Image
Pericles_Lewnes
It's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention a majority of Americans oppose the bailout plan passed last night by the Senate and heading toward the House.

As discussed here and here, many Americans seem to understand the "real" economy -- i.e., Main Street -- will suffer if the plan fails, but they still oppose it and view it as a bailout for Wall Street "fat cats."

"I've lost my money because of these idiots, now they want me to subsidize their losses too???," Yahoo! Finance user "hoser48" wrote yesterday. "They can go to hell with the common man, we will all live together as equals then. A bailout is not the answer."

Clearly that sentiment isn't universal, and Monday's 778 Dow dive did change many people's view. But it's also true the mood in the country is ugly, and it didn't happen overnight.

Todd Harrison, CEO of Minyanville.com, has been warning about the threat of "societal acrimony" for some time....

Read More and Watch Video at Link...

  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Money
  2. tags:
    News and Politics Current TV Economy Money 10 more
  3.     
    |

73 comments // Americans on the bailout: Were pissed!

  • Lajon53
  • Brockie
    • 0
      Brockie  
    • One part of this bailout that really makes my blood boil is after the government buys all those bad loans and all the greedy asshole bankers get to keep their cushy multimillion dollar jobs. Then the government is going to go back to those banks and pay those same greedy inept assholes more money as a consulting fee on what to do with the loans next. So in reality they are getting paid twice for the same bad loans. Talk about a bonanza!!!

    • 4 years ago
  • jubal
  • wanamoka
    • 0
      wanamoka  
    • Well, I am pissed and I let the senators know about it. Not just Obama and Biden but my own Texas Senators. I know my senators are not going to do anything about it, they only care about lining their own pockets.

      The house needs to get some guts and vote it down. There will be lots of attention from the debates tomorrow, we just have to stay focused on calling the House.

    • 4 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
  • Robroy1
    • 0
      Robroy1  
    • The bale-out is nothing less than a slap in the face of middle class America which is totally against it but Bush and Co and congress will go forward and do as they please no matter what the voters say. Democracy is dead we have been hijacked a cult as Whitenoise says and I agree.

    • 4 years ago
  • 1percent
  • Paratus
    • 0
      Paratus  
    • I like neckfires solution.

      Does it really amaze anyone that Capital Hill is not listening? Every election we have the same issues yet nothing is done. Now the Senate has passed a 450+ page bill over $800 BILLION plus something like 25 billion to the automakers plus the recent 50 million or so to the U.N. for AIDS + what Obama wants to give the U.N. (548 billion) + the Civilian Security Force to some 429 million + free healthcare + tax breaks.. Who's is going to pay for this? YOu and I. This will be like Bill Clinton who raised taxes on even those making some 40k a years shortly after getting into office. This government plunder (aka- bailout or rescue ) will come back to haunt us. We will owe the fed the vigon the money we are borrowing from it to buy up these mortgages. The government created this mess and now they want us to believe they can get us out. What morons.

    • 4 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  
    • "GRAND LARCENY" ON A MONUMENTAL SCALE : Does the Bailout Bill Mark the End of America as We Know It?
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10413

      Every reputable economist commenting on the bill opposes it, including NYU’s Nouriel Roubini, who says the plan is "totally flawed." He says the plan is:

      "a disgrace: a bailout of reckless bankers, lenders, and investors that provides little direct debt relief to borrowers and financially stressed households and that will come at a very high cost to the US taxpayer."

      ECONOMISTS AGAINST BAILOUT
      http://current.com/items/89344263_economists_against_bailout

      What has not been reported is that the Bush administration turned these acts of reckless lending into a national program of mortgage fraud. Soon after George W. Bush became president in 2001, meetings at the White House between Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and administration officials became more frequent. According to mortgage industry insiders I have interviewed, direction soon began to come down from the banks to mortgage brokers to falsify borrower income information to allow them to qualify for loans that were otherwise out of reach.

