Responsible? No. The government shouldn’t be responsible for bailing out companies. Should the government have the option? Yes. In some cases, it’s a good thing, like with GM in the 70’s, to save jobs.

The banks are overcharging us on credit card rates and robbing us of interest earnings on our bank accounts. The banks are at fault so we should not bail them out as taxpayers. Nor should we bail out anyone who made foolish mortgage loans. It is a tough lesson to learn but you need to eat it yourself. Sorry!

The Fed stepped in to keep the whole financial system from going into meltdown — so in this particular instance, I don’t like it, but I understand it. It should not become the modus operandi — a usual practice. But when the Federal government does get involved, as a taxpayer, I demand that complete transparancy should be imposed on the company that’s being bailed out … and where top-level executives can be held responsible, have their assets garnisheed, or at least frozen until the potentiality for criminal or civil charges has past. Most of this mess boils down to the fact that the W administration has been asleep at the wheel; taking “laissez-faire” policy to an obscene extreme. I thought it was disgusting that he gave special praise to the Treasury Secretary “for working on the weekend” to structure the Bear-Stearns bailout. Impeach Bush, while we’re at it! Governing is not a 9-5 job.

It depends. If the company in question is my employer, then by all means the government should bail it out so I can keep my job! Seriously though, if the company is the sole manufacturer of a widget that’s crucial to national security, then it should be bailed out. Likewise, if the failure of the company would have serious consequences for the national economy, then it should be bailed out.

I think it depends - if it’s a service provider that is in the public interest, like transportation, or is providing a significant amount of multi-level jobs, then I think there might be a role for government but that should be the litmus test - but making sure multi-millionaires get to keep getting their multi-million bonuses, um, no…

If I screw up the family finances ,is it likely that the federal government is going to help us out? Why in hell should I be helping to bail out some of the wealthiest business people in the country?

If the free markets work, why do they have to be bailed out?

I’m not so stupid that I don’t see the benefit in a bailout. At the same time, if these companies functioned ethically, properly, legally while providing a quality service that the people need and want and they still don’t succeed financially, then isn’t it the financial will of the people who don’t support that company? The bailout uses the people’s money - the same people and their money that they have chosen not to give to that company individually.

When a company large enough to impact the economy fails (like these creepy gambling banks), isn’t that “the hand of God” acting? I guess I’m tired of looking high and low for Mom and Pops so that I can help bail them out when Big Box moves in next door. It’s exhausting to research which companies are being responsible and doing it right and which are sucking us dry.

And like MirtyAnn, it’s hard for me to stomach the bailout of individuals who over extended themselves for luxury when financially responsible folks continue to struggle. I’m not talking about the people who suffered from predatory lending, but the ones who truly went for luxury.

Meanwhile, my kids’ school just lost teachers and the second graders next year are slated to have 40+ kids PER CLASS! Additionally, my husband may wind up back in Iraq where KBR charges $20 per plate of food to feed him and provides contaminated drinking water. In this country, our spending priorities are screwed up. Our government may need the bailout.

Our banks in Canada make huge profits and still charge huge interest charges on charge cards. The CEO of B and S had a salary of 100 million dollars. God probably doesn’t make that much. We’re a family with two kids in university and feel very lucky to be able to assist them. How much do CEO’s need to make. With that kind of money the banks should have their own bail out fund. Do I sound angry..you bet I am. I am worried about the millions of people who are going to be hurt by this recession. God Help America and the rest of us!

corporations have managed to reap the rewards without suffering any consequences. They get all the rights of a “person” yet don’t exist so they can’t be held liable for wrongdoing- especially if performing in the name of profit- try that defense before the judge—“I was speeding to get to work early for the extra money!” It is sickening to listen to someone like Larry Kudlow speak orgasmically about “unrestraining the markets” from government regulations to they can maximize their bottom lines, when at the same time he also feels it is the duty of the government (taxpayer) to back up (bail out) his short sighted and greedy ilk-of which category he thinks corporations should be completely removed. This system is so rigged that if they fail supposedly we all fail….how about we all take our money out of their markets to remove our exposure to their failures? I bet money left at the local savings and loan at .50% interest will still be there 6 months from now when they are gone! then we can pick from the survivors….hopefully Kudlow will then be doing infomercials at 3am while we sleep.

Corporations get great amounts of tax breaks, why should we give them our tax dollars. So when they come back can overcharge us while they also underpay us. Forget it take responsibility and I would start at the top. Reduce the pay of the top and see if they don’t find a solution fast.

Until this weekend I’d have said NO. Absolutely NOT. But then, I never expected to see the venerable Bears Sterns go under and threaten to take the financial stability of the market with it. And now we have seen the creation of a fund to bail out investment banks similar to the one created to prevent runs on banks (like seen in the 1920s.) However, banks and investment firms are wildly different, operating by very different standards. While I understand why the Govt. acted fast, it sets a dangerous precedence. Where do you draw the line? Will this make the investment firms even more reckless than they have already been, knowing there’s a safety net to catch them, i.e. the govt., or more accurately, YOU the taxpayer. I’m not happy about this new “fund”. It doesn’t have a sunset date, and I’m worried it will become a permanent fixture instead of just an ad hoc crisis management tool. So, while it may have seemed the best thing for the govt to step in and stablize things, I wonder if we are delaying the inevitable. What’s going to be the collateral damage of this short-sighted move? (The govt. should have had a plan in place for this scenario, the signs of it happening were there). It feels like we are using a band-aid on a train wreck.

If the normal Joe Doakes has a financial meltdown, the government isn’t going to help so why should they help a big company. They get tax breaks and all sorts of benefits from the government already. Our country is in enough debt right now. Our tax dollars need to go to better things than bailing out big companies.