I’m going on record here to say “no, to the bailout.” Feels like federal government expansion to me.
Are we just unwilling to let the market take care of itself? Is that even a possibility?
I don’t like the sound of Washington's sell when they say … “tax payers can really score on this one.” I’m pretty sure that means the federal government and not me.
Less government, please, not more government!
Obviously I’m not a brain surgeon or (especially) an economist but so much about this bail out smells of socialism to me. It breaks my heart to think our government (on both sides) has knowingly allowed this financial crisis to happen. From what I’ve gathered there were steps that could have been taken to prevent the collapse of Fannie and Freddie. I first saw this clip on another blog. Pretty easy to understand.
Why do we think that giving loads of money to the very people responsible for this problem will then fix the problem? Isn’t that the definition of insanity?
I don’t know about you, but to little ‘ole me, this bail out stinks of nationalizing our financial system. How could that possibly be the answer?
Newt Gingrich is against the bailout plan because he thinks it is "inconceivable" that the Treasury and Fed can manage Wall Street.
While coming out against the bailout plan, Gingrich forcefully rejected the contention that he favors doing nothing and laid out a conservative alternative.
Here's what he lays out and you can read the rest of his article here:
First, suspend the mark-to-market rule which is insanely driving companies to unnecessary bankruptcy. If short selling can be suspended on 799 stocks (an arbitrary number and a warning of the rule by bureaucrats which is coming under the Paulson plan), the mark-to-market rule can be suspended for six months and then replaced with a more accurate three year rolling average mark-to-market.
Second, repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It failed with Freddy Mac. It failed with Fannie Mae. It failed with Bear Stearns. It failed with Lehman Brothers. It failed with AIG. It is crippling our entrepreneurial economy. I spent three days this week in Silicon Valley. Everyone agreed Sarbanes-Oxley was crippling the economy. One firm told me they would bring more than 20 companies public in the next year if the law was repealed. Its Sarbanes-Oxley’s $3 million per startup annual accounting fee that is keeping these companies private.
Third, match our competitors in China and Singapore by going to a zero capital gains tax. Private capital will flood into Wall Street with zero capital gains and it will come at no cost to the taxpayer. Even if you believe in a static analytical model in which lower capital gains taxes mean lower revenues for the Treasury, a zero capital gains tax costs much less than the Paulson plan. And if you believe in a historic model (as I do), a zero capital gains tax would lead to a dramatic increase in federal revenue through a larger, more competitive and more prosperous economy.
Fourth, immediately pass an “all of the above” energy plan designed to bring home $500 billion of the $700 billion a year we are sending overseas. With that much energy income the American economy would boom and government revenues would grow.
Let’s get back to growth. Let’s get back to rewarding risk. I don't understand all that Newt's plan entails but it resonates with my common sense much better than anything I've heard from the government and the politicians so far!
Is it really possible that we could see growth just by suspending the capital gains tax rates? Could that alone pump money into our economy? If so, sounds like a much better solution than government bail out.
What happened to the conservative ways to generate revenue?
This bail out is going to hang over my children and their children's heads for a long time.
I don't like it!