And What Do YOU Think?

This best reason to be against it,IMO,is "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

And just a personal observation: Here's an excerpt from a speech by Bernanke from March 4, 2008: The government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, likewise could do a great deal to address the current problems in housing and the mortgage market. New capital-raising by the GSEs, together with congressional action to strengthen the supervision of these companies, would allow Fannie and Freddie to expand significantly the number of new mortgages that they securitize. With few alternative mortgage channels available today, such action would be highly beneficial to the economy. I urge the Congress and the GSEs to take the steps necessary to allow more potential homebuyers access to mortgage credit at reasonable terms. Now, that actually took place on Sept. 7 in the amount of the $200 billion dollar 'rescue' plan. As of Sept. 24, only $5 billion has actually been used. If the TRUTH is the mortgage market and NOT Credit Default Swaps, how do we have a crisis when we haven't addressed the SAME crisis with all of the $200 billion ? Is this a new crisis ? I don't see how when it's described exactly the same as the fannie/freddie crisis. Fannie/freddie has $200 billion to buy mortgages from the banks. Doesn't that, (in theory), provide $200 billion in available credit to the banks so they could sell existing mortgages to fannie/freddie and use the funds to provide whatever credit they wanted; business loans, consumer loans. etc. ? Why would the US treasury now need $700 billion to buy mortgages from the banks ? The 'mortgage problem ' got $200 billion, only used $5 billion, but needs $700 billion more, AND NEEDS IT NOW ? ....WHY ?

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL page 2 This proposal also eliminates what was stated as the MAJOR problem so many times during the hearings and subsequent debates. No one can determine the value of, or the cost of 'buying', the non-performing loans. PERFORMING loans have an IMMEDIATELY determinable value. This proposal also addresses the issue raised as to 'who' should bear responsibility and places the responsibility upon the 'creator' of the problem; rather than the taxpayer. The objection of 'people who couldn't afford mortgages'* is eliminated because the mortgage issuer made the determination that 'it was in fact affordable'(acceptable) at the time it was issued, (approved), and this proposal clearly makes it MORE acceptable by the reduction of the interest rate. * (although I believe The willingness of lenders to tolerate, and in most cases, encourage, huge increases in loan-to-value ratios added to the demand for housing, especially by people who normally might not have had the savings to enter the market). THIS PROPOSAL HAS NO RISK TO TAXPAYERS. This proposal also eliminates, (at least for the moment), the need to address 'executive compensation'. Although it should be noted that in a normally accepted business model, indeed, in most corporate structures, a reduction in compensation, or 'cut expenses' (not only executive), is generally deemed MORE acceptable than a reduction in business. This proposal also creates a 'spread the risk' situation applying EQUALLY to all participants exactly equal to their participation; thereby neither penalizing nor rewarding any financial institution more than another. (and allowing the 'free market' to operate as it was intended) While this proposal alone may not completely address the situation; it will clearly REDUCE the $700 billion figure. It also provides the time to institute EFFECTIVE regulations. It also provides an IMMEDIATE effect as opposed to the statements by both the Secretary of Treasury and Federal Reserve chairman that the proposal before Congress WILL TAKE TIME to implement and eliminates the need, (and COST), for hiring an army of experts necessary to manage the rescue package, which is again, something requiring an excessive amount of time, if it's to be done in a competent manner to provide an effective result. (stated numerous times by both Paulson & Bernanke in the hearings) We have in this proposal: 1. corrected the past problem 2. addressed the present problem 3. prevented the future problem (Z) And to expand on a suggestion from Rep. Doug Lamborn (R)Colorado "how about a moratorium on capital gains taxes,(on NEW investment), which would encourage a 'flood' of private investment. (i.e. cash), into the system 'a la' Warren Buffet. Berkshire Hathaway alone has about $250 billion cash on hand. If it's truly a 'cash shortage creating credit freeze', as we're being told, this would also have an IMMEDIATE and MASSIVE effect. And I don't think it's necessary to list the other economic benefits of large scale investment in the US economy. It doesn't cost anything, it's (a moratorium) on future taxes that don't exist, (and won't under the current situation), and it doesn't require a future tax burden (that will exist under the rescue plan) in order to work. Additionally, this proposal addresses ALL objections, (i.e.: the changes they want to make), raised by the various Congressional factions. AGAIN: NO RISK TO TAXPAYERS and NO ‘EARMARKS’

