The bailout is the most divisive thing on DU in years. How SURE are you that you're right?

[El Pinko]

Poll question: The bailout is the most divisive thing on DU in years. How SURE are you that you're right?

The bailout is the most divisive thing on DU in years. How SURE are you that you're right?

(EDITED to make it simpler, because a lot of people are getting bogged down in details when the only real question is how certain you are of your position.)

[rucky]

1. Anybody who's dead certain is a fool.

There - I just created a third position to flame from.

[El Pinko]

3. Heh. I brought it up because some of the pro-bailout folks seem so crazed with rage...

...they really do believe it will be Dust Bowl Days by Christmas without this addition to the national debt, so I figure they must be pretty damn sure of what will happen if they will unload on other DUers this way.

[vi5]

13. I'm on the fence, but I think the opposite..

I think the anti-bailout folks seem more crazed and with much less actual facts and information to back up their points and their beliefs. Their aversion to it seems reflexive, mostly based on anti-Bush sentiment. Which I can appreciate completely. But there's not a whole lot of meat behind there, or if there is they aren't really discussing that.

I don't know enough about economics to really have a strong opinion either way and haven't seen anything from either side that makes me fully on board with them. But the anti-bailout folks seem to have a much more reflexive, reactive, and emotional argument rather than one based on facts. I don't necessarily like the facts the pro-bailout side are putting forth, but they are there.

[El Pinko]

35. I just keep seeing posts like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4131073

And headlines like "Are you happy now? It's Great Depression 2.0!" and "My retirement has been flushed down the toilet thanks to you people" and so on...

[vi5]

63. Agreed, I just think that the other side of the pendulum..

..which tends to be "Let it all burn!! Fuck Bush and the corporatists!!" are not much better. And those reactions tend to be more motivated out of spite as much as they are any actual empathy or understanding of the situation.

[stray cat]

21. Yes the people who say there is no problem are so passive.....

compassionate, well informed and good intentioned than anyone with the opposite opinion :sarcasm:

95% of posters are largely spouting opinions without any info - including myself

[jonnyblitz]

34. the pro bailout folks are down right nasty to those of us who are

"anti", accusing us of all sorts of things and sounding like fucking wingnuts/freepers when they do it with their red baiting BULLSHIT, screeching about 'far left"...

[PVnRT]

38. Yes, it's all the other side...

I suppose the insults hurled by the "anti"s are perfectly OK.

[LanternWaste]

50. I think there are an approximately equal number

I think there are an approximately equal number of dogmatic individuals on both sides of this issue; with little to no difference in the derision, the "I-told-you-so's", and the intractability between the two extremes.

Sometimes it's as though I'm witnessing a fight between Shia and Sunni....

[lostnotforgotten]

6. What You Talkin About Willis?

eom

[Virginia Dare]

19. Pretty much unless you have a crystal ball that works...n/t

[Winterblues]

37. Are you dead certain on that?

:shrug:

[rucky]

41. Coitenly!

[NuttyFluffers]

48. thank you. "act in haste, repent in leisure."

and i cannot stand it when such a decision of EPIC magnitude has particularly unsavory proponents (many involved with the nascent or acceleration of this crisis)) insisting, nay extorting!, my government to act in haste. there's a very good reason why the most populated and glacial moving body of our federal gov't, the Congress, got "the purse." deliberation over the spending of gigantic sums of money has been a good idea throughout history. our founding fathers were not stupid and neither am i -- i like to know what i'm getting from what i'm putting in. all i'm getting is promises and doomsday scenarios; i'm sorry, that's not enough, people who support this tact should try arguing their point harder.

