Comments:Bush addresses nation on economic crisis; Congress debates bailout

Ladies and Gentlemen, Republican and Democrat, we are officially fuck when a Capitalist is using Socialism to save the economy.--66.229.17.181 04:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If the government wasn't in such a state of complete DENIAL they would've realized that we've been in a recession ever since '03 or so and would've done something to fix this BEFORE it became a problem --199.190.223.190 11:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

For me this is just going to become an unending cycle. Today, our American economy seems to me like a huge pyramid scheme. The emphasis is all about credit. During Bush's speech he said that the 700 bil will be used to remove the toxic assets from these failing companies so that they can provide us with more credit... What?! So his solution to bad credit problems is to allow us to get more credit??? We the regular citizens are the true foundation of our economy. Instead of giving billions to these big corps so they can loan it out to us, why not help the citizens? Put the 700 billion into things that end up being the greatest expenses for us. Things like health, energy, and necessary commodities. Use the money to create jobs, increase wages, discourage outsourcing, and give people relief from debt. My business prof said many times, the first road to financial stability is to get rid of debt. I propose we stop using credit as a foundation to our economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.15.11 (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This bill, if passed, would cost around $300 each for every single American adult. So get ready to fork over those hundreds to the credit card companies, folks; doesn't matter if you've kept good credit—this money's coming over on a silver (federal) platter. Jade Knight (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Get with it! $300 per adult? Not a patch on what this will cost. The real figure is over $2,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country - taxpayer or not. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked $700 billion divided into the population of the United States comes out to quite a bit more than $300. Though Brianmc's $2,000 is accurate with respect to every man, woman and child, it's pretty far off in the real world, considering there's a significant portion of the population that doesn't actually pay taxes.  The "rich" that everyone is so mad at 'cause they don't pay 50% or more in taxes like they do in socialist countries pay the majority of the taxes in this country.  It'll be them and their businesses that foot the bill.  And in a communist country this would make perfect sense -- let's take money from people that make it and give it to the ones that spend it.  So, I guess we're going to be screwed for a while 'cause I can't see this being a sustainable way to run the country unless we're trying to run it into the ground.  The business owners and employers (the ones that actually pay taxes) aren't going to support this sort of redistribution of wealth for long -- they'll either go out of business in the process or cut their costs (i.e. jobs).—Lutskovp (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bailout
I really think this bailout is very irresponsible. We're the ones who have to pay for this and we did nothing wrong. Yet we pay for it not them! Incredible. I read this recently concerning the bailout:

"What we need now is a return to individual financial independence. We need to instill within working America the belief and the ability to take care of ourselves. We don’t need Big Government to securitize our future. Small businesses make up 50% of GDP. This country was founded by entrepreneurs and it may well be that entrepreneurs have to save her, 200 years later.  We can surely weather this storm and obtain our freedom through perseverance and hard work.

The more security is thrust upon us, the greater the reduction of freedom. Our Federal government is putting us all at risk, because she (our government) is shielding us from natural consequences that she herself created. We will pay for the sins of our elected either way.

Personally, I’d rather get rid of bureaucrats who continually grow the government footprint under the guise of security, and forge a path to freedom.

Remember the Boston Tea Party had nothing to do with security!"

Quoted from the Pyrblu blog: http://blog.pyrblu.com/2008/09/23/the-erosion-of-freedom/

--HimmerAndras (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Might be out of place
But like in the American Revolutionary war when we pay France, Spain, and The Dutch Republic for helping us win Independences from England. I think Afghanistan and Iraq (specially since it has oil) should pay the US since help put Democratic governments and fight their enemy's.--KDP3 (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Stock and stuff
My great-grandfather (who is very old) has been following the stock market for more than 15 years. What he says is that if people don't panic, then they won't sell their stock in such a hurry and we won't have a day of death like we did in 1929.

As for the bailout, it does look a bit unfair to pay more than $2,000 for every man woman and child but we are the ones who elected Bush into office and he probably knows a lot more about the economy than we do even though 80% of the world wants to ride bullets up his skull.

- minor

What's...
What's robbing a bank, compared to owning one? --Brian McNeil / talk 17:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it a blank check, but it is a check with no oversight from congress or the legal system. This is directly copied from the Paulson plan that has been sent to congress to approve. I am just fine with the bailout of the financial system it is needed, however having no oversight on 700 Billion dollars is absolutely ridiculous.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.19.15.203 (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a blank check, it is an economic slaughter with the taxpayers on the block.
Quite simply, there is an unspoken issue here - the cost of the bureaucracy needed to handle this.

The president himself mentioned that certain commissions and departments would have to be made to manage the bought lands, houses, and whatnot. And beyond that there will be realtors to pay, home owner's association dues, and all the other civil costs. Then you have to factor in that this is a government wherein a 49¢ ballpoint pen has been known to cost $40 or more once it manages to be appropriated through the bureaucratic machine. After that comes inflation, real and forced by the fed, to further bloat the costs.

In the end, this is just giving our country an enormous debt that will carry over to our children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children – something quite possibly to the tune of 56,000,000,000,000 dollars from what I can just estimate on a sheet of paper based on the average rates of government bloating. Will this save us from depression? Yes. But so would doing nothing as the relative loss in the current market is something like 1/50th that of the great depression and 1/3 of the depression of the late 70's. But, if we go ahead with this bailout, in any form, we curse ourselves and our descendants down the line to a far, far worse situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.144.241 (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Website Plug
Since it's related to this article very much, I thought it'd be worthwhile to shuffle it in here: http://www.nocashfortrash.org  Fephisto (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)