Bailout

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Aaryanna][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]I would only be in favor of a bail out if strict regulation was also introduced instead of a quick fix that wouldn't stop it from happening again.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]But there's the sneaky bit. If the motion had passed, the firms in question would have then been openly government-backed. Essentially?unless I'm making a false connection somewhere?half(-ish) of the mortgages in the country would then be conceivably under the jurisdiction of the Federal government, and that possibility bothers me greatly.

I sincerely maintain that it is not the government's responsibility to rescue any failing company, whether it be local, state-wide, nation-wide, private, or corporate.

Also, someone please enlighten me on how [U]specifically[/U] the Dow gains or loses points, and what 'points' even means. Because I also believe that half of the market's problems stems from the self-fulfilling prophecies of speculators. And that's completely illogical.[/FONT]

[James]

[quote]But there's the sneaky bit. If the motion had passed, the firms in question would have then been openly government-backed. Essentially—unless I'm making a false connection somewhere—half(-ish) of the mortgages in the country would then be conceivably under the jurisdiction of the Federal government, and that possibility bothers me greatly.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]It doesn't quite work that way.

If the Federal Government performs a bailout, it does not mean that mortgages become the jurisdiction of the Federal Government as such.

It just means that Federal funds are used to keep the banks and lenders afloat where there are defaults on mortgages (there are other examples somewhat separate to this, but it starts getting pretty complex).

In this situation you've really got two scenarios I think.

One, the Government does not bailout the banks and financial institutions. The end result of that would be multi-faceted. For one thing, it could mean a much higher percentage of families losing their homes. Two, it would mean that the pool of available credit for business would almost completely disappear - it would therefore be largely impossible for most new companies to start up [i]or[/i] for existing companies to extend their lines of credit.

And these consequences have further follow on effects.

Due to the fact that the American economy is so reliant on credit rather than cash, the implications are massive for existing companies.

For instance, General Motors - the world's largest car company and a major employer in the U.S. - is currently making heavy losses globally. It manages to survive in the short term by having an available line of credit to cover losses and fund the development of new products (which can then help it to recover and start making profit again).

Right now GM has reached the limit of its available credit. If there is no bailout, you can bet that thousands upon thousands of companies in GM's position would be unable to extend their credit, especially during times of economic downturn where this is necessary.

And the end result of that? Simple. Best case scenario is that, in order to survive, these companies lay off workers across the U.S. and globally in an effort to cut costs. We're talking tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of workers.

The worst case scenario is that many of these companies collapse completely, which both eliminates their workforce [i]and[/i] which punches massive holes in the U.S. economy (no more tax revenue from these businesses, less available product, less export, etc). Less employment also equates to less income tax, which is a major revenue stream for the Government.

So, then, let's assume there's a bailout.

What happens then?

Well, the current liabilities that are threatening the financial system are temporarily adopted by Government. Government has the capacity to do this because a) it has significant ability to extend its credit and b) it is still capable of running in deficit, where private business is not.

As has been mentioned, Government would need to tie strong regulatory reforms to a bailout package (or to implement them later) so as to prevent a repeat scenario in future.

[i]However[/i], Government deficit does not have the same horrific implications of a nationwide private sector financial collapse.

It's worth noting two other things.

First, many companies would be tied to a system where they would need to pay back bailout funds (which are essentially a loan provided on Government credit rather than private credit).

Second, Governments not only have a greater capacity to carry deficit, but they also have a reasonable longterm capacity to reduce debt and deficit.

Governments can reduce deficits by reigning in spending, but they can also reduce deficits by presiding over growing economies. If an economy is growing and there is high employment, more money pours into Government coffers (much of which can be used to pay down foreign debt).

However if the economy dives into recession or depression, not only do individual people around the nation and the world lose out... but Government is not in a strong position to pay its debts.

I'm certainly no expert on this - and there is [i]much[/i] additional detail to be talked about - but what I've mentioned here is worthy of consideration.

I am, in principle, opposed to Government bailouts of private businesses. However, this situation is a little different both because of the scale of the problem and the implications of inaction.

It's also worth pointing out that an element of this crisis was made by Main Street as well (and it's not politically correct to say that, so few do).

