What Taxpayers Get From the Bear Stearns 'Bailout'

Reader Comments
Back to blog

The bailout is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The federal government IS NOT AUTHORIZED to take OUR MONEY to bailout PRIVATE companies. The FEDS are taking public money and using it for a private cause. My taxpayer dollars are authorized for government services only like defense (and I'm not talking about a fake war like IRAQ), public education, infrastructure, etc. It is illegal to take the American people's money and redistribute it towards private entities like financial institutions.
This is like a "reverse taking". When my business lost 60% of its income, I didn't get a check or a loan from the FEDS. When people were getting foreclosed on, the FEDS didn't step in to help nor did the banks which wanted our help. If banks had conducted private loan workouts with struggling consumers instead of foreclosures, this problem would have been contained a long time before it had an $85 billion price tag. Banks could have even done "home swaps" to get people into cheaper houses.
If we are going to redistribute wealth, redistribute it to the people. How much would each American get if they paid us a proportional share of the $85 billion. That's what I call an economic stimulus check. We could pay off all the loans that we are now in default on, which would stimulate the economy autmatically, revive the financial institutions (who are worthy) and put cash back in the economy. The IRS would automatically get their 30% back (since we are taxed on everything but the kitchen sink... and probably that also) so they would see a definite return on their investment.
Or, how about this. We make the FEDS stop charging us so much money on our income. The FEDS can levy taxes, but they have certainly overburdened this amendment by charging us 1/3. I don't think this is what the legislators had in mind when they passed the Amendment. We sat still, said nothing and let them do it. Now, they have 85 billion to "play with". If we keep more of our own money, we would be able to pay our mortgages, cars and credit cards, save for our own kids' colleges, invest in our own "social security", pay for our own health insurance and even buy our own food.
So, why they're on the subject of the bailout, let's talk about the fuel for the fire - ILLEGAL INCOME TAXATION. If we cut the purse strings, we can cut the corruption and special interest groups. AMERICAN GOVERNMENT's MOTTO - WHEREEVER THERE'S FUNDING, THERE WILL BE CORRUPTION.
The PREAMBLE to the constitution says that people are more prone to suffering than to right the wrongs from which they are afflicted. How visionary. How true.

Ms. Esq. of GA 7:52AM October 01, 2008

Plain and simple: When you have a business, it's your responsibility to set aside money to bail yourself out in time of need. Every small successful business owner knows this, and for some, have experienced and survived this.
My point? So why couldn't those higher-ups who pocket all the money and put it into savings pull it out from their savings and bail out themselves? Oh, that's right! They're entitled to keep that money they earned. The 15% per week in federal taxes that I'm NOT entitled to keep is for bailing out multibillion dollar corporations.
The crooked feds give up more money to one company than to an entire nation of people who are mooching off the government. Well, at least those people who are mooching are putting the money back into the economy.

AnarchyLibertarian of GA 3:28AM June 20, 2008

Although many are defending this scheme as "a loan, not a bailout", it IS a bailout. Bear Stearns stock was valued at $170 per share a year ago. JPMorgan bought this stock at $2.00 per share. The shareholders have been fleeced already, the taxpayers are now being fleeced further. The economy we have is not the problem, it is our continuous efforts to control said economy that cause these inflated bubbles. The constant calls for "liquidity" in the markets, that are answered by the FED with more spiraling debt, are not a sustainable solution. If I have $10.00, I can only loan it to 1 person. Banks are different. They can loan that same $10.00 to 10 people. Where does the extra money come from? Nowhere. It is not from a deposit in someone's savings account, or some pile of gold in Fort Knox, it is created on the bank's balance sheet by typing it in. That is the dirty secret that no one wants you to know. Constant calls for "liquidity" are how the bank's keep the debt swirling around so no one sees that the money is not really there. They can cover up the shortfalls by having enough ink on their balance sheets. That is where the FED comes in, by continuously propping up this ponzi scheme with more debt-based "liquidity". It is NOT a "government bank", it is a private corporation owned and run by banks. Do not believe the rhetoric. 30 billion for Wall Street, legally stolen from Main Street. Expect more of the same in the future, very wealthy bankers DO NOT care about inflation, it does not affect them.