      The FBI has investigations underway to prosecute some of these cases of mortgage fraud. But they are not reaching above the brokers’ level. The FBI is not gaining access—or at least they have not reported it publicly—to information about collusion at the political level or at the level of the banks which provided the leveraged funding for mortgage money.

      FBI probing bailout firms
      http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/23/news/companies/fbi_finance/index.htm

      But at the time the housing bubble was inflating, no one was watching. Note that when Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson testified before the Senate Banking Committee last week, he said he was shocked to learn when assuming office in June 2006 that no federal agency regulated mortgage lending. Rather this was an area left to the states.

      What Paulson did not say was that when the states attempted to intervene, they were blocked by the Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. In a February 14 article in the Washington Post written before he resigned, New York governor Eliot Spitzer wrote:

      "In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules. But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation."

      THE REAL SPITZER STORY
      http://members.nowpublic.com/world/real-spitzer-story

      THE GREATEST THEFT IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND
      http://current.com/items/89330596_the_greatest_theft_in_the_history_of_humankind

      THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN EXPLAINED ! http://current.com/items/89322147_the_financial_meltdown_explained

      These past years were more than just the most shameful, corrupt and incompetent period in the history of the American legislative branch. These were the years when the U.S. parliament became a historical punch line, a political obscenity on par with the court of Nero or Caligula -- a stable of thieves and perverts who committed crimes rolling out of bed in the morning and did their very best to turn the mighty American empire into a debt-laden, despotic backwater, a Burkina Faso with cable. - MATT TAIBBI

    • 4 years ago
  • PhilipNoack
  • dissimulator
  • Ammo1231
    • 0
      Ammo1231  
    • The Federal Reserve should STOP giving the banks money to lend and simply lend it directly. The banks already screwed up, so why reward them with $700 Billion more? Take that $700 Billion and lend it directly to homeowners in foreclosure and small businesses. F**K the rich Wall Street / Corporate bastards.

      The U.S. government should make it ILLEGAL for corporations and ANY business entity to contribute money to a politician or PAC. The only contributions they should be allowed to accept must be form REAL HUMAN BEINGS. And those donations should be limited to $1,000 or less person. F**K the goddam lobbyists too.

      This is some of the "outside the box" thinking we need. This is the kind of CHANGE that I am looking for.

    • 4 years ago
  • AreOh
    • 0
      AreOh  
    • Again, I see a lot of complaining. This is YOUR country. What are you going to do? We can post our feelings all we want, but if we continue to live our lives the same way, nothing will change. Stop complaining and DO SOMETHING...

    • 4 years ago
  • yeti
    • 0
      yeti  
    • Osama Bin Laden must be rolling around his cave in laughter and sorrow because he didn't have faith in the market forces of Western capitalism. He didn't foresee how unbridled consumption would correct itself by imploding under the weight of its own unfettered greed. Now he's looking at his portfolio and wondering if he should buy a couple of desperate US banks and become an investment banker, this way he could certainly do a lot more damage to America, however this time under the guise of freedom and opportunity.

    • 4 years ago
  • csmonut
    • 0
      csmonut  
    • Well...this tells me how little our government thinks of our opinion.
      Ya know we are just, "The unwashed, ignorant masses."
      Makes me want to throwup.

    • 4 years ago
  • globewatcher
  • disgustedvoter
    • 0
      disgustedvoter  
    • I want to know exactly what kind of tax break I will get. I don't get the child credit because my kids are over 18. And the tax cuts that Bush gave out a while back I didn't benefit from that either. And the way I understand it they are only extending the tax cuts that are supposed to expire and they were going to do that any way. I do payroll for the company I work for and when we got our new tax book my boss said his taxes went down. I said "oh, how much did mine go down" he said "oh, I'm sorry yours didn't". So I looked for myself and sure enough mine was 1 dollar more. I'm all for letting the fatcats lose it all. I'm not going to lose any sleep if some rich person has to sell a summer home or cut his vacation down to 2 a year instead of 3 like my boss has.

