Speak Out on Bailout Bill

COMMENTS

• If the Government is bailing out a corporation, then the Government should be the major shareholder. Therefore, the salaries of CEO's and everyone else should match the salaries of Government officials. In addition, the corporations should be held to similar standards as Civil Servants and all profit should be returned to the Government coffers until the corporations are able to buy back the majority shares.

  US Posted Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:48 AM

• If the Government is bailing out a corporation,then the Government should be the FIRST LIENHOLDER. The taxpayers should be paid back. That goes for bailing out airlines or ANY commercial business.

  Jane Taxpayer Posted Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:49 PM

• I concur, but also that the justice department should be mandated to determine culpability and prosecute both the private sector and governmental entites that enabled this mess.

  rick Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:04 AM

• I'm against the bail out. We are "always" bailing big corps out - yet the CEO gets to keep their "bonus" - Typically, a bonus is something you earn, not something you receive for failing to do the job!!!! The government needs to really listen to what We the People are saying, and the majority are against bailing out companies that wouldn't help the people when they needed it. Use the "Bonus" monies from the CEOs - apparently, they did not earn it if the company is going under!!

  DJ Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:34 AM

• Dear Chairman Dodd: those who caused the problem, i.e., your refusal to consider oversight and push to force the mortgage companies to lower their lending standards, do not now get to solve the problem - oh, and based on today's news your input is what - to delay the solution so that you can feel important, while folks and their pensions lose millions. Thanks Connecticut this is now your fault.

  Crazy Larry Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 8:54 AM

• I disagree with Senator McCain's contention that the compensation for any CEO of a company that chooses to participate in any bailout should be limited to the highest pay for any civil servant which is, of course, $400,000 for the President of the United States.

  In 2000, Congress doubled the President's pay in the hope the incoming person would be a bit more receptive to the similar wage controls made during the Clinton administration.

  I feel the highest pay should be $200,000 and will be so generous as to apply the same yearly raises George Bush unilaterally declared (I didn't hear any hue and cry from Congress) making the current high salary $263,042.79. Looking at the good side, your taxes won't be affected much if Senator Obama wins.

  Personally, I would like any bailout bill to contain a provision that President George W. Bush must refund to the citizens of the U.S. the excess of $1,392,093.55 he was paid over the last 8 years. Of course I know that's not going to happen but it would be a small satisfaction to see his reaction as opposed to the complaints he's made about living on a civil service wage and his looking forward to the $100,000 per speech circuit.

  My point is this. When looking at the problem from it's most basic view, it seems a large percentage of our citizens do not make enough wages to buy a house. The accompanying problems of affordable health care and education, the best bet of breaking the chain of poverty, are also straining our society.

  The bailout, though details are sketchy, is obviously going to help the upper level and probably assure the campaign contributions continue. I also hear talk about help for those who are having trouble making their payments though I would like to see some income level attached to that like most entitlement programs. Perhaps the formula for qualifying for Earned Income Credit? Or maybe the official poverty level? What a joke.

  Those in the real middle class who are not in danger of default but definitely feeling the strained economy are going to be pushed over the edge in some cases if we even attempt to pay for any small measure of this cost now.

  Aw what the heck, let's just dump it on our (and I use the term "ours" very loosely as I doubt the CEO's or Congress' children have much to worry about)children's shoulders.

  What's a feller gotta do to get a break around here?

  MK Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:12 AM

• US has an excelent suggestion. At 79.5% ownership, government owns it. Let's make it happen...

  taxpayer Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 11:20 AM

• What I would really like to see in terms of assistance to homeowners is, besides changes in bankruptcy laws being discussed yesterday, but a requirement for the mortgage holder to negotiate with any homeowner who requests it a change to a fixed-rate loan at a rate comensurate with their payment performance. That performance should be based on the amounts paid in the 1st 2 years of the mortgage when the interest was somewhat doable, not on the jacked up rates they shoved down our throats later. My husband and I knew, and were told again by our realtor that "if generally the market interest rate goes up, the loan goes up. If it goes down the loan rate goes down." On inquiring with our mortgage holder when receving the notice of payment change, the company clarified this: "oh, the rate NEVER goes down, it ONLY goes up regardless of what's happening out there." I'm not in any way a candidate for bankruptcy, but I'd sure like them to negotiate a decent fixed rate and that's just not too much to ask. Well, maybe for them it is, since they get more from us this way - but what will that do for them when they finally drive us into default? They really want to get saddled with my foreclosed house?

  AF HR Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 2:47 PM

• 
  I am totally against any Wall Street bailout.

  Before becoming a fed I got my forty quarters under social security. Because I will retire under civil service my small SS pension will be sliced even smaller.

  Congress will not give us our earned money. Why help a bunch of pirates.

  Wise Old Owl Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 2:59 PM

• I don't think some of you understand...it has been reported on the news that the stock market was 500 trades away from what was termed "Financial Armageddon"...a total meltdown so to speak. So, to keep this from happening, they have to push the bailout. You Obama supporters keep thinking he's going to make a difference, he was a key player in this, too. He and Sen Dodd were the first and second highest recipients of favors from Fannie Mae...and you can see what happened to them.

  Rickaroo Posted Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:34 AM

• AF HR we have a constitution and a "taking" of some one's property is against the framers intent. By taking someone else's money when they bought up the portfolio would be against the constitution. If you think this is the right thing to do than find someone who is in trouble and help them pay their mortgage or you can refinance it yourself, pay off the loan and have that individual pay you when they can

  dan ketter Posted Thursday, September 25, 2008 1:29 PM

• as an american living and working overseas and paying full taxes in the US without any benefit, i vote which i believe gives me the right to speak out, so here goes:

  I would fire the whole bunch of the washington group, and that includes the folks running for office. it is amazing that folks are standing in unemployement lines, watching as their houses are auctioned, and living in fema trailers 3 years after katrina, and this group in washington can only argue who said it was bad first. the speaker says "gop should stand by THEIR president" lady i would suggest as an america he is our president whether we like it or not. mccain and obama want to make us believe that they arent accountable for the mess, well they were both in washington. it is amazing that all of a sudden it is everyone elses problem except washingtons, sure the banks and lenders are at fault (i would let the legal system take care of them, further i would restrict them from being able to work in a public trust position like caretaker of our fiancial futures, i would definatly no reward them for their successes (or lack there of), but so should the folks that borrowed knowing they couldnt pay at fault, and so was washington, who,as long as money was to be made, had no problem with what was happening. now 1/2 are more concerned with not stepping on the toes of the voters 7 weeks before an election than they are with the very people who pay their saleries wellfare. well again i say, fire them all.

  everyone is discussing the fact of who has more experience, in fact it seems to be the only things either campaign is whinning about, and frankly i would argue if this is the experience either one of them wants us to rely on then maybe we are better of with someone who has no experience.

  but i guess they know more than me so live goes on...... wonder if the debate will happen

  overseas us taxpayer Posted Friday, September 26, 2008 10:49 AM

• I feel the government should give the PEOPLE some money to payoff their mortgages, hence they will have money to buy and be HAPPY !!!! At least if 700B might be given out--give to the people who work hard for it !!!!!!!!!!!!!

  STacey Posted Monday, September 29, 2008 9:18 PM

• Just say NO to the bailout...The middle class are now the lower class...why should we make the rich richer!!!!

  Al F. Posted Wednesday, October 1, 2008 3:11 AM

Post a Comment

By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.