From what you know about the bail out bill, would you vote for it, or against it?

[HardWorkingDem]

Myself, because of the bullshit earmarks, if I were in congress, I would vote against it. What about others?

[Eric J in MN]

1. I'd vote No. The government should not buy trash from Wall Street.

It's not the proper role of government to prop up corporations which made bad investments by buying those investments.

[ananda]

2. Against because..

.. all those earmarks need to be expunged.

No taxpayer money should be used.

Serious regulations need to be included...
for banks, credit card usurers, and for
Wall Street.

And, serious money for serious help for
real American people is a must.

[ashling]

3. Not without garauntees of regulation

and actual aide for people, infrastructure, jobs, etc.

Actually, I am surprised that Wall Street hasn't demanded that they get theirbailed out money in Euros.

:puke:

[jayfish]

4. Against!

No bail-out of Wall Street without a reciprocation to main street.

Jay

[doc03]

5. Hell no and I am disappointed Obama

and Biden voted for it. I think they missed a good opportunity to show they will fight all the unnecessary pork that is added to every bill. Actually I am very surprised John McCain didn't exploit that opportunity. There are 400 plus pages of pork, tax cuts and just plain bullshit, no wonder the American people give Congress a 10% approval rating. Our Government is broke and from what I see nobody is going to step up to change it.

[spag68]

7. Bail-out bill

I would not vote for it in it's present form. As for the "earmarks" McSame can't complain too much as they were put in there mostly for the rethugs. I would have a hard time voting for a bill that didn't have some language in it to give people a chance to stay in their homes and pay let them pay longer or something like that. This would not apply to speculators or flippers, only to those making an honest effort to pay.

[girl gone mad]

6. 100% Against.

Because:

1. Bank bailouts have a low rate of success beyond the very short term. Recapitalization and debt-for-equity are proven long-term strategies and no more difficult to implement.

2. We have tools at our disposal to help free up liquidity immediately, giving us time to craft a better bill.

3. We are buying up bad debts. The derivatives market is a 200T + market. 700B is less than 1% of 200T. Do you really think the market is panicked over 1% bad assets? No way. Meaning, we are going to be stuck with the worst of the worst junk.

4. Throwing good money after bad makes no sense. Would giving Enron free money have solved their problems? No. People don't want to do business with the banks because they don't trust the banks. Money won't fix that problem. Transparency will.

5. If we give them 700B now, that's money we won't have to spend in our economy at a time when we are in a recession and we really need to the money.

6. The banks are more likely to invest the 700B in commodities and foreign markets than in our declining economy. That will further drive up the cost of food and energy.

[emilyg]

8. Against.