    • 4 years ago
  • islek
    • 0
      islek  
    • Maybe this economic crunch will be what it takes for lobbyists to lose their chokehold on our representatives and give us real democracy back for a change.

    • 4 years ago
  • Wesnology61
  • SDLN
    • 0
      SDLN  
    • What frustrates me the most is the legislature's unwillingness to develop a bill that actually addresses our current economic problems.

      I've been civil in every letter I've written to my reps, but I'm on the verge of getting goofy. I might end up writing something along these line: "I have a plan: if Congress gives me $1 billion, others will benefit when I spend the money. I call it the Ripple Out Theory of Economics. This is the only way to save America. Vote for this legislation. Do it now, or the Earth will implode!"

      I mean, it seems like that kind of lunacy is the only way to get through to these people.

    • 4 years ago
  • islek
    • 0
      islek  
    • The fact that this plan is called a bailout should be reason enough not to endorse it. Once again, people who make mistakes will not be held responsible for their own actions.

      The economy will not recover overnight even if this bill is passed... it's going to suck for a while. The first noxious idea as a result of groupthink is not necessarily the best solution.

    • 4 years ago
  • jjmaster
    • 0
      jjmaster  
    • Again... Pelosi has "suggested" that the house will support the Senate decision... If only the 98% of us who are not rich crooks could be heard... but those in power and most "other leaders" are robbing the world together. They don't represent us. Tears are dripping down my face... My heart is crumbling over our loss of liberty, and democracy... Why do we vote at all? Our votes are a facade. They will just keep on raping America!

    • 4 years ago
  • Neil22
    • 0
      Neil22  
    • Obviously, by the people, for the people is no longer operable. Senators Boxer and Feinstein from California decided that even with overwhelming negative responses from their constituency concerning the Bailout, decided that George Bush's butt save is more important than ever being re-elected. Call your Congressman and tell them where you stand. Don't be fooled by either the market or the so called news media. They all get a cut of the pie.

    • 4 years ago
  • ChristmasAsen
  • billssqueeze
    • 0
      billssqueeze  
    • Neil22:

      MY CONGRESSMAN DID THE RIGHT THING, now what? Can we prosicute the rest, how about a court marshall, maybe sue or a firing squad. A vote you say, i don't know about you all but i think our pens need some sharpening. What was it that Nixon got fired for?

    • 4 years ago
  • dissimulator
    • 0
      dissimulator  
    • They will be even more pissed when they see all the earmarks in the bill
      New Tax earmarks in Bailout bill

      * Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
      * Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
      * 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)

      Tax earmark “extenders” in the bailout bill.

      * Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
      * American Samoa (Sec. 309)
      * Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
      * Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
      * Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
      * Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
      * Railroads (Sec. 316)
      * Auto Racing Tracks (317)
      * District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
      * Wool Research (Sec. 325)

      http://lpin.org/node/461

    • 4 years ago
  • allIknowis
  • ninepounds6
    • 0
      ninepounds6  
    • This will continue until we hold them responsible. I like the guillotine, personally.

      Congress of both parites are slaves to the money that got them there, of course they are crooks.

      I feel that the only long-term solution to this mess is a viable third, or even fourth, party. But they have convinced us that a vote for them is a "wasted" vote. It is simple in my view, a vote for a third party is the ONLY SOLUTION!

    • 4 years ago
  • queenofit
    • 0
      queenofit  
    • ninepounds6:

      Yes, it is like a club that no one wants you to be a part of, except to pay your dues and vote.

      The crazy part is you pay your dues and vote for the very ones who do not care for you, and cry wondering why no one likes you?

      I say throw the bums out....the lot of em!

    • 4 years ago
  • regularrf
    • 0
      regularrf  
    • Lets see if these people including myself put their vote where there mouth is.Bush is republican and the democrats are voting to pass this not the republicans.
      And when it backfires the democrats will get the blame.
      What happens when the patch falls off they always do.

