Voting for the bailout will change nothing, but only create more debt for us and our children, grandchildren to pay. We have already seen gas, food, utilities, etc. People losing their homes to foreclosure, people losing their jobs to overseas. Nothing will change but that we are bailing out the banks and they will continue to do the same thing that got them into this mess to begin with! And we will get stuck footing the bill!

zoom - both presidential candidates have made it clear they will not raise taxes except for Obama on a small section of $250k+ citizens. And Obama already has spending increases in mind for his tax increases (despite not having a balanced budget)
--
Spending cuts ??? McCain only promises to veto pork barrel spending which accounts for less than .05% of the budget.
This leaves inflation, or creating money from nothing. Which we all would have paid for with future higher prices. Inflation is the worst tax has it hurts lower income citizens the worst.

I never said the bailout was to directly help homeowners with mortgages. In fact, I pointed that out in a previous post below.

Taxpayers will pay for the bailout the same way they will pay for a depression in the economy, with increased taxes and reduced government spending. The question you should be asking is, which will cost more? At least if the government buys the mortgage backed securities held by the banks, and sells them off over time at a reduced price, the banks will then be free of those debts to lend money to farmers and businesses so they can continue to function, and fewer people will lose jobs. The alternative are huge job losses and even higher national debt. The administration and Fed don't want to alarm people, for fear of mass economic panic, but it is a reality. That's why even fiscully conservative Republicans voted for the Bill.

The "fat cats" have already made their money and run. I don't care about the stock market. The bill provides some taxpayer security, and just gets us through, so we can fix the system.

zoom - can you answer my question I posed to you in a previous comment on how U.S. taxpayers would have paid for the bailout ?

Do not be fooled. The $700 billion (ultimately $1 trillion or more) bailout is not predominantly for mortgages and homeowners. Instead, the bailout is for mortgage-backed securities. Such claims have no bearing on the mortgage or housing crisis; they have bearing only on the holders of these securities themselves. These are ridiculously risky claims with little value for society. The government should not intervene. Each time it does, our country suffers more.

janesvillecomments said: "I think the economy is going to experience a crash either way, why not let the big banks fail and the investors take their lumps? Send a signal that the U.S. Government isn't everybody's piggy bank."

THIS ISN'T ABOUT INVESTORS! This about the failure of our banking system. The banks that survive will stop lending, for fear of not being repaid. If farmers and businesses can't get short term loans, they fail, and people are out of work. If people and businesses can't pay taxes, out national debt continues to climb. The Bill is a lesser of two evils, unfortunately.

SarahB said: "The United States has sent funds to countries around the globe many times over for just about every reason possible. Too bad not a single country has returned the good tidings and offered to help us with this economic mess."

Good idea, but unfortunately, the rest of the world is invested in our market, and they are being hurt also. A few banks in Europe are now being bailed out by their own governments. This has worldwide consequences.

I urge you to listen to Paul Ryan's opinion of the situation. Most Americans just don't know what the failure of this Bill truly means.
http://wclo.com/podcasts/wclo-news-featu...

On the members of the house and senate. The interesting and very telling part of yesterdays vote was not about who voted which way, it was about WHY who voted which way. The majority of those in the house up for re-election this year were protected by their party and allowed to vote against the bill knowing the tax-payers are in darn near full revolt over the measure. So truth-be-told, they voted to protect their jobs first not help our country first. Those in the Senate got sit back and watch and learn of the reaction from the house measure before voting on the senate measure 2-3 days later?? Why did the senate have to wait before voting….ah, yes, there again is that pesky instinct to protect their jobs instead of doing their jobs! Another perfect example of why term limits are needed to protect Americans from government politicians.

How about we fire them? The work for us don't they? They don't always show up for work, they overspend, and they obviously don't do what we want them too.

Did Congress vote to give themselves raises this year? Does anyone know? To me this is another thing that needs to be changed. If I could vote to get a raise every year it would be more than 4%, which unless you're making $25/hour is less than a $1.

