15 Comments

• 

  SezWho2 at 10:23 AM JST - 2nd October

  ...certain wooden arrows used by children...

  We need a tax break for this?

  Well, anyway the important thing is that people seem to be cobbling together a program that a majority in the Senate and House may be able to agree with. Never mind how effective the program may or may not be.

  I've been amused to read the headlines in the papers that talk about the need for our leaders and representatives to find a solution to the problem. I think the word should be countermeasure.

  I wouldn't go so far as to say that you can't begin to solve a problem until you know exactly what it is. But I would say that one of the reasons that it has been so difficult to find a countermeasure is that we can't agree on the problem. In the aftermath of this still-pending legislation, it will be interesting to see if we Americans adopt a "problem solved" attitude or whether we use this as an opportunity to continue to examine our financial assumptions.

• 

  adaydream at 12:18 PM JST - 2nd October

  It passed. < :-)

• 

  CavemanLawyer at 02:44 PM JST - 2nd October

  Run it through enough, it will probably pass eventually.

  I think we already have a solution. Its called "filing for bankruptcy", like everybody else does. A clever journalist mentioned it in a link someone here provided. I am ashamed I did not think of it myself. I expect more from my Congressmen. --Cirroc

• 

  Madverts at 03:20 PM JST - 2nd October

  Heh, so who pays the money back?

  Don't tell me the banks get off scot-free and it's the customers that eventually pay back the money to the people who have been basically screwing them for years....

• 

  Everton2 at 03:33 PM JST - 2nd October

  The age of unregulated capitalism on Wall Street is over as we know it. This notion that the free market has the capacity to take care of itself is a fallacy. That it has an internal dynamic that drives even distribution of profit in relation to investment is also false. That keen government oversight is restrictive to the efficient operation of the market is again also false.

• 

  Sarge at 04:12 PM JST - 2nd October

  The House voted against the bailout plan because it was in two parts, and they couldn't agree on which part to implement first, the smoke or the mirrors. Nancy Pelosi was so shocked, if she could have made a facial expression, she would have.

  • Jay Leno

• 

  Sarge at 05:22 PM JST - 2nd October

  I don't think President Bush understands the situation. Like today, when he was told that Wa-Mu went under, he said, "Well, that's OK, he's a whale."

  • Jay Leno

• 

  Betzee at 08:44 PM JST - 2nd October

  One economist has come up with this modification:

  "The cost of the bailout should be borne by the people who are being bailed out," he says. "Not by taxpayers. One small change could solve that problem."

  Only an academic would call this idea "small": [this] plan—shared with some other forward-thinking economists, is to require the sellers of all "distressed assets" to indemnify the government against all losses. In theory, the government would be able to sell them for at least the purchase price. Crisis averted; taxpayers protected; no Wall Street fat-cats enriched at the public's expense.

  http://www.metroactive.com/metro/10.01.08/news-0840.html

• 

  Badsey at 08:56 PM JST - 2nd October

  it's very interesting seeing oil prices drop since the speculators can't get money for their bets.

  I guess people can call this a "a trillion dollar bailout" now with all the goodies added.

• 

  adaydream at 10:42 PM JST - 2nd October

  It didn't pass the House because the republican representatives are crybabies. Wa-a-a-a-a Wa-a-a-a-a Wa-a-a-a-a-a, my feelings were hurt.

  We'll see if they grew up over the week. < :-)

• 

  elizabethk at 11:50 PM JST - 2nd October

  Somehow this just seems to be temporary security rather than a true fix. Instant gratification is how most people here in the US live rather than thinking towards the future and making decisions that may be uncomfortable now, but pay off quite well in the future. That's just my opinion though.

• 

  USARonin at 12:00 AM JST - 3rd October

  Elizabeth, you're not far off.

  Americans and Americaphones enjoy decryin' or pointin' out that "47 million Americans don't have healthcare".

  -Could be true. Then they add this a shame and "the government (that's you and me)" should do somethin' about it.

  Sorry, Elizabeth. I agree with you. Too many are into instant gratification and would rather spend their surplus money on a large screen TV, a vacation, a second car, an expensive high-bred dog... anything rather than spend it on their own healthcare and that of their kids. Hey, why should they spend their own money when politicians keep insinuatin' "universal healthcare" on the dole is just around every corner?

  And the US, Elizabeth, ain't the only nation where a number of citizens believe the rest should take care of them for simply existin'.

• 

  Everton2 at 03:28 AM JST - 3rd October

  USARonin, a big screen tv is going to cost you around USS2000. Tell me what kind of private health care you can buy for that kind of money. Moreover, those 40 million without health care don't take the kind of vacation you speak of. You clearly don't understand the extent of poverty in America with many working three jobs and still cant make ends meet

• 

  Good_Jorb at 04:12 AM JST - 3rd October

  US, Elizabeth, ain't the only nation where a number of citizens believe the rest should take care of them for simply existin'.

  and how many of those Countries are thinking about writing a 700 billion dollar welfare check? My guess is that a large amount of countries with socialized health care, have never spent 700 billion, even as the total amount spent on their health care.

• 

  adaydream at 05:11 AM JST - 3rd October

  I wish all my friends were as well off as you folks sound.

  I do have friends/families where the parents work 2 1/2 jobs (between the two of them), raise children and can't affort health insurance.

  My brother made $250K 3 years ago and was forced into bankruptsy last year. He and his wife don't have health insurance. Their two children work minimum wage jobs and can't afford it either.

  Then I retired from the federal government last year and I can't believe my portion of the amount that I pay toward my health insurance. My portion alone is over $300.00 per month.

  Health insurance is a scam. And it's been perpetrated into a crime by the republicans and lobbyiest.

  Here's the part that never ceases to amaze me.

  Hospital charge $10 for asprin. with Ins. reduced by negotiations to $ 5 for that same asprin. Without ins cause you can't afford it $10 same asprin.

  It's rediculous to charge people this amount when they can't afford health insurance.

  But it's cheaper to have them come into the emergency room cause they can't afford a doctor. Now crank it up even higher for the emergency room visit.

  I'm for socialized medicine of some sort to help those who don't have and can't afford health insurance.

  Just my opinion. < :-)

Register or login to add a comment!