    • 4 years ago
  • ChristmasAsen
  • islek
    • 0
      islek  
    • regularrf:

      This is a clear example of why it ultimately doesn't matter who becomes the face of our country, but who represents us and runs the operations. Congress. We're not holding an election for a king or some other single dictator to control a country. WE are supposed to have a say in this. Nobody really wanted to be the one to say anything in a place besides a message board until now, and I hope it's not too late.

    • 4 years ago
  • globewatcher
  • pissedoffinarkansas
    • 0
      pissedoffinarkansas  
    • regularrf:

      I'm wondering if the dems aren't thinking that if they push the bailout for wall street maybe the big business people won't start throwing some of that money their way from now on.
      But like you said regularff, the dems are probably cutting their own throats because regular people HATE this bail-out and they are going to blame the dems for pushing this piece of crap on us.

      Here's a thought on this plan. Do we really think the govt is going to pay "market value" for these mortgages? I'm pretty sure the plan is to prop up prices in the real-estate market. If this is so, aren't they more likely going to be forced to pay what the banks "estimate" their value to be,so that the banks get "fair value" for them? If they pay discount rates for these securities in order to "save" the tax-payers money, will that not exacerbate the problem and force home prices further down?(Hell if we wanted to do that we could just let things roll on and save the $700 billion that the Fed has to create). Just a thought.

    • 4 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
  • Picasso9000
    • 0
      Picasso9000  
    • The RepubliCrats take care of their rich contributors while they make us eat cake.

      I say down with the RepubliCrats.

      We need all new legislators.

      The current politicians know too much about corruption.

      It's time for a complete flush.

    • 4 years ago
  • ChristmasAsen
  • islek
    • 0
      islek  
    • Picasso9000:

      I don't even care about party stances at this point. COMPETENT PEOPLE WHO LISTEN TO THOSE THEY REPRESENT are what we need in legislation. Not just a Commander in Chief, either. Their term is only 8-10 years. Senators can be re-elected until they croak, and it's obvious they hold way more clout in situations like these.

    • 4 years ago
  • JohnnyBravo
  • islek
    • 0
      islek  
    • JohnnyBravo:

      YOU can do something! We all can. Be a pest to your Senate and House reps. If they want to be re-elected to another term, they'd better listen to the people they represent.

      Don't wait for someone else to do something!

    • 4 years ago
  • neckfire
  • Humdrum
  • Pericles_Lewnes
    • 0
      Pericles_Lewnes  
    • neckfire:

      The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire
      The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire
      The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire

      We dont need no water let the motherfucker burn

      Burn motherfucker, burn

      - Bloodhound Gang

    • 4 years ago
  • globewatcher
  • neckfire
  • miles_ahead
  • iokua_2003
  • Pericles_Lewnes
    • 0
      Pericles_Lewnes  
    • neckfire:

      neckfire,

      You are are right I am an idiot. Somehow, yesterday, those lyrics expressed my anger.

      "The Roof is on Fire" and letting it burn expressed my emotions in relation to the meltdown. I think the meltdown should just happen. I think it should be left to burn.

      "Bodies Hit the Floor," relates to the Wall Street giants that will go down. I think we should let them go down.

      I was inspired by your superior visual metaphor of the guillotine, but now I see it didn't make sense. You have opened my eyes to my stupidity and I stand corrected and humbled in the glow of your Intellectual Hubris.

      Thanks for setting me straight.

    • 4 years ago
  • Pericles_Lewnes
    • 0
      Pericles_Lewnes  
    • Image
    • Current 89, Here is what Paul Krugman posted less than 10 hours after the column you posted...

      "Stockholm Syndrome"

      It seems many plates are spinning and the performers are drunk.

    • 4 years ago
  • queenofit
  • pakazak
    • 0
      pakazak  
    • and Paul Krugman can't make up his mind either.
      he accuses anyone against the bailout of being a crazy and vacillates in his support.
      we're all so worried about the damn markets and credit. bet the SOB's that caused it all aren't worried about it.
      as it stands, we appear to be eager to slap some duct tape on it and call it fixed.
      no thanks.

