the third option "screw the bailout" I think is a bit harsh. I believe people do not trust the government and are therefore reluctant to have to pay the price for their lack of oversight in the first place. Oh wait, now they tell me we promise to do it right this time...give me a break!! And the only real difference I see in this "new" bill is the addition of "pork". Unbelievable!!
As we all know, with the financial markets in turmoil right now, there is a proposal on the table to inject $700 billion into the financial sector in an effort to shore up the economy. Since this is a pretty big deal, there is a lot of discussion surrounding the plan and whether or not it will even help, or if taxpayers will be left holding the bag.
The proposal would allow the government to buy up soured mortgage-backed securities held by banks and other financial institutions. This would free up cash at the financial institutions so they can resume business as usual and get their financial books in order. But what about the government? Obviously, many of these mortgage securities they buy would still have some value. Some would clearly lose even more money or become worthless, but there are also good loans bundled into many of these securities.
I heard one story yesterday that said the government could actually end up making a profit from this after all is said and done. Others have talked about adding provisions that would allow taxpayers to profit at some point in the future as well. It is all very complicated, and the details are still sketchy, but it’s obvious something will be done. So, how do you feel about it?
Incoming search terms:
- thoughts on of the proposed $700 Billion Bailout
Don't Miss: Credit Card Deals
Filed Under: Polls
About the Author: Jeremy Vohwinkle is a Chartered Retirement Planning Counselor® and spent a few years working as a financial planner. Today, he helps people make the most of their money by writing about personal finance here and elsewhere on the web. Jeremy is also Coach at Adaptu and a regular contributor for other publications such as Intuit, and American Express. Be sure to follow Jeremy on Twitter or Google+.
something needs to be done. the short-term credit markets are completely seizing up. Look at the crazy bond prices the past 2 weeks.
My two cents is this
I agree Its a necessary evil...I am however tempted to let the market run its course, but the fall out from that could be a world wide issue...wars have been started for less...
But I think an equity position for MY government is not that bad and its not nationalization either. Also might it be cheaper to pay off peoples upside down position on thier homes and let wall street take care of it self??
The bailout is a necessary evil, and it must be done sooner rather than later. But rather than focus on "us taxpayers" I think we need to focus on "us citizens" -- nobody wants to re-live the '30s...and that is where I think we are headed if the bailout doesn't happen. The cost of this plan? Potentially higher inflation. But other than that, I don't see the drawbacks that others are seeing.
Later, when we've stopped the bleeding, we can worry about the long-term health of the patient. That's when we can address the issues of executive compensation, payback, and additional oversight and regulations.
That's my take on it.
I think we can actually come out of this better off than a lot of people are suggesting. Time will tell, though.
What ever happened to the “invisible hand”? Is the government really “guiding” its country, or are citizens being dragger by the hair and told what to do? If I recall correctly Paulson said: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law of any administrative agency”. Sounds like someone is being dragged by their hair to me. This in combination with Bush’s threats of the DOOM and DISMAY which would result if the bill is not passed… seems as if we are being corralled into a particular line of thinking. I suggest that if we are to pursue this bill, it should be done with full transparency to indicate to us taxpayers exactly where funds are being allotted, as well as proper due diligence regarding the bill. We have only scratched the surface regarding the details of the Bill, and the fine prints is what has me curious. What are the true implications? Can the US simply by anything they choose? Is there a particular guideline? I read a post today, that I must agree with: “What is required is careful analysis of the important reasons the U.S. economy is in the place it is, where those reasons are then addressed in the Bill as best they can be.” http://www.stockresearchportalblog.com If we don’t do our DD we’ll be forced into deep DD (no pun intended). Whose with me?
In all reality this should have never happened. If the lenders would not have given out such risky loans in the first place. However that is all in the past now. Hopefully the lenders have learned there lesson. Don't give out risky mortgages or it could come back to haunt you.
I like how they snuck in 25 billion for Ford and GM. They have themselves to blame, not the economy. I guess these 'cheap low interest loans' wont extend to other auto makers.
GM+Ford dug there own holes regarding penion plans, unions and other things, I'd rather see them fail and use that 25billion for something else..
One thing I don't understand is why aren't there lots of crackpot conspiracy theorists coming out of the wood work. First the government takes control of the two largest mortgage backers basically seizing control of the populations homes, now they will seize control of public companies. . . they've already passed laws that state they can pretty much do anything they want to you just on suspicion . . . How much longer befor they start implanting ships in your brain to record all your thoughts and catalog everything to use against you when you step out of line?