digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at money.cnn.com —

Mad as hell - taxpayers lash out

money.cnn.com — We asked you what you had to say about the bailout, and we heard you loud and clear: 'No way!'

show profanity settings
expand all
  • DD2CC2U, on 09/22/2008, -37/+122With McCain voting for deregulation for the past 8 years it is hard for him now to claim he had no part of helping bring the United States financial sector down. McCain cannot explain how the taxpayer is best served by buying worthless paper. The taxpayers are propping up worthless mismanaged companies so that these companies can survive another day to milk the taxpayers once again.

    All of the investors re-entered the stock market once they knew the government was going to buy up all of that worthless paper. Why not? It is like free money for the investors, all there for the taking. Remember a lot of these investors are not from the United States! (hint, hint)
    Thanks for this mess goes to the GOP, Bush, McCain, Palin, Cheney, Rove, etc.
    • natenovs, on 09/22/2008, -28/+43you took the bait. hook line and sinker.
      if you want to blame deregulation, look further back into the clinton administration, and even further towards the carter administration.

      the real reason for the bank collapse lays squarly with sub-prime lending, and some of the blame should rest on the shoulders of the politcians who required banks to lend money to unqualified buyers.
      • zoom1928, on 09/22/2008, -16/+29Exactly. The people incorrectly blaming McCain or Bush really need to learn some history:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestmen ...

        The bank I do some contract work for is in trouble now because of the Carter's and Clinton's legally required bad lending practices. The bank is doing fine with the qualified loans, but with the ones they had to make to minorities, the default rate is killing the bank.
      • SomeRandomGuy, on 09/22/2008, -18/+13Yeah, I'm sure it was all those minorities ruining your banks. As soon as darkie stated visiting that bank it must have all gone downhill in your mind.
      • macweirdo42, on 09/22/2008, -11/+19*facepalm*
        The CRA may have encouraged bad loans, but quit acting like the banks were somehow forced into this. They went willingly.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 09/22/2008, -10/+16BUT BUT BUT CLINTONNNNN!
      • natenovs, on 09/22/2008, -2/+4@Wartboskfapped: learn how to read, that's not what i said.
      • Beej, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3And people who call this the "real reason" are vastly oversimplifying the situation.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_cri ...

        It's one of many contributing factors.
      • dfeifer, on 09/22/2008, -0/+5And I blame it on the fact that a home has turned in to an investment, instead of a place to live. Sorry, but there is no way in heck that a 1/4 acre with a shed on it is worth 200k$ when you never really own the property. its always owned by the government no matter what you may think. And thus, with my little piddly 1600 a month paycheck, and average rent in the area going for 1500+ shall continue to live in a tent in the woods. Atleast until i am shot by a hunter.
      • crugg, on 09/22/2008, -1/+5I blame stupid people who use Wikipedia as an actual source for facts.
      • Spuy767, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4People are "Mad as Hell" because the CNN poll is loaded. I actually got a poll call from these goons. The question was a simple, "How do you feel about the Bush administration's 'bail out' plan?" I answered with a counter-question, and was hung up on.
      • Kyzzyxx, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1***** Nate!
        Yea, Clinton trying to make it easier for banks to lend people money to get people into houses in NO WAY could lead to the BANKS taking advantage of people. Riiiight.
        When the precedent is set that banks don't lend to people who cannot afford it then the public, in general, will think that when they can get a loan that it must be okay cause they said I could have the money.
        How can you expect people to have a complete understanding of the economy when even the experts don't have a complete understanding of the economy?
      • icetigaurus, on 09/23/2008, -0/+3Our current financial crisis comes from 3 main things:
        1. De-regulation allowing firms to get insane amounts of leverage, making bets of 80:1 or more, which is incredibly dangerous
        2. Allowing firms to hide their losses in "Level 3" assets and lie about their true market values
        3. Unregulated over the counter derivatives, such as CDOs and other alphabet soup financial weapons of mass destruction

        THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE, EVERYONE HAD A HAND IN ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN. WE MUST ALL JOIN TOGETHER TO STOP THIS OUTRIGHT THEFT FROM THE US TAXPAYER!!!!
        http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/587-Th ...

        There is a real and straightforward solution to solve this financial crisis that doesn't involve stealing taxpayer's money. It will not be easy, but it is a necessary hardship to remove the lies and falsehoods from the market and restore confidence.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KYtD-Ff_eM
    • Frankie4Fingers, on 09/22/2008, -7/+16"and some of the blame should rest on the shoulders of the politicians who required banks to lend money to unqualified buyers."

      No one forced a bank to give a loan to an unqualified applicant. The banks saw the ability to rack up tons of profit and potential insurance payments by putting out these loans. The problem is, the bank loans the money knowing they shouldn't have... the person buys it because they are desperate for a place to live (even though the price of the house is way more than it is worth)... the bank then makes sure there is loan insurance to cover the loss if the person who got the loan doesn't pay it back... now the insurance company gouges the other 5 million people they have as customers to pay back the bank the money for the loan.... the bank then forecloses on the home and takes the property back... then the bank resells the house and rinses and repeats the process a few hundred thousand times.

      It is the same cycle over and over again. The loser is the person that paid for the expensive house that he couldn't afford but needed because that is where he lived and the insurance company who has to get the money from someone else. The bank wins because they get the money from the loan insurance and they can resell the house again for even more profit.

      It is a racket and we should not have to pay for it. These banks fall, others will grow up and take their place and sell the same homes for the same prices. There will not be a collapse of the market, unless the market idiots stop investing and trading because of a perceived crash. This perceived loss is what drives most stock prices.... that and the short selling...
      • Cnox, on 09/22/2008, -6/+6Here, read this:
        http://alspoliticalview.blogspot.com/2008/04/sub-p ...

        When banks risk loosing certain ratings with the gov (who _they_ borrow from) it's as good as forcing them to engage in certain practices. This is absolutely Democratic philosophy, eat the rich, socialistic/welfare-state tactics.

        Dems, as usual are just buying the black/minority vote. With Obama, it's going to be reliving the 90s: Short term highs but a decade later, we'll all have to pay the piper.


      • macdady843, on 09/22/2008, -2/+6@ Frankie4Fingers

        From cnox's article

        "Loyola College economist Thomas DiLorenzo said that, TO INSURE BANKS GOT A HIGH GOVERNMENT RATING, they had to issue increasingly riskier loans to people who wouldn’t normally have even qualified for a mortgage. This combined with an over-inflated housing market (land and property), has now attributed to the tumbling of the house of cards of “sub-prime” loans. The rules are ridiculous by anyone with a shred of common sense…..lax underwriting standards, no down payment, no verification of income, interest only payment plans, and weak or non existent credit history."

        There you have it.. these banks had to give these loans out or face a bad rating in which case no one would then want to do business with them. I am happy to see that there are at least some people here on digg who understand that the Clinton Administration started this snowball effect by basically forcing these banks to make these loans. Although I can't deny that recent economy issues like higher gas prices and other factors caused a lot of these people to not be able to meet their mortgage obligations they got in wayyyy over their head.

