Monday, September 22, 2008

Wall Street

Do you Agree that the US Government should have bailed out those banks. When other companies could just buy up their Stocks? Obama and McCain blame each other for the cause but that doesn't help now does it so its just a waste of breath. But, these banks did collapse under Democratic Control HMMM interesting. Post what you think the Government should have done and why also tell me whoose fault is it? I blame both sides just to let you know.

33 comments:

andy k said...

no i do not think the banks should of been bailed out of there problems. it is there fault they are in the spot they were in so it should of been there problem to get out of it.

ttk said...

The banks should'nt of been bailed out, there mortgages,loans etc.. should have been bought out by third parties. the goverment stepping in is only going to increase worries in an already unstable econonmy.

ttk said...

this is terry shuman

Owen Doane said...

I do believe that the banks should have been bailed out by the U.S. government, not because this is what is right from a political standpoint, but because if this was not done the collapse of such major companies as AGI and Lehman Bros. could have a domino affect on the American economy. As one business falls because the people that are supposed to be paying those "adjustable rate loans" any other company that buys the stocks will eventually have the same problem. This will lead to the fall of the American economy as we know it and quite possibly bring America back into another "great depression" type situation.

ttk said...

its the investors problem these companies are collapsing,the biggest reason these large companies are collapsing is because of investors and brokers short trading stocks, this is the practice of buying stocks of a certain company ahead of time while you hope and gain money if it goes down, you at first buy these stocks on margin and wait until the stock goes down where youpay back the ,margin and then take a gain, however these strategys are very risky and have a greater chance of flopping then you gaining money, short trading affects these companies by when you buy short and the companys price goes down then theres a fueled panic that leads to selling off of stock and the companys post big losses which lead to big companies collapsing,

Owen Doane said...

I do understand the concept of short trading stocks, but at the same time it was neccessary for the government to step in. With the collapse of these huge companies will come the collapse of others like them. The continuous collapse of these types of large scale companies will cause a second great depression. This is a situation which we as America cannot afford to deal with because the so called "evil empires", North Korea and Iran, are moving closer and closer to nuclear weapons and this endangers the U.S. without any question. A strong economy is needed in order to keep us from becoming even more vunerable to these foreign threats.

ttk said...

the insecurities of some shouldnt jeaporadize the financial security of all

Owen Doane said...

These insecurities about the American economy do not only jeopardize a small group of people though. If people begin to stop spending money then it will effect everyone changing how businesses price their products and the economy as a whole.

ttk said...

just because a dog barks, doesnt mean something is wrong

Mike Sipes said...

No the banks should have not been bailed out. They should have found a way to bail themselves out. The government should not help these banks insteed they should focus on the stock market.

Mike Sipes

ttk said...

the only reason the stock market is down is because the banks are collapsing(due to lack of funds), call me crazy but in order for the banks to bail themselves out they need funds(those of which they lack)and if they collapse without any federal help then the global economy loses trillions of dollars and much more in trust

floridaboycraig said...

No i dont believe that the US government should have bailed out those banks because unless we were apart of the problem but other than that we shouldnt help them. Let the one suffer and the other rise. I think Obama and McCain is the result of the problem because there producing alot of madness by talking and changing other environments, so they can be helpful to us as a nation.

09dparker said...

I believe that the US goverment should bail out the American because thats what a country does when someone is or your country is in debt. We are the richest country in the world so why dont they try to help out the economy. Its selfich that they dont care about there people the US government just want more money.

RJ Schmitz said...

I don't think that the government should've bailed out the banks. The banks never should've put themselves in a situation that would require government intervention. If they didn't give loans to the people who couldn't afford to play the money back, we wouldn't have to use our money for the heads of the banks to go on vacation and get pedicures and manicures. Here's what I think we should do:
1. Don't bail out the banks
2. Government regulated loans
3. Get us out of Iraq
4. Use the money we have made by not bailing out the banks and not in Iraq to help fund colleges, drug research, etc...

Kirby Riehl said...

I think that the banks should have been bailed out. I think so because if they werent then the economy would have a huge melt down. Yes there will be more inflation than there already is, when we get farther down the road i belive the economy will grow from this action by the US government.

