A few comments from NYT Readers:

"I'm sorry, but I don't trust Paulson and I certainly don't trust Bush. What if it were Goldman Sachs that went under instead of Bear, Lehman or Merrill Lynch? Do we want to hand this much money to the same guys (Paulson) who are responsible for this crisis? And the last time we trusted Bush with this kind of responsibility, we wound up in a war everyone knew was coming but we were somehow unprepared for.

— Posted by Frunobulax
7.September 23rd,
2008
10:17 am My opinion of the Wall Street bailout is for the US government to seize of freeze all the assets of the big wig Wall Street people who made Billions of Dollars getting us in to this mess.

Leave them with their primary residence and two automobiles and their 401K money. Everything else goes to the Federal Reserve to help bailout the companies they reaped their huge profits from.

The US taxpayer should not be burdened with the bailout.

— Posted by Fred
8.September 23rd,
2008
10:17 am Double metaphor of the day: HE WHO TAKES THE RISK MUST PAY THE PIPER.

The mortgagor loses his house and the mortgagee gets bailed out. What is wrong with that picture.

Regards, Ben

— Posted by ben schwartz
9.September 23rd,
2008
10:17 am For all 'The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling' comments from Bernanke and Paulson, its now been 3 days since the meltdown and as far as I can tell the sky hasn't fallen. In any negotiation, and as we've seen throughout the Bush Administrations time in office, everything is an emergency and requires extreme actions without consideration, usually right before a recess for an election.

To our representatives, I implore you please for all of our sakes slow down and start again, not from this administrations framing of problem and solution. They got us into this situation,they are not qualified to get us out.

Even more disturbing are Sen. Obama's remarks that he may not be able to pursue his agenda once in office as a result of the bailout. This is the entire point of the bailout, to tie the hands of the next administration and to ensure that a progressive agenda which pro-actively seeks to improve the American project can never be implemented.

— Posted by Rob
10.September 23rd,
2008
10:21 am Absolutely outrageous. Here is what blows me away and gives the lie to the urgent necessity of this stunning taxpayer bailout of private companies and their scoundrel executives in the first place.
Paulson is objecting to the provision placing limits on executive compensation, the "golden parachite" rule. His reason for that objection is his concern that such limits would discourage companies from participating in the plan.
Well. I can only conclude they don't REALLY need our help. End of story. They want OUR charity, my money, to pay for their imcompetence and recklessness, and they want it on their terms, with the right to take sweet deals, or they will just walk away. Don't do us any favors, pal.
Let them die a slow death, then. The only solution is to buy the companies, void the compensation packages, and throw the bums out on their ears.
Paulson's plan is criminal and un-American.

— Posted by joe
11.September 23rd,
2008
10:26 am I would feel a lot better about this "bailout" if the bankers were crying at the begging table, not gleefully lining up! And having their lobbyists line up to sniff the rears of Congressman, 2 months before an election is probably criminal and certainly in bad taste! The token sacrifice of Lehman is not enough to satify a decade or more of greed and self-serving Ponzi scheme actibities, not enough atonement for the gloating Billion dollar bonuses! When I see shanty towns in near suburbs of NYC and for sale and foreclosure signs on the McMansions of Greed…then I might relent! Why do we need Wall Street and its bastions of sleaze? I'm not sure we would not be much better off if the whole mess was flushed! I remember when my money was in the local bank and we knew the banker! What do you think??

— Posted by Chaotician
12.September 23rd,
2008
10:29 am I have absolutely no, repeat NO, none, zilch faith that Bush and Friends is telling us the truth. I recall the last time Bushie used this "let's do this now without further debate" attitude — and we went to war with Iraq on distorted WMD evidence, deceitful statements and erroneous information. As a by-product, Secretary of State Colin Powell's career was irreparably damaged because he bought the Bushie li(e)ne.

And why shouldn't these bankers feel some financial pain? Thousands of citizens who pay their fair-share of taxes have seen their stock values plummet — so methinks it's only fair that these same execs who are clamoring for our/my money to bail them out should be de-compensated as well.

I feel any bank who participates in this program should have a max compensation of whatever the President makes for any executive. And no loopholes, either.

This rush to judgment doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. I'm no longer buying my government's line that they know best (at least until Senator Obama and HIS team gets elected). The present administration has demonstrated repeatedly it's ignorant and can only provide cardboard statements and platitudes.

Where is the "truth" in lending these days?

Seth J Hersh
NYC
"