Senate Passes the Bailout Bill

Bailout

I don't care if Bush and Congress want to call it Recovery plan to most taxpayers it is still a "Wall Street Bailout." As I perused the bill I found it very vague, ambiguous and clearly leaves the biggest of loopholes. Just on executive compensation, vague. All it says is to "limit" the compensation and limit golden parachute. I expected to see strong wording, saying a cap of $50,000 on compensation and NO golden parachutes for any executive. These "robber barons" have taken more than enough money out of these companies while driving them into the ground. When taxpayers read Richard Fudd, Lehman Bros. ruined his company to the tune of $500M while leading the company into disaster and then still walk away with a $22M bonus for destroying it! And, that's money that we know of.

Allan Fishman, WaMu worked only two weeks and walked out of a failing company with $7.5M bonus and $6M in severance pay all that money for working two weeks. Mr. Joe Sixpack walks out with no job, no stock, no retirement fund and no severance pay.

Congress has the nerve to ask Why? don't we get behind the bailout of Wall Street?? I have emailed and called my representatives telling them NO to this bailout. Let the "robber barons" help themselves.

Ann of IA @ Oct 02, 2008 15:02:45 PM

Bailed out of ?

So let's get this straight; An homeowner uses their house as a credit card; spending all of the equity they had. The banks know that the market will adjust as it does every 7 to 10 years, and now the home owners can't make the minimum monthly payment and the banks cry "foul?" Well if you can't afford it, you lose it! As for Wall Street needing a bail out; if they didn't know the market was going to adjust down they should be fired for not knowing their job. If they knew it was going to adjust but made the loans anyways they should be prosecuted.

Tio Guerro of CA @ Oct 02, 2008 14:21:35 PM

This must be for the government ability to get credit. Remember a while back China shut down loans to US.

This bill does not correct the problem that caused it.

There are still plenty of loopholes "golden parachutes", but the feds did put a 20% surcharge tax on Golden Parachutes so the feds get a cut.

I wonder what folks will think next year, when we are in a major recession? At least they will have some comfort knowing the big guys were bailed out before the country hit rock bottom.

howrad of OH @ Oct 02, 2008 13:46:11 PM

Where's the Reporting on all the Pork?

Nice summary but where is the expose on the PORK? Arrow tax relief for pity's sake. What else did those financial geniuses we elected add to the bill? Bi-partisan means they equally added pork and tax breaks for special interests!

Give me a break. I hope the House exposes every single one of these items and WHO put it in there! Clear out the whole lot of them. I recommend elect only NEW senators regardless of party so maybe they will start realizing they work for us!

Linda P. Taylor, www.AskLindaPTaylor.com of CA @ Oct 02, 2008 13:41:12 PM

BS

This is an poor attempt to temporarily band-aid the problem without confronting and resolving the original core issues that caused this problem in the first place. The market was set up in a way that weaker businnesses dissolve during a recession and the stronger ones prevail-so why are rescuing anyone under the pretense of unclogging credit lines? We live in a society that it so instant-gratification oriented that they don't want to wait the 3.5 years or so it would take for the market to correct itself. Taxes will increase to unbearable levels for those in the middle class, who will bear the brunt in the name of 'doing the right thing'. Banks will still not want to lend to those with any type of questionable record-not wanting to repeat past mistakes (the majority of citizens), so why again, are we rescuing anyone under the pretense of 'unclogging the credit avenues'? While executives are paying themselves a plentitude of bonuses and tangent stipends, we are left to bail out the ruins of their failed businesses. Which brings me to another question: if not Lehman Bros., then why everyone else? Fairness should be involved across the board-if we're going to save 1, then we should save them all. Where would that lead? How many billions would be added to the already staggering amount of $700B in order to get everyone out of a bind? Where and when would it end?

Beth Hunter of NC @ Oct 02, 2008 12:10:02 PM