Democrats Need to Choose Which Side They Are On

Are they for Wall Street and the Big Bankers or are they for Average Americans? No, Wall Street and Big Bankers are not average Americans.

This is not to deny that we have a problem on Main Street. But the problems on Wall Street are not necessarily the problems of Main Street. The suffering losses on Wall St need not be shared by all of us. The banks that have 50% of their holdings in bad loans would not go under if they lost all those loans. They would lose 50% of their value. SO? Should they not pay for their mistakes?

Why should we protect them to 100% of their mistakes? Why should we protect home buyers who bought more than they can afford to 100% of their losses? The answer is, we shouldn't.

Democrats would be ill-served to permit themselves to be stampeded in the next week into approving a huge $700 billion bailout. Especially if the stock market is already zooming with the present bailouts already approved. It would be foolish to put more of a burden on our people and our government just because George W Bush says it is the right thing to do. Please do not follow this moron any further. Please.

Democrats should carefully study all proposals and only protect those that have innocently lost money due to these bank shenanigans. However, people should realize that there are no guarantees in any investments on Wall Street. They invest at their own peril or desire. We, the American people, have no obligation to protect anyone that wishes to gamble with their money. Caveat Emptor. Let the buyer beware.

If the Democrats go along with this scam of a bailout, I will have to question my affiliation with this Party. I expect a modicum of intelligence and common sense in my political Party. I expect independent thought and the ability not to be stampeded by the wealthy into doing something that is against the interests of most of America. Am I asking too much??

something HAS to be done, and this will offer the fastest help while we catch our breath.

If we don't go with this, what would you suggest instead?

If we're going to spend $700,000,000,000 it could be better spent on providing healthcare and housing (a basic retirement) for all than by using it to prop up a system that could still fail and benefits the rich.

I wonder where Bernanske and Paulson have their money? I heard this morning that Rep Robin Hayes of NC had $1 1/2 million invested in AIG. No doubt many of these wealthier Senators and Congressmen are heavily invested in some of these bank stocks.

I want to know where they anticipate spending this money? I want details. Are these banks going to be permitted to buy back these properties at give-away prices once the government puts them up for sale? Would these be any different than "short-selling"? I smell a skunk.

Also, if the stock is going great guns at the present, why the rush?? Why be stampeded into doing something just because Bush, Bernanke, and Paulson say that we should? This needs to be very carefully studied. They should not be rushed into making decisions they will sooner or later regret - most likely sooner. Then, they would tell us that they were bamboozled by the Republicans once again. I do not want to see that. I cannot accept that. I see a scam of gigantic proportion.

On one hand they know that Wall street and the big bankers are out to screw them, on the other hand many of them have retirement investments to look out for and they have put their money in the hands of the same big bankers that are trying to screw them, thus giving the bankers the power to fuck up the situation more extensively. Too many "regular Americans" are in bed with the big bankers for there to be a clean drawing of lines concerning side.

and should be protected to a certain degree. Perhaps not 100% but maybe 75 to 80% of their investments. The rest of us cannot guarantee their mistakes.

Without these innocents contributing their capital to the banks, the banks wouldn't have been able to create the disasters that they made.

but, if there is going to be a bailout, that should be our limit, in my opinion.

How do the mechanics of a bailout even work?

I would say guaranteed 75-80 percent of what it is today.