One of the problems is that people over-extend their own credit (for whatever purpose - but mainly houses) without being able to furnish their debt. This happens in a variety of ways. Either people borrow at their very limit (and therefore fail to account for increasing interest rates, which happen in a slowing economy) [i]or[/i] they falsify (however slightly) their financial information so as to secure credit under favourable terms.

When these things happen regularly and include thousands of people, the amount of "bad debt" increases exponentially. And that, in turn, causes financial companies to be unable to write off ever increasing amounts of bad loans.

It is also worth mentioning that Federal involvement is actually a cornerstone of the capitalist economic system. That's why America, Australia and many other capitalist economies have central Reserve Banks, which are tasked with stabilizing the economy especially where systematic issues are present (and where catestrophic consequences could ensue). I think that America's Federal Reserve was established after the Depression in the 30's, as a direct result of that crisis. So anyone who thinks that this bailout sets some new precedent as far as Government involvement is incorrect, especially about American economic history.

So there's a lot to consider here. It's not just a case of "OMG the Feds in our pockets! Nooo!"

There's a reason why very sensible economists and economic conservatives are considering these types of measures. [/font]

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"][QUOTE=James][font=franklin gothic medium]So anyone who thinks that this bailout sets some new precedent as far as Government involvement is incorrect, especially about American economic history.

So there's a lot to consider here. It's not just a case of "OMG the Feds in our pockets! Nooo!"

There's a reason why very sensible economists and economic conservatives are considering these types of measures. [/font][/QUOTE]I didn't see anyone saying that this was a new precedent, far from it. This site isn't as comprehensive as I would like but many of us are well aware of our government's tendency to step in and "bail" failing companies out. [URL="http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts/"][U]Government Bailouts[/U][/URL] On the contrary, what worries me the most is that in spite of having repeat instances of financial irresponsibility, we keep landing in the exact same situation of turning to the government to "fix" the problem. Only the ticket price of said "save" keeps getting higher and higher.

I object to this not because I don't want the economy to be stabilized, but because I think this kind of stupidity has been allowed to go on long enough. We need better regulation that keeps companies from engaging in reckless behavior in the name of making profit.

I don't know enough to go into full detail, but I assure you, this isn't some shock reaction, this is me and many other Americans saying we've had enough of this kind of nonsense. I do agree with the principle behind keeping things from collapsing, but it's bloated with unnecessary favoritism towards those who were key to the disaster in the first place. [/FONT]

[Rachmaninoff]

The biggest problem I saw with the bailout was allowing the Treasury to pay more than market value for said items. By giving the treasury complete discretion over the prices it pays for bad assets it leaves it open for them to pay inflated prices. Why should they pay more for them than the bank did? That?s not keeping them afloat, that?s rewarding them for screwing up in the first place. That's just ludicrous in my opinion.

Another problem, executive compensation at bailed out companies. It prohibits golden parachute payments to CEO?s and other ?C-level? execs at bailed out companies. However, it only prevents payments on severance deals that are struck AFTER the bail out. So you can just imagine how well that's going to work.

It doesn?t cancel the severance payments that the executives are already contractually entitled to. That doesn?t even include how all compensation over 500,000 is not tax deductible for the company. So the penalty is being put on the entire company and not the CEO?s who ran the companies into the ground. Seriously wtf?

That just covers a few serious issues this ?bail? out had so denying it was a good thing, though I have my doubts about the next attempt being any better. Like Sabrina said, it's not so much that we're against the idea, it's that the original bill was a complete and total joke.

You don't fix things by simply handing over a blank check with hardly any regulations whatsoever. If they want a bail out bill to work, it needs to be better drafted to tighten up some of the overly broad powers it would have allowed.

[James]

[quote]I didn't see anyone saying that this was a new precedent, far from it.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well, this comment implies that we are talking about an unprecedented move:[/font]

[quote]But there's the sneaky bit. If the motion had passed, the firms in question would have then been openly government-backed. Essentially—unless I'm making a false connection somewhere—half(-ish) of the mortgages in the country would then be conceivably under the jurisdiction of the Federal government, and that possibility bothers me greatly. [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]As do others here.