There was an alternate rescue plan that the Federal Reserve had and was also submitted to the full Senate. The Fed claimed it was 'outside their jurisdiction' despite the fact that the chairman of the Fed was an architect of the original 'bailout', and was actively lobbying for it's passage. The Senate chose to ignore it despite the fact that it did NOT put any taxpayer funds at risk. CNN has also known about it for several days. Here's an outline: PAGE 1 Assuming for a moment that we're being told the truth, and the problem is non-performing mortgages and NOT Credit Default Swaps...... (although the coincidental urgency and the timing of CDS settlements on the Fannie/Freddie takeover in early October does seems strange) and putting aside the transparent issue that the plan transfers direct control of $700 billion dollars to the president, (via the cabinet position), with absolute authority to use for ANYTHING.... Let's examine the needs and an alternative solution to 'the problems': PROPOSAL: Enact legislation to reduce the interest rate on ALL mortgages by 1%, and reset all ARM's to either the interest rate at origination or 1% below origination, the time at which they WERE deemed affordable by the originating banks. In addition, ARM's are converted to 30 yr. fixed. While this may appear to reduce bank profits, a 1% profit reduction is preferable to a failure. And it's more probable that 80% of non-performing loans; (i.e. currently UNprofitable) would revert to profitable. In addition, the reduction on the 'fixed rate' would be more than offset by the 'change to performing' of the ARM's. Enact a temporary moratorium on capital gains taxes for NEW investment. 1. mortgages are non-performing and foreclosing at an excessive rate. And banks are unable to value them. Most of this is due to the re-setting of ARM's to unaffordable levels. EFFECT: A. The vast majority of non-performing loans become 'performing'. B. The upward spiral of foreclosures stops. C. Decline in property values stabilizes and begins to rise thereby INCREASING the value of BOTH performing AND non-performing loans. D.The rise in value together with the change to 'performing' status, reduces the 'reserve requirements' of the banks thereby freeing cash for investment. E. The average cost of a foreclosure action, as stated in a report by the JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE of congress is $78,000. With over 2 million foreclosures expected for 2008, this proposal could effect a substantial reduction in what is a $156 billion dollar negative event. (the costs to the lenders alone being $100 billion). With that figure expected to more than triple over the next 3 years ( to 6.5 million), according to estimates by Credit Suisse, we're looking at a negative impact on the US economy EXCEEDING the amount of the proposed rescue package BY $500 BILLION dollars, and which is NOT addressed nor REDUCED by the rescue proposal. 2. Banks desperately need an influx of cash. EFFECT: A. As 'performing' mortgages they now introduce an IMMEDIATE influx of cash to the entire banking system. (in addition to D above) B. The moratorium on capital gains tax(Z) as mentioned would IMMEDIATELY, in a very conservative estimate, inject a minimum of $500 billion in cash INTO THE MARKETS. SUBSIDIARY EFFECT: A. The reduction of individual mortgage payment acts EXACTLY like the recently passed 'stimulus' package which created rebates. It does NOT cost the government OR the taxpayer one red cent. It provides this stimulus month after month for YEARS, and immediately increases the potential for 'discretionary spending' thereby injecting ADDITIONAL cash into, and boosting the economy. B. The reduction in the mortgage payment is treated as a 'taxable' item for income tax purposes. The tax generated by this is used to set up an FDIC type insurance program to protect future mortgages, creating an additional benefit to the banks in securitizing mortgages. (and has the added effect of reducing the use of UNREGULATED credit default swaps) C. there will not be a 'devaluation' of the dollar, sparking an increase in oil prices as well as many other imports. page 2 to follow

In his Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, Karl Marx proposed 10 measures to be implemented after the proletariat takes power, with the aim of centralizing all instruments of production in the hands of the state. Proposal Number Five was to bring about the "centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."