        That's like me living on a 30,000 salary and buying a $2 million dollar house because the banker said I could pay for it. Maybe us as Americans should stop living in a dream world and get back to reality. And to comment on your comment that "these people are desperate for a place to live" that's just *****.. how about renting until you save money to buy a house?? Or live in a smaller place until you can afford a good size house. That's what a lot of people do, not take out loans they can't afford and then blame politicians for their shortcomings. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOLKS!!! IT CAN DO WONDERS!!
      • boot20, on 09/22/2008, -2/+3So what you are saying is that it takes a decade for the economic policies of the previous president to come to fruition!? Wow, who'd have thought Jimmy Carter was such a great president.
      • macdady843, on 09/22/2008, -2/+3Is it that hard to fathom?? Our country's economic system is huge and there are many factors involved in a collapse like this. It takes time for things like this to affect it.. and many of these problems were caused when the cost of living went up in recent years and people couldn't pay their mortgages (even though they probably shouldn't have had them in the first place) which is why I said both parties are really to blame. That seems like a more logical explanation then pointing fingers and saying Bush did it. I know everyone all hates Bush but come on.. let's take a step back and be logical about this.
      • gwolf, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3Cnox all I am hearing is the usual Republican blame the last guy BS we have been listening to for the last 20 years. The first time was the S&L bailout under Regan, now the Bush administration wants to open the Treasury doors wide for the very same pigs. They knew exactly what they have been doing these last eight years and they are cashing out just before the elections. Thieves in the night making a clean getaway just before the dawn.
        Your worried about welfare for the poor when you should be worried about the giant piece of government cheese going to the top 2%.
    • Gregbertt, on 09/22/2008, -9/+16Wow, neat! you are exactly incorrect.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive ...

      FTA:

      "...For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

      If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

      But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

      That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

      From later in the article:

      "Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess."

      You need to work a little harder at obfuscation and deceit. You suck at it.
      • Spuy767, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3I'm glad I'm not the only one who actually has some idea of what's actually going on in washington beyond what I'm spoon fed on digg.
    • ScottMitchell, on 09/22/2008, -13/+8I hate to break it to you, but according to a John McCain adviser, this whole mess is the fault of the Democrats, most notably Hillary and Barak Obama.
      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive ...
    • Hillsfar, on 09/22/2008, -3/+14The last time Republicans tried to ramrod quickie legislation through Congress, we got the PATRIOT ACT. And look at what that got us.

      And remember Phil Gramm and his 200+ pages deregulating the credit default swaps industry that he slipped into an appropriations bill?

      Yeah, right. LAST THING we need is quickie legislation ramrodded on the basis of "urgency."
    • SpeakrCity, on 09/22/2008, -5/+8
      • epadafunk, on 09/22/2008, -10/+3RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL
      • Meekus, on 09/22/2008, -0/+7Quite correct. This was caused because of the horrid policies of the past few decades. To play politics on this issue by blaming the "other side" is asinine.

        You want to place blame, blame the Federal Reserve. By giving congressmen an endless line of credit to finance whatever war or pet project they so desire, payable by the future generations of American taxpayers. Before the Fed, Congress had to get the money approved by taxpayers first. After the Fed, Congress has been empowered to do what they will by charging this "limitless credit card".

        I'm sick of footing the bill of their careless spending. And I detest the very notion that my children and grandchildren will now be in debt because of them.

        And now, these politicians just promised some dumb ass business person on Wall Street MY MONEY. Bleh.
    • kaelyiesta, on 09/22/2008, -1/+4Do NOT suggest that this problem is caused by one side of the isle. It will only let the other side ***** you that much deeper.

      Here is the truth about deregulation(I'm talking about true regulation, not the ***** that government calls regulation only to gain more power over industry and play favorites)

      the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, though the article is clearly biased in favor of the democrats (even though I'll prove below that they are just as responsible) it's still somewhat good at explaining the problem:
      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/How_Phil_Gramm_H ...

      one of the votes for it(it got reset a few times due to congress changing, and there were various other votes for bills that included it, but each of those votes are pretty consistent with this one)
      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h200 ...
    • 0nslaught, on 09/22/2008, -1/+6Both parties + Fed =
      -----------------------------------------------------
      "An article in the Los Angeles Times from the late '90s praised the sudden surge in homeownership among minorities, calling it "one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era."
      http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42 ...
      -----------------------------------------------------
      "A New York Times article from Sept. 1999 states that Fannie Mae had been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and that the corporation loosened its lending requirements to comply."
      http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0 ...
      -----------------------------------------------------
      Bush aims to boost minority home ownership
      June 17, 2002 Posted: 2:21 PM EDT (1821 GMT)
      "Too many American families, too many minorities, do not own a home. There is a home ownership gap in America. The difference between African-American and Hispanic home ownership is too big," Bush told a crowd at St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta.
      "They're so proud to own their own home," Bush said. "What we've got to do is make sure these stories are repeated over and over."
      Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the federal Home Loan Banks -- the government-sponsored corporations that handle home mortgages -- will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion, Bush said.
      http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/bus ...
      -----------------------------------------------------

      "I couldn't disagree (respectfully) more with you. This "crisis" has been a long time coming. It happened because of our central economic policy with fiat currency of the past few decades. The Great Depression was simply a recession in 1929, turned into a Great Depression because of government intervention. (I can elaborate on this, but I am going to try and stay on point to the current issue at hand)

      When the Federal Reserve artificially lowers interest rates, more money gets loaned out on credit. Which horribly inflates our dollar. By never allowing the malinvestment to liquidate itself, the dollar further inflates, causing the bubble to expand even more. All debts become due at some point. By prolonging this even further with more artificial manipulation, the bubble is going to burst in a much worse manner.

      The only way to correctly solve this is by reforming our system. The cause of all this is indeed our central bank. Because of the Federal Reserve, our congressmen no longer need approval of the people for their pet projects because they have a direct line of credit from the Fed. So, they simply charge the cost of a war or their pet project to the American taxpayers. Moreover, future generations of American taxpayers. Is it truly moral and just to pass on debt to future generations? I believe the world belongs to the living. Therefore, it is unjust to pass on ANY debt to any future generation because of poor judgment of the current generation.

      If people want to donate their money to this corporate bailout, by all means they have a right to. However, to forcefully take and use MY money against my will to bail out some business elite on Wall Street is something I can never agree with. I do not consent my money being used to bail them out on a multitude of levels. I am sorry, but this is not right on any level.

      Oh, and did I mention this is not constitutional?"
    • EndGamePlayer, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE KIDDING? WHAT A BUNCH OF CROCK.

      The dollar drops and oil goes up - just like the markets' timely swing on gold the other day - gee . . .what a coincidence? More likely not. Someone (or something) is manipulating markets . . . my guess - the top 1%. . .AKA bottom feeders. Isn't that who really is getting the bail out $.

      I say - "Let'em rot". Take your money out of the bank before the "bail out vote". Keep contacting your politicians to them know - they vote for this bail in any way, shape or form - you will help campaign against them.

