What is Digg?197 Comments
- chicagojack, on 10/28/2008, -3/+67What a joke
- Lucas123, on 10/28/2008, -3/+56It just makes me feel all warm inside knowing my tax dollars are going as a free hand-out to banks that are foreclosing on home owners whose mortgages were irresponsibly written by banks that profited in the short-term, but became insolvent from bad business practices and yet have been handing out golden parachutes to executives who lead them down this path.
- argoff, on 10/29/2008, -3/+52brace for impact, hyper inflation can't be far away
- Trekhawk, on 10/29/2008, -5/+52Biggest theft in history might be more accurate.
- delere, on 10/28/2008, -4/+50Lee Iacocca paid back the government garanteed loans for Chrysler in 7 years. I hope these bankers remember this and follow suit.
- ivencente, on 10/29/2008, -1/+23700 Billions can buy you 420 Trillion dollars worth of Derivatives. :)
- ColonelJessup, on 10/29/2008, -6/+26Here we go again with the digg.com economic professors.........................
- AriaStar, on 10/29/2008, -0/+18Regardless of how Chrysler is doing right now (and no one is really doing well), Iacocca was honorable enough to actually make sure that loans taken were paid off instead of defaulting and being put onto tax-payers. I'd rather buy from a company that honors its debts instead of begging for bailouts they're going to blow on luxury trips and have no intention of paying back. In fact, I've got a Chrysler Sebring and it pains me that I have to sell it because money's so right.
- StatiK69, on 10/29/2008, -4/+20Goodbye tax payer money, we hardly knew thee.
- Airforcefalco, on 10/29/2008, -0/+16It was a past event, not a future one.
- grantface, on 10/29/2008, -3/+17*****.
- inactive, on 10/29/2008, -2/+15Not that I don't agree with you - but there is a certain level of personal responsibility that the buyers should also take. People who don't fully research large investments like homes need to suffer the consequences, too.
- toekneebullard, on 10/29/2008, -1/+13Remember kids, it was voted for by both Presidential Candidates.
- Lucas123, on 10/29/2008, -1/+12true enough, but the freakin' banks are supposed to be the experts.
- Zippo, on 10/29/2008, -2/+11Not even the DS can print money that fast. This is going to have serious repercussions down the road.
- mshtml, on 10/29/2008, -6/+15Obama and McCain both voted for this. Don't forget to run out and vote for one of them next week my fellow sheep.
- SwordofKahless, on 10/29/2008, -1/+10Disgusting redistribution of wealth and corporate welfare. They are only prolonging the agony of the poor and middle class by not allowing the markets to correct themselves. On top of this bailout McCain wants to add 300 billion to buy up every bad mortgage in America.
Despite this McCain is running around calling Obama the Socialist and people are eating it up like McCain is suddenly a Conservative. - TSK05, on 10/29/2008, -3/+12Only thing between are digg.com economic professors who shout this is highway robbery and then scream vote Obama even though he strongly supported the bailout. digg.com economic professors really like their candidates to be thief's apparently.
- emazur, on 10/29/2008, -0/+8"Debt,like a cancer, eats faster and faster until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, frugality turn to vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and venality swallowing up the whole of society." - John Adams
- monkeyrun, on 10/29/2008, -2/+9What a ***** scam.
Those CEO and executives of banks who need to use the 700 billion should be fired and file for personal bankruptcy. - scoot2006, on 10/29/2008, -1/+8Well, all this financial ***** sucks, but one good thing came out of it. Cheap gas. I saw it for $1.99 today! Almost wrecked...
- TheFounder, on 10/29/2008, -3/+9This is an outrage - mind you 10% of the bailout money goes to bonuses... literally 70 billion dollars.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/17/exe ... - AriaStar, on 10/29/2008, -5/+11***** the idiots who think it's more important to bail out bank executives while the working-class population is going hungry and homeless to pay for it!
- spriggig, on 10/29/2008, -3/+8My representative, Tom Udall, voted against the bill both times. If yours didn't, maybe it's time to clean house.
- hydroplane, on 10/29/2008, -5/+10remember to vote against your representatives that voted for this giveout.
- inactive, on 10/29/2008, -2/+7they did it for the lulz
- mclaughlind, on 10/29/2008, -0/+5And the Dems are the socialists who stand for big government? Let's see, under this current, Republican, administration, the government bought the two largest home equity brokers, it created an entirely new Department (whose functions are only doubling over several existing government groups), and it gave a 700B dollar bailout to, as previously mentioned, corporations that have proven themselves to be fiscally irresponsible without government regulation. . .good job GOP, you're really leading the way for small government.
- Trekhawk, on 10/29/2008, -2/+7Weimar Republic the sequel
- papashawn, on 10/29/2008, -0/+4need more nationalization of private assets up in this bitch
- jamesmcm, on 10/29/2008, -0/+4For all those mindlessly bashing socialism, you should know Albert Einstein was a socialist. I strongly suggest you read his essay on the matter here: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm
I am a socialist in that I think redistribution of wealth to prevent huge inequality and the destruction of society is a good thing. See in socialism technological developments help everybody rather than just furthering inequality. For example if a farmer buys tractors to replace his farmhands, in a capitalism the farmhands become unemployed whilst the farmer becomes rich and it creates inequality in society. In a socialism however, the workers would be laid off but would still receive the benefits - everyone would receive the benefits of the increased productivity and perhaps the government could start a plan to invest in purchasing tractors for all farmers to increase productivity nationally.
