No. what utter insanity. my verdict would be the same today as it was when I wrote my own post on this last night: we would get the dictatorship we deserve.
colejolley
· 1 year ago
Already have that.
anon
· 1 year ago
No. But I guess my opinion probably doesn't count since I'm Canadian.
Hrm
· 1 year ago
I guess the congress will authorize some sort of bailout. It will probably cost more like a trillion dollars. The Feds have already added nearly half a trillion in liquidity to capital markets in the two weeks before the current bailout situation. So, the national debt has just gone up 10%, in the wink of an eye. Health care reform is being swapped, tit-for-tat, to Wall St. And both sides will be guilty. Cheers!
Michael Markman (Mickeleh)
· 1 year ago
Two words: Hell, no. (I cleaned that up.)
justcorbly
· 1 year ago
Lots of strings are needed. Bush and the GOP are not to be trusted.
The bailout should be accompanied by legislation mandating new regulatory bodies to keep the bastards from doing it all over again.
Cher Tanner
· 1 year ago
Giving George W. Bush a blank check is exactly how we ended up in a war in Iraq with the current fear he might insanely move into a war with Iran before he's done. You know the old saying, "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice ..." So forget strings, that $7,000,000,000.00 need to have umbilical chords attached unless we want it to go missing just like the pallet of 8,000,000.00 sent in hundred dollar bills to Iraq that is still unaccounted for!!
Joel
· 1 year ago
Dave,
You might find Credo Action's "No Blank Check for Wall Street" pertinent here.
My gut says hell no! But the problem is that their holding us hostage with economic collapse (or so they say). But my gut felling is that we're just about to get robed blind.
Joe Ranft
· 1 year ago
No.
What's the money for? Buying worthless assets? How about buying the actual properties (instead of the worthless "paper"), then selling the property back for what they are really worth. That seems to make more sense. Give the current owner a chance to buy back their home for what it's really worth.
I'd pay taxes for that, but not for some vague notion that there is no liquidity in the credit markets. What does that even mean?
Dave Petersen
· 1 year ago
No, not without substantial change. Having read the text of the document, in particular under Sec. 2(b)(2) and Sec. 8, which suspend Government contracting rules, and cancel normal oversight protection from the courts and executive branch auditors, I've got another questions for McCain and Obama.
Can you govern within the system of checks and balances setup by the constitution, and in accordance with the laws and regulations established to limit abuse of power by our government. In short, government is not a business, it has different rules. Can you govern?
Rajesh
· 1 year ago
Hell no! Iraq Part II - no oversight, no accountability, and no money for needs other than wall street executive bonuses
DHoover
· 1 year ago
No, but since when do we, the people, really have a say in what we want. Scare the populace and take their freedoms and money. Who cares about their lives, they are all "expendable" seems to be the way the people at the "top" think. My only suggestion to all my fellow "sufferors" is to get your debt as low as you can. Maybe just a modest house payment and car payment that you can make easily even if you need to bag groceries or something for a living. That way if they take most of the money and jobs, the pain won't be so bad as it would be with tens of thousands of dollars in debt on credit cards that have out rageous interest rates. "Neither a lender nor borrower be' really fits at this point in our history if you want to sleep with little worry at night..
Bryan "bytehead" Price
· 1 year ago
NFW. But it's going to happen anyway.
fdsa
· 1 year ago
I heard Halliburton just opened a financial services unit in D.C.
Ken Hudak
· 1 year ago
No, not to Bush. But if it's a non-partisan effort I can bear it.
Notice how much more airtime Ron Paul is getting? The MSM is starting to listen to his Fed arguments
Pete Prodoehl
· 1 year ago
I think we're beyond strings.... we may need some rope.
Chris Barnes
· 1 year ago
No way. I have not heard one reasonable scenario for what terrible events this is supposed to prevent.
einarvollset
· 1 year ago
No. Why:
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
wvtechie
· 1 year ago
Not no, but HELL NO.
TooFarGone
· 1 year ago
No. Who bails out me? I've become overextending on credit, my bad. I'm losing my house, and it's causing issues with my marriage. I've got debt, 2 kids in college, and an SUV that sucks gas like it's water. Again, my bad. I'm paying for it all.
I suggest those risk takers on Wall Street do the same.
All Comments
The bailout should be accompanied by legislation mandating new regulatory bodies to keep the bastards from doing it all over again.
You might find Credo Action's "No Blank Check for Wall Street" pertinent here.
My best,
Joel
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/no_blank_ch...
What's the money for? Buying worthless assets? How about buying the actual properties (instead of the worthless "paper"), then selling the property back for what they are really worth. That seems to make more sense. Give the current owner a chance to buy back their home for what it's really worth.
I'd pay taxes for that, but not for some vague notion that there is no liquidity in the credit markets. What does that even mean?
Can you govern within the system of checks and balances setup by the constitution, and in accordance with the laws and regulations established to limit abuse of power by our government. In short, government is not a business, it has different rules. Can you govern?
"Neither a lender nor borrower be' really fits at this point in our history if you want to sleep with little worry at night..
Notice how much more airtime Ron Paul is getting? The MSM is starting to listen to his Fed arguments
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
I suggest those risk takers on Wall Street do the same.