    • 4 years ago
  • onechance
    • 0
      onechance  
    • Fuck the corporate handout (ie: "bailout") and fuck bu$h for handing even MORE public money to his corrupt shitbag friends.

      Sons of Liberty UNITE!!!!!!!!!!!

    • 4 years ago
  • Patio_Patty
  • onechance
  • globewatcher
  • FRED4JUSTICE
    • 0
      FRED4JUSTICE  
    • The bail-out boondoggle is based on an upside down view of the problem that puts the cart before the horse. The key to understanding the economic problem and solution is that the real estate market tanked, and that is why the loans are upside down, or not worth face value, not the other way around. Say in 2005 a house price was $250,000, and lots of folks rushed to get a $200,000 or $250,000 loan, because the rates were low, the economy, jobs, income was booming, lots of upward mobility, and prices were rising, as they always had in real estate, so it seemed like a good bet... then the FED got scared about inflation, so raised the rates ... every month for about a year and a half, until the real estate market screached to a halt, then hack politicians like Schumer spent a year or so scapegoating and threatening lenders using a few examples of ignorant borrowers swindled by mortgage hucksters., a story older than used car salesmen and crooked lawyers. But this go around. the banks became the bad-guys for lending money, especiially when wallstreet speculators wanted the casino to refund thier lost bets, so what did Banks do? the Banks stopped lending, .... this is what caused the real estate market to really melt down, no money, no buyers. .turning home mortgages from the safest investment in the world to toxic waste. so now the $250,000 house is now worth $100,000 and the homeowner/borrower is begging the bank to take it back, so they can buy the same house next door and cut thier mortgage payments in half, which they must do because thier jobs and incomes have also fallen. On top of all this other housing expenses - taxes, utlities, and homeowner insurance spiked over the same time frame, exactly when household incomes and wealth/equity were dropping. Home equity is the main form of household wealth, so america is now poorer, thus spending less, while burnded by higher housing and gas costs, with little disposible income left over, this is spiraling down demand, employment and incomes - this is the key to our sluggish economy.

      The FED tried too little too late to get the banks to lend by giving them a really low discount rate, below 2%, but the banks instead borrow billions and speculate on wallstreet, just as other wallstreet invstors migrated out of mortgage back securities to driving up the price of commodities, like Oil futures, causing gas prices and inflation to rise.

      The answer to this problem is very simple. Instead of bailing out Goldman Sacs executives, and thier kind, fund FHA to refinance homeowners at very low rates, similar to the 2% the banks already borrow at. This costs little, because the fed is already lending banks bazillions at these low rates, but the discount window 'tool' is futile if banks do not in turn lend as intended. We can eliminate the middle men and go directly to FHA mortgage loans and fix the problem. Allow homeowners to refi at the short sale value of thier home so they can keep thier home instead of buying the house next door, this will give banks the liquidity without passing on "bad loans", as new loans will be created based on current market and credit conditions. The effect will be to reduce the mortgage and housing costs of the middle class under the FHA umbrella. This will restore household incomes, the housing market, home equity, wealth, and employment to the middle class..

    • 4 years ago
  • OldFart2008
  • yeti
    • 0
      yeti  
    • FRED4JUSTICE:

      Interesting course of action, however not entirely different than bailing out the banks in that the fed will have to consume the toxic loans one way or another. So whether rightside-up or upside-down the banks will have to liquidate the deadbeats. Difference is one scheme would retain real-estate value (albeit artificially) while the other adjusts the market price.

