collapse of America’s economy, it is imperative that Congress pass the bill to alleviate the financial crisis. Even though the country has a lot of anti-Socialist ideology behind it, there is a point where we cannot just sit back and watch irresponsible business leaders destroy hardworking Americans. The United States does not practice Laissez-Faire economics, and this is the perfect example why. However, the $700 billion dollars should not just be thrown out there to be used without keeping records of where it goes and how it’s used. Considering that the country already has $9 trillion of debt, this is an enormous burden to place on the government, and should not be taken lightly. The idea proposed about making a profit on assets bought would be one way to improve this bill, especially since there is little hope of us eliminating the debt anytime soon. Taxpayers deserve a reward for their money being invested; this is not going to be a free ride for companies such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Additionally, if and when the crisis is averted, Congress should rewrite laws to better regulate industry. Just like the Great Depression, we can find areas where legislation falls short, allowing businesses to take over. By reducing this risk, situations such as this one will be less likely in the future, and more money can be devoted to other programs such as health insurance. Just as one article stated, it is unfortunate that we can only seem to find these funds in an emergency like this, rather than for other issues that have long affected us.
As far as the Presidential candidates are concerned, I would like to see both of them doing exactly what their jobs are: working with the US Senate. This does not necessarily mean they need to postpone their campaigns, as McCain has done, but they are not excused from their regular duties to pursue another office. I believe it would be in both their interests to work on this bill while continuing their race for President. Just because they are running for office does not mean they need to be extremely influential on the bill either; I would just like to see them doing the job as they would do it during any other crisis like this one.
At this point I think the bailout plan that Congress is working on is probably the best thing for the economy. While it would be great if the government didn’t need to jump in and fix things, the situation calls for drastic action. Many Americans want to see something done; they won’t necessarily understand exactly what happened to the economy that got us to this point, or what the bailout plan is. What they will understand is that our economy is in trouble, and the only way to stop the common American from panicking is to show some sort of rescuing action. If the American people saw their leaders simply sitting back and doing nothing, the resulting panic would be enough to drive the country’s economy down even further.
As for the presidential candidates, what they need to do right now is show leadership. They need to show us that they understand what is happening and that they have a plan to get us out of it. As the people that will inherit the current economy, the country will look at their actions now as a strong indicator of how they will act once they are in office. This is a great opportunity for the candidates to show off as well, as each now has a chance to unite their party members in the House; McCain or Obama could then turn around and say that they were able to lead their party, adding more credibility to their claims that they are the most fit to lead the country.
The government needs to step in and take action. Fortunately, the Senate did agree on a bill very late today. It is up to the House to decide if the Bill will become active. The government needs to step in and regulate the housing market and help out the banks that have lost serious amounts of money because if they do not, this country will sink deeper into a depression. Many people are going to criticize the government for implimenting the most socialist plan since Roosevelt. The way I see it, this is the only way that we can get our economy to a more stable status. My father told me that in the past few weeks, his 401k has lost tens of thousands of dollars towards his retirement and this is something that is happening to everyone. I am glad to see that John McCain supsended his campaign to focus more on the issue at hand. Obama’s campaign is giving him flak saying that a president needs to know how to multi-task. That is true, but they also need to learn how to prioritize and right now, the economy is not going to get any better. It is good to see that both have decided to work together to solve this terrible crisis. I hope that they can both work together to save this country’s economy before it is too late.
I think that the federal bailout is a huge deal and should be put infront of the looming election. I know it is the election of the united states but i think that at this time jobs are in crisis, insurances are crumpling, and banks are looking for answers. I think that something should be done. But i think that instead of the government being afraid of the outcome of there actions they should actually do more. They should try everything possible. Any option would be better than letting it slide. What i am trying to say is what starts a depression is the hesitation to act to cut it off instead of letting it fall to a place that cant be controlled. In the great depression no one congratulated hoover for trying all the projects he could throw out but he was going for the right idea. I think the 2 sides must merge and act. The bailout bill was huge yesterday but at the same time more must be done.
