Are you for or against the bailout?

I was all for being against it, before I was against being for it.
Now I am against being in favor of reversing my decision.

John Kerry agrees.

If I put 10 quid on a horse that loses, then I don't expect to get it back and neither should those who gambled on the stock market and lost.

So I vote no for the bailout.

The money should help ordinary people instead.

Indeed....

I'm against it.

There's been too much money made at the top end in recent years and not enough in the middle (class). The market and the economy are trying to crash to correct itself.

The bailout will only temporarily prevent that crash. We're going to spend all this taxpayer's money, and in the end, it's going to happen anyway.

When it finally does come crashing down, it's going to crash harder, and for longer.

Fixed that poorly worded statement.

Seems to me like the people who are against the bailout don't own a business and don't understand how much is really at stake here.

What's at stake is short term fix versus long term health. If they go with the Boehner plan and drop the capital gains and corporate taxes by at least half, you should have no problem unless you've been a fucking idiot in keeping reserve cash available.

It's not a question of reserve cash.

It's a question of needing loans when funds suddenly become tight.

If the client can't pay because the bank isn't giving him a loan, then how am I supposed to pay MY employees, especially when my own bank won't give ME a loan either? I could have $500,000 in cash reserves, and burn through it in two years on payroll ALONE. Less than a year when other business expenses are accounted for.

Plain, basic fact: If banks can't or won't loan money, most businesses can't do business.

Against. It's a typical Washington mentality- through money at a problem, then go back home and tell the voters you "did something".

Government created this problem and it would be insanity to trust the very people who created the problem to fix it. It would be like hiring a thief who just broke into your house to install your new security system.

I don't think it's as easy as a "for" or "against."

I do think I'm glad that the bailout didn't immediately pass.

When we're talking about something as gargantuan as a $700 billion bailout package (and realistically, it'd probably be more like $1.5 trillion ultimately, since we know that since everything government initially proposes has a lower price tag than it actually turns out to.) there should be more thought, debate and effort put into it than was put in this bill this weekend.

From what little I've been able to gather, "Just let them die" seems like a very poor solution. Too many small businesses and families stand to lose if the financial sector dies.

But I wouldn't be surprised if there's a better solution out there than the bailout as proposed.

In that case, you're fucking up to begin with and shouldn't be doing business at all.

Wrong.

Cut investment taxes to spur growth. Of course it doesn't come with new government powers, so naturally government won't consider it.

I have two questions:
1. Who really thinks this is "only" going to cost $700 billion? We'll be talking trillions before long.
2. Do you really trust Paulson (or ANYONE in Washington) with a check for $700 billion?

I think I have a bit more experience in these matters than you do, and know a little but more than you when it comes to running a "small" business.

Tell that to my banker.

I'll admit, I don't how how your experience compares to mine at all, really.

It prolly doesn't, but imagine getting paid about three times a year, and meeting your expenses every week.

Well, for starters, evenflow gets some good pussy on a regular basis.

Wrong, I do own a business. I also understand that those who have created this problem need to get themselves out of it.

Dread, why do you think the Democrats refuse to pass this legislation on their own? They don't need the Republicans to support it in order to pass it.

I think they don't want to pass this poor legislation on their own because most of the House is up for re-election and they want the blame to go around both sides of the political spectrum in Congress.

Go on thinking that.

That is a hideously simplistic view to a massively complex problem. Letting everything go to hell seems attractive in a certain way, but frankly, I like the life I'm living right now. I like the comforts I enjoy, and I"m not willing to flush them down the drain to "punish" the people who are responsible, because that will also drag down every single other person in the country with them.

The blame does go to both sides.

The American people could fix that, but most don't know how to think beyond the 2 major parties.

Than I suggest you write your representative and senators letting them know your opinion.

I think that the whole doom and gloom, the world will end without the government involving itself with hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars is complete garbage. They are using this situation as an excuse to get more control over each of us and our finances.

For the record, the problem is simple. Too bad the Congress wasn't more interested in regulating these folks long ago when it was obvious this was going to be a problem.

I very much agree that blame can be distributed amongst both parties.

I couldn't agree with you more on the above.

In principle, I'm against it, but I also know that some manner of "bailout/workout" bill will haqppen, and before the November elections.
Having written that, I'm in the camp that says cut the capital gains tax to zero, for at least two years. Cut corporate taxes the same, and write into the legislation that congress can't do any retro-active taxation on this period later on. There will be tons of available cash finding it's way to the market, and without any government intervention or more taxes levied on the public.

I think what dread is saying...that's not "fucking up"...that how businees just run in the real world.

Of course, maybe we need a completelty different paradigm of how economies and businesses and societies function.

Someone like Fritjof Capra would say in a book like "The Turning Point" that we need an economy focused less on perpetual exponential growth and consumerism. Maybe he's right, but the opposite is like what, stagnant socialism and statisim?

Or absolute cut-throat economic and social Darwinism?

Neither of those sound very appealing alternatives...

I agree. If the above is "fucking up", then every major construction company, every single one bar none, is fucking up.

I've never seen one that does not operate in a similar fashion as what I've described above