[rivercat]

Though I'm NOT big on gubmint bailouts, think about this... If they don't do something big, then it might take years for our economy to recover. Think about all the jobs and money that be made during this time. It could be far higher than the bailout cost. Plus, from a supply-sider's perspective, the theory is that we can outgrow that debt with a robust economy.

[what's up]

This will give McCain even more of a mandate to look for ways to cut spending as well.

[pburgh01]

Oh here is the great part. All those mortgages we will be buying, Uncle Sam will be refi’ng them when the homeowner bleats for any reason. That is part of the plan, Barney Frank said so. So you have an ARM..guess what you are guranteed a refi at a rate you can afford. Who the hell sets that, what agency wil handle that. The workouts departments at most lenders are totally clogged as is. Can you say ...goodbye housing market. No bank will be writing paper.

[Maryland Man]

Do the banks and institutions that prudently managed their funds and are not in trouble receive the same benefit... or is it just those so mismanaged that the government will support?

Are we promoting efficient use of our economic resources by bailing out failing companies?

The taxpayer well is going dry. People made poor decisions and now expect those that made prudent decisions to cover for them. This will weaken the economy, not strengthen or save it. We are merely staving off the pain, not healing the wound.

[JEH_Boston]

I'm assuming that the Government, in addition to taking bad mortgages off the books of the nation's financial institutions, are now officially the "owners" of the property that these mortgages represent.

If this is true, wouldn't the recovery of the real estate market cover the paper losses that are being experienced at this time?

[SoConPubbie]

Though I'm NOT big on gubmint bailouts, think about this... If they don't do something big, then it might take years for our economy to recover. Think about all the jobs and money that be made during this time. It could be far higher than the bailout cost. Plus, from a supply-sider's perspective, the theory is that we can outgrow that debt with a robust economy.

The last time the government stepped in to "fix" the problem (the Great Depression) all it did was make the problem last much longer than it had to as many economists have lately been pointing out.

I am definitely not an economic expert but maybe we ought to learn from our past mistakes, hmmm?

[P-Marlowe]

If they don't do something big, then it might take years for our economy to recover. Think about all the jobs and money that be made during this time.

It is not the government's business to bail out investors. These people, including myself, took a risk by investing money in the market and if it crashes, well, that is one of the risks.

Frankly any interference in the Free Market (other than by legitimate regulation) is unconstitutional. The buyout of Lehman and AIG was unconstitutional. The whole Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae federally guaranteed loan system is probably unconstitutional. Taking money from people who made good investments and giving it to people who made bad investments undermines the whole free market system.

You are advocating a socialist remedy for a capitalistic problem. Maybe socialism is the answer, (a lot of people feel that way) but I doubt it. You should doubt it too.

NO MORE BAILOUTS. Let the chips fall.

[ctdonath2]

If they don't do something big, then it might take years for our economy to recover.

If they DO do something big, then it might take years for our economy to recover.

Rather than saying "those of you involved chose badly, you lose" and cutting the losses, we're looking at EVERYONE having to fix what others screwed up. Fixing that which is irretrievably broken and hugely expensive to repair is just a waste of resources, serving only to portray those who screwed up as successful.