Question for Pro-Bailout People

KingCondanomation

New member
If this bailout goes through and some time later (weeks, months) Bush, Obama or congress or the fed starts calling for another needed bailout, would you then support that too?

I am curious to the answer but I don't think it will matter because the public is never going to go for another one right? It's hard enough getting this passed.

And from what I've read it is likely there will be other companies that will go under. So is it really worth pushing for this one?
 
This is pretty hypothetical, but it would depend on the circumstances. My initial reaction would be to say "no."

The only reason I support this one is because I don't see another option. I have come to believe that if this or something like it doesn't happen, the effects will be pretty far-reaching & long lasting, and my own life will be affected fairly dramatically...
 
the job is too big for any one person my unread post total is growing. over 1,000 now


Damo I need a helper. can you find Toby ?
 
"“Things are dying and breaking apart while they sit there and vote on this thing,” Marc Pado, U.S. market strategist at Cantor Fitzgerald.

This is what it is; I know it's not good to "rush" something like this, but it's not good to wait, either.

They have to go back & craft something new now. In the interim, companies will fail, more investors will pull out for good and more jobs will be lost. That's just the reality.
 
"“Things are dying and breaking apart while they sit there and vote on this thing,” Marc Pado, U.S. market strategist at Cantor Fitzgerald.

This is what it is; I know it's not good to "rush" something like this, but it's not good to wait, either.

They have to go back & craft something new now. In the interim, companies will fail, more investors will pull out for good and more jobs will be lost. That's just the reality.

No guarantee that will not happen anyway.
this pretty much only addresses the credit and finiancial corporate issues. We have plenty more.
 
No guarantee that will not happen anyway.

That's kind of like saying we shouldn't have a military, because there might be a successful attack against us, anyway.

Not good enough for me. At least with the bailout, there's a shot it could work. Without it, I think we're screwed.
 
This is pretty hypothetical, but it would depend on the circumstances. My initial reaction would be to say "no."

The only reason I support this one is because I don't see another option. I have come to believe that if this or something like it doesn't happen, the effects will be pretty far-reaching & long lasting, and my own life will be affected fairly dramatically...

Sorry I did not know that.
 
That's kind of like saying we shouldn't have a military, because there might be a successful attack against us, anyway.

Not good enough for me. At least with the bailout, there's a shot it could work. Without it, I think we're screwed.

Nope Bush guaranteed it will not work by saying it would. but then Dano says it will not work which means it will....


connundrum catch 22 time.....
Smoke comes from ears.. reboot time....

anyway onceller yours is not a good comparison.

kinda like pissing on only one species of tree in a forest fire and expecting the whole thing to go out. well we killed the buring oiks so the pines , etc will be ok now.
 
Sorry I did not know that.

Well, I'm only talking about my life as a working American. I'm not intimately involved with the market.

I don't think people get it. When the market tanks, like it is, for a long time, every single person who gets a paycheck anywhere is affected in some way. Consumer spending is the first to go, and that's the only thing that's been keeping us afloat.
 
Well, I'm only talking about my life as a working American. I'm not intimately involved with the market.

I don't think people get it. When the market tanks, like it is, for a long time, every single person who gets a paycheck anywhere is affected in some way. Consumer spending is the first to go, and that's the only thing that's been keeping us afloat.

Well, I don’t want to argue with you about it, because I could easily be very wrong about this. I just am very uncomfortable raiding the treasury, when we are already broke, to give to a bunch of rich people, on the word of, whom? Those rich people, and the bush administration. I have seen other economists say that there are much better ways to approach this, and even some who have claimed that private industry has money, but are holding off for the bailout. In other words, that the hysterical claim that credit had dried up was becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, because financials now believe there will be a bailout and are holding onto their money. I know that could be wrong too. I believe this is a big gamble to take no matter which way you roll those dice.
 
We have to get wages up to increase consumer spending.

Quite a connumdrum we have let ourselves get into now isn't it?

consumer spending has been tanking anyway.
 
Well, I don’t want to argue with you about it, because I could easily be very wrong about this. I just am very uncomfortable raiding the treasury, when we are already broke, to give to a bunch of rich people, on the word of, whom? Those rich people, and the bush administration. I have seen other economists say that there are much better ways to approach this, and even some who have claimed that private industry has money, but are holding off for the bailout. In other words, that the hysterical claim that credit had dried up was becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, because financials now believe there will be a bailout and are holding onto their money. I know that could be wrong too. I believe this is a big gamble to take no matter which way you roll those dice.

I won't disagree that it's a gamble. I just think the consequences of inaction are already apparent, and scary.

I really don't have the answers, though, and I don't think anyone really has a handle on it. Maybe we do need an economic revolution (well, scratch that - we definitely do), and have to go through the usual pain to achieve it.

Still, for right now, I'm nothing but worried about the future without this bill, or something like it.
 
A recession isn't desirable but it's not a generational crisis or something. We had recessions in the early 80's and 90's and solid growth in the years after that for all.

I just don't see the point in trying to bailout to get through round 1, when there will be no more political capital for the later rounds.
 
I won't disagree that it's a gamble. I just think the consequences of inaction are already apparent, and scary.

I really don't have the answers, though, and I don't think anyone really has a handle on it. Maybe we do need an economic revolution (well, scratch that - we definitely do), and have to go through the usual pain to achieve it.

Still, for right now, I'm nothing but worried about the future without this bill, or something like it.

I am worried too.
 
I really don't have the answers, though, and I don't think anyone really has a handle on it. Maybe we do need an economic revolution (well, scratch that - we definitely do), and have to go through the usual pain to achieve it.

I don't think anything else will work in the long run. We have to learn and change. That will not happen to most Americans without associated pain.
 
A recession isn't desirable but it's not a generational crisis or something. We had recessions in the early 80's and 90's and solid growth in the years after that for all.

I just don't see the point in trying to bailout to get through round 1, when there will be no more political capital for the later rounds.

There is no comparing the current market failure to the two recessions.
 
Back
Top