Financial crisis: should there be a bailout? What kind?

Posted Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:26 pm

I have absolutely no even non-expert insight on whether there should be a bailout of troubled financial institutions or not. I do know that George Bush is for it and Larry Kudlow offers "A Paulson-Cantor Plan Is a Win-Win for Taxpayers" (link), and both of those are very strong indicators that any bailout should be strongly opposed. There's a round-up of sites and others against the bailout here. However, considering that my eyes glazed over by the second paragraph of the penultimate link, I have no interest in getting up to speed. All I know is that people should be extremely wary of proposed solutions from the Bush administration and those who got us into this mess in the first place.

Comments

Mary (not verified)

Sat, 09/27/2008 - 00:11

Jim Cramer is for it too.....He's wrong! I say No Amnesty for Wall Street or Illegal Aliens! I don't believe these THIEVES. They caused it and want to reap rewards for bad behavior. NO THANKS!!

eh (not verified)

Sat, 09/27/2008 - 01:38

If there's anything worse than an asshole it's a shrill asshole, and that pretty much describes Cramer. Not long ago Bush was saying he would not sign a housing bill that "rewarded speculators".

Fred Dawes (not verified)

Sat, 09/27/2008 - 08:01

mary is right and eh is great,Bush will do as he is told to do, normal political ideals, rape the people and tell the raped ones it is for your good. Don't buy guns but a tank! or maybe AAA Gun.

Smitty (not verified)

Sat, 09/27/2008 - 08:23

Of course there shouldn't be a bail out, it goes against all economic logic and common sense that the state can avoid a "possible depression" or "economic calamity" or "economic meltdown" with a giant bond issue. WHy did our silly great grand parents suffer for 10 years in the depression then turn to world war when they simply could have issued some bonds? (they had bonds in 1929) And the Soviet and Argentine economic collapse could have been avoided too. Why didn't we think of this 80 years ago, the roaring 20s could have lasted forever? Business cycles occur for a reason, whenever things get ut of balance (like loaning large sums of cash to people that can't pay it back) there has to be collapses to force changes in behavior. We won't get any change in behavior with this bailout, in fact this spending will likely exacerbate the problem, prolong it & expand it.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 09/28/2008 - 07:56

To those who write editorials a la 'Now is not the time to enact revenge', how about a condition that for any firm receiving a bailout its top executives must pay to the Treasury all compensation, in all forms, received during the period the company was engaging in the activity which caused its failure? Basically, declaring assets like in a bankruptcy, and if it's later found that they were hiding assets, imprisonment. Why should people who knew the party would end badly get to keep all the party favors? Every ill-gotten gain available must be returned or no bailout.