An the tax payers are going to bail these guys out. You should checkout one name on the Goldman Sachs list.

Just say NO to the Bailout...its only a stopgap measure until Bush gets out of the White House, they will be back for more.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09...-with-bailout/

I dont understand your link and your comments ?????

I agree. Let's hope some honest bright people can recognize the needs of the common man and take some of the power away from the greedy rich. The pie is just so big. When some take hugh slices it has to come from somewhere...The last 8 years has made the divide between the wealthy and the poor greater than ever. You can be pigs for just so long. Yes I am .

I fully realize I am slow but the link was an article about Sen McCain suspending his campaign...no mention of Goldman Sachs. Interested but confused (easily)

Originally Posted by Bucco

I fully realize I am slow but the link was an article about Sen McCain suspending his campaign...no mention of Goldman Sachs. Interested but confused (easily)

ME TOO!!!!!!

...Colugal means that Henry Paulson is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs.

I am sorry....I had the wrong link. I will find the right link and post it as soon as I can.

Here it is and again I am sorry.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=5876413

Time to lay off the Vicodine.

This is a strange set of affairs. Last night I listened to Bill Clinton and George Bush agreeing on the need for this bailout. Pres. Clinton actually thinks the US Gov't won't probably lose money on the bailout and reminds us that his bail-out loan for Mexico - not that different according to him - actually made $600million when it was all over.

When those two non-agreeing souls have a matching viewpoint, and bring it out as not being $700trillion down the pipe, but most if not all or more of that money coming back to the Treasury, I've got to say - give it a change.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

This is a strange set of affairs. Last night I listened to Bill Clinton and George Bush agreeing on the need for this bailout. Pres. Clinton actually thinks the US Gov't won't probably lose money on the bailout and reminds us that his bail-out loan for Mexico - not that different according to him - actually made $600million when it was all over.

When those two non-agreeing souls have a matching viewpoint, and bring it out as not being $700trillion down the pipe, but most if not all or more of that money coming back to the Treasury, I've got to say - give it a change.

New Update....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26885559

SteveZ, I have been hearing that over and over from Warren Buffett, CNBC interviewees and so forth, that the taxpayer bailout may be a money maker for the Federal Government, (maybe they could then fund the broken SS fund).

Bill Clinton, in spite of his follies, seems to be a less of a partisan politician these days and more of a individual focused on the welfare of our nation. Heaven knows, he should have some insight into long range recovery. Too bad our posturing Congressional leaders couldn't tap into their own souls a little bit rather than their political bottom lines continually.

Leave this site, Peachie!

I watched that interview and tone means a lot versus reading the script. Recovery won't be overnight and to think it will be is absurd but even more absurd is to think any presidential candidate can make the recovery instant. There is a lot of money on the sidelines right now and if confidence in the market returns, money will return to the stock and credit

markets.http://www.newsweek.com/id/160780?GT1=43002

Originally Posted by cologal

New Update....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26885559

And there will be more coming hat-in-hand, especially the State of Maryland and at least two of its counties. Just because one gets does not mean all will get.

As long as any bail-out does not mean all of the money has gone down the spout, and as Pres. Clinton (a former governor used to budget-balancing) described that the government should get most-all-more back in the end, what's the worry?

Originally Posted by SteveZ

And there will be more coming hat-in-hand, especially the State of Maryland and at least two of its counties. Just because one gets does not mean all will get.

As long as any bail-out does not mean all of the money has gone down the spout, and as Pres. Clinton (a former governor used to budget-balancing) described that the government should get most-all-more back in the end, what's the worry?

That we won't get the money back

Originally Posted by cologal

That we won't get the money back

Life involves risk, especially when you are dealing with Members of the House and Senate whom nobody ever seems to want to vote out. They MUST be really good because we keep re-electing them.