I think the problem is that people are confusing this bailout situation with the general idea of a Government bailing out an individual business that is failing.[/font]

[quote]On the contrary, what worries me the most is that in spite of having repeat instances of financial irresponsibility, we keep landing in the exact same situation of turning to the government to "fix" the problem. Only the ticket price of said "save" keeps getting higher and higher.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, but I don't think you are differentiating between this situation and situations where Governments (State or Federal) bail out specific enterprises.

Also the financial irresponsibility here is [i]not[/i] just the fault of individual banks. It is also the fault of those in society who have borrowed irresponsibly (including potentially millions of average Americans) as well as Congress and State Governments, which failed to appropriately regulate the financial system in the first place.

So it's easy to say that this is just a case of Government bailing out failed companies. But the reality is far more complex than that.

And as I mentioned, this is not a typical bailout situation. This area of the economy (banking) is partly presided over by the Federal Reserve. So they have some responsibility in this as well, where perhaps they wouldn't with an individual company.[/font]

[quote]I object to this not because I don't want the economy to be stabilized, but because I think this kind of stupidity has been allowed to go on long enough. We need better regulation that keeps companies from engaging in reckless behavior in the name of making profit.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yes absolutely. You're totally right here. And any new regulations should perhaps involve penalties for those executives who take ridiculous and unlawful risks with people's money.

The problem, though, is that a bailout isn't about saving corporate executives. It's actually about preventing a new depression - it's about stopping thousands of average Americans from losing their homes.

It's [i]far[/i] more fundamental than simply bailing out some corporate bigwigs.[/font]

[quote]I don't know enough to go into full detail, but I assure you, this isn't some shock reaction, this is me and many other Americans saying we've had enough of this kind of nonsense. I do agree with the principle behind keeping things from collapsing, but it's bloated with unnecessary favoritism towards those who were key to the disaster in the first place.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think the reaction is fundamentally right, because I also disagree with blank check bailouts (though this does not seem to be shaping up that way admittedly).

The problem is that the reaction you're displaying here is somewhat misdirected.

This bailout will certainly help to save companies, but it's not like the Government is bailing out a failed automaker or box factory - it is providing a buffer for the nation's banking system (which, again, is partly under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve anyway).

Also this isn't just about letting corporate executives fail. It's just not that simple. The executives of these banks are [i]not[/i] solely at fault, even though they played a part.

Those at fault include Government, banks, non-bank lenders and individuals among others.

There could easily be several hundred thousand people who may lose their houses and/or all of their investments if there is no bailout. These people are ordinary people like you or me - they are largely ignorant about what's going on here.

What they did wrong was not malicious, it was mistaken. They borrowed what they [i]thought[/i] they could afford at the time.

And unfortunately they were allowed to make those borrowing mistakes by a greedy and/or irresponsible institutions [i]and[/i] a horribly regulated financial system.

So, yes, there's blame to go around and a lot of it falls onto those who run the banks and non-bank lenders.

But suggesting that this is "just another example of Government bailing out failed business for taking stupid risks" is an enormous oversimplification.

The reaction of many in the public reflects their misunderstanding of the issue. I'm sure that even some of the people who could stand to lose everything are still arguing against the bailout, because they aren't aware that not doing so will directly target them.

So bailouts are painful, of course. But Governments have to be responsible when they bear some of the blame. And the Federal Reserve has to play its role.

What would be truly irresponsible is to do a bailout and then do [i]nothing[/i] to reform the system. Then I'd really be down in the trenches arguing against Government waste.[/font]

[quote]You don't fix things by simply handing over a blank check with hardly any regulations whatsoever. If they want a bail out bill to work, it needs to be better drafted to tighten up some of the overly broad powers it would have allowed.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Bingo. And I think this is why the original version failed.

I agree with your post 100%, Rach. Understanding the need for a bailout is different than proposing an irresponsible course of action (the latter I totally object to).[/font]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=#9933ff]According to CNN last night and the news this morning the Senate passed the new bail out plan last night 74 to 25. Which means it has to go to the house.

I still think this is insane and will lead to more troubles later one and is rewarding these CEOs and C-Level executives for being poor managers. In some cases it rewards anyone who doesn't pay up on their loans for being poor money managers. But things being the way they are right now you have to have spotless credit just to buy a dining room set.