I'm disgusted!!!! This thing started as a good idea, but ended as just another example of what is wrong with our government. Yes, we need to do something to shore up the financial system, but we do not need a massive, pork-filled giveaway. They need to write something that specifically addresses the issues and be done with it. All of the added pork needs to be sliced out. Any senator that sold his/her vote for a slice of pork should be ashamed. Anyone that voted for it, knowing this garbage was in there should be voted out. We should just get rid of all of them and start over. What we really need is term limits!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have utterly no confidence in the current congress to solve the financial mess that they have propagated. They have lost touch with the real world and feel free to spend our hard earned money at their whim. Most of us plan out spending so we do not get in this kind of disaster. The thoughtless and greedy can get what they deserve. Charity should be voluntary and not a government socialized program.

No bailout. There are other solutions. A new bureaucracy will immediately be created: new government employees with pensions, new buildings offices, as well as the cost of managing all that property & paying all that local property taxes. All of that will be in addition. I was outraged to hear this morning that members were told they could not get the tax cuts without passing this bill. Vote NO anyway. Because next year a new congress can give us the tax cuts without the [pork] trimmings. Let the market solve the problem. Ride it out. Cut all taxes: capital gains, income tax, state tax, abolish IRS. Cut all government spending: no pork, close government offices, early retirement for government workers, troops home, war on drugs, all government agencies and bureaucracies. Don’t blame Mainstream. Don’t blame Wall Street. Blame the Beltway whose vision only goes as far as the next election.

In this country many people tear down our elected officals and say terrible things about them. Most of our officials are just trying to improve our Nation. So much of what is said is part true to make our President look like a fool. Then when our President tries to get us out of this terrible mess with a plan, American's are affraid to stand behind him on anything. First, we need to stop beating down our President and Officials. And second, maybe you could take some time to educate us Americans with a basic Bus. 101 class on how businesses uses credit, like the same way homeowners use level pay plans with their utility bills that go very high or low seasonaly. The way homeowners see credit is, as a bad thing and not as a standard business practice in the business world. Thank-you, Pat

Well Mr. Ben Williams, I am not up to my eyeballs in debt. I live within my means and have been gainfully employed for 46 years. I have struggled at times to pay off a mortgage, save some and put a daughter through college. I believe you must listen to those who are better educated on a subject. I am pretty darn sure that the majority of people in Congress haven't a clue. They are much like the Hollywood crowd. They are given more than they earn and do not have to answer to anyone. If people who make their living in the finance industry, teachers, investors, etc., say the bailout is bad, I believe it's bad. If you can afford a $150,000 house and you let someone convence you that you can afford a $300,000 house, I have no pity. If you owe more than you make on credit card debt, I have no pity! Thanks for the opportunity- JoMo

I agree with Bill from Indiana. If we could pay off our mortgages, the banks would have funds for new loans and everyone would be helped. It sounds like a win-win to me, so Liz, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE answer Bill's question on why this idea is too far-fetched for Washington to consider, as I have been wondering this for some time now myself.

So, let me see if I got this right: John Shadegg (AZ) says his constiutuents are 4 to 1 against, but he will cast his vote for, because the people who elected him don't understand what's good for them? I hope they remember this when they vote again.

How serious can this bill be if the Democrats want 5 billion for arrowheads and 128 for race tracks? Why did all 12 Democrats on Barney Franks committee vote against the bill? Why did all the members of the Black Congressional Caucus vote against it? This is poltical theatre to get Obama elected! By the way, wasn't the 150 billion handed out this past summer supposed to save the econmy?

I say "no" to the bailout because I don't believe throwing more good money after bad is the way to go. We've already given Paulson a BAZOOKA that he was not going to have to use...what are we up to now?...about $400B. Now they want another $850B...including pork?...I'll pass. They have not even TRIED any other options and your man Cody has plenty of good advice for them. The reason the market is down today is not because Wall Street is afraid the bill is not going to pass...it's because the people think it is! Not to mention Harry Reid's wreckless remarks. THIS is what happens when our elected officials try to use fear to blackmail the public. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should put a sock in it. Talk about two irresponsible idiots who are supposed to be representing their States (Pelosi is from mine) and their country. If THEY are not voted out...God help us. THE CREDIT MARKET IS NOT FROZEN. I HAVE A SMALL BUSINESS AND I CAN GET A LOAN TODAY!