Lastly, I think that our legislators need to see the blog. May be get an idea of how the REAL people feel.

Here's a thought...call in all the loans outstanding from the rest of the world payment due within 60 days in full. Scale back all overseas military and bring them stateside. Post military personnel at the Mexican border. Send others to locate illegals and escort them out of the country. Oh and lets not forget, the rich and powerful in office; take a paycut (you aren't worth what your paid); anyone with income/assets over $1 million a year pay in $1 million to the government to bail them out. Of course, feel free to kick in more than $1 million.

i think we may have a small outstanding foreign debt.

The United States has sent funds to countries around the globe many times over for just about every reason possible. Too bad not a single country has returned the good tidings and offered to help us with this economic mess.

I like Russell Crowe's suggestion (mentioned on the Tonight Show) to fix the financial problem. Take the first 300 Million and give $1,000,000 to every American citizen. Congress can't even balance it's own budget. Having them take on Wall Street's problems doesn't sound correct.
.
I think the economy is going to experience a crash either way, why not let the big banks fail and the investors take their lumps? Send a signal that the U.S. Government isn't everybody's piggy bank.
.
Whomever winds up President should use the current economic problems as a reason to seriously reduce foreign aid, pull our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea and Europe. Europe is all one big EU family and the Russians are no longer Commies. Let France, Germany, and the other countries spend their own money for national defense.
.
We need to have a None Of The Above option in our elections. See http://nota.org/ In the mean time, if any politician or pollster starts to ask you about issues, tell them: "I'm not interested in discussing anything until you pass and get two consecutive balanced budgets signed into law. If you can't balance the People's checkbook, you shouldn't be holding a political office."

BillyClydePuckett - ok, I see your question..The FDIC is funded by premiums that banks pay for deposit insurance coverage. The bailout would have been funded by taxpayer dollars (actually dollar creation which the taxpayers would have paid for by still higher prices).
Moethebartender - I can never decide whether the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is more important to our Republic.

Raystone, Putting money in a bank means that the depositor agrees to allow the bank to lend the money to others in return for the interest that the depositor recieves. Using your logic, why should I pay for someone who loses money by depositing their money in a bank that has made bad loans or investments and is unable to return the deposit? Isn't that a bailout for the depositor.

Moe...right on! We may need to bring that document back for an encore!

BillyClydePuckett - FDIC is different from the failed mortgage bailout.
Putting money into a bank, insured or not, is quite different from taking out a risky mortgage on a property you can't really afford, then hoping the interest rate doesn't go up, and relying on the property value to increase 10% annually.
-
Did you read the bailout proposal ? If so, you read that the treasury wanted to purchase “troubled assets” (residential mortgages) from “financial institutions”. This means the government would have owned homes. Government owning our homes is one of the 10 planks of communism.

This will teach those fat cats, those greedy corporations, those money grubbing capitalists. You should be jailed, burned at the stake and your assets should be confiscated.

Oh, by the way, will a couple of you please put your next plant or office building in Janesville, we really need the jobs.

Just curious if all those who think that this was a bad idea also believe that we should eliminate FDIC insurance on individual bank deposits. Let the consumer montior the actions of their banks and if the bank holding their money goes under then let the depositor beware. Right?

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

DavidG - related to Paul Ryan ?? neither you nor Paul Ryan have explained how another $700B to the Federal Reserve and Treasury, the organizations that have told us for the last several years our economy (including the housing industry) was fundamentally sound, would "rescue" the situation. Treasury secretary Paulson admitted $700B was a round number he came up that sounded good.
-
Can you answer the question? How would the U.S. taxpayers have paid for the bailout ?
-

Hey, I'm impressed. After being listed as a likely "No" vote, congressman Ryan actually voted "Yes". He clearly understood the consequences and probably realized that a stable credit market was worth getting hit by a lot of his supporters. However we get out of this mess, we have to find a way to get to the root cause and determine the real value of these mortgage based securities. This plan would have helped in that regard. I suppose the pain will have to continue to get some real action out of this congress. Thanks Congressman Ryan.