Marc of OH 12:22PM June 04, 2008

You state that falling home prices would be a terrible thing. Look, the housing market is still way over-priced. Lower home prices means a higher standard of living.
THERE HAS TO BE A CORRECTION.
That's the problem with this entire economy. The Fed and the politicians do not want a recession so they keep lowering interest rates to spark more growth. Eventually, this reckless policy will have to correct itself and unfortunately when it does you will not have a mere recession you will have a depression...maybe not a ten year depression...but a depression nonetheless.
You can put off paying the market...but eventually it collects. FED or no FED.

of CO 7:56PM June 01, 2008

if you don't like capitalism, go to france where they love socialism, they also love to protest because their unemployment rate is over 15% and no one is allowed to work more than 35 hours a week. socialism is an idea, not a practical application ( not one with success anyway). the pilgrims tried socialism and it failed because not everyone contributed equally, thus the reward system of capitalism for those who contribute more than others. that is why we ARE the most successful nation on the entire planet. (and yes i know the pilgrims did not invent capitalism, i was proving a point) now to address the "forced" work at 18. no one forces you, as a matter of fact there are many people who refuse to work, they are called welfare recipients. there's your socialism at work, are you happy that your idea of society is actually the biggest drain on society. let's pretend socialism works and that all contribute and receive equally, YOU STILL HAVE TO WORK TO CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING YOU GOOFY LIB.
if you have an issue with the bailout as a single incident, that's fine, but to bash capitalism because your don't want to work is pathetic. there is one community that has made socialism work in small groups, they are called the omish. go ask them what age they start working at, it's a far cry from 18 i'll tell you that.
signed: the blue collar, bottom of the pyramid capitalist working man who came from a christian single parent home, renting out a basement of someone else, to owning my own house with my own yard where my son can play, all by the age 23.
all thanks to capitalism and the american way.
ps wingnut, your socialist views are treason.

Zdan of VA 1:22AM May 09, 2008

Point number 2, former Governor Spitzer's pathetic attempt at blaming bush got shot down by the OCC's chief at the time.
"Mr. Spitzer was also off the mark in repeatedly characterizing the OCC's actions as those of "the Bush administration." I was appointed comptroller by President Bill Clinton for a term that carried into the next administration, and the OCC's actions during my tenure were those of the OCC alone."
-John D. Hawke
Hawke and the current Comptroller rip apart the disgraced governor's attempt at blaming the administration for the OCC's actions.
See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503016_pf.html
If Mr. Blomquist is as much of a lib as one would expect him to be, I'd direct him to the tards over at HuffPo who think that Spitzer's sexual indiscretion only was brought up because of his lackluster legal arguments. Then again, if Spitzer treated mortgages like he did prostitutes, he was probably screwing homeowners on the side.
See:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-g-brant/eliot-spitzer-george-bus_b_91764.html
If Mr. Blomquist thinks this "bail out" was so illegal, I'd ask him to check Section 13.3 of the Federal Reserve Act, which was passed I think in 1932?
Please take your crazy conspiracies somewhere else, sir. Oh wait! The internet is the only place you have left... :(

William Gootman of OH 10:05PM May 06, 2008

This problem goes beyond the solvency of Bear Stearns and even that of our financial system. Eric (first comment) gets props for the best argument. This is all about privatized profits and socialized losses; moral hazards.
As this catastrophe continues to cycle through our and the global economy we will see skyrocketing inflation, crime and social unrest. In addition this could lead to the next World War. Americans and congress became unglued about toys with traces of lead based paint, what will the globe think about securities tainted with fraud.
1) Paulson should be arrested for aiding and abetting loan and bank fraud. While he was at the helm of Goldman Sachs most of this toxic debt was originated and also sold through GS.
2) The constant blame placed on state regulators is false and only conceals the real problem. See Eliot Spitzer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html
3) Karl Denninger writes:
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/2008/03/articles-of-impeachment-bear-stearns.html
please sign petition
4) The Executive branch issued a directive to the FBI to NOT prosecute fraud for housing. Under the United States Constitution our President is charged with caring for the faithful execution of law. As alleged by Spitzer, Denninger and myself (FBI directive); this is not a question of negligence, but obstruction of justice.
America wakes up we will have social unrest, skyrocketing unemployment, crime, etc. People will be fighting to survive instead of getting

Michael Blomquist of CA 5:09PM April 04, 2008

I can see there might be additional strain on rents at some levels, however,
rents and housing prices usually do not stay apart all that long. When housing prices crash, rents usually follow.
The people who walk away from their mortgages will have a very difficult time
renting due to credit histories. Those who cannot buy homes are already renting or
in a smaller home. As a renter, I am thinking it let it crash to where it should have been. No bailout.

KR of NJ 2:38PM April 04, 2008

Even if you rent, the solvency of the mortgage industry still benefits you. A scarcity of low-end credit can create a glut of renters, pushing rents upward.
But the really outrageous thing is that government now appears to be a tool for conducting multi-billion dollar business transactions. That isn't the way it's supposed to be, is it? Should taxpayers be forced into making a deal with JP Morgan that no sane private firm would make?

of DC 12:13PM March 31, 2008