      I have my black paint and swastika to paint over every politician's campaign sign who votes YES. Can't say I've had this much fun since I went garden cooning 5 years ago.
      • bman1984, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1Of course they are manipulating the markets. Shouldn't the price of a good be determined by the price a consumer is willing to pay and the costs associated with bringing the good to the consumer. How does it make sense to ANYONE that the price some ***** ***** investor is willing to pay for a piece of paper can dictate how much you and I pay for a good. This gives them far too much control. All you have to do is look at the oil market today. Assholes on Wall street ***** up the financial sector, so today they pulled money out, and shoved it into the commodities markets, most notably in oil. This is absolutely ridiculous. Nothing changed in the oil markets today except for a huge influx of volume because of these assholes. If 20 years of depression is necessary to get out of this mess, so be it. This can not go on any longer. The entire market is broken, and needs to self correct. Let these assholes sink. Worst case scenario, they will be brought down to our level.
  • Cadicus, on 09/22/2008, -63/+35This was already digg'd here:
    http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/21/news/economy/reade ...

    Epic Fail. dugg down.
    • jcharak58, on 09/22/2008, -6/+26Was it really epic??
      • RobotLeAwesome, on 09/22/2008, -3/+21Buried for not being epic.
      • OwdenBowden, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3No pictures of it being epic - then it did not happen.
      • theycensoredme, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2Everything is epic on Digg!
    • poidh, on 09/22/2008, -5/+11Yup. It's 2nd in Top in all Topics. I wish people wouldn't be so desperate for the glory of submitting to the front page that they'll submit obvious dupes.
    • wattersm, on 09/22/2008, -7/+14Nobody ***** cares. The more exposure this story gets, the better.
    • BenKenobi88, on 09/22/2008, -4/+9There is no argument against this comment...the identical link is the 2nd most popular story right now...there's no need for duplicates.
      • crweaks23, on 09/22/2008, -3/+2How about the fact that the repost allowed at least 1000 more people to see the story, so who really cares?
      • BenKenobi88, on 09/22/2008, -2/+3Come on. The story is still currently #2 on the top ten today, and this story, this IDENTICAL story, is #10!
        I'm pretty sure if this just got buried like it should have, a majority of these 1000 diggers would have read the first link.
    • Cadicus, on 09/22/2008, -6/+2I've never been dugg down 43 times for using the word "epic" before :)
    • Digglet69, on 09/23/2008, -4/+1EPIC FAIL
  • schnikies79, on 09/22/2008, -14/+185The government should not be in the business of bailing anything out, corporations or individuals.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 09/22/2008, -7/+8The question is, what do we do instead? If AIG goes under, your money is not safe in any bank. I hate not having the choice of where my tax money goes but at the same time I want to be able to walk into my bank on any given day and be allowed access to my funds and have said funds insured.
      • CamperBob, on 09/22/2008, -1/+8"I hate not having the choice of where my tax money goes but at the same time I want to be able to walk into my bank on any given day and be allowed access to my funds and have said funds insured."

        Once you come to understand that they're not *your* funds anymore, the dilemma will resolve itself.
      • olenick, on 09/22/2008, -0/+14Your funds are already insured up to $100K with no corporate-welfare bailout needed. If you have more than that, and decided to invest that, you were likely given some incentive and decided to take it. Like a Vegas condo speculator you balanced the risk and return, then lost. I'm assuming you weren't planning to share the upside with my family, and I have no idea why my child would cover your loss.
      • lazyfisherman, on 09/22/2008, -0/+6These financial systems either crash now and re-balance themselves or crash harder and more destructively in the future.
      • texpundit, on 09/22/2008, -6/+4"If AIG goes under, your money is not safe in any bank."

        If that's the case, then why do I pay the ***** FDIC out of every paycheck?
      • drewbe121212, on 09/22/2008, -1/+4^^ Um, the banks pay for the FDIC, not us.
      • republicker, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4FDIC insured, what a ***** joke. You think if banks collapsed anyone would be worried about getting you your money back. 5 minutes of research into the FDIC will tell you all you need to know. Beside you cant eat money.....well i guess you can but it probably tastes like paper and hand funk.
      • thatsmyaibo, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2If the Fed can't afford to insure you what makes you think you would get funds under 100k back? There is a reason people are taking their money out of banks and putting it under their mattress. You are not safe under the FDIC.

        Also, Digg must be too young to understand the concept of a 401k. Investments are not protected.
      • bman1984, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1I am not familiar with 401ks, but I know my retirement funds can not be pulled by me until retirement. I don't even have control over where my funds are directly. I can choose different levels of risk, but the funds my money goes into if I take a low risk option are all in the FINANCIAL SECTOR. Excuse my use of a possibly racist term, but in this day and age, the people who work for a living are the *****.
    • zephyr42, on 09/22/2008, -2/+8well it's not what we're SUPPOSED to be doing, but you need to prop up a broken system to replace it with something better, but that will never happen because real change doesn't exist. See you again in 10-15 years discussing this again.
    • Nintendesert, on 09/22/2008, -5/+22We're all about bailing people out. Social Security bails out the people who didn't plan for retirement. Welfare bails out people who aren't working. Etc. etc. etc. etc.
      • zephyr42, on 09/22/2008, -1/+14Personal responsibility is so 18th century...
      • Y0tsuya, on 09/22/2008, -1/+7This is the ultimate welfare state. Everybody's looking for a handout. The productive citizens end up paying for mistakes of others. Soon the productive ones will wise up and move elsewhere, and the game will be up.
      • zephyr42, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2The question americans are going to have to ask is, are we going to pay off this GIGANTIC amount of debt we've built up, or are we not going to be able to pay it off and thus default?

        Eventually we're going to have to ask that question, sooner or later we will have to ask it.
    • fugazied, on 09/22/2008, -2/+1It's the job of government to help it's citizens out (not necessarily corporate citizens). If the government doesn't help people who are in trouble. you get an underclass of people who are forced to turn to crime to survive. It's not as easy as 'let individuals fend for themselves'. That's a childish simplistic view of society and is something from the dark ages (yes, where people did really fend for themselves).
      You might be a well off person and have little compassion for your fellow citizen, but when an auto worker gets laid off (or he gets sick and did'nt have health insurance) and if he had no assistance in retraining from the government and no assistance feeding his family and finding new work, you know he will eventually be the guy mugging you to feed his kids. Then as society crumbles because of sky rocketing poverty and crime you'll have to barricade yourself into your mansion and cling tighter to your guns.
      Then you have to worry about the poor rising up and demanding a more egalitarian society (something you 'kind of' have now, but to a lesser extent than most developed nations of the world).
    • Ymeg, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1The problem with this is that it requires time. The American political groups cannot see this. They think that holding the sack of every individual is beneficial, sure, but but you cannot tell me you will be able to do that for long. Getting everyone to hold their own is a long term investment that will pay off.

    • dav3, on 09/23/2008, -0/+0Whether you agree or not with the bail outs you can argue corporations and individuals are one and the same. Corporations were originally founded to serve the common good of the American people.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SuUzmqBewg&feature ...

