Sometimes Chapter 11 is the way to go. I honestly believe the best course of action in the so called crisis is to cut those who have failed loose and pick up the pieces after.

Finacial socialism isn’t going to help anyone. I’ll take poverty over bondage. Our liberty is worth it.

I find that hard to believe; I do not think anyone would try to maximize “liberty” or “freedom” if it resulted in a significant decline in their living standards. I suppose no one on this forum would want to live in Somalia where there is no oppressive government.

But as a negative utilitarian, I do not see issues in terms of “liberty” or “freedom” because such an ethical view is a variation of consequentialist welfarism. As a result, I see issues in terms of welfare instead.

I am not taking any position on the bailout though.

BTW, most right-wing authoritarian types (who frequently use the rhetoric of “freedom”) are more willing to abandon it.

Regretfully, many have tried for years to live beyond their means. This has caught up and now the time has come for them not only to live within their means, but to live below it in order to pay off debt accrued. Not that I wish ill to anyone, but economic realities must be faced and it is immoral to keep borrowing from our children by force.

I had another thought. Perhaps what happens in households is mirrored by our country. Has the U.S. lived beyond our means, projecting power throughout the world beyond our resources? If we can not afford to be the sole superpower, or as big of a superpower, or we willing to take a lesser role? Indeed we might be forced to such a situation. Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. The Soviet Union projected power beyond their means and collapsed from the inside. If the U.S. can not afford to maintain the military presence at the same level abroad, we simply must shrink our military and prioritize to fit a smaller role.

I favor letting them collapse, endure the pain, and pick up the pieces. This new plan to paraphrase a saying we have in Alabama “looks good but smells bad.”

But I heard someone with a good idea on the radio yesterday. If we’re gonna give 700 billion to the govt agencies and people that created this mess, we oughta skip them and give it to the people that earned it in the first place.

Those kind of numbers would give EVERY family in this country with a mortgage 75-100,000 dollars to pay OFF their mortgage. Every single one. Put the money where it will do the most good.
I promise those kind of numbers willl stimulate the economy like nothing we’d ever seen.

Problem is, I wouldn’t get a check cause I paid mine off few years ago (in the same house for 32 years) because I lived in what I could afford, and resisted the urge to upgrade, unlike some of my friends, who are now schuffling.

I agree. Let them fail. I am against giving money to the people who created this mess. Thieves go to jail, not get bailouts.

As far as I am concerned, not enough stories of greedy wallstreet fat cats jumping out of their hi rise windows.

Except of course, that we are borrowing the money. Which means that nobody has earned it yet. But perhaps if we have no bailout, then people won’t have to pay higher taxes in the future, perhaps that will given them enough confidence and things will get back to some version of normalcy.

I think the biggest problem is that we have our own money tied into this problem. My parents put our (my brothers and mine) college funds into the stock market, and we’ve lost some now that the market is going south. If this persists, I might have to go into the Army to finish paying for my education.

On the flip side, this is like rewarding bad behavior. People investing beyond their means now want a way out, and we’re essentially paying for their mistakes. They’re definitely not losing prestige or social status with a bailout… If I remember right, a lot of these CEO’s are getting wonderful severance packages as they leave their posts. If anyone could bring up any particulars concerning my last statements, I would really appreciate it.

When congress initially voted down this 700B bailout, I thought, good, they are trying to protect the average American taxpayer from getting robbed.

Now I see that the only reason they voted it down is that they disagreed with exactly HOW the American taxpayer should get robbed. Nice to see that they are more in agreement now.

In the meantime, I understand that many good economists have advised against a bailout; that they should study it carefully first. But power and arrogance go hand-in-hand.

Most curious to me though: if this is such a problem of gargantuan proportions, why has no one heard about deep cuts in the budget, to help make ends meet? I mean, if I was in a desperate financial situation, I would cut all spending except for the rock-bottom basics before going to my employer for a raise or handout.

But noooo, I haven’t heard anything about how we can drop, say, the 4.8M grizzly bear census study in Glacier NP. No, all I hear is that the situation is so urgent that I need to budget and additional (roughly) 1/3 of my usual yearly tax as my share of the bailout.

There are times that I get so angry about this I can hardly see the keyboard. But I gotta remember, His grace is sufficient for me, because He said so. And, this shakeup may allow Him to work His plan with LOTS of people in ways so far above mine.


Welcome to what was, once upon a time, the greatest country in the world.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.