I just hope this new plan is a better brain storm than the one that was blocked. I haven't read up on it yet.[/color]

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"][quote name='Allamorph][FONT=Arial]Second, if a company is going bankrupt, let it go bankrupt. Chances are the other competing companies will swoop in and vie for the leftovers, and that'll be good for competition [I]and[/I'] provide job opportunities for those ousted by the dead company.[/FONT][/quote]The problem with allowing them to just go bankrupt is at this point, the problem is big enough that the fall out will affect thousands of Americans both money and job wise who had nothing to do with it.

I strongly dislike bail outs in any form, however I think it has become a necessary evil at this point. Those who are higher up certainly need to be put out of the picture for good though. I've read enough that it's clear many of them knew they were digging themselves into the ground and yet they continued to do so anyway. [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff']As for the bail out- I'm glad that congress vetoed it today. I don't see why the general public should have to pay for something that these companies knew was going to happen years ago. The banks don't pay you off for forgetting to keep up with your payments, so why should we have to pay for their screw ups? [/color][/quote]Paying for their screw up isn't so much the issue as keeping that screw up from spiraling out and dragging a lot of people along with it. It's a little too easy and far too pat to think they deserved it, and then turn around and forget all the people who will be caught in the collateral damage if a total collapse is allowed.

Hmmm, there are far too many posts for me to really address them, so I'll just wrap up at this point. Sabrina provided a link that talked about past bail outs, I'd suggest reading it since it shows what happened after a bail out went through. I think people might be surprised to see that they worked out better than anticipated.

In my opinion, in some respects[I] it is[/I] the government's duty to step in and stabilize things when they get out of control. Obviously the private sector was unable or unwilling to do so. It is also their duty to tighten up regulations to prevent the same kind of misuse of funds in the first place.

I do agree that the original bill did need to be shot down, Rachmaninoff listed some of the reasons as to why. But it does need to be done, no matter how distasteful it may seem. In the long run, the ones who will benefit the most from it will be you and me and every other American who depends on a stable economy to make ends meet. [/FONT]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Nathan'][FONT="Arial"]The problem with allowing them to just go bankrupt is at this point, the problem is big enough that the fall out will affect thousands of Americans both money and job wise who had nothing to do with it.

I strongly dislike bail outs in any form, however I think it has become a necessary evil at this point.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]I'm inclined to agree. The problem with "letting the giants fail" is that they have a network of assets so vast that if they were to fail, it would destroy vast swaths of the financial picture as we know it. Catastrophic failures would definitely impact average citizens.

Conversely, we have to be extremely careful about appropriating 700 [i]billion[/i] for a bailout. Bush is demanding Congress pass this quickly and with little examination, but that's the exact same thinking that compelled most members to vote to invade Iraq. Little examination of the evidence, and a disturbing lack of understanding of a long-term plan.[/font]

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"][QUOTE]I think the problem is that people are confusing this bailout situation with the general idea of a Government bailing out an individual business that is failing.[/quote]No I see the difference, my statements so far have been to general to truly pinpoint what I think. So I'll clarify that here and now.[quote]Yeah, but I don't think you are differentiating between this situation and situations where Governments (State or Federal) bail out specific enterprises.

Also the financial irresponsibility here is [i]not[/i] just the fault of individual banks. It is also the fault of those in society who have borrowed irresponsibly (including potentially millions of average Americans) as well as Congress and State Governments, which failed to appropriately regulate the financial system in the first place.

So it's easy to say that this is just a case of Government bailing out failed companies. But the reality is far more complex than that.[/quote]I see it as being similar since the irresponsibility is far more widespread that just an individual company. I may not have specified who, but the fault is more than just the companies in general. As you said, it includes those who have borrowed money when they couldn't afford to pay it back. So the responsiblity goes both ways.[quote]And as I mentioned, this is not a typical bailout situation. This area of the economy (banking) is partly presided over by the Federal Reserve. So they have some responsibility in this as well, where perhaps they wouldn't with an individual company.[/quote]This is where I disagreed with the first bail out, it didn't do enough to keep the harmful practices from happening again, and in my opinion, it still doesn't.[quote]Yes absolutely. You're totally right here. And any new regulations should perhaps involve penalties for those executives who take ridiculous and unlawful risks with people's money.

The problem, though, is that a bailout isn't about saving corporate executives. It's actually about preventing a new depression - it's about stopping thousands of average Americans from losing their homes.

