
If the initial analysis of the U.S. Treasury's $700 billion bailout plan is any indicator of public sentiment, it looks like the people may be way ahead of their public officials -- or public officials are way behind -- depending on your perspective.
There's a sense that the people who will pay for the potential bailout/intervention -- typical citizens -- aren't getting enough in return. These critics say the U.S. taxpayer should get an equity stake as collateral for the loans they may make to various banks/companies, and that the taxpayer should also share in the profits, should they occur.
Further, some question why the taxpayer is being used to bailout the very institutions that were factors in the start and growth of the financial crisis in the first place.
Still others argue why the U.S. Treasury is clamoring to secure hundreds of billions of taxpayer money to prop-up financial institutions and isn't doing more to help homeowners refinance their mortgages to lower rates, and in the process prevent foreclosures that were a major factor in the development (and continuation) of the financial crisis.
And others are wondering why CEO/executive salary caps can not be put in place. If a CEO or an executive doesn't want to participate in the bailout program for fear of not getting a large payout or golden parachute, even though it's in the public interest to do so, why should it be in the public interest to grant his/her company a loan?
U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson argues that the bailout must be large -- $700 billion large -- and passed quickly to avoid a financial system catastrophe and keep credit markets functioning.
And as Congress began to critically review the bailout plan, the dollar has dropped some, overnight interest rates have risen, and the stock market has meandered.
But here's some news for the Bush Administration: prior to the bailout plan, dollar was dropping, overnight interest rates were rising, and the stock market was not exactly confusing anyone with the 'Roaring 20s' bull market.
Keeping in mind that Congress is not likely to approve a policy the public does not support, it makes sense to find out what U.S. taxpayers / readers think.
In your view, what should the U.S. Congress do with the $700 billion bail-out plan? Should Congress:
a) Change it -- The U.S. taxpayer must get collateral or equity for the loans being offered.
b) Defeat it -- It's a lousy plan and no U.S. taxpayer money should be spent on it.
c) Approve it -- It's the best the U.S. taxpayer is going to do.
d) None of the above/something else.
**
Let us know what you think.











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
9-23-2008 @ 6:14PM
Mike Scornavacco said...
The auto market will continuw to suffer as long as the credit crisis continues what the government needs to bail out are the consumers maybe they should give every citizen $500 to cover the cost of Credit Repair help or file for bankruptcy we all saw this coming in 2005 when they tightened the laws the credit situation in this country is in desperate need of help http://www.revolutioncreditsolutions.com for more
9-23-2008 @ 6:18PM
Tony said...
If we provide a loan like a bank. we should get colateral like a bank. If CEO's need the money bad enough the should forefiet some of their perks and salary. A limit should be put on compensation. The officers and directors too.
9-23-2008 @ 6:39PM
Jim D said...
Defeat it.
If the banks are insolvent, then nationalize them, and sell off their assets.
If they're not, then you don't need a bailout.
None of this would be happening if they had to actually account for level 3 assets on their balance sheets at their real price.
Fix transparency, and you fix the market. This bailout only serves to *decrease* transparency.
9-23-2008 @ 6:45PM
Ben said...
Throw it out. It only shift the burden to the taxpayers, and maybe delaying the inevitable a few years.
9-23-2008 @ 6:54PM
william lindblad said...
First, on political science/politics - a very famous 1890's cartoon fits this scenario to a "T". It is the Tammany Hall/Boss Tweed, with all participants in a circle while pointing the finger of blame at the other.
(It's in many high school history books)
As to the bailouts - telling you does little.
I sent MY sentiments to CONGRESS and advise all that care to do so as well.
The Treasury plan - pure un-adulterated B.S. It will cost the taxpayer in the trillions, if adopted. Paulson has known this has been coming since Nov. 07 when he met with Citicorp execs and O.K'd efforts to form a banking super fund. It was in all the news and I guess the members of the Senate and House Banking and Finance committees have no contact with that area, nor do they with Mortgage companies putting 100% financing with "0" down on every known advertising device.
Washington was sleeping - or ignoring a coming financial storm which is now on our doorsteps. I believe that we should do what we can to promote economic stability, even to the extent of limited bailouts. However, in this case, the public cannot tolerate the long trail of gross incompetence - both from business and the political front -
I say NAY - they public is going to bear the brunt of this cost and there is no reason to pad the pockets of those responsible. If I have to go on a potato soup diet - I want the company of those responsible.
9-23-2008 @ 7:27PM
Ed said...
(A) - If part of my taxes are going to pay for someone else's foolishness, then we should at least get a cut.
9-23-2008 @ 7:34PM
Uhohchongo said...
The American public should get collateral and each bank should pay an interest rate based on the risk of default.
9-23-2008 @ 8:00PM
Bill said...
Congress should stick the bailout bill up the a$$ of every "expert" who is saying this is the only way to go to avoid a market meltdown.
