Pick the poll choice that most closely resembles your opinion on the bailout.

Bailout perhaps, I really don't like the message it sends, but it may be necessary. Bill as written absolutely not.

As of now, the bill has no accountability or oversight. There have to be provisions that don't just give the administration carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want. Dems are trying to add such provisions, as well as provisions for home owners themselves and not just big financial institutions - changes that Republicans oppose.

there are some provisions I would like to see added before I can agree with a bill of this size.

My thought is that steps should have been taken sooner to prevent this tsunami we've been having. Things like continuing to lower interests rates and not doing something more proactive like coming up with a plan to turn all the homeowners in bad mortgages by adjusting the ARMS to fixed rates and providing extended grace periods. I think drastic things like going hard out to find buyers for the homes even at a Loss which is inevitable at this point now should be done. Get people in who can afford the homes and who can pay the mortgages. As for the bailouts themselves, I think Fred/Fan are to integral a part of our system to let go but every other company needs to go brankrupt if that's how things were going to be instead of us shouldering their junk debt.

I don't think we should do it unless we get something in return for taking on the bad debt, some form of partial ownership of banks that dump a lot of debt onto the govt. Some kind of stake and accountability.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The original legislation we saw said that you would be buying up the mortgage-related assets from financial institutions having headquarters in the United States. Yet last night, the fact sheet put out by the Treasury seemed to expand that. It said only that the financial institutions have to have significant operations in the U.S., and that you could waive that at your discretion.

So, will foreign financial institutions be eligible to have their assets bought?

PAULSON: Yes, and they should, because as you think about this, if a financial institution has business operations in the United States, hires people in the United States, if they are clogged with illiquid assets, they have the same impact on the American people as any other institution.

That’s a distinction without a difference to the American people. The key here is about protecting the system.[..]

But, remember, this is about protecting the American people and protecting the taxpayers. And the American people don’t care who owns the financial institution. If a financial institution in this country has problems, it’ll have the same impact…


In the words of Lando Calrissian: "This deal is getting worse all the time."

People are starting to say that this reminds them of the run-up to the Iraq War where the administration scared the congress into giving them lots of power quickly.

I know but really last Wednesday was D-day for markets.

The Financial system was about to collapse that day, I assure you that...

I guess it has to be done
though....
-banks have to shut up in the future when the staate is looking them a bit closer on the fingers
-And folks in the US have to learn that you have to pay your bills with money and not a credit
otherwise in a few years we are talking again about a bailout when the credit market does crash.

Its time America stop pretending they are conservative...


Clearly you guys forget the concept of "fiscal conservatism"


-don't go beyond your means...