It's [i]far[/i] more fundamental than simply bailing out some corporate bigwigs.[/QUOTE]I never said it was only about corporate bigwigs, I said it showed unnecessary favoritism towards those who were key to the disaster in the first place. Obviously they are in a position to have more influence on keeping the market stable so therefore, a greater degree of responsiblity should fall on their shoulders for their part in this. [quote]I think the reaction is fundamentally right, because I also disagree with blank check bailouts (though this does not seem to be shaping up that way admittedly).

The problem is that the reaction you're displaying here is somewhat misdirected.[/quote]No misunderstood, my reaction that is. I look at my previous posts and they were too vague. I still disagree with bail outs, but then that's because it speaks of a failure to review and restructure regulations as needed to keep this kind of thing from ever happening.

I think you're mistaking our genuine anger over the sheer level of stupidity that has been happening in both the cooperate and federal side of our country as a misunderstanding. Not that some people aren't, it's just that it's easy to only rant about how frustrated we are instead of being more concise with our thoughts. [quote]But suggesting that this is "just another example of Government bailing out failed business for taking stupid risks" is an enormous oversimplification.[/quote]I still think it's not an oversimplification, but rather a symptom of a huge problem that people have been overlooking since it was lining their pockets.[quote]The reaction of many in the public reflects their misunderstanding of the issue. I'm sure that even some of the people who could stand to lose everything are still arguing against the bailout, because they aren't aware that not doing so will directly target them.

So bailouts are painful, of course. But Governments have to be responsible when they bear some of the blame. And the Federal Reserve has to play its role.

What would be truly irresponsible is to do a bailout and then do [i]nothing[/i] to reform the system. Then I'd really be down in the trenches arguing against Government waste.[/quote]Ironically, I fully understand this since my funding for school and living could be lost if things are allowed to fail and yet I'm still not in favor of it. Unless, like your last bit here says, serious reform is enacted. This is what worries me more than anything. I don't want to see this bail out go through if nothing is going to be done to tighten up regulations and responsiblity, on all sides. [/font]

[James]

[quote]I see it as being similar since the irresponsibility is far more widespread that just an individual company. I may not have specified who, but the fault is more than just the companies in general. As you said, it includes those who have borrowed money when they couldn't afford to pay it back. So the responsiblity goes both ways.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Okay. I had the impression that you were comparing this bailout to a regular bailout of a corporation, when obviously it is quite different.

The responsibility does indeed go both ways. I guess, though, that I think it is an oversimplification to suggest that this bailout is another example of corporate failure being somehow rewarded by Government - many of the people who have made mistakes here did so without a malicious or greedy intent.

And so, when we always hear about the "greed of Wall St.", it tends to cast a slightly inaccurate and narrow portrait of what's really happening.[/font]

[quote]I never said it was only about corporate bigwigs, I said it showed unnecessary favoritism towards those who were key to the disaster in the first place. Obviously they are in a position to have more influence on keeping the market stable so therefore, a greater degree of responsiblity should fall on their shoulders for their part in this. [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]And I never said you only said it was about corporate bigwigs. ~_^

My point was that all of the emphasis here is about the greed on Wall Street. Nobody would disagree that those people who have taken outrageous risks with people's money (dangerous risks taken simply for greed) should not be bailed out.

But that kind of position oversimplifies the reality.

I agree that there are people who should bear more responsibility for this. But that isn't the same as agreeing with Federal Reserve intervention to prevent a massive economic collapse.[/font]

[quote]No misunderstood, my reaction that is. I look at my previous posts and they were too vague. I still disagree with bail outs, but then that's because it speaks of a failure to review and restructure regulations as needed to keep this kind of thing from ever happening. [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well, yeah, I mean nobody can disagree with that really.

But this kind of thing [i]has[/i] happened. So the question about whether or not we agree philosophically with a bailout is one thing - the question about what we would support in an emergency situation (and whether we'd accept the negative of a bailout as opposed to the negative of potential economic collapse) is another.[/font]

[quote]I think you're mistaking our genuine anger over the sheer level of stupidity that has been happening in both the cooperate and federal side of our country as a misunderstanding. Not that some people aren't, it's just that it's easy to only rant about how frustrated we are instead of being more concise with our thoughts. [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think I'm misunderstanding your anger - believe me, I understand your anger. I find it amazing that the financial system in America has been allowed to run rampant for so many years - that it has been so unregulated and so unchecked. It's galling and really incomprehensible. And the continued inability of Government to take its proper role in this is inexcusable.

