I'm fiscally conservative in general, but I'm also a real skeptic when it comes to the so-called "free market." Monopolies and oligopolies are also free market, but that does not make them ideal. It's like the "all natural" dogma; rattlesnake poison is natural, but that doesn't mean I want to get bit!

The free market forces resulting in the Great Depression scare the heck out of me. From what I understand, this shouldn't be about punishing Wall Street, it's about stabilizing a system that could grind to a halt, in which case we all suffer.

The real free market economy depends upon entrepreneurial efforts to a large extent, but if the markets seize up so that nobody can finance a venture, then we create a big hole we have to dig out of.

I don't like the idea of a huge bail-out expense, but I don't like the potential consequences of inaction even more.

Why do we need to bail out big companies?  Part of the beauty of the free market system is that if your company makes bad judgments then the competition will gobble your company up.  The market ALWAYS self-corrects and the situation today is no different. 

Too many companies and individuals were making bad decisions based on an economic forecast that never allowed for self-correction.  The housing market was stupidly out of control and realtors, bankers, and mortgage lenders only made the situation worse by getting people into housing above their means.  Companies made loans they knew to be bad but realized that they could sell the loan down the line and make a profit and the default would be on another companies books.  Banks and investment firms bought into the housing debacle when they knew, or should have known, that the entire housing and mortgage industry was out of control. 

Why should the average taxpayer be forced to bail out companies that couldn't manage their businesses effectively in the first place?  Why shouldn't these companies fail and their competitors gain the benefit of reduced competition in the market place?  Why are we so scared of companies failing?  Does anyone honestly believe that getting the federal government involved in everyday business transactions is healthy for the economy long term?  Does anyone think we will be better off if the government begins to heavily regulate business?

The bailout plans are horrible and should not be passed.  The bailout of the automotive makers should not have been passed and signed into law --- and it certainly shouldn't have included Chrysler who was already the beneficiary of a governement bailout package that wasn't offered to its competitors.  Let companies fail, let the market correct itself, let housing prices continue to fall, and do not burden the taxpayer with helping out those companies and individuals who made by decisions.  We do not deserve to be burdened with the debt of the financial stupidity of individuals or companies. 

 Tammy

The Happy Housewife in Arizona - join the revolution and put your family first :-)

http://stitchersflock.blogspot.com/

Yes. All of you who don't need credit and who don't draw a salary, call your Representatives and tell them to vote against the bill.

I think more support the bill now, with the recent modifications, than they did last week.

I also think before people immediately discount the bail out to think on the consequences, first. For instance, credit is going to be a problem, including credit for buying a home, necessary business equipment, and education. R & D will stop, because most companies support R & D partially through loans.

Credit will probably be more expensive, which means people will be paying higher interest on their credit cards. Most of the economic advisers are now saying that your first priority should be on paying credit cards down. More so than putting money into a 401K.

Speaking of which, the 401Ks will be taking a hit. For those close to retirement age, this probably means having to work longer. 

There will be job loses, but I'm not sure there will be as many as we think -- primarily because companies have been offshoring jobs for years now. However, we will take a hit. I wouldn't be surprised if unemployment doesn't go up to 7 or even 8 percent. 

Goods will be more expensive, and may be more difficult to find. 

I think it is appropriate for people to be either for or against the bail out. But I also think that people need to think through their initial, visceral reaction before sending that letter or email off to their Congressional reps.

This is from a comment on a post I did.  The person seems to have a great way to bailout Wall Street, while also giving every American citizen a change at the American Dream.  I think it should at least be considered.

http://politicsanew.com/2008/10/01/crisis-solved-give-300000-to-every-citizen-18-and-older/

I would love to know what you think.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
at Catherine-Morgan.com, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election<

Why isn't the mainstream media picking up that plan? It is brilliant! It puts money in the hands of the citizens who could then pay off their loans, credit cards, etc and then there would be plenty of cash flow for banks and small business to recover. It is the ONLY plan to date that makes any financial sense. It is a win-win for everyone. Uncle Sam gets paid, the house crisis evaporates, banks get money, bills get paid down, loans get paid off, and Americans have money to invest and save every single week if things like credit card bills and mortgage payments disappear.

Of course, this plan has no political future. There are simply far too many special interest groups which would kill the bill before it ever saw the light of day. :-( Sad but true and disappointing how jaded I've become as I age.