To see such McCarthyism on Digg is disappointing as it shows that Fox's (and other right-wing media) propaganda really works.
Besides, isn't public ownership of the banks a good thing - it means those in charge of the banks can actually be held responsible and that there would be a high level of security as the bankers and government would be responsible. Granted they shouldn't be paid $700Bn for failing, rather the military should just go in, take over the banks and execute the irresponsible CEO's.
ATM, your money is stolen by the rich and you receive nothing in return. This is not socialism. - theOster, on 10/29/2008, -0/+4that would require some sort of restraint, discipline and honor. these ***** have none.
- bobartig, on 10/29/2008, -2/+6Proportionately, the middle class pays too much taxes. This is due to many forms of regressive taxes that have been implemented over decades, and continual tax breaks being given to the upper class. So, what do you call it when government "spreads" wealth to the un-needy? Is that somehow better than a tax break for the majority of Americans? You realize when you say "takes some of your money", you're only talking to ~5% of American's, right? 19 out of 20 of us can entirely ignore you.
- olenick, on 10/29/2008, -1/+5The buyers are getting the point; they're losing their homes, have ruined credit, and are even subject to judgments for the loss in equity they may have to go bankrupt to deal with. Those who actually made down-payments lost them. What's the down-side for the banks who were far better educated about what they were doing? Nothing. Literally: zero. The bonuses have already been paid; the CEO's cashed the checks months or years ago. Now the US taxpayer is being forced to subsidize our new, mainly Republican, banker welfare queens.
- Kyan, on 10/29/2008, -1/+5I've been following the Euro/dollar rate and it has been going steadily in favour of the dollar for the past two weeks or so all the way to 1.245 this morning. and suddenly it's back at 1.29 dollars per Euro. Can a currency geek tell me if this is why - and explain if this jump is just due to the 125bn or the 700bn. That is, if it's jumping because of this and jumped to 1.29 because of the 125bn tranche, will it jump more as more is released?
- theratdotus, on 10/29/2008, -0/+4sigh, i do not want my video games costing the same price as they do in australia.
- Jlaugh, on 10/29/2008, -0/+4It's called fascism when the government helps the corporations, socialism is when they help out everyone.
- Temo1, on 10/29/2008, -0/+4Actually, the current plan is for equity infusions, not buying assets. It's a better plan, to be honest.
- aolshove, on 10/29/2008, -0/+4Oh now you made me feel baaaaaaaad.
- PigGeneral, on 10/29/2008, -2/+5Mr. Filthy rich banker pays 90% of the country's taxes. Mr. Filthy rich banker runs a financial institution that keeps the wheels of the country greased and moving. Mr. Filthy rich banker would be JUST ***** FINE if the bailout didn't go through.
You, Airforcefalco, would have a really hard time getting the credit together to buy a house or a car when financial institutions failed. Your employer, would have a really hard time, PAYING YOUR PAYCHECK (and mine, in case you thought I was Mr. Filthy rich banker), when the financial institutions failed. Most employers run payroll on credit. The practice, if you agree with it or not, is moot, its how it is done currently. Banks don't have the liquidity to do any loans, at all, no matter anyone's credit history, a lot of small employer's go under. You don't get paid, your are worse off than the inflation this could possibly cause.
I do agree that the previous idea of cleaning out all the CEO's and execs and having the shareholders vote in new management however. - tekgnos, on 10/29/2008, -2/+5The banks are going to use the money to stay afloat when they should go broke and bankrupt. Zombie banks here we come!
- inactive, on 10/29/2008, -0/+3Then become a pirate.
- eastwood24, on 10/29/2008, -0/+3so far...
- kenedamick, on 10/29/2008, -9/+12Biggest rape on the public since the Iraq War.
- inactive, on 10/29/2008, -2/+5Good thing we Diggers are all voting for Obama, who in turn would never vote for something like this
- FredFredrickson, on 10/29/2008, -0/+3You know that McCain also voted for this, right?
- PigGeneral, on 10/29/2008, -0/+3Well that is still better than everyone's idea of just being GIVEN money. If the country makes back 50-70% of the money invested, and the financial system stays afloat with everyone still making money an paying taxes, that is a damn good deal.
Your bitching about the problem. Whats wrong with the Solution, and what is YOUR solution. I have yet to see anyone on Digg offer something up other than "Let them collapse!", ignorant to the fact it would spike unemployment further and eliminate the middle class. - Apostolos11, on 10/29/2008, -0/+3The whole situation is a convoluted mess. I am a National City Bank employee. Soon to be a PNC employee after the acquisition is final. Not only was this Bail-out package a bad idea in the first place, but the Bail-out money isn’t even being used for its intended purpose (go figure). To top it off, the government regulators denied National City request for bail out money even though we were better capitalized than say, banks such as Key Corp who will be receiving Bail-out money. Banks are using the money for acquisitions instead of issuing loans. I for one am not happy about my tax dollars being used to allow another company to gobble up my own which very may well put me out of a job.
- inactive, on 10/29/2008, -1/+4RON PAUL
- subliminalurge, on 10/29/2008, -2/+5Those CEOs and executives need to be not only fired, but brought up on criminal charges.
The institutions themselves, though, had to be saved. Had they all been allowed to fail, the damage to the US would have made $700B look like pocket change. - kenedamick, on 10/29/2008, -0/+3Wrong. Taxpayers are footing the bill for both.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 198 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is