Our work is in the process of changing which funds we can choose for our retirement funds. As part of this process, 7 of the previous funds we could choose are no longer options and there are a bunch of new options. So basically, everybody has to switch. I had moved my stuff into the new funds a few weeks ago, then moved it all into the bond fund option on Monday. I'm not sure whether to leave it there or whether to choose the money market option for now. The kicker is, we have a blackout period from Sept 22-Oct 5 where we can make no changes! So, if you choose a fund that totally tanks during that time period, you're totally stuck. The timing on this couldn't be worse...

Please see Section 8: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...002376_pf.html

Non-reviewable. Is he high? What the hell is going on in this country? Didn't Paulson used to be the head of Goldman-Sachs? Isn't it his former industry on the front line of the financial market implosions? Holy christmas trees.

I support the AIG bailout because they gave them an 8.5% interest rate but unless the banks are willing to make the same deal then they should be allowed to collapse.

You know what really sucks? We don't have a choice here, peeps...we HAVE to bail out these suckers or else our economy will suffer a major collapse. AIG may just be an insurance company, but it's the companies it insures that is the key.

Well, collapse can be part of the natural cycle . . . kind of like brushfires that allow a forest ecosystem to actually function correctly.

Bailing these companies out may only put off the problem - a short-term fix for a long-term problem.

McCain evidently thinks that cancelling the debate on Friday will help things...

ETA: Link to the developing story http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...rap/index.html

And it might make it worse if we bail these companies out and they fail anyhow, leaving the American people holding the bulk of their bad assets.

It actually says "postpone". And the Democrats aren't going to score any political points by suggesting that a SENATOR should go somewhere to talk on TV instead of say, participating in the consideration of and voting on one of the most important issues to come before the SENATE in years.

To make it out as a bad thing is idiotic.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...-not-comm.html

Obama's camp used the phrase "The debate is on." Mistake in my mind. McCain looks presidential by suspending his campaign and "taking the high road" and actually doing what he was elected to do.

If Obama's camp doesn't get him to Washington and ease back on that debate statement, they are going to get burned by all sorts of ads when McCain restarts his campaign.

"Mr. Obama would rather campaign than address a historic crisis before our nation..." etc. etc. And ending in one of those trademark ending's McCain's ads have had: "Barrack Obama: Ready to Campaign, Not Ready to Lead."

"While the Senate addressed the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, Barrack Obama hosted a $750,000 fundraiser. Out of touch with America, unwilling to lead in times of crisis. That's the real Barrack Obama."

And etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Neither of the SENATORS has been acting in his role for about the last year. They've missed plenty while they've been out, and the American public seems to see through McCain's spin pretty well this time. This is a stall tactic, possibly so one of the debates will have to be eliminated (the VP one?). If they must go back to DC and vote, fine, vote and then debate. But the debate should go on as planned. Our future president should be able to juggle more than one issue at a time, and though the economy is in crisis, I see the first presidential debate as pretty damn important, too. The difference between the economy issue and the debates is that both senators' colleagues can handle the negotiations and votes without them (whichever resolution makes it through, it's going to be passed), but only the senators can debate. Anyway, I believe both men are being so nitpicked right now that I don't think either of them could ponder or speak honestly in hammering out a resolution without having to consider how it will play in the campaign, which makes them useless in my mind. They should stay the course with what they've BOTH been focused on for many months, which is campaigning and debating.

I agree...

Mr. McCain's tactic looks a little see-through to me.

Agree.

And Crackerbarrel, you're correct...it does say "postpone" in the link that I added after I had posted my statement. Sorry.

I can see this and it may actually create even worse problems. A free market has to include the possibility that businesses and industries fail. If the deal is that the federal government bails out private companies that screw up, aren't we inviting even greater risk taking OR a ridiculous about of regulation to prevent the government from assuming more risk in the future? Neither sounds that good to me.

But, I'm not sure that we can afford to really see this carried out with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae right now AND I'm not sure that they were really private companies in terms of their practices and treatment before the current crisis. With them, there seems to be some actual government culpability that the government might be obligated to address. With any company that was strictly private though, it's hard to see how it's good long term policy to bail them out.

I think the only issue is that McCain beat Obama to making this move. Had Obama wanted to go back to Washington, and McCain wanted to continue campaigning, I doubt anyone complaining here now would be complaining about Obama's decision. They'd be vilifying McCain.

From a purely campaign perspective, not even getting in to actual good government, I think it was smart for McCain, and that's probably what really drives people nuts. He now seems much more authentically concerned about the economy.