I agree with Rampulla that the government does need to step in and take action. Although some see McCain suspending his campaign as a sign of weakness and not necessay, I think its a very smart thing to do. I think it is a good thing that McCain is prioritizing. He is showing America that even though he isn’t president yet, he still cares about the state of the country. Although 700 billion is only a dent into our debt, we need to start looking to build a more stable and strong economy for the future.
this is deffinetly “the issue” to discuss at the dinner table..showing that its pretty much affecting every hard working, average family in america. Which reminds me of McCains speech at the republican convention when he was randomly pointing out families in random towns and telling there stories and how he can help them…well heres his opportunity to prove it to the country that he can actually affect that little family in michigan or wherever. I dont really know much on this issue, but since i just heard about this bail out plan recently, i think in order to properly save our countries economy and do it correctly, it may take a little time to actually formulate a plan. everyone ive spoken to is completely for the bail out plan, but i dont think theyve done enough research to as what other methods could also help, and what method would be the best..but hey, thats the governments job to figure out, and the way our candidates handle this situation will have a big affect on who will be in the white house.
I don’t think it would be very smart for the government to sit back and do nothing at this point. Many Americans are in panic and worried about an event similar to the Great Depression. Many are already experiencing the effects of the poor economy. However, in a way, anything they do (which may include the new plan still in the workds) will be seen as wrong to someone. It is impossible to please everyone. If the government did nothing, people who become angry and demand action. If they pass this plan, people will say there is no money to give. I do not know economics very well, but I do think that something needs to be done to stimulate the economy and rekindle American’s faith in the government, stock market, and overall economy.
I agree with crystalline3rain that the plan does need to be considered carefully, otherwise it could worsen the situation and have adverse effects.
Even if a plan is passed and it is successful (and if it isn’t) I’d like to see the candidates give forth a possible plan. The problem is not going to disappear and WILL be adopted by the new President, therefore it is important to know their stance on the issue. The economy is something that effects us all and should be a major focus point. However, a battle would really make me lose respect for the candidates if any claim that the other is totally wrong. It’s an American issue, not a party issue, and needs to be dealt with in a way that will benefit and unite everyone.
The biggest step that the federal government should make to resolve the financial crisis is to regulate lending practices and the selling of securities which these loans are turned into. When a bank has a loan they can sell their loan to another bank and in turn that can be sold to yet another bank and so on. When the person who borrows is unable to pay his monthly payments, he defaults on the loan. This person loses his assets and is forced to make a foreclosure.
the federal government should make sure that there are credit checks; there should not be such loose legislation for those who are unable to buy. This cycle is provoked by federal agencies (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that supply money to banks for loans. Meanwhile Congress tries to promote them, since they have the ability to lend out more money, when things become more risky as far as federal exposure. All of these factors have lead to the demise of the economy and must be resolved. It can only be taken care of id the federal government makes checks on lending and on the securities that back those loans. This regulation still upholds Edwin Fuelner’s idea that the United States should “return to free market principles.”
This is just a wake up call for both presidential canidates and americans themselves who were blissfully unaware of our economic crisis. It’s a tough situation in the sense that they are depeding on one person to make the financial decision for the entire country, which could effect them in salaries and taxes. People do not react well when you take their hard earned money away and give it to a mess that “technically” wasn’t their fault.
This is just a wake up call for both presidential canidates and americans themselves who were blissfully unaware of our economic crisis. It’s a tough situation in the sense that they are depeding on one person to make the financial decision for the entire country, which could effect them in salaries and taxes. People do not react well when you take their hard earned money away and give it to a mess that “technically” wasn’t their fault.
The Bailout plan seems like a good idea to me, but to some who will be affected by it by salary cuts and taxes maybe they do not agree so much. Government however does need to step in and take some action against this mess before things get way more out of hand.
The idea of having the taxpayer pay to fix up this mess seems as a bad idea at the moment, but as soon as the companies get up and back on their feet (hopefully) the returns will be great and less dependency will be put on the taxpayer and more so on the company themselves.
I really don’t know how the financial crisis should be handled. A bailout plan of some sort does seem necessary to me at this point in time, but I’m not very aware of other options to alleviate the situation, if other possible solutions even do exist.
I do believe this should signify an enormous change in tone of the presidential election. This is a time-sensitive crisis that demands action now. I think the candidates’ ability to shift the focus of their campaign to dealing with the Wall Street crash effectively and efficiently will say a lot about the leaders of country they will be if elected.