      "Despite not being persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[1] and they may be responsible for human rights violations.[2] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter"
    • BaldMonkey, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1Oh the irony. Bush is turning the US into a socialist country.
  • RobotLeAwesome, on 09/22/2008, -4/+47Too bad bailouts are controlled by the Fed, which is independent from our government and can do whatever the hell it wants to.
    • kingmanic, on 09/22/2008, -4/+18This 700 billion isn't the fed it's congress.
      • RobotLeAwesome, on 09/22/2008, -1/+10It's the Fed's hand in Congress.
      • Meekus, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3And whom does the Congress get it's money from? Who controls Congress's "credit card"? The Fed.
    • hugolp, on 09/22/2008, -0/+12Because the FED is running out of money and want the taxpayers to pay. But the FED controls the Congress, so unless the american people goes to the street and makes it very clear that is not willing to pay for the Wallstreet looses, its going to happen.
      • CrazedLeper, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4If the American people "go to the street" they're going to get photographed, tazed, beaten, imprisoned, and then they're going to pay for Wall Street's losses, anyway.
      • hugolp, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1I though US was a democracy Are you saying it is not a democracy anymore?
      • RobotLeAwesome, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4The actions of the Fed are in no way democratic.
      • why3th, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3Democracy lol.
        It's a Republic and has been since the Constitution. Over the course of the past 100 years, it's become a Republic representing 5% of the populations interests and ***** the rest.
    • nicejai, on 09/23/2008, -0/+0U.S.A? More like the U.S.S.A.
  • Hercules, on 09/22/2008, -27/+78Being mad as hell is nice, it's too bad that they are not smart enough to elect a REAL leader (and no, it's NOT Obama).

    Americans have plenty of experience in being MAD (see Freedom Fries). They just don't have enough experience in being SMART. Let's work on the latter, the former won't even be an issue.
    • SmartfulDodger, on 09/22/2008, -13/+16The reading I'm getting from economists, experts, pundits, etc. is that Obama is the real leader we need. If it isn't Obama, then who do you think it should be?
      • egthareal, on 09/22/2008, -6/+23Doc Paul, he can deliver your babies and save the economy.
      • mcmullet, on 09/22/2008, -6/+9But not believe in evolution.
      • rpayne656, on 09/22/2008, -3/+10The real leaders we need are the states and the people, not big government.

        Who the hell do you think the economists, experts, pundits, etc work for?
      • SpinningHead, on 09/22/2008, -2/+7"The real leaders we need are the states and the people, not big government."

        State leaders like Palin? State leaders are cheaper to buy than federal ones. I also take issue with making the gov sound like something outside the people. Ours is a gov by and for the people. It works when we don't vote based on who we would most like to have a beer with.
      • chromie, on 09/22/2008, -1/+7I agree with rpayne656. Moving power into the states will make the people stronger. Too much power is centralized in DC. It has little to do with Palin, other than the fact that she's in the spotlight at the moment.
      • SmartfulDodger, on 09/22/2008, -8/+2I disagree with rpayne656. Moving regulatory power from the federal government to the state's will make regulating national and multi-national corporations even more difficult. It will also spur a battle between states - whichever one has the least regulation will house all the businesses. It's a race to the bottom, and the taxpayers are the big losers.
      • jfreeman, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1It doesn't look like you're very aware of what you're talking about, SmartfulDodger. That situation currently exists, with many companies choosing to incorporate in the State of Delaware because of its pro-business government. Despite your fears, such a situation has not caused any problems. You obviously have not accepted the fact that competition is the heart of a healthy economy.
    • eastwood24, on 09/22/2008, -6/+4hey pinhead, DON"T ever, EVER! diss Freedom Fries!!!!
    • letherial, on 09/22/2008, -3/+4how do you know obama isnt a real leader?

      no matter who was running, either you or somone else would be saying "vote for a real leader"

      • czeman, on 09/23/2008, -1/+1Obama was one of the people responsible for blocking the reform plan that would have prevented this from happening. The bottom line? The Republicans had the ability to start the process when they controlled Congress. The Democrats have had the ability to start the process when took control of Congress last election. There's nothing but a giant pissing match happening on Capitol Hill between both parties, even though President Bush called for reform 17 times during his terms in office. He warned, and warned, and warned Congress that it would all lead to this. The mainstream media won't tell you that, though.
    • bardo77n, on 09/22/2008, -5/+17The President is not supposed to be a "leader," he or she is supposed to be a "public servant." The President is only supposed to be a leader to anyone employed directly in the Executive branch of the US Government.

      I, for one, like the original idea of being an individual sovereign and I don't need or want a leader.
      • SpinningHead, on 09/22/2008, -4/+2Amen!
        Ive been saying for years that most of the conservatives I talk to sound like they want a patriarch. How else can you convince people to give up some freedom so big daddy in the white house can make you feel safe. Most libs I know see the president as just another employee. As a lib, I supported whitewater before it became about sex, because we have a right to know what our employees are up to.
      • Hercules, on 09/22/2008, -2/+6It's a tad ridiculous to think of our President NOT as a leader.

        If that's your expectation... then you're getting exactly what you deserve. I want somebody with vision, enough to try to take away the Federal Reserve, or to implement a consumption based tax, or to fix our healthcare system. He's the guy that will try to rally both sides, get the facts out, and make a difference.

        Sure he's a public servant. That makes him accountable. It doesn't exempt him from being a leader.
      • hierophantus, on 09/23/2008, -1/+2Go ahead and be your own "individual sovereign." Have fun taking advantage of exactly none of the benefits of being a citizen of the US, then.
    • twistaspliff, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3Step 1 - The mindless masses need to turn off their propaganda machines (TV) and learn to use Google. Nothing will change until the sheeple figure out that Faux "News" has little to do with reality and everything to do with control.

      Not holding my breath for that to happen.
    • blacktriangle, on 09/22/2008, -1/+6Time to stop paying taxes.
  • modelchick8806, on 09/22/2008, -8/+115So can I stop paying taxes now?
    • jcharak58, on 09/22/2008, -2/+34yes, yes you can
    • Nidy1, on 09/22/2008, -17/+5As long as you stop using all public services too.
      • cyrusuncc, on 09/22/2008, -1/+13Deal!
      • mcmullet, on 09/22/2008, -9/+2That includes roads, parks, post offices, etc.
      • kingp, on 09/22/2008, -1/+12@ mcmullet,
        Roads are paid for by your state taxes, not federal (unless you count the interstate).
      • DiggMasterJ, on 09/23/2008, -1/+1you mean the ones I've already paid for?
    • gotamd, on 09/22/2008, -0/+14You can try, but as long as you're using US dollars you can't avoid paying the inflation tax. Hooray for seigniorage revenue!
    • jeffvvisoft, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4You can reduce IRS' take now by increasing your W-4 excemptions.

      This reduces your federal tax payment per paycheck, and lessen the changes of getting a refund in April... but who wants to give the government an interest free loan?
      • PhillAholic, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4EXACTLY. Everyone looks at me like I'm a crazy person during my summer's off from college when I file exempt. They act like I'm being the *****. I'm not giving the government and interest free loan. hell no!
    • Meekus, on 09/22/2008, -0/+6Wouldn't that be something... Millions of Americans all protesting by saying SCREW YOU CONGRESS and not paying their taxes for 2008. Holy crap, the implications.........

