Senate Sweetens Economic Package
@whiteheather39 (24403)
United States
October 2, 2008 4:39am CST
What do you think about these changes made to the bailout bill? I think it sounds better than the original. I did like Obama's remark that this was not the time to think about punishing who cause the problem that can be taken care of later.
The Senate modified the $700 billion financial rescue plan with a provision that gives the Treasury Department the authority to buy troubled mortgage securities.
The bill also now includes an extension of numerous tax breaks for research and development and renewable energy companies, as well as personal tax breaks for college tuition and disaster victims.
It proposes adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax, so it doesn't hit more than 20 million middle class Americans in 2009.
Another key modification is a one-year increase in the limits of personal bank savings the government insures up to $250,000.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Business/story?id=5931648&page=1
2 people like this
8 responses
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
2 Oct 08
I'm not sure how exactly I feel about this bill. I have read several articles that says that the bill is full of earmarks. I suppose that nothing can get passed in Washington without having earmarks attached to it. I think the tax cuts/breaks probably helped get it through. I sure hope that it helps, I know that a lot of people I know have taken some hard hits on their retirement plans. I didn't watch any of the Senate yesterday but I heard some clips of Obama explaining that it's like your neighbors house on fire, you help first then figure out how it started, I thought that was a pretty good analogy since perviously in this election cycle he has blabbered on making things harder to understand. It was good to see him change that. As for the FDIC insurance that should have been changed a long time ago.
1 person likes this
@chameleonsdream (1230)
• United States
2 Oct 08
I agree that the FDIC minimum should have been changed long ago. I agree that the earmarks are what got it passed, and some of them are utterly ridiculous. Some of them I don't like, but they're at least tangentially connected to getting things moving. I'm far less opposed to tax breaks that are tied specifically to actions that help this situation (like a tax break on any profits from purchasing the 'toxic funds'. That one basically says to private companies - okay, if you buy this security that is losing money right now - which will help us out - we won't tax you on the profits if you manage to turn it around and make money from it) than I am to general corporate tax cuts.
We are certainly living in interesting times - for better or worse.
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
2 Oct 08
Whiteheather,
As I watch the fiasco unfolding in Washington my reservations go all the way back to the "bailout" of Chrystler corporation. I said it then and I'll say it now; where does it all end? At what point do we NOT give these corporations with poor or even criminal business practices a free pass? I don't remember the amount of the Chrystler bailout but it was considerably less than 850 or even 700 billion. What will the price tag be next time, 1 trillion or more? What kind of signal does this send to the rest of the financial world? Will it tend to make them believe they have a "safety net" in the US government? I believe this bailout has far too many incentives and not enough safeguards to ensure this doesn't happen again and believe me, it will happen again!
1 person likes this
@revellanotvanella (4033)
• United States
2 Oct 08
I agree, people in higher amounts the more you give them, probably the elements of greed at work. There has to accountability--I think of history and the nonsense of the Salem Witch Trials, poor witches get taken to the flaming cross and then see this and its one big joke. Who's side is justice on anyway?
@Thoroughrob (11742)
• United States
2 Oct 08
I think no matter what they do, it will not fix things. They need to get jobs here so that people can work and pay for things. We cannot keep up with all of this either. Alot of people are on the verge of being homeless.
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40192)
• Canada
2 Oct 08
Well when Obama said it was not the time to punish those in charge he was one of those who helped to cause the situation by forcing the government to give loans and sub prime mortgages to those who could not afford them because they were black. And would have cried racism if they did not comply. I like the idea of increasing personal bank savings up to $250,000. That will allow people to put an extensive down payment when they buy their houses. This sounds like a good thing.
1 person likes this
@evanslf (484)
•
2 Oct 08
I'm not happy at all with the Senate version of the bailout, I think it is far worse than the first (failed) version that was voted down by the House of Representatives.
I reluctantly now accept the need for some form of bailout since I now believe that not to do anything to restore confidence in the banks could well lead to a run on many banks which would be far more harmful to our economy. But why the pork? Why do congressmen and senators' votes need to be bought by pork? The first bailout bill should be improved, and there was room for improvement. But though there is now an increase in protection for depositors (upto $250,000 I understand), and this is welcome, but all this pork in my view makes this Senate version worse.
I hope to House of Representatives get tough and remove as much as possible of this pork from the final bill.
1 person likes this
@chameleonsdream (1230)
• United States
2 Oct 08
I'm completely with you on this. If it's a bad bill and you don't agree with it, then it doesn't become a good bill because they're willing to tack on something that will make you look good back home. 'Hey, yes, I voted to bail out Wall Street, but I also got $93 million for us right here in myhometownUSA, so it's all good.' I understand those who voted no on principle, because they felt it was the wrong thing to do. I understand those who voted no because they thought it was an unnecessary thing to do. I think those who voted no but decided that their vote could be bought by giving something to their special interests deserve a name that I can't print here. It would be nice if the House removed a lot of the pork, but I don't hold out a lot of hope for that.
@cgobble (171)
• United States
2 Oct 08
I really hate to take such a personal stance on this, but to be honest, this bill doesn't make much sense to me. As a member of the middle class, I haven't been struggling just recently. I have worked two jobs for the last two years, and my wife has her job. We've slowly working our way out of debt, and to be completely honest I get a little irritated every time I hear about this "Bailout bill". According to the abc news link you have posted, and I quote
"Other goodies intended to attract the votes of individual members of Congress include $192 million for the rum producers of Puerto Rico and Virgin islands, $128 million for car racing tracks, $33 million for corporations operating in America Samoa, and $10 million for small film and television productions." Well wow, that's great and all. I don't seem to sound like such a small minded pessimist, but come on. If I go out and foolishly spend money and run up thousands of dollars on credit card debt, is anyone going to bail me out?

@newtondak (3946)
• United States
2 Oct 08
It's good that they're doing something - not sure whether this will be the cure-all that everyone things it will be. I think that our economy is so far down the drain that nothing the government does will keep us from a depression.







