Comments on: Where is the Bailout Money Going?

By: Bree

Bree — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:41:41 +0000

I have actually heard that, the $700 B going toward the bailout could actually be split up between all the legal and registered voters giving each one of them $300,000 each. that in its self would solve all our problems people could then afford to pay off debts and loans and buy new stuff A.K.A new cars which would definately get the car companies and the banks out of trouble.

By: Gregory Walker

Gregory Walker — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:30:26 +0000

I hope Obama makes the sorts of institutional changes he’s been promising so that this stuff stops for good. We elected him because we trust him to be as tough on business as Teddy Roosevelt was a century ago, and I believe we deserve to have him keep his word. If it turns out he’ll be in the pockets of these companies, then we are all in huge trouble. But I think he will do the right thing and put more restrictions on the assistance we give to these companies, because giving them this free reign is just not the way to go about doing things.

By: Kelli

Kelli — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:40:30 +0000

I think this will not be a problem for much longer. I believe that we put regulations on how much money could be given out in a certain period of time. This will prevent Paulson from giving away too much in the next 3 months. This means that there will still be a lot of money for Obama’s Secretary of Treasury to give out. I think Obama will be very unlikely to give money to banks so they can buy other banks and will likely put the regulations in place that most of us have called for. The way we do business in America is about to change, and probably for the better.

By: Chad Sweeney

Chad Sweeney — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:58:27 +0000

I am this close to not even filling out my taxes next year. I can’t believe people on this blog could possibly condone this type of government spending with my money! We live in a democracy, and we have a government of the people. That means the people’s money should go where the people want it, not where government bureaucrats or fat cat CEOs decide to spend it. Any company executive who spends money on things like this should be locked up for stealing America’s money and we should throw away the key. It was this kind of spending that got us into this mess and it’ll be this kind of spending that’ll get us into it even deeper.

By: Thomas DelCuomo

Thomas DelCuomo — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:58:42 +0000

Stephen: CEOs of companies may be experts on the economy, but they’re still only out to make money for themselves, not help the economy. They don’t care about stabilizing the economy, they just care about stabilizing their own income and they don’t care what happens to everyone else. If they can buy these banks, it provides them with a safety net for their own companies. However, it still punches everyone else in the gut, especially if that whole umbrella of banks now goes under because one company mismanaged them. Acquisition of power does not help the economy, it only hurts it. More companies creates competition and that’s what we need.

By: Kaitlyn

Kaitlyn — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 03:21:16 +0000

Why are we allowing this to happen. Do we not have any sort of system of accountability for our money? The bailout was supposed to support the failing loans so that average people could be helped in this time of crisis, but instead I guess we have settled for helping banks instead of directly helping people. Does anyone know if the congress id doing anything to counter this problem? I hope that they are.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 03:15:30 +0000

I respect the decision of these companies to buy the banks. They are the ones who are experts on the economy, not the congress. Although it may seem like a bit of an issue, overall it is probably better for the economy to trust the world class economists who work on wall street to do what is best for the economy. Their jobs and livelihoods are on the line here, just like everybody else’s. For now we should do everything we can to make sure that they are supported in their efforts to re-stabilize our economy.

By: Brian Peterson

Brian Peterson — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 03:06:21 +0000

Having fewer banks puts our economy in an even more unstable situation. If there are not a whole bunch of small banks who can compete with each other, but instead only a few banking giants, the system becomes much more susceptible to any problems which might occur. If there are many banking institutions, any issue can be compartmentalized, and dealt with before it spreads to the whole system. I think that we need to make sure that the mega banks are broken up into separate banks after the economic crisis is over. I’m no expert, but if the banks become too large they may violate anti-trust laws, and the government could actually step in to solve the problem.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 02:58:16 +0000

Question. Can we add in more controls to the bailout bill or is it too late for that. I realize we cannot put condition on money that has already been given out, but could we now put conditions on money that we give out in the future?

Would this be an amendment to the bill or a new bill itself. I feel like it could pass pretty easily so it probably makes sense for people to lobby their congressmen about this. Otherwise we really have no chance of fixing this problem.

By: Antonio

Antonio — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 02:52:24 +0000

I’m confused. Why did everyone trust Paulson after everyone agreed that his and Bush’s policies ruined the economy to begin with? When did the american people just accept whatever leaders say? I also partially blame the media for not criticizing the policies more and not asking more questions. Most people do not understand the complex economic issues at play and we need more people giving us a reasonable critique of policies before we just give away 700 billion dollars.