Tammy

The Happy Housewife in Arizona - join the revolution and put your family first :-)

http://stitchersflock.blogspot.com/

I read in Time Magazine yesterday that the banks and investment companies that would directly benefit from the $700 billion bail out are already greedily rubbing their hands together and squabbling over how much money they will all get. Yuck. I love the idea of giving the money directly to 'main street' and letting the free market decide how to spend it. Hopefully we would be smart enough to put some of it into healthcare, education and social security.

The plan a previous poster linked to is not quite right.  The math would actually add up to about $3500 per individual -- if you assume a 700 Billion bailout and 200 million people over the age of 18.

If we were each to get 425000 it would cost Uncle Sam 85 Trillion.

While I could really use $3500, I don't know if that would be enough to stimulate the economy.

I like Catherine's Plan B, but the problem with giving it to the people is that many would not actually use it to pay off their debt, or as croushaus noted, it would not be enough to free up cash and break the credit crisis when done on a per person basis.

Free cash to evil corporations is unacceptable to me, though. If we bail them out, the plan should give the government a proportionate share of any future profits. Then the people would benefit in the future from the extra money that could go to social programs, like health care or schools, or we could pay lower taxes. Either way, it helps end the credit crisis now and not on the backs of people who didn't create the mess in the first place.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

Not to put down "the people," but let's not forget that plenty of folks took out loans that they couldn't afford to help create this mess. Yes, some people were tricked into bad loans or directly lied to about what financial products they signed the bottom line for, but there are a lot of people who jumped at the chance to get what they saw as free money. Credit card debt is at an all time high. (Again, sometimes from people who use their charge cards for basic expenses, but also for people who see it as a way to get things they can't really afford.) What makes us think that handing out more "free" money will suddenly lead to responsible personal spending given our collective pathetic track record?

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

Although it might make real inroads for those facing foreclosure.

I think a better plan would be to do something like that for Americans who are currently facing foreclosure, allowing them to pay off the amount they are late on, then take over their loans and give them a manageable interest rate.  

Then a scaled down bail out...er...."rescue" to fix the credit crisis, and a return to sensible regulation.  

But I don't believe "free markets" and democracy are synonymous, and I have no problem at all with reponsible government intervention provided we can afford it.  

Tacoma Mama

Kitchen Table Issues

I am a liberal and I do not like the bail out bill(s). If we damn near have conniptions when we talk about "socialized health care" then why are we even past the discussion phase of "nationalistic capitalism?" or the worse case of "corporate welfare" I have ever seen?

Have folks looked at any of the bill? They stuck all kind of pork in bail out package that has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with this "emergency" situation.

This is an extract from NPR's Marketplace.org:

Page 297: changes to the child tax credit.
Page 298: tax relief for film and television productions.
Page 300: and I just can't figure out what this has to do with the credit squeeze, but certain wooden arrow shafts not more than 5-16ths of an inch in diameter are no longer subject to excise tax.

Why do film and tv production companies need tax relief? You cannot trust them! We don't know the true situation to find an effective solution. That is not what is being cooked up in Congress.

Rest assured that no upper management will be held responsible for their actions. That the craven foxes at the same companies will be deputized to take care of the hen house. The homeless population will increase because I seriously doubt they have made provision to allow workable plans to help folks convert their mortgages or to help them transition to properties they could afford.

Here is the deal. We can go cold turkey plan and vote no if we are willing to suffer the worse. It will be bad and ruthless.

Or vote yes to go on a detox program that will ease the surface effects while allowing new problems to crop up and we still have to pay the bill only it is more because we delayed in dealing with it in the first place.

This stinks. Not knowing the truth of the situation we have to go detox.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

I agree with most of these posts. However, I'd make the point that the free market didn't get us into this mess, the government did.

Under the Community Reinvestment Act expanded under Clinton, banks were mandated to make the risky loans to low income buyers. Banks rushed to comply.  When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought the mortgages and re-packaged them (good and bad) into mortgage backed securities, banks around the world bought them because FM/FM are GSEs (government sponsored enterprises).  Buyers believed the government would never allow them to fail, so they didn't do their due diligence either.

Does anyone think it smells to high heaven that the same people who blocked any regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the same people who crafted this bailout legislation including those economic geniuses Barney Frank and Chris Dodd?

Does anyone think it smells that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite being government sponsored enterprises, were allowed to give such huge amounts of money to politicians?  Chris Dodd is the largest recipient. Barrack Obama is the third. 

