Bailout (rescue) plan for the economy

Henry Plainview wrote: The hilarious thing about this is that most economists support it (such as The Economist), and is the action being taken by rich countries around the world, while it is widely unpopular. I suspect that is because people don't understand it. Which is not to say that one cannot have an informed opinion against it. It's not a handout to the CEOs, why is everyone treating it that way? The government is buying bad debt, this has nothing to do with CEO compensation, and most of them are losing their jobs because of this, and the bill has several provisions limiting their "golden parachute". This is to rescue the economy from a depression so you don't lose your job and your pension. The fact is the credit markets are so clogged nobody can get a loan, which is a problem. It's not ideal, but it's what has to be done. People whining endlessly about "Bail out Main Street not Wall Street!" are missing the point. Feeding Africans is nice, but keeping the world economy from collapsing is better (if the US goes down, so does everyone else), and it would he hard to justify such a monumental cost for anything besides self-preservation. Hahaha, fusionfreak, you're such a hippy. Sorry, music can't change the world.

Of course I am,Henry Plainview.I also know Music can't change the world and perfectly understand your point of view.

The hilarious thing about this is that most economists support it (such as The Economist), and is the action being taken by rich countries around the world, while it is widely unpopular. I suspect that is because people don't understand it. Which is not to say that one cannot have an informed opinion against it.

It's not a handout to the CEOs, why is everyone treating it that way? The government is buying bad debt, this has nothing to do with CEO compensation, and most of them are losing their jobs because of this, and the bill has several provisions limiting their "golden parachute". This is to rescue the economy from a depression so you don't lose your job and your pension. The fact is the credit markets are so clogged nobody can get a loan, which is a problem.

It's not ideal, but it's what has to be done. People whining endlessly about "Bail out Main Street not Wall Street!" are missing the point.

Feeding Africans is nice, but keeping the world economy from collapsing is better (if the US goes down, so does everyone else), and it would he hard to justify such a monumental cost for anything besides self-preservation.

Hahaha, fusionfreak, you're such a hippy. Sorry, music can't change the world.

Edited by Henry Plainview - October 06 2008 at 12:41

even if I'm not in the US, I strongly oppose as this $700 billion could be used to feed all the poor people in the States or in Africa, or anywhere else... realistically, this could be done if everyone had the willingness to do it. It's the same as with money spent in Iraq, wasted money...

IVNORD wrote: It must be noted that none of us knows all the details of the proposed bailout. Neither did anyone hear from experts and specialists on the potential consequences and available options. How can one make a reasonable determination regarding a subject he or she knows about only from newspaper headlines?

IS there any reason why the government cannot take time to think over a reasonable reaction, rather than rushing to the rescue of self serving multi-millionaires with $700 billion of the middle class's money ?
Yes. It's called knee jerk reaction. It's called "we gotta do something so that it looks like we're doing something, no matter what doing, 'cause doing nothing will look like we're doing nothing, even if nothing can be done. Or the best thing that could be done ...

it's the principle of the thing. nobody will bail Joe Average out, but those people who will still live in luxury after having wasted the money of their customers with their speculation games shall get the favor? no thanks. in my opinion they should get 20 years in Folsom for fraudulence

the banks believe in capitalism and free market; it is the rules they like to play by when they win. they have ruined many people's business and fortune that way, cynically saying "well, that's capitalism". and they would strongly oppose any supportive action for other firms. so let them play by these rules when they lose too

Edited by BaldJean - October 01 2008 at 16:53

I definitely support Congress giving me $700 billion of taxpayer money. I'll stimulate the economy with that money, as well as a few other things. 

Support. I think that without it, everyone loses, the consumers as much as the banks.

I'm not American, but I'd support a similar resolution here.