Good move, happycamper. Although I don't see why it was ever in your yard in the first place...

So what happened to McCain coming in to the rescue? Lot of good he did at bringing them together. What a joke!

I am pulling the Ryan sign out of my yard! His vote shown me he has never worked a day in his life outside of the government!

The Answer- Part two
http://wclo.com/podcasts/stan-milam-show...

The Problem-
The people elected to political office can no longer solve the problems of our country! In many cases, they are more a symbol of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Lobbyists & special interest money has captivated the allegiance of our elected officials and dictate public policy through campaign contributions.

The extremes of each party (the Base), has most of the campaign money and workers. They, along with the media, control political campaigns.

The media, like many divorce attorneys, don’t care who wins, they just want the fight! They make the lion’s share of campaign money!

Just like Christmas advertising, the campaigns start earlier and earlier each time. By the time we get near the election most people just want it to get over and they don’t really see a big difference in either political party.

The Answer-
http://wclo.com/podcasts/stan-milam-show...

A lot of the "bad people" who made predatory loans have already closed their doors and run away with their money. They sold those bad mortgages to the big financial institutions who bundled them up, got AAA ratings (somehow) and resold them again. Now the end buyers are getting stuck with illiquid assets. So the real "thieves" already got away.
*
Does this mean I support the bail out? No. I think it would help in the short run, but be worse in the long run. The Bush administration has every incentive to go with a quick, short-term fix and leave the really bad consequences for the next President. So why should we buy into their fear tactics?
*
I'm surprised that Paul Ryan voted yes. He was in the main group of congressmen opposing the bill in the first place. Not sure of his reason for supporting it now.

"Execute order 66"

Our Government failed us AGAIN! I think its time for us, the U.S. citizens, to start thinking about a new form of government. Maybe one that IS actually OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE!!!!

zoom - how would the U.S. taxpayers pay for the bailout ?
-
with taxes ? we are already $750B+ into deficit spending for this year's budget.
-
by printing more money and adding it to the ecomony ? then prices for everything increase through inflation, and U.S. taxpayers lose more of their wealth.
-
the free market has to work this out. And hopefully the Federal Reserve private banking system and government regulation do not create similiar false prosperity bubbles again.

What I don’t understand is, they are taking this money out of taxes that I (and others like me) pay correct? So why is it my problem that the banks loaned to people that didn’t pay the loans back. I have two loans and pay them on time every time… why do I have to suffer because someone else isn’t responsible? I understand people coming together and joining as one and being a good citizen, but what has the government given me lately? More taxes, dead soldiers, higher mortgage rates, higher gas prices, higher food prices…. The list goes on and on, and it’s not a good list. I wouldn’t expect to punish my child for something his friend did just so that he would understand what COULD happen…. I do believe that we have some intelligent people in our US Government, so they must think of something else that will bring our economy and quality of life back to what the American People expect and deserve. I do not believe in this bill and hope for the sake of my children and their children and so on that we as a country can figure this out.

Also, in my personal opinion, and please take this with a grain of salt….. I don’t understand the term “they lost their house”…. You can’t lose your house, you get it taken back from the “person” that helped you buy it. It’s the mortgagee’s fault that they didn’t pay their loan. (Again, just an opinion)

There wasn't a single major economist consulted during the negotiations, by either side. A number of them are recommending a temporary nationalization along the lines of what Sweden's conservative government did in 1992 after a similar housing bubble burst, threatening the financial sector across Scandinavia. The long-term cost to Swedish taxpayers was much smaller.

"It was to bail out the big banks AFTER people lost their homes."

Nobody ever said the Bill would help people stay in their homes. The Bill was to prevent a collapse of our economy...basically a lesser of two evils. Without a Bill, banks will stop lending to other banks, for fear of not being repaid, due to the existing bad debt (mortgage backed securities) they are carrying. Without cash to lend, banks will stop lending to businesses. If a business does not have enough cash for daily operations, they will have to close and/or go bankrupt. Unemployment will increase. Credit will dry up. Even existing credit card limits will be reduced.

