Previous poll Next poll

Do you support the U.S. House’s vote Monday to reject the $700 billion bailout bill?

Response Percent Votes
56% 612
33% 355
Not sure
10% 108
Total 1075


Godot 9 years, 5 months ago

The JW was projecting the actual impact of that bill when it added that extra zero.

texburgh 9 years, 5 months ago

For it or against it, this much we know -1. Deregulation - let the market just do whatever it thinks best because they will naturally control themselves - is a bad idea. It is also a Republican mantra.2. Greed is the real ruler. Greedy people in a deregulated industry destroyed us.3. Wall St. will not fix itself - we MUST have a government intervention. Such intervention must include future regulation including "greed caps" such as salary caps.4. They won't bail out the little guy. They might bail out Wall St. The goal is to get as much regulation and help for the little guy into the big guy bailout as possible.5. Republicans voted NO because it contained regulation and caps. Democrats voted NO because it did not have enough help for the little guy. It's time for those legislators interested in saving this economy to get to work. Craft a bailout with regulation and help and pass it. Then the voters need to vote out the deregulation extremists in the Republican party - that includes voting against John McCain. It's time for Wall St. to be stripped of control of the congress.

RedwoodCoast 9 years, 5 months ago

I personally don't see anything wrong whatsoever with deregulation and Republican economic policy. We should probably blame this crisis on illegal immigrants or Barack Obama's former pastor.

bearded_gnome 9 years, 5 months ago

yes!wow, even some demorats voted against it! and, this was an improvement on the first proposal that had a giant ACORN slushfund, Obama's employer, and now his campaign gave $800k to ACORN to promote more voter fraud! at least that got stripped. I love it, Chris Dodd, the Senator from Countrywide is there! used to think highly of Jud Gregg. the house republicans have this right! McCain helped stand and block the onrushing train to get these improvements, but this went down. and, in part it went down because of Nancy Pelosi's sick speech this morning! what a hack. now, maybe we'll get more insurance paid by Wall Street itself, and less funny money taken from all of us! blaming this on GWB simply represents more Bush Derangement syndrome. the original Dodd, Frank, Rangel, Obama proposal was even worse by far than what crashed this morning! congressmen are getting boatloads of calls opposing this massive moneyfloat! and, just punishing the ceos won't fix it, but nice to do. so, how about FrankR and JimJ Obama's big advisors who profited by far more than 100-million dollars in the fall! obama talks about greed but he puts these tainted ceos on his economic and vp search teams! and, he did approve of the original and this plan!* tells you a lot about his philosophy.

Tony Kisner 9 years, 5 months ago

Hawk I will answer for Warren, "As I anticipated this crash early on and have everything in cash I will now buy the United States for $350 Billion, but I will give everyone in the US a free ice cream cone at Dairy Queen."

Professor_Marvel 9 years, 5 months ago

one zero vs three? just another child left behind.

VTHawk 9 years, 5 months ago

JohnBrown,I think that we might not agree on too many policy issues, but I 100% agree with you on this topic. Today we lost far more than the $700B that the bailout would cost, and everyone with any exposure to stocks is in trouble if Congress doesn't get its act together. Right now, we are the laughingstock of the world AND responsible for a global economic crisis. I guess that re-election is just too important for Boyda, Moran, and Tiahrt.

JohnBrown 9 years, 5 months ago

I see parallels between the representatives who voted 'no' today and the draft dodgers who voted 'no' against the Viet Nam war.It irks me that these same conservatives are the ones who wrap themselves up in our flag and wax melodiously about the 'sacrifices' of our troops in harm's way. Our troops put their life on the line, they do what the country asks of them. These so-called 'country first' pseudo-patriotic conservatives refuse to do their duty, just so they can save their job.Nobody "wants" this bill, including me; but we need it none-the-less. This bill is like battlefield first aid, sloppy and germ-ridden, but it stabilizes the patient until they can get to a hospital. Pass the bill, then let the next congress apply some thoughtful retrofits. 1.7 trillion was lost today in the markets, much of it in IRAs of people soon to retire.

TopJayhawk 9 years, 5 months ago

I guess giving money away to poor folks so they too can own a home wasn't such a good idea now looking back on it. Both sides are responsible for this. Wil we learn the right lessons from this?

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 9 years, 5 months ago

Looks like we'll be supporting it, whatever the outcome, the next go-round.

50YearResident 9 years, 5 months ago

The Journal World is just publishing the actual amount this bill will actually cost. Seven Hundred Trillion before Bush leaves office. What a fiasco from the worst president in America's history. His motto: Anything can be fixed with enough money. Do we need to check how much his net worth has increased in the last seven and one half years?

VTHawk 9 years, 5 months ago

50 Year Resident:It actually declined.

bondmen 9 years, 5 months ago

Victory for Main Street - defeat for Wall Street. Actually Wall Street defeated themselves over the past few years with Greenspan's help. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd can dance on Fannie and Freddie's graves.

SettingTheRecordStraight 9 years, 5 months ago

The question has a misprint - It's $700 billion, not $700 trillion.