So far, both McCain and Obama seem to recognize the urgency in solving this huge problem that surreptitiously came upon millions of unsuspecting Americans. It was very good of them to take the first portion of their first debate last week – which was to be reserved for foreign policy alone – to discuss their opinions and strategies in a way that people who are a bit confused over this pressing issue (admittedly such as myself) can understand.
I hope in the coming days that the politicians make the stakes and their stances regarding the financial crisis more clear so I, and other possible voters, can come to a full understanding of how Obama or McCain plan to handle this ongoing debacle if elected to office.
I don’t really understand all of the intricacies of the financial system, but it is clear to me that the government needs to help in order to keep us out of another Depression. I think that the government needs to do all that it possibly can to get the economy back on its feet. If that involves making other sacrifices, I think that those sacrifices are necessary because the economy is fundamental to all parts of the our country. If the economy fails, everything else fails with it.
I would like to see both candidates keep this in mind. I would like them to brainstorm creative ways to open up the job market and work with people from both parties to fix the problem.
I think that something must be done about the economy. I think that the government should intervene and help. I also think that if the government gives any money to help the economy that there needs to be strict oversight so then the corrupt and greedy people on Wall Street and various executives do not runaway with tons of cash. That would be like we would be rewarding them for what they have done. Whether the government gives 50 billion or 700 billion dollars, it does not matter, the government needs to make sure that the money is going to be used for the right thing, which is to help our economy.
At this point the bailout plan has passed, but personally i don’t think it will really do anything to actual help the economy. The 700 billion dollar bailout isn’t going to help, because the problem involves so much more money than 700 billion dollars. 60 minutes did a special on Sunday about the bailout, and it said that the real problem was with creidt default swaps, which weren’t regulated on by the government. These swaps were made to insure faulty mortages, and now these credit defualt swaps are what have ruined the big companies like AIG, and Leiman Brothers, because no one had the money to pay off th money lost. No one knows exactly how much money has been lost because of the credit swaps, but on a voluntary servay it was found out that 50-60 trillion dollars have been lost from the credit default swaps, so 700 billion dollars won’t do anything to help out the situtation. People are terrified of what is going on with the economy now, so the government probably just wanted to make it look as if they were doing something with the 700 billion dollar bailout, even though they know it won’t do anything. Additionally looking at the history of the economy, we just go through a pattern of having highs and low, right now were in a very bad low, however we have not hit a complete rock bottom. But, throughout history we have been able to get ourselves out of the problems and into another high, so the government should have just let the economy work it out by itself, instead of putting us into a greater debt.
In my opinion, the national government should intervene and help out if that’s what it comes down to. If nothing else works, the federal government should be summoned to create and regulate a program to help the economy normalize again. I don’t think normalize is a word.
My instincts tell me that the bailout was an awful idea, however, because the 700 billion dollars given to the jokers of Wall Street does not even begin to cover the multi-trillion dollar debt that has accumulated recently. (I find it funny, by the way, that the national government has the kind of money to give to our corporate leaders, but not to supply the country’s citizens with basic health care and education). The fact that the taxpayers money “saved” the CEOs seems un-American. Remember the slogan “the freedom to fail or succeed”? Yeah, that is what our country stands for, and if the greedy people of Wall Street have failed us, then they deserve to suffer. (I know that sounds harsh, but I have no empathy for businessmen).
I would like to see a bipartisan effort to address the crisis, because as others have mentioned before me, the next president will be waist-deep in the financial muck. He needs to transfer the obligation of any costs associated with the bailout to those most responsible, and not to the American taxpayer.
As time goes by and the economy worsens, our government has to start coming up with answers and instead of waiting till it our economy fully collapses. At this point, many ideas should be put into play in order to hold it off till a perfect idea comes along. Interest loans have gone down, making it more attractive to take one out. I believe the 700 billion dollar bailout will work to its full potential don’t but I do think it should be put into action due to the decreasing economy. As for the candidates I do not feel either candidate will answer the question honestly but go with what the majority of the people believe in. I think it is pointless to ask either candidate such a question.
I definitely agree with Publiqenemy in thinking that the national government should definitely intervene with a program that would help to regulate the economy. The government should also lower our taxes too.
