% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

GameStop Corp. Message Board

  • ffgridirongirl ffgridirongirl Sep 26, 2008 2:08 PM Flag

    Why is the bailout unpopular (polling) to avg Joe?

    Who knows whether or not it'll get passed, but why does it draw such unfavorable review from the average citizen (regardless of political party)? I find it interesting that the House Republicans are the only ones really personifying the public sentiment (not saying who's right or wrong, cause frankly I don't know).

    I know why I don't like it (and hope it doesn't pass), but it could be because nothing I've read or heard has explained how this will solve the underlying problems. All I've heard it we need to loosen the credit markets, but a too loose credit market is (to my limited understanding) what got us here in the first place. What about the rest of you? Like it, don't like it and why?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Paulson is smart guy and he will bring us a lot of money from the bailout plan.

      • 1 Reply to jshao2005
      • yeah stalin and hitler were smart guys too. and we see what giving them unlimited power did. you do not give one man unlimted power over your entire economy. And Paulson will only be there for 4 months. who will be the next Sec? Jim johnson of Fannie Mae or Franklin Raines, or the CEO of Bear Streans, or the CEO of Lehman brothers? Or Gerorge Soros?

    • Hey, I made a good guess!

    • "did a better job than Pelosi"

      --> LOL. Yea, I haven't liked her from the get go. How about her gun slinger "there's a new Congress(i.e. sheriff) in town when she 1st took over?... I would laugh my ass off and have a big party if she lost her election bid but that probably won't happen. I'd actually be tempted to get myself registered into CA if I actually thought the vote would be close enough... She's terrible...

    • "It seems to me that we need to go though a major financial upheaval to learn from our mistakes. Yes, banks will tighten lending and the economy will slow down considerably. Yes it will be painful ... maybe even for years."

      --> It would be a whole lot worse than that. Maybe you'd prefer businesses to became more and more unable to get/maintain inventory, farms unable to get money to buy seeds/fertilizers/equipment and therefore reduced "food" production, small business not being able to refinance their debt and stay afloat, etc. etc. all the way to double digit unemployment and "Depression" as businesses cut staff way back and/or went bankrupt and lost everyone which would cause even more homes to be lost due to all the unemployment. Then people have to take their deposits (what's left) out of the financial institutions, more financials go under as more "runs on the banks" occur, the financial institutions get "even tighter" with their money which causes the whole thing to just go round and round... Would that be "FAIR" to all the people who were living within their means/credit and never took out any excessive risk but lost their jobs anyway? NO thanks, I'll take the plan and accept that "some" people will be getting a bailout for their mistakes but that an "even larger" number of perfectly "innocent" people (like the fiscally responsible ones and kids for example) will be protected. Yep, I think that's what leaders are supposed to do. Oh, if you think my description was way too excessive and basically fear mongering I will just say "IMO" it's not...

      People win the lottery in various ways so there's no need to be jealous about someone else getting a deal they shouldn't get when we didn't get that deal. The alternative to the "plan" is just to WRONG even though the philosophy behind it is RIGHT. That's where leadership comes in and ours better get their s__t together.

    • Here's where you and I differ again. You love to criticize and poke fun at Democrats at every opportunity, but you seem to fail to see that Republicans (and especially the Bush administration) are at least equally deserving of criticism.

      If Dems were in the the white house, this plan would probably include money going directly to troubled homeowners. The republican plan is directed at financial markets. Corporate welfare is still welfare.

    • did a better job than Pelosi

    • Oops, I guess Spanx was replying to Unseen's reply to "Lionel" not me so actually lionel was the peace maker but I'm sure I helped :-)...

    • By buying assets that no one in the free market wants, the government is absolutely performing a bail out. In a free market, some of the institutions holding this crap would fail. With this plan to "free up liquidity", many of those individuals and institutions that made bad decisions will not fail. That's a bail out!

      Liquidity could be freed up in many ways. The gov could send $30,000 to everyone who is in trouble with their mortgage. However, that would reward those who got themselves in trouble and penalize responsible people. This plan to buy toxic paper is differently designed, but it is no different in principle. It rewards the foolish.

      It seems to me that we need to go though a major financial upheaval to learn from our mistakes. Yes, banks will tighten lending and the economy will slow down considerably. Yes it will be painful ... maybe even for years. However, we will come out the other side and wise people and corporations will come out on top and lead the country to prosperity. Interventionist support of wrong-minded businesses and individuals will never lead to prosperity.

    • Hey, look at that, I've brought Unseen and Spanx together...! I've solved world peace (at least on the GME least for the next few minutes...)

    • I haven't agreed with you on many things, but I do here. The notion that supporting free markets is irrational and that I (and those the see things as I do) lack understanding absolutely pisses me off.

    • View More Messages
25.11+0.11(+0.44%)Oct 20 4:00 PMEDT