Never. You let the market correct itself. The Government should never interfere in the free-market unless it invades other people's rights and only to lower taxes/deregulate.

We never would have these bailouts if the Federal Reserve wouldn't give these line of credits away. What's interesting to me, and people don't seem to talk about, analysts anyway, the Price Purchasing Power of the U.S. Dollars now. It amazes me that all the Stock Market Channels like CNBC or FBN never disclose how much our dollar is really worth. We can bet our bottom dollar, literally to, that our dollar will be worthless by Christmas (not that it's worth something these days).

So the Federal Reserve, this year alone, has printed half a trillion dollars to bailout companies. That bailout money is not through taxpayer money, earmarks, etc. it's through creating money out of thin air.

If these companies fail it would be devastating at first but time would eventually pass and, again, the market would correct itself. I agree with Peter Schiff when he said that we need a hard-line recession to people get a grasp of what is going on: "People need to spend less, save more and produce more."

This is just the beginning of the economic storm. Just think about our national debt now and our monthly budget. We're not even through September and look at what we have to spend: $85 Billion AIG, $225 Billion War on Terrorism, $10 Billion to Georgia, $10 Billion to Texas (I think that's correct) and we are going to have a new war going on with Pakistan (As Obama has promised and guaranteed us).

Do people even know where taxes go to anyway? Our income tax goes to pay off the interest that the Federal Reserve charges to print the money for the United States Government.

Oh crap! I even forgot about the $2 billion per day we borrow from China, Japan and Saudi Arabia. Yeesh!

In bailing out banks the claim is that a financial disaster will be prevented. This isn't true. The debt held by these banks has to go somewhere, it doesn't just disappear. The choice was that either a terrible economic disaster happens now, or that that disaster is put off, multiplied, and left to grow.

Letting AIG go bankrupt would, of course,have caused a massive collapse, a 'tsunami.' Yes, this would suck. It would have been very damaging. But now the US government owns AIG's debt.... and Fannie and Freddie's debt... and A LOT more debt besides. What the Fed effectively is doing is bankrupting the US Government instead of the Banks! The effect of the US govt. declaring bankruptcy would be huge in comparison to AIG or anyone else's collapse.

The buck has been passed. A coming disaster has NOT been averted. The US has stepped out of the way of an oncoming car into the path of a Locomotive. The world can deal with the failure of the banking system. The pieces can be picked up, and eventually within perhaps 20 to 30 years the world can move on. But if the US collapses who knows? The most powerful country in the world with the biggest army and one of the biggest populations... collapsing? Who knows what havoc this might create. Forget about a 20 to 30 year recovery - the world, and the US, would never be the same.

The problem with this country is that we are hypocritical. We hold the world to a higher standard. Letting a private company fail shows we eat our own dog food, we follow what we preach. Bailing out a private company makes us (dare I say it) Socialist! And I don't want to be a Socialist. I'm barely social. With CD, I wouldn't be social at all ;)

I guess you just learned a lesson about watching CNN :P OK, now that i have that out of my system lol

This first point is not meant to excuse CEOs but what do you expect them to do? If they come out and say on TV that they are going out of business in three days, they will be sued by their shareholders for driving the company under. Maybe 30,000 employees kept their jobs for an extra month because of that lie. I am not excusing the lie if it is determined to be fraud, but I also know I wouldn't do any different, except maybe refuse interviews which also would hurt stockholders. I believe you are specifically talking about the Lehman situation. It is being investigated and if fraud was involved, someone will go to jail I am sure. But there was really no winning hand he could play. And that is assuming he wasn't as good as Bill Clinton at parsing his words and using careful sophistry to say what we wanted to hear without actually, technically lying.

ANY loan can be defaulted on. My point was that there was an appropriate place to make these loans. Not because I am responsible. But because of my unique situation. It is not the loan program that is to blame. The problem is that if they make this loan available to me, how do they bar it from everyone else? Per Congressional mandate, they cannot deny someone because of underwriting as congress has mandated sub prime loans. So why won't anyone just blame the greed of MAIN Street! Greed does not only live on Wall Street. But they were mandated by Congress, not by bankers. I would be SHOCKED if any banker came up with a way to make bad loans in the absence of congressional mandate. That had to be foisted on them by Congress. Once Congress mandated sub prime and manipulated to make the risk disappear for originators by having FanFred buy up that paper without being discounted for the risk, who in their right mind is going to resist making money? It wasn't the banks who didn't think of the ramifications. It was Congress. They demanded that lenders make bad loans and then removed the risk for doing so. It is as simple as that. What you are understandably mad at lenders for doing was FORCED on them by Congress. I never said that no one should be held responsible. I merely asked who posters thought should pay the price. If Frank, Shimmer, DOD, Waters don't go to jail, then no, I don't think bank presidents should go to jail.

Banks aren't supposed to take on risk? lol how do they make money without taking on risk? There is an answer to that question, they get out of banking and raise fees. They suck you into a dependence on ATMs which lower their labor costs and then they systematically raise fees on ATM usage. They increase fees which is a much more predictable source of income than actual banking. So is that your idea of what banks should be? If they aren't supposed to take on risk, that is the model you are apparently in favor of. Banks are businesses. They depend on income. You say they cannot take risk so that means they can't make loans or engage in actual banking so instead they just nickel and dime us with fees. And your risk position is moot since as soon as Congress instructed FanFred to buy the paper, it removed the risk from the banks. So it was REGULATION, not DE REGULATION that caused this problem. It was Congressional mandate that removed the risk from the banks and mandated the making of sub prime loans.

