A government "solution" for a government created problem...How about, no...

I think we need another option in the poll; "Yes, but with oversight and tight controls on what is done with that money".

The poll isn't really as robust as it needs to be. Are we asking if you support the "cut a blank check to Paulson so he can bail out his former employer with no oversight whatsoever" bailout, or Barney Frank's "we didn't lend, we bought a chunk of you" bailout?

i support the "give them pails with no bottoms" bailout.

@NightSteel: Yeah. This poll sucks. It caters to oversimplifying the situation.

Those against the bailout are simply cutting off their nose to spite the face.

umm, sure if it works. and umm, no if it wont. kinda a bad poll.

Some regulation changes perhaps but it all comes back to the GREED of the home buyers and financial institutions.

And if the regulators were doing there job with existing laws or made more minor adjustments and changes things would be a lot better off.

My favorite is 'we don't know what is in these things'-that's an auditors job including the SEC.

I don't support ANY bailout for rich people on Wall Street while average people have no health care and are struggling to pay for $4 gasoline.

I don't care WHAT the details are, bailing out the rich is STUPID. It's flat-out anti-capitalist, too. That they'd even suggest it is an obvious sign that our government has been taken over by corporations and their armies of lobbyists, who obviously would prefer capitalism-as-long-as-it-makes-and-keeps-them-rich.

Fuck them. Twice.

If this:
[online.wsj.com]
has any basis in reality, then yes. (Quick summary - "My analysis suggests that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (a former investment banker, no less, not a trader) may pull off the mother of all trades, which could net a trillion dollars and maybe as much as $2.2 trillion -- yes, with a "t" -- for the United States Treasury.")

But no way I'm supporting a blank check with no oversight, based on recent history. (see Iraq, Dept. of Homeland Security, FISA, Justice Dept., etc.)

I guess I would have to interpret the support the bailout option as "do you support a government bailout in any shape or form" not just with the specific previsions that have already been suggested or agreed on. Some of the arguments for the bailout are valid, but will require the government to actually manage the loans directly and re-negotiate interest rates and payment terms with the loan holders. Even with this management, there will still be defaults due to a) people who could pay off the mortgage, but won't because their house is now worth so much less than they owe that it doesn't make financial sense to do so and b) people scamming the system, but neither of these should actually account for $700,000,000,000. In addition, if the government can actually prevent some foreclosures, it should help alleviate the areas whose property values are plummeting due to the number of foreclosed homes in the neighborhood that are just decaying.

Also, I think it's necessary to distribute the blame for this situation a little more evenly. It's not entirely the federal government's fault and it's not entirely Wall Street's fault. There is also some culpability that lies with home owners who lied about income, loan officers who encouraged this and other irresponsible lending practices, realtors who helped to artificially inflate home values, etc...

Given the alternative? Yes.

@JohnDeere: Good point. Further to which I don't think anyone really knows:
a) what will happen if we don't do the bail out?
b) will the bail out work?
c) what does it mean "will the bail out work"?
d) who is really benefiting from this?
e) assuming a bail out is needed, is this the right way to go about it?
f) insert question of choice

Only if they march the bastards that caused this whole thing off to the big house.

@chris_l: To my mind the latter is not a bailout per se. It is the gov't investing in a troubled, but profitable business.

There needs to be a definative process for deciding to whom and when those funds are distributed. Like Sweden did back in 1992. Before the gov't would even consider giving out monies they company had to sell off all of their depreciated assetts for whatever they could get for it (generally 20% of original value or less). Then if they still felt they needed money they could ask for a gov't investment.

I guess Republicans are not so much for a Free Market anymore?

Hmm, the early poll results point strongly to "No". Why is this being passed again? Are our Representatives not representing us?

I don't get it.

I don't support it at all. Let them burn. America needs to rise up from some ashes every once in a while.

And this whole "DO IT NOW" is complete and utter bullshit. The market is working, no one is dying from these banks not being bailed out as of today. Let it go, and enact changes as they are needed.

Giving anyone a check for $700B is a bad idea, and even worse when it's paid for by the sweat and equity of America's working poor and middle class.

It also makes me nervous that everybody working on this plan in Congress were bought and paid for by the guys needing the bailout.

Whatever "oversight" is built in, you can bet that the administration's response will be that it doesn't have to tell anyone how much money it gave to what companies, when it was given, or what the terms were. For "national security concerns".

@ironchef: Agreed, it should clarify wheither it is refering to any bailout-type action whatsoever, or the current 3-page $700B gift being discussed now.

As for your second statment, care to expand upon that? I'm a little confused by the oversimplifying of the situation.