our nation never 'wrote into stone (our constitution)' that we shall govern all our commerce and trade via the vehicle of capitalism. perhaps this is an example that unregulated capitalism is not (or no longer) a competitive or viable vehicle for operating our commerce? perhaps "the patient" needs to die so that another vehicle of trade can take its place? my gov't worries about governance, and only maintains a framework, a foundation, to maintain ease of commerce -- we don't dictate what sort of institution, what building, is built atop it. some houses crumble only to be rebuilt even better and some are never rebuilt. some are retrofitted, while others are gussied up just enough to pass along to the next sucker. where we stand in such an analogy is a matter of perspective, but if we freak out no perspective can be assessed let alone put into dialog. casualties? there will always be casualties. you cannot escape from casualties in any situation. salvation from our actions has always been a pipe dream. somethings and some people will always be lost -- whether a system is created, perpetuated, or destroyed.

we just need the levelheadedness to give ourselves the time to decide how we as a populace, through our gov't, proceed. are we really getting that sort of space? and if not, are there any non-independent motives influencing such pressuring agents? i have no interest in repenting in leisure, so i'm willing to ask of my gov't to do the hard work of listening and understanding now. and i'd like it if others would expect that of their representatives as well.

[OneBlueSky]

2. how about "Other" . . .

I oppose the bailout because I can't seen the logic in rewarding the perpetrators of this mess rather than punishing them . . . giving Wall Street another $700 billion is the mother of all "throwing good money after bad" . . .

[El Pinko]

5. That's fine, but the point is about how certain you are of your opinion.

Feel free to elaborate with a response. I just want to know how certain people on both sides feel about their case.

[JDPriestly]

4. I oppose the bail-out because it concentrates too much economic

power in the president and his henchmen on the cabinet.

I'm certainly no free market fanatic, but I am neither a Communist nor a Fascist. The money for the bail-out should go to refinance people's mortgages for longer tersm, different terms, not to create a slush fund for Bush friends.

Assuming that a bail-out is necessary (and we haven't seen the books of the companies claimed to be ailing), a bail-out that just hands over the keys to the economy to W is not the answer.

[stray cat]

7. Bush is always sure - but that doesn't mean I think he has a clue

the same goes for the absolute certainty of most posters.

[FSogol]

8. For those undecided about the bailout

I recommend this column from today's Washington Post

http://tinyurl.com/4qqm6l

IMHO, a bailout is necessary to protect the market, however the bailout itself does not fix the problems that created the need for a bailout. Any deal should include:

1. Re-regulating the bank, insurance, and finance industries
2. Capping interest rates and fee from credit cards
3. Capping mortgage rates and outlawing interest only mortgages
4. Improve government oversight over mortgages, finance, credit cards, and banking

[johnaries]

45. I agree that a bailout is necessary, and so are the points you list

along with an economic stimulous package like Obama supports (a return to Keynesian economics, investing in energy, etc). But those shouldn't be part of the bailout package. The bailout is an emergency measure, only. The other points will require much more time to write much less the long fight to implement them.

As I have said before, we have to staunch the bleeding long enough to get the patienton the operating table. Then we can treat the underlying problems.

[gopbuster]

9. maybe an option that states...

I am dead certain that the rescue plan will help to mitigate the short term crisis until we can put Dems in office to fix the underlying problems with the economy.

[El Pinko]

10. The poll is not about the details, just about how certain you are.

NT

[gopbuster]

17. Then you are leaving a sector of people out.....

The ones who know that it is a short term fix and will support the bailout

[El Pinko]

29. Like I said, it's NOT ABOUT THE DETAILS.

Short-ter vs. long term, that is details. Are you for it or against it and how strongly? Maybe I can edit, since this seems to confuse people.

[gopbuster]

23. I'm wrong...I voted dead certain we will crash...your right I apologize n/t

[TexasObserver]

11. I oppose the bailout because IT LACKS PUBLIC SUPPORT.

Your failure to include that choice means you have not considered that very important reason.

FEAR is the reason most people support the bailout here. They're afraid. They don't know what will happen, and they're addicted to bad investment decisions and bad credit decisions.

People not ruled by FEAR are much more clear headed. People whose lives are not ruled by debt are much more clear headed.

When the public demands a bailout is when I'm for the bailout. I don't think it will do much good, but it will help a few months. It will mainly help Bush limp out of office, so the next president will take the hit on the stock markets. It's not going to fundamentally change anything, because it cannot. It's not nearly enough money to do that.

