A blog about Personal Journals.
Real Name: ROBERT SABERHAGEN Member Since: March 14, 2006 Last Signed In: December 04, 2008 Profile Views: 385 Blog Views: 2329 EXTERMINATE WHAT ??? Obama "the tool of Satan?" Should government be in the real estate business? Pimp My Bill! Bailout: Deal or No Deal? What you'd get with McCain Palin: I was wrong Palin: Undress For Success What hypocrisy! Where Is The Shame? December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Bailout: Deal or No Deal?
Okay, most people know by now how we got into this financial mess. But blame can be appropriately affixed after the huge financial problem is resolved and the nation's economy back on track. Meanwhile, should the taxpayers, many of whom are victims of Wall Street's greed and the administration's failure, rescue cash starved companies, many of which participated in the cause of the debacle? Your final answer please. 6 comments from 5 users
1
posted by
Wolverines1
on Sep 26, 2008 at 10:14 AM
NO posted by
Btowntv007
on Sep 26, 2008 at 11:07 AM
I would be more pleased with the money going to us as taxpayers. And not some chump change $1200. You want to see some growth in the economy give the people that can spend the money a chance to use it. But that's just my opnion. posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 26, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I want the money used to pay off mortgages in one way or another to keep people in homes, maybe with a lien so the money can be repaid (at least partially) later when the house sells. Alternately, give it to FDIC and let them cover banks as they fail, the way WaMu was handled. Didn't cost us a cent (so far as I know, it's still early.) posted by
Btowntv007
on Sep 26, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I'm with you random. I wouldn't mind seeing go to write down some mortgages, with conditions that homeowners have to stay put for a few years. It would provide stabilty, and a lot of extra cash to put elsewhere. posted by
jfrancais
on Sep 26, 2008 at 11:38 AM
I would be pleased with the money going to a comprehensive universal health care plan to deal with all the people that are going to lose their jobs due to this financial crisis. There was a symposium at my law schooll two days ago and one of the speakers, a doctor, said it would take 123 billion dollars to get it up and running. Apparently we have the money (or the ability to create it) to give up $700 billion. That seems like a cheaper alternative. posted by
sagefever
on Sep 26, 2008 at 01:08 PM
No. That's my final answer. I like your idea RF~ and jfrancais,that is one good question.
1
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS: Loading Stories
Advertisement |