If we can afford to socialize Wall Street, then we can certainly afford to socialize health care.

I support a government intervention. I don't support *this* government invention which strikes me as nothing more than another evil attempt by this administration to take taxpayers money and power and place it in the hands of the corrupt few.

I'd like to see an "I don't know" option, because even though I've been reading a lot about it and hearing from both sides, I'm honestly torn as to what is best for our country. It feels like a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. I'd also like to see how many others are confused on the issue.

@xerotope:

Exactly. *sigh*

So I'm assuming that everyone against the bailout is ready to deal with the alternative? Enjoy!

I thought that this was supposedly a loan that would have to be paid back, with a lot of interest that would go to the taxpayer?

Or did that idea not sound opulent enough to the hedge fund managers?

My gut reaction is 'no', but thinking it through, here's what I think should happen:

1. The federal government should be the lender of last resort. I think an agency, either public or private (preferably private), should be created to bridge the gap between homeowners and mortgage-backed asset holders and negotiate terms to ensure as little failure as possible. Only after they are able to show that they fall below a certain risk level will they be able to qualify for a loan from the taxpayers.

2. If a qualifying institution is still in need of a loan, the federal government will receive an equity stake in the institution (proportional to the size of the loan) in addition to the return from the loan.

3. Those companies that take out a loan are required to forgo any bonus programs (including severance) for their executives until the loan is paid in full.

This will fix the problems from the top & the bottom while ensuring that institutions don't fail and bonuses aren't paid with taxpayer money

Most people think this is free money, it is not, the government will in the end make money off these deals on interest if these companies pull out and do well. If they collapse, all of our 401ks and investments would suffer greatly since a lot of them are probably with the big guys like Merrill and Lehman. The bailout AIG got means the US government now owns 80% of AIG (a $1 trillion dollar company on paper) and gets repaid at 12% interest on the $85 billion loan. With the $700 billion, their should be new regulations put in, years of lack of oversight caused this, but now we need to fix it, and make sure it does not happen again. Punishing these companies will mean lost money for us and 100,000s of layoffs across wall street which would significantly effect the economy. Not everyone on wall street makes a million dollars a year.

@xerotope:
We shouldn't be doing either.

@RStewie:
This is dead on.

Remember all those stories we've been told about the great American spirit? And how ideas laid carefully over the ideals of our founding fathers made this country great? Well, no one on Capitol Hill does, so no wonder the rest of us have lost sight of them, too.

We all need to get off our lazy I-want-it-now asses and get back to work. Innovation and creativity are tools of the people because they are free. Use them, America and maybe we won't have to have this discussion any more.

I voted Yes and I will tell you why. Without the bailout, the world economy will crash. You think things are expensive now, try paying $20 for a gallon of milk. That is the type of problem we would be facing if the bailout did not occur. We narrowly avoided this when they lent $89 billion to AIG as their collapse would have caused the same thing to occur. The financial markets and their drivers, the banks, are a fickle beast that doesn't play well with others when it is sick. Because of that, and the fact that these same markets are what is behind every business in the world, we need to be extra careful about how we proceed. Throwing money at the problem is, very unfortunately, the only solution that is likely to cause the least amount of shakeup.

Man, do people not understand? This bailout, for worse, is now linked inextricably to the market. If it fails, market reaction will be overwhelmingly negative -say 20 -30% contraction. People may say "let it happen." I wonder if you'll be saying that when your banking site is down and the local branch has locked its doors, and you can't get to your checking account. A bank run is a very real possibility, and anything that prevents that is necessary. Sure, its a bad plan. At this point, doing nothing is far, far worse.

@ironchef: I agree. Something's got to be done, but if we are going to spend this enormous amount of money, we should also address the causes of the situation to ensure that the bailout actually changes things in the long term, not just the short term.

700 billion is such an odd number, lets just go for 1 Trillion.

@bilups: I should have said "the market's reaction, for worse, is now linked inextricably to the bailout."

@WickedKoala:

I think the 'NO' responders are probably those who believe that it should not pass as it is currently slated. Very little damage will be done to the economy if this process takes slightly longer and yields a fair and well thought out plan.

Passing legislation as a gut reaction is the kind of thing that causes problems long term. We've done that once or twice this decade, i think most people oppose rushing into something that is 'a sure thing' nowadays.