[Virginia Dare]

22. I think most people wrongly assume this bailout doesn't effect them..

unfortunately every aspect of our financial lives is so tied up in Wall Street dealings that it effects all of us. They've spent years making sure that our fortunes will go with their fortunes. They even tried to tie one of the last vestiges of our security (that would be social security) up into their fortunes. Thankfully they didn't quite succeed with that.

Part of me thinks that the 700 billion is just a tiny bandaid on what amounts to an amputation, but enough people that I trust, people who know better than I, thought it should go throough that I became convinced that it's probably the best of all worst possible scenarios.

What I do know is that we have to fundamentally change the way we do things in this country. The current lifestyle cannot be sustained. It's going to take some real leadership.

[torbird]

12. Debate is healthy, not divisive

Don't talk like the GOP. I enjoy arguing robustly with like-minded people.

[Kip Humphrey]

14. We need a bailout from BushCo policies and a rollback of unregulated globalist capitalism.

[marmar]

15. more like "in months"....remember the primaries?

n/t

[Iggo]

25. I know, huh.

This ain't shit compared to this past summer.

Not yet, anyway.

[El Pinko]

31. But I don't remember Hillary supporters saying "Are you happy now, Hillary lost, America is DEAD"

That is the message I am seeing from furious bailout supporters. There was rancor in the primaries, but not a lot of accusations of bringing western capitalism to an end...

[JonLP24]

16. Only time will tell who is right

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. I agree with first poster: dead certainty either way is silly

I chose option 4: big problems will ripple through the economy if something is not done by the government. Am I certain of that? No, of course not. But I think it's highly probable.

[Geek_Girl]

20. Other- I oppose the bailout because it won't solve the problem

This money can be better spent to shore up the economy via federally funded public work projects.

[Virginia Dare]

24. Good luck selling that to the right wing ideologues...

you want to see obstruction? Try floating that idea around Capitol Hill.

[Iggo]

26. Don't sell it to them.

Shove it down their fucking throats.

[Virginia Dare]

28. Uh huh, tha'll work!....n/t

[Iggo]

39. See? I already got one of you.

It's working already!

:rofl:

[Geek_Girl]

56. If this is economic crisis is truly a crisis (ie Great Depression)

Then the American voter would strongly support a New New Deal. Dems just need some back bone and the voters need to vote the corporatist out of office and that includes the DLC'ers!

[Virginia Dare]

57. Get a clue, the right wing fundies don't want ANY government money..

to help solve the problem. NONE. If we go into a full-blown Depression that MIGHT change, but just because these people are on your side in the "no" vote for the bailout doesn't mean they're going to automatically take a hard swing to the left and see things your way. The only immediate help we can gain right now is through compromise. That's just a fact.

[Geek_Girl]

59. I live in SE Tennessee I work for a federal Agency that was brought about by the NEW DEAL

The majority of the folks that work in this company are RW Fundies. Sorry but when push comes to shove the RW nut bags go for the good jobs. Even if they're government jobs.

[Liberalatus]

61. I live in Mt Juliet

Howdy, neighbor!

You work for TVA, maybe?

[Virginia Dare]

69. The right wing fundies in Alaska are the benficiaries of a socialist system..

but try to get them to acknowledge that.

[Renew Deal]

27. It's the most divisive thing since lolcat threads

Actually, it's probably the most divisive since the Israel invasion of Lebanon. That was much worse.

[annabanana]

30. .

.

[Coyote_Bandit]

32. Other

I favor a governmental financial ***investment*** in troubled firms for the purpose of insuring greater financial stability in the national economy provided:
(1) there are strictly defined terms including recouping of the investment with interest in a specified time period
(2) top management (not limited to CEOs) at those firms is replaced and their actions are fully investigated
(3) new regulations are put in place in the financial industry and new limitations are put in place regarding lending disclosures and interest rates and
(4) there is strict oversight - including oversight of the overseers.

I oppose using public funds to subsidize excess consumption, irresponsible (sometimes ignorant)borrowing, excess compensation and negligent lending practices. I oppose simply writing bad loans off the books without an effort to recoup collateral and seek funds from the borrowers.