I would like to see the President put this crisis as their first priority. Even though there are many crucial things for the new President to attend to in this day and age, making sure that Americans are financially stable should be the first step in solving a lot of other issues, as far as domestic policy is concerned, anyway.
I definitely believe that the government needed to get involved in the economy, and probably should have been regulating the economy more before the current crisis. Hedge Funds, the unregulated secret investment funds that invest between two and three trillion dollars, are beginning to shut down. Irresponsible decisions made by these funds in dealing with dept does not only effect the very wealthy that invested in them. It is not fair that because the wealthy made poor decisions, the middle and low class have to deal with rising interest rates and inflation. The government should not be directly involved in the market, but it is their responsibility to ensure that decisions made in the markets benefit the individual company as well as the economy as a whole.
However, I disagree with WilliamHMacy, who believes that the government should lower our taxes too. The upper class does not need a tax cut, especially with all the tax cuts they have already received under the Bush administration. Our country’s GDP is about 70 percent consumption driven and it is the middle class that consumes the greatest proportion of their income. If the middle class is struggling, our economy will struggle. I would by no means be excited to see my family’s taxes increase, I understand that there are other families in America that need a tax cut more than mine does.
In “A Free Market Fix,” it claims that a long term answer isn’t just more federal control, it’s a return to free-market principles. However, we are talking about short term relief, and the only way to get the money into the economic system fast is through the federal government. As said in “The $700 billion question,” “government involvement is needed because no private actor has enough money to be the market-maker of last resort.” Therefore, the federal government is the only person that can provide some short-term relief and therefore should react accordingly to the financial collapse; but the decision the feds make should be well thought about as well.
Congress is about to pass this bailout plan not really because it would make a significant change, although it may have the potential to do so, but really because every option is worse. As said by Rep. Barney Frank, “what’s the alternative?” Although this plan is inevitable, it should be done right. One important aspect the bailout should include is the protection for taxpayers, because they would be caught with dreadful investments from the mistakes of stockholders and company employees. A big component of remedying the economy is by also benefiting the taxpayer. Taxpayers should at least get some money back when stocks go up, that way they can reinvest and help bolster the economy. The housing market crisis is not the only component of saving the American economy, it is also the promotion of spending and investing.
During this dire economic situation, I believe that much bipartisan cooperation should take place to work for the greater good of the economy AND the American people. Finger pointing isn’t going to fix anything, only constructive thinking from both parties to protect American interests will enable us to move faster towards recovery.
The current bailout plan has a line in it that allows the government to inject stock into failing banks, rather than simply buying up bad assets. This was affectively what allowed the Treasury to spend part of the $250 billion in injecting capital into the nine of the country’s largest banks. This model is far more similar to the one used in Europe, which is part of the reason that Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy have emerged from the crisis looking like strong leaders and stable statesmen. Rather than buying bad assets, Americans should become shareholders in banks and so that banks have a stake in making sure that the country is paid back and that the tax payer dollars will be returned to those who need the money.
For anyone applying for college and in need of a loan, this is incredibly important because if banks do not have faith or confidence in the market, then they won’t issue paper money or loans to kids who need to get through school.
I think that Obama has come across incredibly well because he has shown that he is a cautious and stable leader who would wait at least until he has heard the best and brightest way in on issues before making difficult decisions. Luckily, Bush will most likely be judged by history as one the people most responsible for the financial crisis, but it still will be the next president’s mess to clean up. Let’s hope that he, the next president, takes more care in creating a plan that will actually restore the confidence necessary to stabilize the economy.
I agree with APgov92 in that the government needed to get involved with our economy, but I do not think they needed to regulate it before the crisis. I think they should have been supervising the transactions going on to make sure that a crisis such as the one we are currently in did not occur. If they had supervised the economy and the choices of some of the major investment banks then I believe we could have avoided this situation while allowing America to keep its free market.
The current presidential candidates should both make this their primary focus seeing as it is going to affect many Americans of different economic classes. I also think that as senators they should both have gone to Washington to help make the executive decisions on how the country should move forward in helping the economy.
The government definatelyt has responsibility to rescue our nation from this crisis. However, we are not a socialist state ad the (original) bailout plan deviates way too much power to the federal government. Essentially, people should still be able to operate business as they please, with almost no restrictions. If they fail, then they should take the heat–and not the taxpayers. Lehman, Fannie, Freddie; they all knew they were taking a tremendous risk, but they went for it for the possible gains. They need to face the consequences as any other Amercican does when they are unable to pay a loan.
