Love that ignore list. Shuts up _____ comments quickly!

What strikes me as interesting is that if you were really ignoring something, why mention you were ignoring it? If you mention you are ignoring it, it obviously means you are thinking about it and thus incapable of ignoring it.

__________________

Certainly, but at this point it is a necessary evil in order to try to stabilize our economy and stop us from going into a depression. The lack of legislation was either the reason or the excuse the government did not step in when average citizens were losing their homes to shady loan "specialists". I'm not an economist, but I don't think it takes an economic genius to know when companies are ripping off the common citizen. There are examples of it all around, from those 29% APR credit cards to the 125% interest payday loan. The spending keeps the economy rolling and the companies happy. The only losers, as you have stated, are us average citizens. Being the "finest minds in the land" I'm sure, they are quite aware of what is going on. So the question is, do they choose to step back because it is what we want, or because it is what is convenient $$$$ for corporate America? The latter is certainly not what I elect my politicians for,

You misunderstood, I was actually adding to what Debateman posted, since I agree that this is a conflict between what we might perceive as "the right thing to do" (bail out the average Joe) and what must be done in order to try to salvage our economy (bailout corporations).

While running a huge risk here mlurp, I have seen you put three people on ignore just because they did not agree with your postings. Isn't the whole idea of a debate to express opinions even if they are not in line with everyone else's?

I'm playing the devils advocate so this may sound callous. Shouldn't the company have the right to "rip people off"? I mean they are required by law to publish the stipulations of the credit agreement. Is it not the consumers fault if they fail to inform themselves? Should it not be the responsibility of the consumer to be responsible for their contractual obligations? Wouldn't the market dictate interest rates. Lets say that Americans wise up and stop living off of debt. That would reduce the interest rate companies could charge because they would be competing for a small group of people instead of the majority of Americans.

__________________

To a point...

There are regulations and restrictions put in place so the company won't sneak something in through the backdoor or do what's known as predatory loans (90% interest compounded daily!)...

But IF...IF IF IF IF the regulations and restrictions are adhered to and no laws brokens, then I'm on board with ya...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

This is the formula under which we've been operating and look where it has taken us. Not really in regards to the economy but more on the level of debt of the average American. We are a consumer driven society, so giving someone a credit card and expecting them not to use it, is like taking a kid to Toys R' Us and expecting them not to cry if you leave without buying them something. There should be more limits that will help keep the consumer from incurring in debts that are not within their means to pay back. Respectable companies have credit standards based on your credit scores and income, which was done precisely to help you not exceed your credit capacity. The regulations we are talking about would apply to those "other" companies, no money down, no credit no problem companies.

The hope Americans will "wise up" is futile one. The only time we ever stop consuming is when we can no longer afford to,

Another illustration of what government intervention can do:

Stocks soar on banks, airlines and oil

Wall Street investors cheer positive earnings reports from embattled banks and air carriers. Oil tumbles again, giving markets a strong boost.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The stock market welcomed some encouraging news Wednesday from financials and airlines - sectors that haven't produced a lot to cheer about recently. Oil prices also tumbled, giving stocks an extra boost.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) rose 0.9%. The Standard & Poor's 500 (SPX) index added 1.5%, and the Nasdaq composite (COMP) gained 0.8%.

The rally came despite a reading showing a surge in inflation. The Consumer Price Index, a key inflation gauge, surged 5% in the past year - the biggest annual jump in more than 17 years. Record gas and food prices helped the index soar to levels that outpaced the average annual pay increase. (Full story)

Stocks were sent even higher after oil plunged by as much as $6 a barrel on the government's weekly stockpile report.

"The stock market is a game of confidence, and it feels like confidence has been restored to some degree," said Robert Philips, president and chief investment officer of Walnut Asset Management. "Oil falling is obviously very helpful for that."

Financials bounce back: Financial industry stocks rebounded strongly Wednesday morning, as some positive news from Wells Fargo helped lift the sector by easing some of investors' concerns about the embattled industry.

Shares of Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) soared 23% despite reporting second-quarter earnings that came in 22% below year-earlier levels. The struggling bank cited a growing number of unpaid loans for the slide, but raised its quarterly stock dividend to 34 cents from 31 cents. (Full story)

Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke appeared before the House Financial Services Committee Wednesday after testifying before the Senate Banking Committee Tuesday. In his testimony, Bernanke stated that government-backed mortgage financers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "in no danger of failing."

That helped Fannie (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie (FRE, Fortune 500) soar, each rising about 15%. The embattled firms were the focal points of harsh investor sentiment toward financials for several of the previous sessions.

Full article CNNMoney.com Market Report - Jul. 16, 2008

Early intervention can eliminate the need for a government bailout later.

If the gov't wants to bail somone out, bail out the investors, not the company. Let a failure fail and protect those who stand to lose the most - the "mom and pop" investors.

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

In a way, that's what they did with Bear Sterns. Unfortunately letting companies "get theirs" will ultimately affect us all, Maybe they can bail them out today and prosecute them tomorrow,