Julian Jimenez said...

I do not agree with the government when they bailed out the banks because it is the banks problems to start with and some of them are going on vacation now. Its the banks fault for getting themselves into the situation and they should have handled it better.

Cameron said...

I don’t believe we should’ve bailed out the banks due to the fact that the banks are the one’s responsible becoming bankrupt. The government shouldn’t of helped them because the banks are probably going to do the same things over again. Since the banks got in that situation, I believe they should find a way out.

sep said...

alex sepkowski

the goverment should have sent out a like wish list type thing, instead of giving familyies money, this would have made the family choose something they need or want and the goverment would pay for instead of just handing out money for people to spend and all people do is save it.

RyanSmith said...

I think they should have been bought out instead of getting bailed out.

st.joe#9 said...

No I dont believe that shouldnt of bailed out because it was there problem to fix.However, i think Bush is to blame the commander and chief of this country.

Kirby Riehl said...

I agree with Julian that the problem is the banks fault. But if we don not bail out the banks than the economy will end up falling. As soon as they regulate things, at some point in our life i think the economy will go back to normal.

Kwells09 said...

I think they should have not been bailed out. As soon as they were bailed out many of them went on a lavish vacation as to say the bailout wasn't going to change their habbits. I beilive if we put our foot down and stopped backing them up it would have a greater effect.

Zuri Thorpe said...

I don’t think the banks should be bailed out because the amount of money that would be put in would be easily causing inflation. Which would ultimately make matter worst with the economy and how stuff is going now. I really don’t blame anyone its just how things are going in the world economy, the will always eventually be a low period and a high period.

ryankwasnik said...

I think that its both their faults too. In a way they are changing everything, the election is a big deal. Also, with people taking out loans that they cant afford isnt helping either. I also, think that the banks shouldnt have got themselves in this situation in the first place, regardless on what is going on around them.

zach schwartzman said...

I dont think that the banks should have been bailed out. I feel that it is both the democratic and republican sides faults. I feel that they should have decided to bail themselves out if they felt that they were in enough trouble.

mike cole said...

No, I do not think the Government should have bailed out the banks. The government has bigger things to worry about. The banks got themselves in the mess they are currently in, so they should find a way to get themselves out of their issues. I just don't think this should be one of the Governments top priorities. The economy may be in trouble, but that problem can be solved with other solutions.

Kevin Curley said...

Yes I agree that the government should have bailed the banks out. In general I do not support the governments having to correct the failures of the market. But in this case the problem is so severe that failing to correct this situation would have lead to an even worse scenario. Foreclosures on mortgages and lack of payments on credit debts would have been rampant. I believe this would have led to another depression, if not a total collapse of the economy.

Andrew Cosgrove said...

I think the story of Antigone is like the new Batman movie because Harvey Dent and Creon are very similar characters. Harvey Dent starts as a good guy who is loved by all until he has a breakdown and become evil and tries to kill all the people who care for him.

Vincent Peck said...

Yes I do think that the banks should have bailed because i think that it worked in helping the economy. And also things in my perspective could have got alot worse.

Joe said...

I think the banks should been bailed out because them some major companies would have been on the edge of coming to a end or would haved closed down. Plus everyone needs help sometime and the government should take over some of these companies because a lot of corupt things were going on and that is the main reason some of these companies came to a end.Also I don't think its right that the government give these companies money and they go on trips

Rob Miller said...

Yes I do think the banks should of been bailed out just to help the economy.

Chris Bodan said...

From a moral perspective the banks had to be bailed out. So many would have lost their jobs, income, or even future. However, according to a capitalistic society the bail out should have never occurred. I will choose not to participate in the meaningless babble you have chosen to create with "Where do you want to point your uninformed finger?". Simply arguing a point, no matter how valid, will simply be shut down by mindless spattering of "No, your wrong." that always shows itself in one way or another when speaking of politics. My apologies about the rant.

Leroy B.III NFL32 said...

I do not think the banks should have bailed out because they should have taken care of there problem like a big boy. I might be some other leads to there problem but it's their fault and they should have taken care of it.