So I support financial intervention by the government under strict terms - none of which I consider a bailout. It is not a bailout to invest provided the investment carries well defined terms to recoup principle and interest.




It simply does not matter how certain or passionate I am about my opinion. I'm not proselytizing to convert folks here to share my views of the economy - and stating those views does not obligate me to defend them.

[LeftishBrit]

33. I am not sure of anything...

I chose option 4 (favour the bailout because otherwise we may have a really bad recession); but it's not so much favouring THE bailout as favouring some form of intervention. I don't know whether this particular bailout, even in its latest form, is the best thing, especially being so far away from the scene - but my country and the whole world *will* be affected by the outcome. I just think some form of intervention is needed to stave off major crisis; and that this needs to be followed by major changes, more taxation of the rich and big businesses, more regulation, return to an economy more based on actually producing something and on public services and less on Money for Money's Sake. I'm referring primarily to changes I'd like to see in my own country, but I think the same applies to lots of countries at the moment.

When I've been in arguments here, it hasn't been about the details, but about the attitude I sometimes see: "Let them all go down; tough love is good; people must learn to live within their means; let there be another Depression if necessary, and the frugal will survive, and the greedy rich will be punished". I've observed too much 'tough love' at the hands of Thatcher; and when there are hard economic times, it's not the deserving who survive, however this is defined; it's the lucky. And I am not prepared to see everyone go down, in order to punish the 'fat cats', who are in fact the most likely to survive.

[annabanana]

36. can I retract my vote? I only participated because of the additional info.

[Liberal In Texas]

53. Me too. My vote is now not accurate.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

40. I'm tired of hearing from those who are DEAD CERTAIN...

...though they are in the minority, unfortunately they make the most noise.

[Marie26]

42. 100% sure

that I don't have a clue. But at least I admit my total ignorance; unlike all the gurus on CNBC or CNN or DU who are suddenly certain of the cause & solution. Most of those same gurus had no idea this crisis would happen at all 6 months ago. What's that Socrates quote? "The wisest man knows that he knows nothing."

[johnaries]

43. I favor the bailout, and I HOPE TO GOD I'm wrong.

But I'm very much afraid I'm right. And the consequences if I am right are just too dire to do nothing.

[flvegan]

44. I'm dead certain that I'm right.

The bailout *could* be a good thing and *might* very well work, but I'm dead certain that the parties involved will one way or another screw it up and rip us off. It's an okay idea destined for horrendous execution.

[slackmaster]

46. The only thing I am dead certain of is that I don't understand the problem or the bill very well

And I stand by that position.

[ProfessorGAC]

47. There Is No Certainty

And anyone who says they're certain is showing some hubris.


But, i oppose it because:
1) I don't think it's comprehensive in it's overhaul of the bundling procedures used by banks and investment houses.

2) I don't think it properly regulates the mortgage industry to prevent recurrance.

3) The problem took 25 years of hyperventilating deregulation to create. It is not going to be fixed in a week. You don't ccorrect hyperventilating by hyperventilating some more.

4) I think direct capital infusion would be more beneficial, rather than just buy up the toxic assets. If a company still fails in spite of a capital infusion, everyone who took the money should be fired from any level above Director.

5) I think the problem is more akin to global warming. A serious problem that needs to be fixed, but the other shoe isn't dropping tomorrow. The bigger worry is farther down the road.

6) The people who screamed the loudest as to the threat were those who told everyone just a few months ago that all was well.

As someone who's studied macroeconomic for a quarter century now, i'm pretty certain i'm right.

The Professsor

[LanternWaste]

49. Being neither an economist nor a southern preacher

Being neither an economist with a masters or a doctorate, nor a southern preacher, I'm compelled to avoid any statements of absolutism or certainty.

However, I do enjoy the dogmatic, fire-and-brimstone sermons posted as of late, differing from a holy-roller minister only in function, but not in form-- telling us, no... *commanding* us to repent or Armageddon will surely follow.