    • 4 years ago
  • FRED4JUSTICE
    • 0
      FRED4JUSTICE  
    • FRED4JUSTICE:

      I see the 'bailout' as a blank check for Paulson to write to financial institutions, to buy toxic mortgages at face value, which is below market value, so the buyer takes the loss. My plan refinances loans at the current market value, so the seller takes the loss from the face value. My plan also helps the homeowner with lower rates and mortgage payments, which will stem further defaults. The bailout, and the fed, now subsidizes banks with a discount rate of 2% on the hope that they will relend the money at 5%, and keep the difference as profit. I say give the homeowner the low rate, this makes the mortgage 'golden' who is going to default on a 2% home loan, they must be crazy? at lower payments, people can afford more house, so this stimulates demand, values, home equity, etc. The 'bail out' puts money into the pocket of wallstreet speculators, who contriubute nothing to our society or ecnonomy, and will just target another industry to destabilize and pillage on the hopes of profiting from volitility.

    • 4 years ago
  • queenofit
    • 0
      queenofit  
    • I am going to add this link so anyone who might want to listen to Dr Baker could. He is mad and I hear it in his voice.

      http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&am...:07:45

      I am also disgusted.

      I want to ask this question; now that the Senate has shown their true loyalty to the Wallstreet fat cats, notice who fully supported this in the Senate vote; John McCain and Barrack Obama. Does anyone else understand the full implications of their loyalty?

      Now who are you going to support?

      If nothing changes, then nothing changes.....

      just saying

    • 4 years ago
  • khromadjo
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • queenofit:

      Even if you think you are throwing away your vote on a third party candidate, you need to do it. It isn't throwing it away if it sends a clear message that the status quo of Repulicrats is not acceptable.

    • 4 years ago
  • pissedoffinarkansas
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • queenofit:

      It is possible that many of the issues supported by Nader/Gonzalez would be taken more seriously by congress if they were to get double digit showings in all the states they are running in. Even better is if they actually took several entire states.

    • 4 years ago
  • current89
  • Pericles_Lewnes
    • 0
      Pericles_Lewnes  
    • Image
    • current89:

      You make a good point and I certainly trust Krugman. But essentially he is saying that there is no vast conspiracy and that what we are witnessing is the alacraty of panic.

      Well, I am sorry, that doesn't make me feel better.

      Here is a link to what Krugman said 10 days ago...

      "There’s justice in the gibes. Everyone agrees that something major must be done. But Mr. Paulson is demanding extraordinary power for himself — and for his successor — to deploy taxpayers’ money on behalf of a plan that, as far as I can see, doesn’t make sense.

      Some are saying that we should simply trust Mr. Paulson, because he’s a smart guy who knows what he’s doing. But that’s only half true: he is a smart guy, but what, exactly, in the experience of the past year and a half — a period during which Mr. Paulson repeatedly declared the financial crisis “contained,” and then offered a series of unsuccessful fixes — justifies the belief that he knows what he’s doing? He’s making it up as he goes along, just like the rest of us."
      ------------------------------------------------------
      Now this was written before the changes, but we don't know what these changes are do we?

      Krugman even says in your posted article:

      "There’s a reason Paulson et al had such a hard time communicating the case for their plan — they didn’t have a very good case. To this day they’ve never been able to explain clearly why buying up bad mortgage assets at market prices will solve the credit crunch. The Wise Men, as far as I can tell, have never had a clear idea of what they’re doing."
      -----------------------------------------------------------

      You see, there wouldn't be much of a problem if it didn't appear that the government hasn't been trying to motivate us by lies and fear over the last eight years.

      But I trust Krugman, I do. I hope he is right and reading your article does give me a glimmer of hope. However he is being quite optimistic saying that this will be dealt with during an Obama administration. There is no lock on Obama being president.

    • 4 years ago
  • current89
  • jonny2times
    • 0
      jonny2times  
    • i went out and bought a newspaper that said "BIAL-OUT A NO GO! DOW PLUNDGES!" and stuck it in the back window of my car. we peons have suffered long enough, i think its about time the big boys squirm on stage for an act or two.

    • 4 years ago
  • allIknowis
  • WhiteNoise
more from News and Politics:

top videos