KS 9 years, 5 months ago

bearded_gnome - You are so right. This was a good day for America. Our better days are ahead, but with all the greed that filters down, it's about time someone has some "splainin" to do. Never in my days did I ever think that people could borrow thousands upon thousands of dollars to buy a home with NOTHING down or interest only. How stupid? These "main street" folks deserve all they get too. And then they tell us they can't afford their health insurance? What the hel! do they do with their money?

Trobs 9 years, 5 months ago

1929 - They attempted to prop up the market. We all know how that ended.

KS 9 years, 5 months ago

BigDog - You are right and one of them was John McCain. That was when that "O" guy was voting "present" in the Illinois Senate. What a waste and he will be our next President. Scary, isn't it?

BigDog 9 years, 5 months ago

Some saw this coming in 2004 and asked for more regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Richard Heckler 9 years, 5 months ago

AMY GOODMAN: Explain. What would Warren Buffett do now, if it was-if he was representing the taxpayers, and they were shaping this bill?ROBERT JOHNSON: Well, the taxpayers have the strong hand. They've got the money. The Wall Street firms are weak. So he would go in. He would take control of the company, basically diminishing or wiping out the equity. He would probably ask for the resignation of top officials. He might not accept every resignation letter. He would restructure the company. He would sell off some assets. And then, when the company regained its health a few years down the road, he could sell those preferred stock shares back into the market and recoup the money for his investors, meaning, in this case, the US taxpayer.AMY GOODMAN: In other words, he would restructure Wall Street.ROBERT JOHNSON: That's correct.AMY GOODMAN: And what would happen, for example, with CEO pay? Do you think this is relevant here? It's certainly a populist, popular issue.ROBERT JOHNSON: CEO pay would probably reflect the quality of performance that we've seen in recent months.AMY GOODMAN: Meaning?ROBERT JOHNSON: So, diminished violently and appropriately.We're also joined in Boston by Bruce Marks, founder and CEO of NACA, the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America.Bruce Marks, let's talk about what needs to be done. The last time I saw you, you were here in New York, headed off to a protest, what, at Citigroup? Citibank?BRUCE MARKS: Yes, yes. And then, you know-and we've been doing a lot more protests since then. And we were just in Senator Reid's office with over 150 people saying that this bailout should not happen. We should not be talking about nibbling around the edges, making it a little bit better. I mean, CEO pay, that's a red herring. That's not a relevant issue here.The fact of the matter is, this thing should be killed. It should not happen at all. It does nothing, Amy, for the homeowners. And what we have to say to Congress, Amy, is we have to say, "It's the foreclosures, stupid," just like Bill Clinton said to the first George Bush, "It's the economy, stupid." We have to say to this Congress, "It's the foreclosures, stupid."And they have to do three things: do a moratorium on foreclosures, stop the interest-rate increases, and....

EndtheFed 9 years, 5 months ago

Nothing will be fixed unitl we abolish the Federal Reserve. Chuck Baldwin for Pres 08! And Ron Paul for his Secretary of Treasury!! END THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL RESERVE.

Richard Heckler 9 years, 5 months ago

AMY GOODMAN: Bruce Marks, you're writing the bill; what is the bill that you're going to put forward?BRUCE MARKS: The bill will be, in fact, focused solely on the foreclosures. Stop the foreclosures. It would be, as we've been saying, you know, moratorium on foreclosures. It would be stop the interest-rate increases. It would be, force these lenders and servicers to restructure the mortgages, meaning to say, based on someone's existing budget, their net income, minus their liabilities, minus their expenses, what's available for a mortgage payment and reduce the interest rates to get to that payment. And we're doing that for thousands of people. It can be done on a massive scale.And then, I would say out there, don't do anything else, because the fact of the matter is, if we provide $700 billion to bail out Wall Street, even in the constructive way that Rob is saying out there, what happens is there's no guarantee that this is going to work. And then that means that if the economy goes into a severe recession, there's no money left. So what happens with the next administration out there is that you have-if it is McCain, there's no money for tax cuts; if it is Barack Obama, there's no more money for healthcare or any of the other initiatives he wants to do. The fact of the matter is, we can't allow this administration to bankrupt this country, in the sense that there's no money left out there to do-either it's raise social programs, or it's a jobs program.AMY GOODMAN: But would no bailout affect the very people you're most concerned about, for example, the people who are being foreclosed on? Would the poor, would the middle class suffer the most from an economic bailout, or not-suffer the most from an economic collapse, or not?BRUCE MARKS: Well, the fact of the matter is, let the-let our system work. If we're a free enterprise system, which we're supposed to be, let it play out a little bit. You know, if we need to hold money in reserve to deal with the crisis, then let's do that. But we can't throw everything at this when it's a crapshoot. And that's what you're saying, because is there money left after really a trillion dollars of taxpayer money? Where does the next trillion dollars come from? Where do we get that money? Then, we're dependent upon every foreign country, you know, the foreign markets in the world, to buy our bill, by our debt.

unclebiff 9 years, 5 months ago

if we just believe in our hearts strongly enough, hope for the best, maybe obama can fix this mess with masses of singing brainwashed children....what are we waiting for, elect him king now!!!!! Repbulicans are evil, democrats care!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.