The supply of homes grew too fast because the available mortgage money grew too fast. The mortgage backed securities were an awesome cash cow for the builders and real estate industry until the demand for homes began to fall. Mortgage backed securities must have their supply controlled. Mark to market should be the whistle that tells Treasury that the issuance must be slowed. When their value falls below Treasury's comfort level and the complaints of the bond holders become loud enough he can freeze issuance of new securities and temporarily stop MTM. The security's value can be a gauge and a new tool of control to help keep the housing supply in line with the demand. When the supply of the mortgage backed securities is supported by the demand and face value returns the Secretary can authorize new issuance and a return to mark to market. Mortgage money flows when the economy can support it and the financial houses can return to making their obsene profits without having to go into bankruptcy just because demand for housing falls. I can't seem to stop firing silver bullets. TLW

Paulson is bailing with a bucket that has a giant hole in it the hole is 700B spent and zero jobs to show for it. My Cheap Power Plan: Government purchase of the electric utilities and sell the power at cost. Cheap power will boost the economy in every sector and relieve stress in every sector, food, heat, and manufacturing with the ultimate goal of replacing gasoline vehicles with electric vehicles. Then the government can upgrade the grid with wind and solar after this investment of renewable energy pays for itself the cost of energy will drop even further causing a flight of business into this country and an industrial revolution like none seen before. Jeff Brannan

i think a list of the house members and senate that voted yes on the bail out should be posted so when they are up to be voted back in to office people will no not to vote on there behalf knowing they are not for the people and what they want i for one am going to work very hard on getting the word out not to vote for any member of the house or senate that voted yes on this bail out i really think the people should be heard on this the middle class is going to take the brunt of all of this.

First penalize the Democrats on their committees for ignoring the warning signs. Financial reporters have an oppertunity now to dig into this: I would love to See Fox,Bloomberg and CNBC dig into the political connections. On Headline news Glen Beck is doing his own effort to expose the Obam connection with subprime and credit. This is a time to act or rather as Julius Ceasar said,"Cry havoc let slit the dogs of war"

There is a problem, or at least something that if true could become a problem, and we need to do something. The White House and Treasury, Congress, and The Fed all talk about this "credit" crisis. But business leaders and owners, large and small, are being quoted as saying they aren't having trouble with their existing credit lines. Others say it's really a "liquidity" crisis. But presumeably well-informed analysts are saying there's plenty of liquidity and a story in FoxBusiness.com this morning says that banks aren't issuing commercial paper which, depending on the real story behind the story, would seem to support that liquidity isn't the problem. So what is the problem. I'm getting the sense that no one really knows. In that case virtually anyting we do is just a shot in the dark and, statistically speaking, whatever the government does is not likely to fix the problem. So we're throwing $700B off a cliff in the hope that some of it is going to fall in the right place? Through graduate school and my professional life I have always believed that the first step to solving any problem is to determine exactly what the problem is. I'm not convinced we have done the first step, so any steps we take after that are probably going to be in the wrong direction!

I am against any "bailout". The Market will correct itself; always does. Business needs to run their business; government needs to run the government. Some businesses fail because of poor management and that is just the way it is - Wise Up.

No bailout unless the government also reimburses me for my $60 dollar loss in Vegas 4 weeks ago. It was an investment that went wrong and either the government or my fellow roulette players should share my pain.

I watch and responded in the other FBN blog. Probably 99% of about 600 reponders where against it. If anyone reads the bill they will see about 400 pages of pork. Same all BS from our Congress. There tax breaks for railroads, wooden arrows, dishwashers, refrigerators, contruction in DC, rum from the islands, etc. A House Rep last night said she will now support it because it gives government the ability to not only reduce the finance rate but also the amount of the loan! Can you believe they are willing to reduce the principal amount! How fair is that! This is one of the biggest criminals act ever. There are only plans that will work but they will not allow congress to spend more money and bail out buddies. But as a senator spoke last night on Fox sums it up. "We are not hear to do what Constituents want, we are hear to lead in what we feel is right". There you go. Our representatives do not feel they need to represent the people. Hope everyone votes their rep out if the voted for this bill. I will.

No Deal! Anytime the government says we must do something now, we probably shouldn't. And when will we see Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, Frank Raines, etc... being perp-walked to jail?

Liz, I am voting straight Democrat this year for the first time since 1976. If we're going to socialize losses we might as well socialize profits.

I was really having a difficult time determining who I was going to vote for. I will vote for anyone NOT in Office ! As far as the Presidency I will do a write-in for someone else.