Yes, all the bad things could still happen if the Bill was passed, but at least the Bill gave us a chance to minimize the downturn, and spread the cost out over years.

Just A thought here, but why not instead of bailing out all these banks that made bad loans knowing full well upfront that the person would probably lose everything in the end, What if the Government did A consumer bailout plan (now hear me out then blast me if you must)in this plan the government would pay your bad debts to these banks help put you back in control of your finances, help you from filing bankruptcy and in turn by paying off your loans this also gets the banks their money so finally its A win win deal! People realize this A win win doesn't happen these days unless your from A foriegn country, or you are A foriegn country our government usually bail you out, this seems like A great plan to me with A few minor adjustments and it being A suppervised Gov. plan this would work! OK now its everybodies turns to tell me why I'm wrong and why this wouldn't work.

True about Pelosi staying quiet but Reps should have a mind of their own. And yes the CEO pay must stop now. As we know well dealing with the GM CEO, they seem to think like a certain candidate for Pres. that the middle class income is about 5 mil per year or so. DUH!!! I wish!!

I'm with you Russ. This bill wasn't about keeping people in their homes. It was to bail out the big banks AFTER people lost their homes.

"Both parties are complete failures. Neither party puts the people first, they only look at what is the least they can do, so that the boat is not rocked, and then they are reelected to do the same BS again."

That, I will agree with. Pelosi should have kept her mouth shut, and the few Republicans that changed there vote because of her comments need to grow a pair.

"...because this thing failed to do anything but enrich fat cat CEO's of failed companies."

CEO compensation of failed companies would have been limited under the Bill. That statement confirms by belief that the average American doesn't even know how the Bill would work, or what the consequences will be for doing nothing.

The Democrats have enough votes to pass anything they want in the House, without a single Republican vote. If they thought this bailout was so great, why didn't Pelosi lead her caucus to victory? Truth is, they needed Republicans to vote for this hideous piece of garbage for political cover when they face angry constituents because this thing failed to do anything but enrich fat cat CEO's of failed companies.

Both parties are complete failures. Neither party puts the people first, they only look at what is the least they can do, so that the boat is not rocked, and then they are reelected to do the same BS again.

About 60% of Democrats and fewer than 33% of Republicans voted for the measure.

What was your point again?

You do know that 2/3 of Republicans voted against it right? You might want to reconsider your statement.

Feel free to use this letter to send to Congressman Ryan or Congresswoman Baldwin. Change as you see fit. They both voted for the bailout which would have taken $2,300 of your wealth and given it to corporate banks:
---
September 29, 2008
The Honorable Paul Ryan/Tammy Baldwin
House of Representatives
Washington, DC
---
Re: HR 3997
---
Representative Ryan/Baldwin:
---
The vote on HR 3997 of September 29, 2008 will go down in history as a day when taxpayers woke up enough, put down their beers, stopped watching the football game, and let their congressmen and women know they had enough; our labor will not be used as collateral to bailout failed Wall Street businessmen and bankers!
--
I'm sorry that you have chosen to be on the side of history that will be considered the apologists for the central bankers and their cronies. You will be remembered as one that fought with the Bush Administration, the bankers, and the naïve, against the American people. Once again they tried to fool congress with fear and false information. I would think you would learn a lesson after 8 years of this administration’s misrepresentations.
--
I recognize that you may have simply been manipulated by the fear mongering and arm-twisting by the powers that be. This is little excuse. You were elected to represent us, your constituents, and you sided with the bankers. You were elected to understand economics, taxes, our banking system, and assuming you are the good intentioned person I think you are, you don’t.
-
I am glad you lost this vote, and look forward to making sure that you lose re-election.
-
Sincerely,
-
American Citizen & Taxpayer

maybe now the legislators will realize that the American people are "sick & tired" of these 20 million dollar bonus's & "golden parachutes"??
Ya think ????

Interesting...
It's going to be a bumpy ride with or without this bill.