The federal government should then, step back, and allow prices to adjust themselves as they will. There is still a market for property and mortgages, but companies are unwilling to sell them for low prices –they know that the government will buy them for more. If the government steps back though, market prices can adjust to their true values.
I would like to see them directing a majority of their effort to getting people working again, and perhaps to set few regulations on future loans. For instance, disallow mortgage companies to loan under certain qualifications. Or restrict them from loaning in bulk.
I agree with apgov92 and mlc2009, the government definitely should have been involved with our economy long before the crisis. I dont think regulation was necessary but just the presence of the government might have made a difference in the results of the crisis. Considering American history, the country was bound to go into a state regression some time soon, however in my opinion the extremity of the results could have had the potential to be much less if the government had had early involvement. The $700 billion proposition, being more than the government spent on the first five years of the Iraq War, is also extreme, leaving me to believe that there should have been more reasonable options.
While campaigning, the candidates should definitely be expressing their views on the situation because as president, it is a matter that will have to be taken into consideration on numerous occasions. Americans want to know what the future holds for this country, and Obama and McCain have a plans of action that will appeal to citizens than they are more likely to feel less stressed about the situation at hand.
I really wish they would teach us this stuff in school (if you didn’t take econ.). Pretty much most of us on this blog have no idea what this whole mess of a bailout plan actually is. I mean the articles only gave a quick overview of what could happen with corporations buying other corporations and morgage regulation, but honestly, economics is confusing.
From what I understand, if not THE bailout plan, something has to be done. I believe however that government regulation is needed. Part of the reason that our economy is in the toilet is because people are buying more than they can afford. There is a mass credit card problem where people put off their debts untill later, even though they don’t have enough later. People are buying homes they can’t afford and taking out massive loans they’re unable to payback. I think banks need to be given money to be “bailed-out”, but they should be loaning that money to restart our economy, and not being soooooo cautious and keeping it to pay off their own debts. I also believe that credit card companies NEED to be regulated. They charge so many different fees it’s ridiculous. I bet you they have a fee just to complain to the company about it. There is no cap to interest rate or the finance charge, which can add up EXTREMELY quickly. They’re getting a profit (which they don’t deserve) to watch us as consumers suffer, therefore a regulation of the credit card business is critical.
As for the presidential candidates, I believe that the both of them should be more involved in trying to help create a bailout plan. They need to physically show the public that they can work across party lines and do SOMETHING for the good of the country and not just for party interests. The bailout plan and the failing economy will be the biggest and the first issue the new president with have to deal with, so why not have them more involved now so the transition is easier later?
1. Looking back on this, I think the bailout plan, as the articles all suggest, was necessary of course, simply because the alternatives were worse. It is troubling to me however, that the government can, in a sense, use this emergency situation to push through pro-Wall Street legislation. It’s been well over a month since the bailout was passed, and I’m still not exactly clear what benefits to taxpayers it provided. As the last article suggested, it seems that the government has no problem coming up with $700 billion to rescue Fannie, Freddie, and the others, but could not come up with a similar amount to expand healthcare for children. The urgency of the economic situation is being exploited in order to push this bailout through; Senators and Representatives probably feel as though they have no choice but to vote for it.
2. It is interesting to answer this question after the election. I think John McCain made a fatal mistake when he made a show of suspending his campaign and potentially skipping a debate with Obama in order to go to Washington to work on this bailout plan. This was a turning point at which peoples’ opinions on McCain possible handling of the economy started to drop. I also believe that part of the reason why Barack Obama was elected was peoples’ confidence in him with regard to economic policy. Now that he is our president-elect, I think his immediate call for economic action is the right way to handle the situation; it is what Americans want to see.
To me the $700 billion bailout plan is a bad and unfair decision made by the government. They are giving money back to the rich, the people who got us here and cost tons of people their jobs. It’s not fair that the rich are pretty much getting a free pass out of their poor decisions. Also we have spent plenty of money already (it seems as everyone forgot that we are in two wars and we have been spending a lot of money). $700 billion is more than we have spent in the first 5 years in the Iraq war and we have a quite large national debt over our shoulders. Although I don’t know too much about the economy, I could safely say that it would be wise to cut back on spending. The funny thing is that the CEOS of these companies haven’t had to sacrifice as much us (by us I don’t mean me…. Americans).
