sigh....this is such a complicated issue.

There are THOUSANDS of better things our government could do with $85B in taxpayer money. I'm glad to pay my taxes, but I do NOT pay them to bail out irresponsible corporations. I pay taxes because I believe they should be returned in the form of public programs and services that benefit every American.

I'm not sure that there are too many options right now. On the one hand, if the banks hadn't made such horrible decisions we wouldn't be in this mess. On the other hand, when the large banks fail like this there are huge reprecussions...far more so than if GM were to fail, for example. It's just way too messy for me to wrap my head around.

I feel as if we're being offered guns or knives, with the only guarantee being lots of pain.

That's a comment I can agree with Stephley.

yeah this i tough. id have to say that bailing out huge investment banks is not really equal to bailing out homeowners facing foreclosure, or people without health insurance. even the language there is skewed.

but all that talk about asking people to be accountable for making their own decisions ("stupid homeowners" who entered into risky mortgages for example)? this is really inexcusable. the cards were stacked in AIG and Lehman Bros' favor - they are supposedly experts in investing and even THEY couldn't see this coming?? is it just me or has the major lesson of the last decade been that people who claim to be experts at something, people who are put in charge to "take care of things", just don't have a clue?

I have a hard time bailing any company out just because they failed to make sound investments. I also understand that the money these companies used was other people's 401ks and other retirement funds. I think we should've let the companies fail, but made sure the individual investors (the little guys) don't loose their retirement investments.

My first reaction to the "failure tax" is that it could be a great idea. It sounds easy enough, but who knows. I don't see why banks can't be as accountable as other businesses. I can understand why customers would want the government to step in--to save their butts too, but where do you draw the line?

FYI, your post says it is an $85 million bailout, but the actual figure is $85 BILLION in taxpayer money.

The thing is that it isn't just the companies that made bad investments that are failing. The original companies that handed out mortgages then bundled and misrepresented the risks they contained and essentially sold that to other companies. When it was time to pay THEIR debts, the money wasn't coming in and they couldn't pay their debt to the other company. In some cases right now, it is the 2nd company that was owed that is being harmed. It would be nice to think that only the people that were foolish are getting squashed now, but that isn't the case.

If your books do not represent the risk you are taking, it hurts many businesses.

When we bail them out, isn't that money borrowed as well...do we even have all this money with the deficit being 9.6 trillion dollars and counting?...
These are banks, when they don't approve our loans it's because we have poor credit from not budgeting wisely...shouldn't they have done a better job? The only thing I think the government should do is honor the FDIC insured amount and possibly work with each individual to grant a settlement receive payments from the bank over time.

I think it is a terrible thing, and it makes me very angry, but I haven't heard a single economist from a variety of sources argue that we would be better off if they didn't make this loan. I really don't like it, but if things would be ten times worse with out it, I guess that is what we have to deal with for letting our industry get so deregulated that it implodes. Not all regulation is good, of course, but some regulation is very necessary.

I agree with HeidiMD. The fact that we are helping out billion dollar corporations who are irresponsible, makes me sick. It totally disguists me! There is so many other ways our hard earned tax money can be spent!

Think of allllllllll the money we could spend on corporate bail outs, and education, and homelessness, and mental illness treatment, and supporting our veterans, and fixing the mortgage crisis--if only we did not have 10 billion going out the door every month on the war.

I am totally on board with what everyone is saying but imagine what would happen if this company was not helped by the government. The influence of this would be huge all over the world, it would shock an already fragile economic system that we have in the world today...

just putting that out there...

also I heard that the $85 billion is more than the GNP of Australia annually.... that's a whole country...that blows my mind.

Wow - love your comment Mesayme!

UD, i agree 100%! Put that $85B towards people who had their lives tied up in that company. I don't think we should be saving the CEO's.

i think that it's ok that the feds are doing what they are doing - since there's mass pandamonium, and this is a solution. i know that a lot of people feel like these choices are making it seem like it's ok for companies to make bad choices, but it's not reassuring to the public if things go under. the feds are charging high interest on the loans, so the reserve will make money off these deals that they are doing - so when all is said and done - we'll be in better shape.

i thikn that these corporations realize that their practices were NOT in the best interest of the American public, and i think that moving forward there will be new checks and balances put into place so that we're not finding ourselves repeating history.

i'm really scared about my investments right now - and although they are in one of the 'secure' banks at the moment, nothing is absolute, and i would literally die if my money disappeared because of a bankruptcy. the government is trying to reaffirm that the country isn't going to 'h^ll in a handbasket' and i think that it's the right move for right now.

ilanac, I believe that money is covered by FDIC up to $100,000.

Jill, you're correct!

I posted this on another thread, but I think it works here too.

"Wasn't McCain like Anti-Regulations??"

Yes.

NYT:
"In early 1995, after Republicans had taken control of Congress, Mr. McCain promoted a moratorium on federal regulations of all kinds. He was quoted as saying that excessive regulations were “destroying the American family, the American dream” and voters “want these regulations stopped.” The moratorium measure was unsuccessful."

“I’m always for less regulation,” he told The Wall Street Journal last March(2007), “but I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight” in situations like the subprime lending crisis, the problem that has cascaded through Wall Street this year. He concluded, “but I am fundamentally a deregulator.”

Later that month (2007), he gave a speech on the housing crisis in which he called for less regulation, saying, “Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.”

His record speaks for itself!

NO, because gov't interference in the economy is never good.

yy, I agree.

It's easy for a couple to get a little greedy and take on a stupid mortgage. They arguably didn't know what they were doing.

But for these financial companies that are supposedly experts? They were greedier and stupider, imo.

Now, I don't really think that either the individual or the bank should be bailed out on principle, but I'll admit right now I don't have the knowledge to understand the repercussions of both decision paths.

ilinac, your Morgan Stanley investments and cash are safe up to $250,000 which I posted for you on another thread. Your bank holdings are safe to $100,000. I have a feeling your "literal death" isn't imminent.

I've never had my money in a bank, but I would think that those who have investments tied up in one would like to see their fortunes salvaged if it were to come to that point.

Under your mattress hypno?