      With that many people openly participating in civil disobedience, I don't know what the IRS could do.
      • PhillAholic, on 09/22/2008, -0/+7Knowing the IRS, make an example of a select few and terrorize everyone else into giving in and paying up.
      • FleetAdmiral, on 09/22/2008, -0/+5Either that or the government would declare martial law and we'd all be screwed. We're supposed to be able to overthrow a government that isn't listening to it's people to replace it with a new one. (Read The Constitution) The reason for having the second amendment is so that we can do so by force if necessary. But lets look at the odds of us winning a armed conflict with the Federal Government (see: F-22 Raptor, M1A1 Tank, A-10 Warthog vs. Shotgun). Don't pay taxes (which are illegal due to the non-ratification of the 16th Amendment) and go directly to jail. I wish it were possible to not pay for something we didn't agree with, but you and I both know the Government would NEVER stand for it. Hell you could tell them that detaining you indefinitely is unconstitutional and against your civil rights but they will still do it. And maybe after you are water-boarded to death, they might apologize for being wrong, but don't count on it.
        The US Government is criminal in almost EVERYTHING they do and we wont kick them all out of office. (look at the last election cycle for congress, the Democrats got in saying they'd stop "the war" but isn't it still going?!?"

        This by the way is coming to you from a former member of the USAF. I was proud of our country, but now it just shames me.
      • uthallan, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1when hell freezes over?
      • RonBurgundy76, on 09/23/2008, -0/+2FleetAdmiral, your assessment of the outcome of us vs. the Federal government depends on whether or not our military would turn on its' own families. If it actually came down to the nasty business of removing our government, I am pretty sure that our soldiers would be on OUR side, not the other way around.

        I with you on being ashamed of this country now, though. I served for 10 years, myself and I think that what the US has become is sickening.
      • aron1185, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1FleetAdmiral couldn't have put it better.

        It is disgusting, but true.
    • Br3ach, on 09/22/2008, -0/+7I think there should be an Opt Out option. Honestly, they take $400 dollars from me each check, and all I can see is a war I didnt get a vote on, and bailing out these companies on my dime for which the CEOs of got severance packages instead of jailtime.

      *****, I want my taxes back.
    • jerryudigg, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3I have not paid income taxes since 1997, if I waited till most Americans wake up I would be paying for the rest of my life! As long as you are afraid of the government ruining your credit rating and putting you in jail you will always serve them!
    • Vodd9, on 09/23/2008, -0/+3Absolutely, there's not even a law that requires you to do so!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPypDaXfIV8
    • jxms25, on 09/23/2008, -0/+0Not only can you NOT stop paying taxes it will cost your children more taxes to pay for this due to the GREED of Wall st - YES - REPUBLICANS. Mke ungodly sums of money you didn't really earn hten get your republican friends to pay the bill when the bills come due. Business loopholes have always=Republicans. Do your homework if you think McCoffin and trailer trash Barbie Palin are on the side of the worker. Ha! Bring back unions! I could use some clout at work. We are in a 21st century DEPRESSION, folks. Hold onto your hats and PAY attention instead of paying attention to entertainment news about celebrities, know about your pocketbook.
    • hiriumi, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1Yes, I'm planning to do that by leaving this country.
  • AROERS, on 09/22/2008, -7/+52This is the biggest scam of the citizens of this country since the great depression. Call your senators ASAP
    • N00F, on 09/22/2008, -0/+14What's that going to do? They're already bought and paid for.
    • SmartfulDodger, on 09/22/2008, -11/+3I'm not happy about a bailout either, but its better than letting our system collapse.

      If you're going to call your Congressmen, don't bitch about the bailout. Instead, demand a responsible bailout. If the taxpayers are going to pony up the cash, we deserve a share of these companies and their profits. We should buy these bad assets at a market value, and maintain control over what happens to them. The last thing I want to do is hand Paulson a check for $700B without any stipulations.
      • Y0tsuya, on 09/22/2008, -0/+4It's better to let the system collapse. A new and better one will rise from the ashes, having learned some hard lessons. We keep bailing out these idiots, they'll go on making the same mistakes again and in 10 years we'd be back here discussing the same problems.
      • Ebacherville, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2let the crash happen now when its only these select industries.. there just delayingthe inevitable and the crash will get worse if they patch it up now.. the problem isn't the free market its the federal reserve and out fiat currency thats backed by nothing, that the problem.
      • SmartfulDodger, on 09/22/2008, -2/+1A crash would not be in select industries, it would be the entire system. If banks aren't willing to lend money, no one will have access to credit. That means home sales dry up, construction grinds to a halt, businesses can't afford to invest in new projects, and those with savings in the market become poor.

        Letting this system crash would be like the Great Depression. Advocating for that is simply ignorant.
    • eastwood24, on 09/22/2008, -0/+10C'mon Comrade, what do you mean, no need to worry...just sit back and bathe in our new socialist glory.
    • Y0tsuya, on 09/22/2008, -0/+7Wrote them a few months ago opposing any bailouts. Didn't do diddly squat. They only pretend to care about your values and opinions.
    • ooby, on 09/22/2008, -2/+1Actually, a bailout is the exact opposite of what the government did in 1927. While it’s definitely looks terrible. It’s based on historical evidence that shows non-intervention in a situation like this to exacerbate the crisis.
    • fuzzmeister, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1So you prefer that the lending markets dry up and that no American be able to borrow money for the next decade? Because that is the alternative in this situation. It's a painful solution to a bad problem.
    • starmanjones, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1actually, i think we did this same thing when daddy bush was president. runs in the family i guess.
  • Aremihco, on 09/22/2008, -38/+6It was not a F'ing BAILOUT. F'ing liberal propaganda. It was a necessary action to save our economy and financial infra-structure! If the US had just let these companies collapse our entire market economy would have TOO!
    • natenovs, on 09/22/2008, -10/+6the party out of party would rather see the entire system collapse, so they can get voted back into power, than to actually deal with the problem and prevent catastrophy.
    • jbettineski, on 09/22/2008, -1/+16GOOD! Let it collapse!

      It's all a sham anyway!

      All pyramid schemes collapse eventually.

      It's the same thing when you have a bunch of credit cards and are living it up buying whatever you want.

      Eventually your debt becomes unmanageable.

    • hydroplane, on 09/22/2008, -1/+17Government paying out for idiot's ***** is wellfare no matter if its baby mamas or corporate execs.
    • brstilson, on 09/22/2008, -1/+15So awesome to see a conservative argue against the free market system.

      "If the US had just let these companies collapse our entire market economy would have TOO!"

      The mismanagement already made that inevitable. But now they've made it so that instead of biting the bullet right now, we're going to have to deal with it later, when it will undoubtedly be worse.
    • SmartfulDodger, on 09/22/2008, -0/+10Aremihco, this is not liberal propaganda. To be fair, most of the outcries from citizens have been from the tax-burdened middle class which is tired of seeing incomes shrink. Outcries are coming from Democrats and Republicans, as well as Independents, Green Party, Libertarians, and Socialists.

