Joined
·
331 Posts
I've been reading a lot lately about Treasury Sec Paulson's proposal for a $700 Billion federal bail-out. I would like to know the opinions on the subject among the users of this fine forum, as even though I may feel different politically with many of the most comon respondents, I feel that this is one place that a reader can oftentimes find some good old "common sense" and also because this really is in no way a partisan issue.
I recently heard a conservative commentator (didn't catch his name, he was a British ex-pat) speak eloquently about the fact that this is the closest to socialism that our government has gotten since the days of the Great Depression, days which according to Sec Paulsen could be imminently approaching our nation. The commentator also thankfully declined to use the "slippery-slope" fallacy that this could lead to other socialistic programs completely taking over our style of governing, he was just making an often overlooked point.
Sec Paulsen is highly respected my members of both parties and seems very credible - but the same was once said of Alan Greenspan, who's shining affirmation of Adjustable Rate Mortages (the infamous ARM!) has helped put our nation into the current plight. Do you guys feel that such extreme measures are justified, and if so, what caps do we put on this? And how do we justify putting this on the backs of the already over-taxed (pun intended) American taxpayer? While it would never happen, I would propose that the CEO's and Boards of these companies which require bailing-out show some faith and gratitude by forgoing their salaries (and ridiculous "performance" bonuses ) for at least the next fiscal year. If they had controlled things properly their companies wouldn't be in this precarious situation in the first place. Of course, it may have been inevitable, as never before has this nation incorporated massive tax cuts with an ongoing war, much less one on two fronts.
Another factor is the fact that many in Congress (unsure of the Administration's stance on this) would like to include banruptcy protection for homeowners suffering the effects of the aforementioned ARMs. Do we continue to be laissez-faire and tell those about to lose their homes that you are going to have to live with your bad decision, no matter who told you it was safe? The point has been brought up that no one forced them into purchasing a home that they would inevitably be unable to afford. However, how can you cover the a** of these major corporations yet tell the average citizen to basically "go pound sand?" And will our economy be able to bounce back if so many people are out in the street with crappy credit ratings?
Neither candidate seems completely sure of how to tackle this immediate situation, and this is also occuring when both the President and Congress have ridiculously low approval ratings. Will the people trust them with this important decision? Do we have a choice?
Hope to hear some good discussion about this - while it may not have any bearing on the issue, its good to hear what other's think about the subject.
Thanks,
-Mike.
I recently heard a conservative commentator (didn't catch his name, he was a British ex-pat) speak eloquently about the fact that this is the closest to socialism that our government has gotten since the days of the Great Depression, days which according to Sec Paulsen could be imminently approaching our nation. The commentator also thankfully declined to use the "slippery-slope" fallacy that this could lead to other socialistic programs completely taking over our style of governing, he was just making an often overlooked point.
Sec Paulsen is highly respected my members of both parties and seems very credible - but the same was once said of Alan Greenspan, who's shining affirmation of Adjustable Rate Mortages (the infamous ARM!) has helped put our nation into the current plight. Do you guys feel that such extreme measures are justified, and if so, what caps do we put on this? And how do we justify putting this on the backs of the already over-taxed (pun intended) American taxpayer? While it would never happen, I would propose that the CEO's and Boards of these companies which require bailing-out show some faith and gratitude by forgoing their salaries (and ridiculous "performance" bonuses ) for at least the next fiscal year. If they had controlled things properly their companies wouldn't be in this precarious situation in the first place. Of course, it may have been inevitable, as never before has this nation incorporated massive tax cuts with an ongoing war, much less one on two fronts.
Another factor is the fact that many in Congress (unsure of the Administration's stance on this) would like to include banruptcy protection for homeowners suffering the effects of the aforementioned ARMs. Do we continue to be laissez-faire and tell those about to lose their homes that you are going to have to live with your bad decision, no matter who told you it was safe? The point has been brought up that no one forced them into purchasing a home that they would inevitably be unable to afford. However, how can you cover the a** of these major corporations yet tell the average citizen to basically "go pound sand?" And will our economy be able to bounce back if so many people are out in the street with crappy credit ratings?
Neither candidate seems completely sure of how to tackle this immediate situation, and this is also occuring when both the President and Congress have ridiculously low approval ratings. Will the people trust them with this important decision? Do we have a choice?
Hope to hear some good discussion about this - while it may not have any bearing on the issue, its good to hear what other's think about the subject.
Thanks,
-Mike.