I guess I am responsible. I currently have no job, am paying three mortgages and am struggling with how to make enough income to maintain my standard of living, how to keep investing for retirement at my current level and how to hide money where Barack Obama cannot find it, take it from me and give it to some homeless guy or family making 60K. I cannot get health insurance so I am stuck paying almost $1100 a month on a crazy plan that is my only option that actually covers anything. I have great net worth and no income and in a credit crunch it sucks to be me because it is hard to monetize my net worth and the price is down on everything so none of my assets can be sold for a price that makes sense. I have done the right things in paying cash for cars, paying down debt, paying large down payments, keeping no credit card debt and where has it gotten me? Six months ago, my banks wanted to loan me money with no money down but now they are shutting down my HELOC. I am no better or worse a credit risk than I was before. I haven't defaulted on any payments.

what do you want them to go to jail for? The games played, like mark to market tricks and related bookkeeping aren't illegal. Shorting and speculating isn't illegal. Responding to greedy people too stupid to know if it smells too good to be true it probably isn't or that there is no way to buy a house you cant afford without it biting you in the butt eventually isn't illegal. Stupidity is endemic. We cant legislate against it and can't afford to protect people from it.

Unless you are ready to jail people for being too stupid to be allowed to breed, how do you jail CEOs for taking advantage of stupidity within the law? Outlaw intelligence to even the playing field? I think Heinlein wrote a short story about that. What's next? Jailing credit card issuers because they should tell people not to use the credit cards? Home builders for not telling potential buyers they can't afford their houses? Should WalMart run a credit report to see if you can afford that DVD before selling it to you? At some point people just plain need to take responsibility for their own actions.

The loans people now say are so bad are PERFECT for me and I use them totally responsibly. I make my money in large chunks, similarly to a salesman on commission, not regularly. I bought a condo and did a no doc, interest only loan. I have two years left until the rate adjusts and have already reduced the principle by 25% and I put down 25%. Just the nature of my cash flow. Now that loan won't be available to me because some idiots misused it. There is nothing wrong with the loans when used appropriately. It will likely adjust upwards, The property has been rented out since I bought it. and by the time it rents upwards after 5 years, I will likely have paid it down by a third. Even with depreciation of value, it will be a safe, conservative loan. I understood what I was signing. I listened to the part about the downside, not just how it would let me buy the house I knew damn well I couldn't afford. I am not saying that some mortgage agents didn't push products to customers they shouldn't have. But I don't believe that any buyer/borrower didn't know when they were taking a risk to buy something they couldn't afford.

Being against wealth redistribution HAS to be the opinion of only a FAR right winger?

I can only presume that you're just a troll. no one can be that stupid.

Of course not, and here's why:

Only big companies that should be strong and smart enough to sustain themselves are important enough to be bailed out, which makes it OK to irresponsibly run your company into the ground, knowing that the government will come help you when you really need it.

The little companies that are constantly starting and failing never get a bailout, and the big companies do. How will small companies eventually rise to greatness if there is no chance that a large company will ever fail? The opportunities that small companies have to grow, large companies becoming weak, will become few and far between if the large companies are protected like this.

We are a country founded on democratic principles where our Representatives are elected by the people to represent the people. Our representatives voted to NOT bail out the automakers and now our President, who has spent our money like a drunken sailor, is going to cough up some of our money from somewhere to bail out the automakers. What kind of democracy is this?

When Obama and Obiden take office it is going to get even worse. What do we have to do to get this country back to a democracy and stop this slide into socialism?

What will be next: Seizure of ALL retirement assets from us to bail out more of the failing companies?

How can we convince other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to become a democracy when we are a democracy heading for socialism? Already, many of our children do not want to work. They just want to "hang out" and have fun at someone else's expense.

I am tired of our government spending my money for these failing companies. Let them fail, we will survive if the people can get control of the country once again!

NO!

Why should we reward inefficiency, blatant thievery, and exploitation?

Companies are supposed to ADAPT to changing situations, if the demand is no longer there then they should change tactics, I see no debate in this.

Giving the money only delays the inevitable, it doesn't fix anything! It just STEALS taxpayer money in order to maintain already too lavish executive lifestyles.

Of course not. These companies knew what they were doing, especially the lending agencies. They give people loans they know they'll have to foreclose on, just to increase their market value. CEOs and large stock holders make quick huge prophets while people (who were dumb and naive to take out a loan they really couldn't pay but were in large part tricked into taking out) lose their homes. Then when the bubble pops, they go asking government for a handout. You know what's going to happen when they're bailed out? In five to ten years they'll do the same thing again and we'll all have forgotten what happened last time. Problem is, the CEO's aren't held responsible, they still get their paychecks and bonuses. There's no responsibility accept what's passed to tax payers. It's disturbing, unfair, and yes Borme is right, the worst kind of socialism. (as apposed to the good kind like universal healthcare)