      Taxpayers like you and me are getting stuck with a big bill, and we have a right to be upset about that. Even though I believe the opinion of most economists that this bailout was necessary, I don't have to like it.

    • RonBurgundy76, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1***** this economy! It NEEDS to crash so it can actually get better. If they go ahead with this bailout *****, it just prolongs the inevitable.
  • Cybermaul, on 09/22/2008, -3/+46FTA:
    "Call your Congressman. Stop blogging, posting comments, and call your congressman. This is the patriotic thing to do. Let them hear your opinion, show them this is still America and that you will not stand for this!!"

    http://whoismyrepresentative.com/

    If you have a dream, don't wait. Act. One of life's little rules. Got it memorized?
    • mrroarke, on 09/22/2008, -3/+4***** that. That's not how America faces adversity -- we retaliate. If you really want to act, go rob some banks. Better yet, mug your Congressman. Fight fire with fire. Memorize that.
    • lazyfisherman, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2What if your dream is making tons of money off of stupid investors and taxpayers? Dream achieved!
    • sincerelysarah, on 09/22/2008, -0/+5Three calls took me literally 5 minutes to let them know where I stand as a voter and as a taxpayer and 2 of the three took my information and logged it.
      • RonBurgundy76, on 09/23/2008, -0/+2They thank you for making it easier to find you when things get ugly and you decide you don't want to pay anymore. Just sayin'.
  • SlipStream89, on 09/22/2008, -11/+8Really? Did you even look in the top 10 before you posted this?
    • veriix, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1Do you think it was in the top 10 13hrs ago? Logic people, logic. Lets check the math:

      Top 10 article: made popular 5 hr 15 min ago

      This article: submitted 14 hr 13 min ago, made popular 57 min ago
  • salmonz, on 09/22/2008, -21/+33This is a duplicate of:
    http://digg.com/business_finance/Taxpayers_Mad_As_ ...

    DIGG - REMOVE THIS. Another is already popular.
    • cyrusuncc, on 09/22/2008, -3/+6do you really expect "digg" to respond?
  • jwoulf, on 09/22/2008, -14/+4ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH McCain '08!

    Also, we'd be better off if we were not a credit-based economy.
    • SomeRandomGuy, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3Fight the POW and the Powah! Remove the financial no-nothing McCain from any economic discussion ever again!

      "Obama '08" -GM workers to John McCain.
    • MillionsLivio, on 09/22/2008, -2/+1I wanna digg you up for being a Gurren Lagann fan, but I regress..
  • ohwtfdude, on 09/22/2008, -13/+1dude, who cares. you don't have to live in the US if you dont want to.
    • rootsm3, on 09/23/2008, -0/+3Yeah I mean like what the *****, man, dude, broski.
    • DigxDug, on 09/23/2008, -0/+2Yea dude, like, it's totally easy to pick up and move for the average American.

      Chillax bros.
  • nazarie, on 09/22/2008, -8/+7How does a post with so few diggs and that is a dupe of a current page 2 article with 2k+ diggs get on the front page?
  • ilmickeyli, on 09/22/2008, -20/+7Welcome to digg! A liberal suckoff fest!
    • footfwd, on 09/22/2008, -2/+6Liberal, are you retarded? These people all want a core capitalism punishment, ***** em let em die attitude. It's the "right wing" deregulated free market strategy that now has taken a page form socialism and bailed out and basically nationalized your countries debt. Would you like a meal voucher with your McCain pamphlet sir?
    • rootsm3, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1You're right. This is a liberal suckoff fest and you're the spectator!
    • RonBurgundy76, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1I think you were actually looking for 4chan, dumbass.
  • tjoiner, on 09/22/2008, -24/+28Do you remember the bill McCain co-sponsored back in 2005, the one that said Fannie and Freddie are gonna implode and we need stricter oversight of them? The bill the dems killed? The bill that would have kept all of this from happening?

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive ...

    Blaming this on Bush and McCain is just silly. The record is clear for all to see. Well, for all of those with the courage to see.
    • Hoffpa, on 09/22/2008, -10/+11prepare to be buried for truth.
    • kolyana, on 09/22/2008, -7/+18The Dems were not even in control back then, you idiot, and the article is full of gross inaccuracies and fabrications - many - MANY - of which of been discussed and pulled apart countless times since. Do your research.

      • tjoiner, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1They certainly had enough votes to kill this bill though, didn't they?
    • kingmanic, on 09/22/2008, -1/+10it wouldn't have done a single thing. Most of the bad debt was packaged into "investment vehicles" which were AAA, meaning low risk. A bill forcing banks to divest themselves of risky debt would not have affected this fiasco as most of the risk was obstificated. To the point were the rating agencies thought they were as good as cash.
    • mingohills, on 09/22/2008, -0/+7Please.
      Politically backed editorials as proof of the dire straits of our economy is ridiculous. It is a broken Congress and administration generally. The American public was riding high on the boom of the late nineties and never paid attention what was actually going on. Boundaries were pushed and approved by all members of Congress in order to fatten pockets while the Joe Public was pacified by reality TV. Don't be so naive as to go and make political statements about who is to blame unless you are into Rube Goldberg historical treasure hunts. By the way, this economy was tanking in 2000, what exactly was one bill in 2005 going to do? Regulate spending in Iraq? Regulate the largest bureaucracy in US history? Stop the continued migration of tech jobs and US ingenuity elsewhere? Curb astronomical US consumerism and raise savings rates out of the negatives? Stop the greatest transfer of wealth in the human history? Please with your midstream butterfly effect theories after the fact. And what, pray tell, does this have to do with a bailout now??

      Just goes to show you can lead a horse to bloomberg water, but you can't teach him to drink.

      "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -Steinbeck
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 09/22/2008, -1/+7Yeah, and I'm sure that a bill titled; "Help Americans Read More Better," is going to solve education problems too.

      McCain must be judged for what he has done -- not based upon bills that might have done something if you don't actually read them. All I have to do is look at what McCain has been for and against and look at all the lobbyists he scooped up from BushCo.
    • zeitgueist, on 09/22/2008, -0/+7I'm sure an article written by a Bush and McCain adviser isn't at all biased.

      Also, check out the book he wrote about how the Dow was going to hit 36,000 in 2004.
    • darthtrevino, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3consider your source sir. This probably isn't the whole story.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Enterpr ...
    • TigerStar337, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1If John McCain's bill co-sponsorship and a speech are the basis for this claim, it is a thin one indeed, especially as others have equal – or even more current claims.
    • SpinningHead, on 09/22/2008, -0/+6That would be the 109th congress, which was republican controlled. The bill died because it conflicted with the house version of the bill. A composite of the bills, the Finance Reform Act of 2007, was passed in 2007.
  • TigerStar337, on 09/22/2008, -10/+14John McCain said "I understand the economy. I was chairman of the Commerce Committee that oversights every part of our economy." It is funny how John McCain the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that oversights every part of the economy did not notice the problems on Wall Street and in the mortgage industry. No question about it: John McCain's failure to notice the damage done by irresponsible deregulation was indeed an oversight of epic proportions.
    • Experimental, on 09/22/2008, -4/+5TigerStar337... U. S. Senate Bill S.190 in 2005 ftw... Epic. Fail. Moron.
      @see comment above yours.