Having said that, I do think that a lot of people misunderstand the causes of this crisis. It's very easy to say that it's all about corporate greed and Government mismanagement. And that is certainly mostly true. But it really misunderstands the reasons why a bailout is being proposed.

I mean, many people who are voting for this measure are people who, in principle, would never agree with Government bailouts. So why vote for it now?

Maybe it's because the stakes are so high. But also, it could be that the consequences of [i]not[/i] doing so could be far worse than not.[/font]

[quote]Ironically, I fully understand this since my funding for school and living could be lost if things are allowed to fail and yet I'm still not in favor of it. Unless, like your last bit here says, serious reform is enacted. This is what worries me more than anything. I don't want to see this bail out go through if nothing is going to be done to tighten up regulations and responsiblity, on all sides. [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]As I mentioned much earlier in this thread, I'm not aware of the specific details of the bailout package.

My comments here are really more about this overall principle and the reaction to it. Also I guess I've tried to bring in some other aspects, like the historical role of the Federal Reserve and the Government.

But if I were sitting down and looking at the detail? I would not support any bailout that does not incorporate regulatory reform. That's my own position, personally.[/font]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='James;822461][font=franklin gothic medium]The problem here isn't the free market system, it's simply that America made a big mistake by deregulating its banking system to the extent that it has.[/font][/QUOTE]I have to wonder how many people really see that, I honestly do. You can't change things like that and expect people to be sensible. If they were, regulations/laws wouldn't be necessary in the first place.[quote name='Allamorph;822547][FONT=Arial']I sincerely maintain that it is not the government's responsibility to rescue any failing company, whether it be local, state-wide, nation-wide, private, or corporate.[/FONT][/quote]And I would sincerely maintain that it is their responsiblity to protect the rest of the public from the reckless behavior said companies and individuals engaged in. It's important to realize just who is really being bailed out here.[QUOTE=Nathan'][FONT="Arial"]The problem with allowing them to just go bankrupt is at this point, the problem is big enough that the fall out will affect thousands of Americans both money and job wise who had nothing to do with it.

I strongly dislike bail outs in any form, however I think it has become a necessary evil at this point. [/FONT][/QUOTE]Exactly. You have to look beyond who created the mess and see what will happen if you don't step in to minimize the damage.

Now I hope you'll forgive me if this was already touched on, but as one who has lived through every single bail out listed in that document that Sabrina linked to, I can tell you right now that the reason the government does them is they work.

Plus as James already pointed out, this is far more than bailing out a failing company, this is dealing with quite a few irresponsible every day Americans as well. I know people who have already lost their homes to this mess and I can't find it within myself to feel sorry for them since many of them were living beyond their means.

Homes they couldn't really afford, loans they couldn't really afford, etc. With the increase in living and things like gas, the increase has seen people losing everything. They got hit with the reality that you can't keep extending your credit if you don't have sufficient cash flow to keep up with it.

Regulations on loans and other things have become far more lenient over the decades, creating an atmosphere that allowed all parties to be irresponsible. The fact that it will require so much money to fix is just staggering.

The only complaint I will have is if this goes through and nothing is done to tighten up the regulations that were relaxed in the first place.

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"][B]↑[/B] [I]*pokes you*[/I] :D

Anyway, I guess the point is moot since the revised bill did pass: [URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26987291/"][U]Article[/U][/URL] So now, it will be a matter of "only time will tell" if it was really a good thing or a complete and total disaster. I really don't know what to think since I don't know enough about it and how that kind of thing works. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]I'm still less than thrilled that it came down to a measure like this, however I am at least happy to see some of the issues in regards to protecting individual accounts and smaller businesses being included. Or rather expanded to increase the coverage. It's still got issues, and I certainly don't envy the next person to take office. They're going to have their work cut out for them.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Rachmaninoff]

This is semi related since this paticular bill helped contribute to this problem in the first place. I'm sure I'm not the only one to see this article and just shake their head and sigh. [URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27150961/"][U]National Debt Clock runs out of numbers[/U][/URL] Seriously, that's just sad.