Comments on: Making Sense Of The Financial Deal–Updated

By: Earl Greco

Earl Greco — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:16:46 +0000

This bailout and how to solve it is over my head. Let me just say this I am 81 years old the youngest of nine, seven boys two girls.
All seven of us inlisted in WW11.
That said although i was only a child during the great deprestion i do remember this. We owned a house that we could not pay the mortgage which was owned by a lawyer.
My mother went to the lawyer and made a deal to pay just the interest until my father could find a job.after some years we begain to pay principal and interest.What would happen if thoes that are unable to pay there mortgage had a one rear moratorium on the princible and just paid the interest.At least thease homes will not be vacant and no one will loose there home.Just a thought my mother did it with nine kids at a time when we had beens and bread as a daily diet.Just a tought.

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:16:17 +0000

I just read on the comcast homepage that a deal on the bailout was likely to go through. I actually had a queasy feeling in my stomach while reading it. First of all, this is being done “in the hopes of unlocking frozen credit” according to the article. In the hopes of? What happens if those hopes aren’t met? $700 billion flushed down the toilet of corruption, that’s what. Has anybody considered that this problem of defaulted mortgages is only the first wave of many? If the economy doesn’t take a fairly dramatic upward swing, it seems apparent that we will be faced with more of the same. Then what? $700 billion more? I think giving the money to the financial institutions that are largely responsible for creating this mess is foolish, shortsighted, and wrong. The article I read also indicated that there was a chance for taxpayers to share in the financial companies’ future profits. Really? How’s that supposed to work? Will the taxpayer ever see a dime of any money that may be recouped? Hell no. Just look at the way the Social Security surpluses have been handled if you have any illusions about the government’s stewardship of your money. And the notion of getting any sort of return is predicated on the assumption that these firms don’t go under first. Living on credit is not indefinitely sustainable. Sooner or later the fiddler will have to be paid, and the longer we put it off, the more expensive and painful it will be. This bailout is merely a postponement of the inevitable if we Americans don’t stop living a life of entitlement based on credit.

By: Trish

Trish — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:21:42 +0000

A lot of honest working people are going to get crushed by this, no matter which way it goes. The taxpayers will have to pay, no matter which way it goes. At the moment it really is a choice of the lesser of two (or several) evils.

By: Why is ACORN in The Bailout? | Right Voices

Why is ACORN in The Bailout? | Right Voices — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:11:42 +0000

[...] Making Sense Of The Financial Deal–Updated « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier [...]

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:33:12 +0000

You asked if Wall Street deserves a do-over. Do they ever give investers who lose their money in the market a do-over, or is that just the way things go for the hapless schmuck that made a bad investment decision? Wall Street can kiss my ass. The bailout is wrong simply on principle. The people that created this mess were benefitting greatly when everything was rolling along. They weren’t sharing that benefit with me. In fact, they got greedier. Now, it goes south for them, due to foreseen circumstances, NOT UNforeseen. And they want to share the negative results, penalties, consequences, whatever you want to call it, with you, me, and everybody else. No. They can deal with it. They can suffer, just like the rest of us plebs. See, these people have lost touch with the common person. They don’t know how to suffer, they’ve forgotten. And anything that looks like discomfort, or worse, outright loss and failure, well, that is cause for panic and a declaration of crisis, because it’s them. It looks to me like lower and middle class America is being EXPECTED to save the ultra rich from having to participate in the pain of this. They don’t want to have to give up an extravagant way of life, and buckle down and exist like so many others do. Tough shit, I say. It also occurs to me that many, if not all of the politicians that are in favor of the bailout measure stand to lose a lot of investment money themselves if it doesn’t go throuh. This seems like a huge conflict of interest to me. Has anybody said anything about that? I’ve read and listened to a lot of statements about the effect this bailout money is supposed to have. All I’ve heard and read is if, might, should, may, will hopefully, could…. That doesn’t sound the least bit promising to me, in fact, it sounds just the opposite, like monumental disaster. Greed precipitated this problem, and throwing a mountain of money into the mix is no way to contend with greed.

By: Glynn W.

Glynn W. — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:21:52 +0000

ummmmm golly . . . do I really have to say this? You see, Tom Cruise does not make 20 million TAXPAYER dollars. He makes 20 million MOVIEGOER dollars.

See the difference?

Your socialist bailout of Bush’s economic catastrophe would make Castro proud.

Go ahead, eight years of Bush’s ineptitude, and you would blame the Dems? Brought to you by the same folk who started a fool war with Iraq after being attacked by Afghanistan. . .

By: Naqamel

Naqamel — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:50:19 +0000

The current economic woes, with cause and responsibility: Watch this video. Summary: Carter, Clinton, Pelosi, Obama and the Democrats are to blame for this mess. Electing Obama to "fix" the economy is akin to letting the inmates at the asylum prescribe their own medicine.