      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN001 ...
      • TigerStar337, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3If John McCain's co-sponsorship of a bill and a speech are the basis for this claim, it is a thin one indeed, especially as others have equal – or even more current claims...A-hole.
  • sillygato, on 09/22/2008, -13/+13Buried. Duplicate!
    • cyrusuncc, on 09/22/2008, -4/+3how ironic..

      Burried. Duplicate comment!
  • Peabdog, on 09/22/2008, -17/+7Just get mad at the right people. If John McCain had gotten his way, this wouldn't have happened.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive ...
    "Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess. "
    • kingmanic, on 09/22/2008, -3/+6copied from my other post: it wouldn't have done a single thing. Most of the bad debt was packaged into "investment vehicles" which were AAA, meaning low risk. A bill forcing banks to divest themselves of risky debt would not have affected this fiasco as most of the risk was obstificated. To the point were the rating agencies thought they were as good as cash.

      Also at that point the repubs had control.
  • brizzad2, on 09/22/2008, -9/+2umad?
  • AZRoboto, on 09/22/2008, -10/+14This again?

    http://digg.com/business_finance/Taxpayers_Mad_As_ ...

    It's number 2 in the Top 10 right now...
    • chanop, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1now it's #2 and #9, yay digg!
    • farmerbb, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1At least it's not another MrBabyMan duplicate..
  • Dronez, on 09/22/2008, -9/+0Of course nobody agrees with the bailout, but it's necessary. If there is no bailout the US economy will collapse, and it will affect everyone in big ways; including those not involved with the credit crisis.
    • dalittle, on 09/22/2008, -0/+10I think the issue is the people who caused the problem are just going to get in their fancy cars and go home to their fancy houses. The CEO's and people who benefited from predatory lending / investing should be prosecuted and their assets seized. They do it to drug dealers, I see no difference in these people, especially if everyone in the US gets to add $4300 to their tax bill. (who has an extra $4300 to help rich people?)
      • scpike, on 09/22/2008, -2/+040% of this country pays 0 or less in income tax, its not like we're sticking the middle class with a $4300/family bill here.
      • dalittle, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2No, it is going to be $4300 per person, not per family. You will definitely see the impact when your kids cannot read due to school funding cuts or you cannot drive on the roads because they are full of pot holes. And I would also worry about getting an actual bill in the mail.
  • jerrycan, on 09/22/2008, -1/+33Bailout bill......

    Sec. 8. Review.

    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 or any administrative agency.

  • damnyooneek, on 09/22/2008, -10/+4the first impression is that the gov't is screwing us with the bailout but the alternative is that we let them crash to the ground and the down spiraling of the world's economy could lead to something like the 1930 depression. its not a democratic or republican decision but its the best choice we have right now.
  • heartsblood, on 09/22/2008, -1/+34These companies need to die. Where's the risk factor of capitalism if you can't lose?
    • bicyclethief, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1Welcome to the desert of the real...
    • SuperVepr308, on 09/22/2008, -0/+5You are correct, heartsblood. Propping up a company just lets people continue to throw good money after bad. New companies would fill the vacuum and they would be better managed and run.
  • DiggGeek24, on 09/22/2008, -9/+9***** this I am ready to fight I have 1 SIG-Sauer P228, 1 Heckler-Koch HK G36 converted to full auto, 1 SIG 556 converted to full auto, 1 new Remington 7600 with high powered scope plus 2 years of MRE(Meal Ready to eat)
  • pathouston22, on 09/22/2008, -11/+4the bailout sucks. but the results of no bailout would suck even more. read this:

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/22/markets/thebuzz/?p ...
  • pak314, on 09/22/2008, -1/+20I consider a bailout from taxpayers when they people at those financial institutions return their $300K bonuses for the past 5 years.
    • footfwd, on 09/22/2008, -0/+9They get $300K just to go pee, it's much much more.
    • fuzzmeister, on 09/23/2008, -0/+2Well, the Democrats are calling for the bill to include a provision docking CEO pay at firms helped by the bailout, so we'll see.
  • chrissku, on 09/22/2008, -2/+66"We privatized the profits and socialized the losses."

    -Mayor Michael Bloomberg
  • osirus35, on 09/22/2008, -1/+26i find it funny how companies want no government involvment unless its getting free handouts, or when they are in trouble. Let them die and learn their lesson, or else this crap is going to happen again in the future.
    • BabaRamDass, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3People in general don't want government involved unless they're getting free handouts.
  • SwordofKahless, on 09/22/2008, -5/+15Impeach Bush! The most fiscally liberal and Socialist President on record.
    • pintomp3, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2if he were actually liberal and socialist, he wouldn't have vetoed the 35 billion for children's health insurance. he is corporatist.
    • Ymeg, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2Corporatism is not Capitalism. It is a mutant that feeds off the government.

  • mstachiw, on 09/22/2008, -2/+58Dear Fellow Citizens of the United States of America,

    Can you bail me out too?

    I am just your average guy (not some big corporation or anything). Though like the big companies we are bailing out I admit not always making the best financial decisions. However I am paying my bills off and in the process of zeroing my debt. I promise to just use the money to pay off student loans and credit card debt. I just want to be zeroed out so one day i can afford a home for my wife and I.

    I don't have any lobbyists working for me. I don't have a politician in my pocket. I will not exploit any money you give me. I will not pad myself or give myself a golden parachute.

    Thank You US... you're the best!

    Sincerely,

    Fellow TaxPayer

    • jaydoj, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1you know, i'd honestly help this guy. He seems like a good fellow. I've got 1500 bucks in credit card debt left. Anyone want to bail me out?
    • fireburner23, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1Why not change this around and send it to your congressman, I think that will work better.
  • LanaGK, on 09/22/2008, -3/+6Yeah, where is Peter Finch when we need him.
    Listen, both parties played a role in deregulation. But assuming that a secure Fannie and Freddie would have solved everything is ludicrous. Bear Stearns, INdymac, Lehman, AIG. Whose fault were they? I say people who oppose regulation.

    McCain circa 2000 is vastly superior to this 2008 version: http://tinyurl.com/6jb7l6
  • ibeetle, on 09/22/2008, -1/+4So where are the protest? Writing a eMail to CNN is going to get things done?

    Why isn't CNN reporting that the Congressional and White House switch board aren't locked up due to angry americans calling letting Washington known how they feel?

    Why has it not been reported that thousands have converged on the White House lawn or the steps of Congress in protests?

    The day after Wall St. gets the bail out check it is business as usual.
    • kingp, on 09/22/2008, -0/+5We don't have time to protest because we have to work to pay our rising cost of food, gas, and other basic necessities. Just the way they want it.
  • Newbtrader, on 09/22/2008, -4/+5Guys, see: http://digg.com/business_finance/Stop_the_Bill_Pla ... for a REAL SOLUTION to the problem!