Sometimes, DU takes on the appearance of the Rapture-Ready board in more ways than any of us would ever like to admit, if even only to ourselves.

[High Plains]

51. Umm, immigration, Dubai ports, FLDS, guns, anything about sex

I challenge your premise. We are easily divided.

[Forkboy]

67. No we're not!

:P

[bean fidhleir]

52. I oppose the giveaway but didn't check a box because you don't offer one that suits

If the politicians are stupid enough to let the criminals flush the economy down the drain, then things could get quite nasty for everyone.

But I don't think they'll do that because, no matter how little they care about our wellbeing, they care maximally about their own. And I'm sure they're smart enough to realise that they could be subjected to sudden, permanent term limits if they're perceived as unwilling to punish the guilty.

And because of that, I have no problem opposing the giveaway.

[L0oniX]

54. I keep it simple. If the plan comes from Bush, it's bull shit.

[Chovexani]

55. I don't know where I stand on it, but there is one thing I'm certain of

The usual suspects are wanting us to give billions and billions of dollars away to corps with no oversight. The same folks who war profiteer and what not. Enron, no bid contracts, etc.

Now I don't know shit about economics that don't involve working the Auction House on World of Warcraft, and all this is admittedly going way over my head, but that alone gives me pause. Are we to just accept at face value that this time, no dude, srsly we're trying to FIX stuff not rape taxpayers, this time is liek, totes different? Especially since they're so big on rushing into this without really letting anyone think about it?

It makes my spidey sense twitch, does not pass the smell test, insert other cliche here. I'm not saying nothing at all should be done, don't get me wrong. I'm just wondering why so many intelligent people are so blithely willing to trust the Chimperor on this one just because Pukes don't support it for the most part. Why THIS plan, why are we being pressured to accept such a huge outpouring of our cash with no time to examine or question it?

That's what concerns me. And frankly I don't trust the "hay guyz let's give the Dumbass a blank check for WAR" Quislings with Ds after their names to make sure we're not being fucked by this.

[Realityhack]

58. WHICH bailout? There is more than one proposal. n/t

[GetTheRightVote]

60. FDR proved that other methods can be used to save us from a Great Depression

so why are these not the ideals of the present congress, because they are his and already proven to work. Put people to work, protect their homes and keep them out of foreclosure and bankruptcy. These are the foundation blocks this nation needs to protect not the Fat Cat's Mansions.

This is our history, we lived it before and we survived with the innovation of a great leader.
We can do it again but we must remember and also be lead but such a leader so where is he or she today?

:grr:

[Naturyl]

62. #2.

I strongly opposed the bailout because it smelled very bad to me.

Was I right? I think so, but time will tell.

[Dogtown]

64. Pretty convinced it's all another "9/11"

I don't believe *anything* this administration tries to stampede me with.

[geiger]

65. Bail-out is not what this is. This is the govt buying securities, that could/should

potentially make money.

[Love Bug]

66. I am torn on this

But I do know this: I don't trust Bush to not screw us over. He's lied to us over and over, so why should we believe him now?

[Orsino]

68. "The" bailout is dead.

Another one will be passed someday, and it might be a much better one, if swine aerodynamics is an exact science.

[Coventina]

70. I am deeply conflicted about the bailout and therefore don't post for it or against it

The only thing that has made me mad are the posts that gleefully call anyone with a 401k a parasite or stupid, etc.

Many of us worked for companies that no longer have traditional pension plans. We either had a 401k or no retirement plan at all.
Some "choice." So gleefully dancing about the stock market tanking and saying that we deserve it really angers me.

It's not liberal, progressive, or even humane.

[NashVegas]

71. Are You Kidding? I've Never Seen the American People So United

It's beautiful ...

[KG]

72. I Know I'm Right Because I say It Over and Over In My Idiotic Threads

and if you don't agree with me you're just ignorant and need to get educated.

[Bryn]

73. I am certain I am right to be against the bailout

no regulations = no bailout (to be clear - there are *NO* regulations at all so it WILL FAIL even with the bailout)