Again I don’t really know much about how the economy works. But the way I would use the money is divide it by the countries population (300 million). If you distributed the money evenly among Americans, each family would get around $2,300. Better yet, we could split the money amongst working middle and lower class individuals/families, then that would significantly raise their profit. (I doubt the upper class is having a hard time with the economy at this time, unless their business crashes… which could be an exception). So with all that money given to a family, they can use it to help pay off their mortgages themselves. Also the CEOS of the companies won’t get a free ride out of their own mistakes, while the rest of the country has to suffer and pay them. Not only that but Americans can use that money and invest it in our markets which would thus stimulate the economy.
What the government should really do is stop blaming each other and open their eyes. They are focused on fixing the economy by paying back the people who turned us down the wrong path.
John McCain’s proposal that he would not attend the presidential debate because of the crisis is very patriotic and considerate. All congressmen should stop and realize the effects of the market on America. So many people are suffering and for the people who are suffering, the election is not their top priority. Therefore congress should really focus on the economy rather than the elections.
Being that this is a late post, I have had the opportunity to see how the economic crisis has panned out in recent weeks and the current solutions being put forth by the current administration and the plans of President-Elect Obama. Up to this day, I still have not seen any substantial progress or clear plans put forth by the administration. In fact, our economy has only gotten worse. Our government seems to be unsure of how to approach the economic meltdown, and seems to be struggling or floundering, if you will, by the tone of hesitancy in their proposals and there “woulda-shoulda-coulda”s. I feel like the $700 billion bailout plan was a rushed proposal in response to our failing economy, and that the Bush administration didn’t weigh out their options. I don’t really think the bailout plan was effective at all, since our economy is worth several trillions of dollars and a plan of this extent seems inadequate to even partially resolve the state of our economy.
I could be wrong, but what I think Obama’s administration should do is divide their plans into a short-term and long-term outlook. They need to devise a proposal that will effectively cater to both Wall Street and Main Street, and be confident and assertive of their plans. Unlike the Bush administration, I think Obama and his staff need to take time to lay out their proposals and its possible consequences. I would rather wait a few months and hear a plan that actually works, rather than waiting a few days and hearing the president spew out hasty and ineffective bills that will just fall through. It’s upsetting to the people and shows that the government isn’t a cohesive and productive entity that it should be. Don’t the American people deserve a government that works?
As probably stated above, the Obama administration needs to reach across the aisle and maintain full cooperation with the Republicans so that everyone will be content. I don’t think it’s correct to supplement the CEOs with taxpayer money, because in most cases (like the recent photos of the CEOs of AIG hosting party events), these CEOs are selfish and greedy. The future bill needs to allow taxpayers to reap the benefits of the bailout so that Main Street is not suffering because the CEOs made poor investment decisions.
Our economy is in shambles and i am beginning to become really concerned about how the economy will be after i graduate from college and am beginning to wonder whether or not those college loans will be possible to pay off within a resonable amount of time.
I believe that the $700 billion bailout plan is the right path to take. People have to understand that Wall street is the core factor in how well the American Economy does. However i feel that $700 billion is way to much, we should be spliting up the money in other plans to jump start our economy. I feel that the corrupt companies do not deserve a free pass. They should still be guided by the government to get back up on their feet, but they should definetly have to come up with some kind of plan to fund money to get their company running succesfully again. After all most of them were corrupt anyways and what kind of message are we sending to them if the government lets them get off scott free without any consequence at all.
Although a bailout would lead our economy away from a free market and give government more control, it will save a lot of people from losing their jobs and make sure the country does not have another depression. I do also believe that some of these companies should be held accountable for their mistakes and pay some sort of price for them. The problem with these bail outs now is that the companies are taking advantage of this money in the wrong way (AIG) by holding “conferences” in expensive places for the executives.
The way that I would like Obama to go about this is by creating jobs throughout the market and by fixing things piece by piece instead of the whole picture all at once. If he does that the market will eventually come together as a whole.