    Visit http://fedupusa.org/ for more info! People need to realize there's a MUCH BETTER alternative than just throwing money at the financial institutions! We need to actually FIX the problems, not simply try to ease the symptoms. The main problem is the off balance sheet nonsense, which doesn't allow creditors to trust the banks! This is the largest problem!

    I realize we're all pissed. Call your elected officials and send them to fedupusa.org! They need a solution along with your voice that King Paulson's plan solves nothing!
  • borez, on 09/22/2008, -1/+7Come on America, don't let yourself become a Fascist Kleptocratic Dictatorship.

    Stand up for yourselves and stand up now, ***** these power tripping thieving vampires, ***** them all.
  • Betrayer, on 09/22/2008, -2/+6Simple solution, Stop paying your taxes to the Federal Governemt!

    other solutions... break away from the "United" states and make your state its own country. (your state probably has more people then some of those European country's we are bailing out)
  • seldon21, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3This is/was a multi-level marketing scheme. Where are the insurance companies who have been collecting large fees and contracts for these types of transactions? Also this means we can stop paying PMI and other mortgage insurance because we the people are now assuming the risk.
  • bcarl314, on 09/22/2008, -3/+9From the Article:

    "I was opposed to the bailout at first, but realized that the scope of this thing is global and so massive that the entire global economy could collapse if nothing was done. ...The priority has to be resolving the present crisis of confidence in our economy. Remember, if Wall Street collapses, Main Street will go with it."

    Um, HELLO! Main Street has already collapsed!
  • TheMachine1, on 09/22/2008, -4/+1People with bad credit were given high interest loans to buy over priced real estate.
    That easy credit may very well have been a big factor in driving the cost of that real estate up in various markets in the first place. So how much the tax payers may loose or make on this depends on how much those houses are really worth. I would say the people that ultimately really profited the most form this were the people that sold the houses at the bubble prices. I doubt its legal but retroactively taxing excessive profits on people that sold houses prior to the 2007 crash would be the most fair thing.


  • MillionsLivio, on 09/22/2008, -4/+2I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! It's been 32 years and Beale's word have never been more relevant.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08
  • Wryly, on 09/22/2008, -6/+8No way. No how. No McCain.
    • Meekus, on 09/22/2008, -2/+3Expand that to, Nor any Republicrat.
    • BobZombie00, on 09/23/2008, -1/+1What the hell is Hillary doing here? GTFO
  • nepidae, on 09/22/2008, -6/+1Were these same people lashing out when they got their 600 bucks?
    • algaeturd, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1What's your point? We didn't have a CHOICE in the 'stimulus' package. And not everyone got 600 bucks. I don't know anyone who thought it was a good idea but then again, my friends are all democrats and much smarter than your group of republican friends who whooped and 'hollere'd' at the thought of 600 'free' dollars.
      • ScottMitchell, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2The upper middle class is the group that is getting the screws put to them. The poor and lower middle class got their nice little stimulus package. The uber-rich are getting a blank check from Congress. What about those families making $150k-300k per year? And before you call this group elitist rich snobbery, realize that this group mainly entails doctors, lawyers, engineers, small business owners, and so on. These are not the people that should have to pay for the laziness of the non-working and the risks of the capitalists.
      • nepidae, on 09/22/2008, -0/+0My point is that some people are whining how _they_ should get bailout money, when in fact they just did. While it is less than the current bailout (between 150 to 200 billion from my 2 seconds of research), it still was significant.

        I'm not commenting on either program, simply that people have very short memories.

        /prepares to be dugg down for not blindly following.
      • BobZombie00, on 09/23/2008, -0/+0So did you send your check back then?
  • chanop, on 09/22/2008, -3/+5http://digg.com/business_finance/Taxpayers_Mad_As_ ...

  • hiriumi, on 09/22/2008, -2/+5Certain degree of bailout may be necessary to rescue regular people like me and you, but how come no one is talking about accountability? So CEOs and executives who made bad decisions get to be bailed out too? I'd say no to that. CEOs and executives get paid a lot for their responsibility they have although I think they are way over paid in the last few decades...
    • ScottMitchell, on 09/22/2008, -1/+4I am in favor of a maximum wage ratio. Let no human being make more than 100 times what the median employee makes at a company, be it salary or options or bonuses or other forms of compensation. If you want to pay your CEO $20 million, then you'll have to raise the salaries of other workers to get the median income to $200k.
      • hiriumi, on 09/22/2008, -1/+1I totally agree with you.
      • Nimda11, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1we should pass that just as soon as we don't allow the rich to own businesses in other countries....

        It's a great idea, terrible policy.
      • ScottMitchell, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1Nimda11, using that train of thought we should abolish our child labor laws, environmental protection regulations, and minimum wage laws, b/c there are countries out there (e.g., China) that don't have the same regulations.
  • frozeninside, on 09/22/2008, -3/+5Already dugg here:
    http://digg.com/business_finance/Taxpayers_Mad_As_ ...
  • Ebacherville, on 09/22/2008, -7/+4Vote Third Party for Chuck Baldwin, He said he will appoint Dr. Ron Paul as head of the treasury department..

    At this point we cant stop the crash of the economy but, at least we can have some one in office that may actually soften the fall instead of make it a nose dive like the rest are doing! These bail outs have to stop!
  • algaeturd, on 09/22/2008, -1/+6Hey, look! I'm on there!
    This plan is as disturbing as it is disgusting. Use another panic mode ala 9/11 to give the executive branch what it wants: more power, more money, more control over the people.
    Disgusting.
  • Aslan72, on 09/22/2008, -7/+2Honestly, this makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't understand how people can be upset at the government wanting to respond to the issue because the alternative is simply unthinkable. It seems to me that it is politically expedient to throw rocks in the window of the white house when the real villain here is not the huge check we have to write to make the issue fixed, but the deregulation and rampant greed of the financial sector that put us here. Policies have been put in place that have enabled this issue to happen and it's awfully hypocritical of McCain, for example, to call for oversight and the criticize this bailout when he helped contribute to the situation.

    Common sense would say that if you have a patient dying on an operating table that you don't refuse treatment because he is going to go back into society and kill or get stabbed again; you've got to fix the problem. Our economy is on the verge of collapse, meaning it ain't comin back for a while, and our politicians are playing fiddles in the street. If I had them in the room I'd tell the whole lot of them to grow the hell up and fix the real problem here.
    • Zenham, on 09/22/2008, -0/+1The alternative (a free market) is unthinkable?


      The huge check we're writing wouldn't be an issue if the current administration didn't privatize gains while socializing losses. Your analogy to a patient is flawed; it would certainly be a wise decision to stop operating on a a patient if they're repeatedly stabbing themselves while lying on the table.
    • Aslan72, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1No, the alternative (a depression) is unthinkable. I'm for punitive discipline here as much as the next guy, but you've got to do something when the train that we all ride on is skidding off the track.
    • Mujokan, on 09/23/2008, -0/+0The problem isn't acting, it's in what they are doing.

      Paulson's solution is to pay over the odds, and in some cases to buy assets that are worthless, getting nothing in return (like part ownership of the companies being bailed out), with oversight specifically disallowed by section 8.

      It is corporate welfare, straight up.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 128 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.