@valarmorghulis: Agreed and then some. Some of the companies involved, like AIG, are generally sound but need cash to cover an emergency shortfall (maybe we ought to do it like a payday loan (kidding))

@Crymson_77: but if we bail them out now wouldn't it be safe to assume that the same people (greedy people) will do the same thing (be greedy) and we will be facing another, larger, collapse in a decade or two? Why not let them fail now and deal with the consequences? Just load up on rice now and you'll be fine =)

@K J: Blank check governmental power is ALWAYS bad, indeed! :)

@RStewie: Thank you!!! That's what I'm saying. It seemed as though a lot of people I know have been saying "Well, I think the bill should include X" or "...shouldn't include Y". Why is there a bill at all? Let 'em burn, dammit. Wall Street made their bed, they shouldn't be getting a CENT of my money. There are a lot of better things that could be done with $700B.

I keep on hearing we have to get the housing prices back up and housing contruction started again.

W T F-the 'old' housing prices or artifically high/inflated prices they're talking about were created by this subprime mess.

Then with an over supply why do you want to go on another mandated building boom.

No, there should be no bail out. I would rather the money be used to set up regulation, auditing, and quality assurance jobs to manage the rest of the economic mess.

I would also prefer that any company bailed out by the federal government have the C members (CEO, CFO, CMO) have all their family assests seized and pieces of the company autioned off, such as computer equipment, office space, etc.

That way the stock price will be frozen and the proceeds can be used to pay the stock holders first.

I like how we use social responsibility to alleviate private debt...hmm sounds like bankruptcy, and I think those laws should be changed as well.

Provide a "bail out" of citizens. We're saddled with debt (some from our own mistakes). Bail out the consumer and they will give the consumer Liquidity. They will then inject that liquidity into the market as they see fit.

@u1itn0w2day: Its not that housing prices need to get to 2006 prices. Its that property needs to appreciate rather than depreciate.

We don't need a housing boom, we need construction going on.

I support A bailout. I just don't support THIS bailout. You know, Paulson's plan. The one where he gets to spend 700 billion dollars of our money without any oversight or transparency.

@Secret Agent Man:

I agree that the original proposal by Paulson and Barnanke was, for lack of a better word, bizarre.

From what I can tell, the changes that are being made should appease to a lot more people.

The market reactions should tell you exactly how this is going to play out. It went up on just the idea that Congress will pass a bill - imagine them not doing anything at this point - it will retract probably upwards of 30% - at that's just with the news and not necessarily because any other banks have failed.

Why are these people that brought this problem not being thrown in jail? There has got to be something these people can be charged with?

I watched the address last night and had a good long chat about it with my girlfriend [who is financially set thanks to a trust fund]. I don't see how this will help the problem. $700,000,000,000 is absolutely ridiculous. Where the hell is this money coming from?

It was pretty easy to find out how much in debt our country is at $9,700,000,000,000 so I'm just really wondering where this money is coming from.

At 21, working my ass off for a devalued dollar is making paying off my student loans nearly impossible. I had to put my two 12% interest loans into forbearance with partial payments because I simply cannot afford to live anymore. When my lease is up on my tiny apartment I may have to move back in with my parents because I cannot afford to be on my own. I'd rather live at home and help them pay their mortgage off.

WTF is going on? I make decent money. Enough to live on week to week. Nothing is being applied to savings because I simply cannot! I am technically poor according to my tax filings and yet my only debt is student loans that I simply cannot afford to pay.

How is this $700,000,000,000 "bailout" going to help me? I don't have a home. I outright own two depreciating assets, a motorcycle to save on gas and a pos car for when it's raining that was given to me. Why the fuck are there CEO's of these companies getting paid millions a year for ruining our economy? They are ruining everyone's way of life and yet they are worried about their $5 million severance pay? $5 million are you serious?

So all I have to say to our government is "What the fuck"?

Excuse my language really but I just feel like we are being lead like cattle to an abrupt end. We are being stretched far too thin and soon it will snap back right in our faces.

let them die by their own swords.

the financial sector insisted on deregulated open markets and freedom of 'competition'. they swallowed all the little guys and called it 'fair'

and now that they're in trouble they want a handout to 'get back on their feet'? ... they now expect to be treated just like the people on 'welfare' and 'public assistance' that they called 'freeloaders'....

@Toof_75_75: Damn straight. This latest economic crises was manufactured and purposefully done. Is it a coincidence that this is happening close to the election? And how did Bush act so quickly when he was unable to ever act quickly before? I guarantee the bailout plan has been drafted for months. George was hoping he could finally be the hero riding in on a white horse to save us all from economic armageddon. What he didn't count on was the public and congress saying no to his 'brilliant' plan which gives the usual power with no accountability the administration is used to.

And for anyone who has not called their congressman to voice their opinions, here is a link to find who you should call: [www.congressmerge.com]