There is probably not an answer that will satisfy all people with the economy. On one hand, liberals will feel terrible about bailing out huge corporations (after all, why do CEOs who failed to run their companies properly be rescued from the government, while the same people who say that giving welfare to the poor is socialism because it is the government interfering with the free market) and conservatives will in some way, have to abandon their free market ideas by having a massive amount of government intervention in the economy. While the federal government necessarily does have to get involved with this crisis, because if it doesn’t , the economy will crumble. The way the money seemed to be shot into the economy was not very appropriate seeing as to CEOs were still making ridiculous salaries and companies like AIG send their highest earning executives to a high class resort only a week after the money is given. In many ways, this can be linked to the rise of free trade in the United States. Deregulation by the federal government allowed little rules for the financial companies to follow, thus allowing them to give loans that people weren’t sure they were going to be able to pay, resulting in this crisis. That is, of course, not the only factor.
I do not know what McCain plans to do with the economy. All politicians will say they will create jobs and save the economy, but we all know that doesn’t mean anything. The reason I think Obama is more likely to help the economy is because he has a progressive tax system. McCain will save money for the higher earning classes, and it is not necessary for these higher earning peoples to buy goods and put money back into the economy. On the other hand, a progressive tax plan will allow for money for lower income peoples. Now, if a person or a family is in the lower income bracket, and suddenly, a progressive tax system allows them to have a little more money, it much more likely for them to go out, spend money, and boost the economy, because the things they will buy are more likely to be necessities, thus meaning that they HAVE to spend and put money into the economy. But that’s just my idea. Maybe rich people don’t have enough money after all.
I think that the bailout was necessary because liquidity needed to be restored to the market. We have already started to see some of the consequences of this recession (i.e. unemployment on the rise) but if this bailout was not passed the recession could have turned into depression. I understand the concerns many people have stated (why bail out individuals who got our economy into this sorry state?). However, all of the greedy people we think of who profited from risky business have already secured their profits. The collapse of the financial industry would not hurt them, it would hurt the many other industries invested in them and the countless others who could not get loans. This goes beyond loans for a mortgage or for college to include companies whose business would halt. Though the $700 billion is lamentable, this was necessary to restore liquidity. I was very glad that both of the candidates showed that they could act in bi-partisan ways (as both said they had done/will do numerous times) and came together with something to help America. Not a single constituency or interest group or swing voter but the country and its economic wellbeing.
I am still on the fence about the bailout issue. On one hand, I think it is completely necessary as we are sinking deeper and deeper into this economic crisis and need a way out. Something big that will make a huge impact could seem a good solution. On the other hand, I agree with Obama that we should have the nation be deciding this. The day the nation heard about this potential bailout was the day it was being debated upon. The American people should have a say if something so huge and lifechanging was about to be put into place. This is an extrodinarly large amount of money, and should not be taken lightly or be thrown out as a plan before undergoing a long series of votes and debates about its outcome. It is good that our government is at least attempting to create a solution to our economic problem, but we need time to think it over and work out any potential kinks that may occur. Solving everything in one grand gesture is not always the answer. Taking small steps may seem agonizing and unbeneficial, but it is better to be cautious and work hard at solving this problem, then to try and make everything go away by throwing out an unvoted on (by the American people) bailout.
The bailout of Wall Street was a necessary evil. The men charged with the management of our economy Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson pleaded that unless the taxpayers hand over $700 billion, we are all doomed. The two men vying for the office of the President both agreed that the rescue plan was necessary with certain oversight. After a long fight with Congress, the Congress finally approved the so-called bailout package. We have since learned that the Fed Chairman and the Treasury Secretary did not know what they are doing; they are just making up rules as they go along. As early as 2 days ago, they just changed the rules again to soothe the current popular issues. Soon after the government handed some of the some of the money over to the insurance Giant AIG, they reverted to their old ways, using the money for what it was not intended. They had since return with-hat-in hand beging for more money.The government should demand a greater oversight on how the money is been used. Throughout the campaign the President Elect Obama showed a great deal of courage during the crisis and he has since surrounded himself with a knowledgeable team of financial experts. I believe that the President Elect Obama would get a better handle of the economic problem once he put his economy team in place. The most important message that the government needs to send to Wall Street is that they cannot profit from these crisis they created. Any of the Executives who failed to follow the established rules regarding the use of the money should be sent to jail.