If you'll follow the link you will see what Senator Sander's plan is. I agree with the part that says:And I agree with this part:I dislike his idea of a surtax on high income earners, while recognizing that it is equally unfair to saddle low and middle income Americans with the cost of the bail outs. I'm opposed to the idea of bailing out failing companies with tax money, but Senator Sanders does propose some ideas that are worth considering.

__________________


Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

I'm opposed to bailing out failed companies! Let them fail and make them cover the losses of the investors (such as all those retirement funds, IRAs and the like that your average Joe is relying on).

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

How are they going to cover the losses if they are bankrupt and have failed?

How are who going to recover? To me, this isn't about saving financial institutions that don't know basic math.

__________________
An employee gets trampled to death by a frenzied, greedy mob at a Walmart sale, and customers actually complained when the store closed. Yet, I'm the bad guy for suggesting policies that assume people act like retarded herd animals that need government nannying and control....

The mult-million dollar bonuses they've been paying to the CEOs. Oh, and they're not bankrupt. They still have their hands in things that are still making money for them.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

So you the libertarian, plans on taking away money already earned by the CEOs. What if the CEOs don't have the money?

Btw I think the CEOs should be held personally responsible, but I am not sure if it is possible to do so.

Only in America can a completely unregulated industry be driven into the ground by unfettered, naked greed, and con the populace into footing the bill to prop them up out of self-created bankruptcy, enabling future mercenaryism.

This makes less and less sense, to me.

When mere speculation and skittish investment firms can send the whole country into a tailspin, wouldn't it make some sense to get just a little bit of control over this? We need leadership that's not afraid to do some serious ***-kicking. There's only so much abuse by the corporatocracy that the people can be expected to take.

__________________
An employee gets trampled to death by a frenzied, greedy mob at a Walmart sale, and customers actually complained when the store closed. Yet, I'm the bad guy for suggesting policies that assume people act like retarded herd animals that need government nannying and control....

They don't call it a "risk economy" for nothing. If you invest in a company and that company fails, you took a risk and it backfired. If you were defrauded, then the government can prosecute, otherwise you just ****ed up as a consumer, and deserve to fail just like the company with whom you invested.

On topic, we've got no business footing the bill for irresponsible trade practices....or any trade practices for that matter.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

What of the suggestion that those people whose mortgage lenders greeded themselves into bankruptcy should now simply own their houses, to crease a baseline for market normalization? Rather than everyone effectively getting the largest housing subsidy ever, and attempting to rescue these companies from themselves?

Or, perhaps the people who are being foreclosed on and forced into bankruptcy as a result of all of this should lose the house, but be refunded what they've paid into it. Call it a draw. Of course, that would make the government the biggest reseller of property, right now.

What a mess. What cracks me up is that there are still those hardcore people who firmly believe unfettered markets can do no wrong and require no watchdogging......

__________________
An employee gets trampled to death by a frenzied, greedy mob at a Walmart sale, and customers actually complained when the store closed. Yet, I'm the bad guy for suggesting policies that assume people act like retarded herd animals that need government nannying and control....

i agree - tax payers shouldnt foot the bills for these multibillion dollar companies and multi millionaire CEOs. take that $700 billion and how about this - PAY OFF ALL THE MORTGAGES. then the banks would have money and people would own and have their homes saved