They are the fools who got themselves into this mess. Paulson is the former CEO of Goldman/Sachs, who stands to get a lion's share of the bailout money if it happens. Don't forget that Paulson's salary in 2003 at Goldman/Sachs was $30,000,000+.
The market needs to suffer and readjust itself. To the middle class, it is time that you start living within your means. It will cost you the same amount of money to fund the bailout as it will to let the market readjust naturally which would also allow the market to come out of this healthy.
9-23-2008 @ 8:08PM
sally said...
I don't understand, as how we can trust
Mr. Paulson.
He headed Goldman Sachs, and said last year everything looked great.
When Sen. Shumer asked, why cannot we give $150billion, and set a time table, and see how it works, he could not come up with a reason, why that proposal will not work.
Are we intellectually so bankrupt, that this is Mr. Paulson is the best that we can have?
9-23-2008 @ 8:24PM
jls said...
Let the Market correct itself. Like it or not, the market will eventually correct itself and it will be painful. Let the process begin now, rather than waiting for the inevitable. There is nothing to be done to prevent economic evolution. The dye has been cast.
9-23-2008 @ 8:43PM
deb said...
How can one justify bailing out a company whose CEO makes 70million a year plus? We tax payers get the short end of the stick again. Sure, a bailout might help for a minute, but the greed will set in. If one of us has to file bankruptcy, is the government going to bail us out?
9-23-2008 @ 8:33PM
Brenda Miller said...
I think they should fall down on there knees and pray. This is what we taxpayers have to do when we cannot pay our bills, buy food, make mortgage payments, car repossed, buy diapers, pay medical bills. We have noone to bail the taxpayers out. We have to file for bankrupcy and pray we keep our jobs. No, we should not be bailing anyone out with these hard times coming. I can barely pay my own bills without having to pay someone elses because of greed.
9-23-2008 @ 8:41PM
deb said...
How can one justify bailing out companies whose CEO's earn $70million or more a year? This has been along time coming. I say no bailout...let them sell off their assets and do what they should have done....cap their millions of dollar earnings and budget, tighten their belts like we taxpayers have to do. When one of us has to file for bankruptcy, is the goverment going to bail us out?
9-23-2008 @ 8:45PM
Marc Cohen said...
Buy up the highrisk debt at a considerable discount. Offer the holders of the assets a lower interest rate or a longer payout time, to suit their finances.
Hold any further forclosures after that untill the market permits a sale at a reasonable enough cash return to pay out the origional buyout costs + expenses....
This should be a reasonable out for the indebted property holders and a net $0 cost for the taxpayers... And to replinish the cash fund to the banks and other financial bodies to continue to function, with enough sense (or regulation) never to get into that position again.
9-23-2008 @ 8:58PM
MK said...
Throw it OUT !!!! I'll deal with an old fashion reccession. or we can to the McCain plan.
BOMB BOMB BOMB......BOMB BOMB IRAN
9-23-2008 @ 9:17PM
Bill said...
to Marc Cohen:
Which financial or government institution do you work for. The solution to the problem is allow the "financial geniuses" to fail and suffer while the FBI investigates all of them for fraud. It should be quite obvious to anyone with a little common sense that using credit to pay off other credit is a really stupid way to run a business.
9-23-2008 @ 9:40PM
Omar said...
They must change it! - We, the U.S. taxpayer must get collateral or equity for the loans being offered. - Also, no bonus for the executives of the companies that need this “bail out" - Executives should only get bonus if the company they are managing perform!
9-23-2008 @ 9:41PM
jod said...
7000 new 100 million dollar manufacturing plants = 700 Billion
A new electric car for every family=700 Billion
All of our infrastructure fixed =700 Billion
700 Billion Bailout= 000
9-23-2008 @ 9:44PM
NoInform8tion said...
b) Defeat it. I can't even believe they had the nerve to ask the tax payers to bail out the banks. Don't they realize people are losing their homes, going bankrupt, can't afford gas, food, healthcare, etc? Yet they are asking people to bail out the banks that took their homes and started this whole mess? Then Bernanke has the nerve to expect the tax payers to pay the "hold to maturity" price when these banks can't even sell these toxic assets at "fire sale" prices on Wallstreet. They are just trying to make it so these banks can increase the value of these assets on the books, because the "mark to market" accounting is based on what similar assets sold for recently. So they want to overcharge the tax payers and get the money then mark up their books based on the recent bail out prices of these assets. Isn't it bad enough people were overcharged for their homes and many given subprime high interest rates? People are in financial trouble and suffering, asking them to bail out the banks that started this is adding insult to injury. Why don't you ask Bernanke and Paulson to buy up a bunch of these toxic assets at "hold to maturity" prices with their own money as an investment? Bet they wouldn't go near them even at "fire sale" prices. These banks loved the free market when they had big profits so let the free market decide their fate. No more intervention. A depression would be better than helping them. If Congress passes this I can't imagine what will happen, but it won't be pretty.
9-23-2008 @ 10:07PM
tom Kaye said...
Defeat it. We can't reward fiscal irresponsibility by big bankers.