Why Obama Should End the Bailouts

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I believe we should stop further bailouts....True some were
or maybe not necessary, but we simply cannot go on bailing
out corporations that has poor liberal management, and the
poor tax payer cannot take much more.....Does the individual
get a bail out? No, his only course is to become a deadbeat or
file for bankruptch, which these corps should be made to do.
We must suffer in order to know how to correct the problems
that have been on going for years....I am definitely aganist
the auto bail out and I have been an employee for GM for 29 yrs.

robet dobbs of TN 3:41PM January 20, 2009

The same banking companies that received bailout money donated to Barak Obama - close to $25 Million - for his innauguration.

mart of KS 2:43PM January 10, 2009

It is fallacy to bail something out with the leaks intact which is exactly what has been happening during this crisis. We have unfortunately wasted much of our bailout money by failing to stop the reasons for the intial failures. President Obama and Congress must act quickly to enact legislation to stop the reasons for our situation before embarking on any further bailout measures. With 10 days remaining till the new administration, the focus should be to put Congress to work having bills to reverse our deregulated government on President Obama's desk at 12:01PM on January 20!!!

Ray Fisher of NM 10:30AM January 10, 2009

The biggest problem - the root problem is corruption. Corruption in all its forms let to this mess, and the bailouts will only increase it and increase our debt so that my grandchildren will be a pauper.
Government borrowing money is nothing more than theft from our children. My granddaughter who is 1 years old has no choice on what our governement does. Yet we are incurring a debt of over a trillion dollars a year and as much as 7 trillion dollars this past year. She gets nothing out of this, has no say in it, and yet in 17 years, she will be responsible in paying off this multi-trillion dollar debt.
In the mideval era, the dark/barbaric days, debts went from father to son. In our founding days a nation, we eliminated that. A son or daughter did not incur their parents debt. It'd be nice if our government kept that legacy, but unfortunately it hasn't.
We should all be ashamed of stealing money, from our children and grandchildren. Such actions and the belief that it is okay for government to incur debt and have another generation pay for it is a moral crime and we deserve every economic misfortune we get for stealing from the truly innocent.
What we need is a more simplistic, open laws, taxes, and budgets that remained balanced. Otherwise money spent does not go to what the people need, nor where they want it to go, but is wasted on giving it to loan sharks, banks that charge outrageous interest, mortgage companies that lie and deceive, billionaires that every hungry for more, Bank CEOs and shareholders that care not for how they spend other peoples money and give themselves multi-million dollar bonuses a year that, giving insurance companies whose CEO makes $34/yr for the past ten years and yet won't dish out $100K for insured homes lost in hurrican or insured cancer victems or to a governors friend to sit around and do nothing for a half a million a year.

Cengizkhan Pamir of 10:36AM January 08, 2009

The endless printing of money is driving nails into freedom's coffin.

doug of TX 11:39PM January 07, 2009

Go to YouTybe and type in the subject line and you'll get a *real* economist who predicted the current mess.

Frank of OR 11:08PM January 07, 2009

Those who have long predicted doom in our economy, such as Peter Schiff and Ron Paul, have made the point clearly: Continuing on a consumption- and debt-based economic path has led us to this mess. They also have made the point that it’s been our government that has been behind the mess all along, with artificially low interest rates, budget and trade deficits, regulatory failure, and now the bailouts, to highlight just a few.
Do we actually think that doing more of the same thing that we’ve done for years to now, and borrowing to do so, will actually magically spring us out of this mess? Have Paulson and Bernanke come out and told the public that they have got this all figured out? All they are essentially saying now is for Congress to give them more authority, so they can bail out the rest of country. I guess they expect us to believe that the wizard behind the curtain will somehow work this all out, no matter how much debt, regulation and printing of money it takes. I expect the new economic team that arrives shortly in Washington will do more of the same, because they’ve all been feeding from the same trough for decades.
Where is the discussion in our “elite” and in our “representation” in Washington that says we need to make a fundamental change in how we operate as a country? I’m afraid that the discussion has been of a fine-tuning nature, that changes in regulation and structure and more money are what’s needed. Conversion and repentance from this fatally flawed system of consumption and debt is not happening.
The notion of our populace to “set it and forget it” at election time and let those sent to Washington to run things and put out the fire has failed. If Washington cannot, and will not, put the nation on track from the top, then we citizens below, will have to do it on our own. First by cleaning up our own balance sheets (household, municipal and state) and then, secondly, demanding real, legitmate reform and real, legitimate change at the national level. The slogan, "Yes We Can!", should be replaced by, "Stop the madness!"

Michael Dunton of AK 9:32PM January 07, 2009

After regime change, Paulson and Bernanke could get jobs in Somalia. They would make Pirate Captain in no time. They could find jobs for blind Chris Cox, Dodd, Shumer, and Barney Frank too, and Mistress Pelosi could run another House of ill repute. Piracy is a relatively honorable profession, and it would be a step up, socially, for all of them, above American national politician or lobbyist.

Robert Cogan, Ph.D. of PA 4:48PM January 07, 2009

If Obama should end the bailouts and loans, why is it that GWB should not be held to the same standard?
We still only have one president at a time--and at this time is is GWB.

HillbillyBill of TN 2:39PM January 07, 2009

Our leaders today seem quite positive that increased regulation and the injection of more money will solve all our economic problems. I believe the truth is that they are not trying to repair our economy but restore our apathy. The false conclusion that we all want what Europe has,(a nanny state that solve all our problems,)shows that mind set clearly.
America has always been about the right to succeed, but that also includes the possibility of failure. The saying goes "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again" not "if at first you don't succeed, don't sweat it. the government will fix it for you so that they can win elections."
I fear Obama will put Bush to shame when it comes to spending. And that despite current talk to the contrary bailouts will be the order of the day in the next four years.
As for Mr. of AZ,
I invite you to read an article or two of Peter Schiff’s. He is that depressing Cassandra who predicted all of this back in 2004.
There is the Austrian school of economics that would support the immediate cessation of bailouts.
And this country was founded on anti-government sentiment.

trotterpm of CA 2:05PM January 07, 2009