I was under the impression that this was an solitary independent bill in its own right. From what I now understand, and I could be wrong, it is actual was appended to a Mental Health bill and that had a bunch of riders attached to it as well.

From Open Congress.org
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/700-Senate-Passes-Bailout-Bill

The bailout is going to be considered as a substitute amendment to a mental health parity bill that Democrats in Congress have been working to pass for the past few years. But the bailout amendment will include the mental health parity bill within it, so if the amendment passes, the mental health bill will tag along on the legislative ride and, pending approval by the House and President, eventually be signed into law. The bill would mandate that any mental health coverage provided by an insurer cannot be more restrictive, in any way, than the treatment they provides for medical and surgical benefits.

Also included in the bailout amendment will be a package of tax extenders that Congress has been working to pass. The tax extensions include a renewable energy and conservation tax credit bill, tax relief for disaster victims, a one-year patch of the alternative minimum tax, and more. Again, if the bailout passes, the tax extenders pass as well.

Including the alternative minimum tax patch is supposed to give the bill more Main St. appeal. If Congress doesn’t pass an ATM patch, it could increase taxes on about 20 million middle-to-upper class Americans next year. “Adding this tax relief will ensure that regular working Americans get the financial help they need in this time of crisis,” Max Baucus (D-MT), the chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, said in a statement on Tuesday. And since the ATM patch is basically a big tax cut, Republicans like it as well."

On Open Secrets.org you can see how much money the finance industry gave to both political parties.

Mr. Obama $25 million. Mr. McCain $22 Million.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/finance-sector-gave-50-percent.h...

Nobody hands in Congress are clean.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

I had to comment on everyone's opposition to the bail out bill.  Personally, I think it might be more responsible to call it a "rescue" bill.

I wouldn't say that I am "for" the bill, but really, have you thought about they way it could go if the bill does not go through and the "free market forces" have their way with the US economy?  Have you thought about your way of life?  Not being able to pay your bills?  Losing your house?  Your vehicle?  Your disposable income you buy a latte or a tasty lunch with?

It could be dire, truly "Great Depression Take Two."  I would be willing to bet that most of these commenters before me do not work in the financial industry, either.  I happen to work in a business that is entrenched in this market, and I can see first hand the actual consequences of what could happen without the bill.  While it might not sound positive to say "bail out" (sure, it leaves a bad taste in our conservative value mouths), it unfortunately is needed.

So, have you thought about it?  Have you thought about what life would be like if we just let it all play out?  I'd be willing to bet that all of the commenters aren't quite looking past the end of their noses on this one.

I would also like to note that the link to "opencongress.org" doesn't hold much water with me, personally.  The first line on the page is "Congress Gossip Blog" and I don't consider that legitimate.  Gossip?

I'm against this type of pay out.

I encouraged my representives by email and phone to meet with the pay as to go, (blue dog) democratics. One of these is Marcy Kaptur from, Ohio. They are working on a plan that is much like the plan used in the 1987 housing bubble. The FDIC saved 3,000 banks by restructuring, etc. I won't go into all the other things they did but interest rates came down from the 20% highes they were at. I'm actually old enough to remember things times. It did cost tax dollars but many of those costs were covered by the banking industry I think it was around 1.8 million at that time.

www.house.gov/Kaptur  If I remember correctly this is the link. Just go to the house.gov site and you will find it.

Marcy, explains it a lot better than I ever could.

In the meantime, I think it would be pretty easy to set up a temporary bank to handle emergency funding for payrolls, etc for companies that don't have long term credit lines. This would all be money that would be short term loans just like businesses have been doing with their current institutions.

Stabilizing a balance sheet isn't stabilizing the trust factor. I saw an interview with a small biz owner in California who has had a profitable business for 12 years. Every fall she takes out a loan to gear up for the holidays. This year the bank turned her down. If a sure thing isn't worth trusting and loaning money to, then I don't know how taking bad money off the books is going to instantly create trust between a bank and it's customers.

Stabilizing a balance sheet isn't stabilizing the trust factor. I saw an interview with a small biz owner in California who has had a profitable business for 12 years. Every fall she takes out a loan to gear up for the holidays. This year the bank turned her down. If a sure thing isn't worth trusting and loaning money to, then I don't know how taking bad money off the books is going to instantly create trust between a bank and it's customers.