The Economy Is In Deep Trouble

[dudmuck]

Look.at this pretzel man!

You didn’t know that bonds and stocks have an inverse relationship?

What I know is that you have no credibility when it comes to discussing the US economy if you refuse to admit that the economy performed as good or better under Obama than it has under Trump.

But that doesn't stop.you from saying stupid things. So have a party.

LMAO. I literally do this for a living. It was not better under BHO. If it were better the Fed would have raised rates and it didn’t until the very end. You should stick to burgers and candy bars, fatty.

Its a dumb argument about economy better under Obama or Trump, because republicans had congress under Obama.

More useful is the current threat to the economy.

“But if recent history is our guide, the biggest threat stems not from the U.S. Federal Reserve or any one sector of the economy, but rather from the White House,” Rajan, who is currently a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, said.

...the greatest threat is not rising rates but unforeseen actions in areas such as trade and geopolitics.

Tax cuts were just a sugar high, with a trillion dollar deficit.

Entitlements are the issue not lower taxes.

"Entitlements" such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are called that because you are entitled to them. You pay into funds through payroll deductions throughout your working career. Republicans have perverted the word to be synonymous with government handouts, but that is not the case.

The tax cuts didnt effect payroll deductions for these didnt change. Tax cuts were only for the wealthy, not working class.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You didn’t know that bonds and stocks have an inverse relationship?

What I know is that you have no credibility when it comes to discussing the US economy if you refuse to admit that the economy performed as good or better under Obama than it has under Trump.

But that doesn't stop.you from saying stupid things. So have a party.

LMAO. I literally do this for a living. It was not better under BHO. If it were better the Fed would have raised rates and it didn’t until the very end. You should stick to burgers and candy bars, fatty.

Its a dumb argument about economy better under Obama or Trump, because republicans had congress under Obama.

More useful is the current threat to the economy.

“But if recent history is our guide, the biggest threat stems not from the U.S. Federal Reserve or any one sector of the economy, but rather from the White House,” Rajan, who is currently a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, said.

...the greatest threat is not rising rates but unforeseen actions in areas such as trade and geopolitics.

Tax cuts were just a sugar high, with a trillion dollar deficit.

Entitlements are the issue not lower taxes.

"Entitlements" such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are called that because you are entitled to them. You pay into funds through payroll deductions throughout your working career. Republicans have perverted the word to be synonymous with government handouts, but that is not the case.

The tax cuts didnt effect payroll deductions for these didnt change. Tax cuts were only for the wealthy, not working class.

We are living longer so we are not paying enough in. Either increase the contribution or raise the retirement age. Basic math.

 

[DustyInfinity]

I know this won't matter to the Randians out there, but...

70% of Americans say they are struggling financially

Hey, if they're working hard and still struggling, fuck 'em, y'know? They and their kids are to blame.
.

So if a good job market and rising wages is not the answer, what is? What exactly do you want to do to make the people happy?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Common Core was designed at the state level in cooperation with the business community to retool our education system to prepare our kids for the jobs of tomorrow.

Everyone was on board, too. Republicans and Democrats all praised Common Core. 48 states all approved Common Core. Red and blue states alike.

Then one day, Obama said he liked Common Core, too.

The next thing you know, Republicans were calling Common Core semen straight from Satan's cock.

It's amazing how these partisan hack retards self-inflict their wounds to their own survival and their children's survival.

Common Core is a set of standards. It has nothing to do with the jobs of tomorrow.

Common Core is a set of standards which are geared toward science and math and the skills needed in the workforce. It has everything to do with the jobs of tomorrow!

And Republicans knew this, too, until the negro in the White House said he liked it.

Hey, dumbass! Common Core has NO science standards. I am retired teacher. I have forgotten more about Common Core than you know. STFU until you do!

Science & Technical Subjects | Common Core State Standards Initiative

https://www.nagc.org/common-core-state-standards-national-science-standards-and-gifted-education

The Science Standards are completely separate from Common Core.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Common Core was designed at the state level in cooperation with the business community to retool our education system to prepare our kids for the jobs of tomorrow.

Everyone was on board, too. Republicans and Democrats all praised Common Core. 48 states all approved Common Core. Red and blue states alike.

Then one day, Obama said he liked Common Core, too.

The next thing you know, Republicans were calling Common Core semen straight from Satan's cock.

It's amazing how these partisan hack retards self-inflict their wounds to their own survival and their children's survival.

Common Core is a set of standards. It has nothing to do with the jobs of tomorrow.

Common Core is a set of standards which are geared toward science and math and the skills needed in the workforce. It has everything to do with the jobs of tomorrow!

And Republicans knew this, too, until the negro in the White House said he liked it.

Hey, dumbass! Common Core has NO science standards. I am retired teacher. I have forgotten more about Common Core than you know. STFU until you do!

You must have been a pretty shitty teacher.



English Language Arts Standards » Science & Technical Subjects » Grade 6-8 | Common Core State Standards Initiative

Key Ideas and Details:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RST.6-8.1
Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and technical texts.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RST.6-8.2
Determine the central ideas or conclusions of a text; provide an accurate summary of the text distinct from prior knowledge or opinions.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RST.6-8.3
Follow precisely a multistep procedure when carrying out experiments, taking measurements, or performing technical tasks.

You cannot read the word LITERACY in those standards?

I knew you were a dumbass. You just don't realize how stupid you are!

 

[Mac1958]

I know this won't matter to the Randians out there, but...

70% of Americans say they are struggling financially

Hey, if they're working hard and still struggling, fuck 'em, y'know? They and their kids are to blame.
.

So if a good job market and rising wages is not the answer, what is? What exactly do you want to do to make the people happy?

The middle class simply doesn't have either the spending power or the economic influence it once had, and income inequality is the worst it has been since we recorded data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...n-since-census-started-tracking-it-data-show/. Those are facts, and we are choosing to not address them.

We are choosing to kill capitalism by not managing it. We need more controls both at the corporate level (such as stock buy-backs and how corporations can direct money, returning Glass Steagall or something like it, and de facto monopolies, for starters) and the individual level (adding new margins on the top end to deal with the rapidly expanding wealth disparities). We can make changes to how unions and benefits operate to increase income to the middle class without financially crippling employers.

As a capitalist, I'm not really thrilled to suggest those things. But I choose to look at reality: In any given socio-economic system, there will be a small percentage of the populace who simply have a much better personal capacity for creating wealth. That will invariably lead to imbalances that can't be ignored.

Do you want to know why socialism is becoming so popular? It's because we're not managing capitalism properly, disparity is only increasing as a (predictable) result, and people are looking for other options. The longer we choose to be stupid, the more progress socialism will make here. And these people VOTE.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Everywhere I look I see the best economy in my lifetime. Markets up. Unemployment is down. Christmas is coming...

Democrats are praying for a recession

Democrats are praying for pain for Americans

Don't be a Democrat...

If you aren't planning for a downturn, you are a fool.

Even if we didn't have Trump in there fucking things up, which he is, we are well overdue for a recession. They hit every 7-10 years and it's been 10 years since the last one.

 

[JoeB131]

As a capitalist, I'm not really thrilled to suggest those things. But I choose to look at reality: In any given socio-economic system, there will be a small percentage of the populace who simply have a much better personal capacity for creating wealth. That will invariably lead to imbalances that can't be ignored.

You know, the Nobility in France had the same inflated opinion of themselves... Until the people cut them down to size.

Heh, heh, heh...

Do you want to know why socialism is becoming so popular? It's because we're not managing capitalism properly, disparity is only increasing as a (predictable) result, and people are looking for other options. The longer we choose to be stupid, the more progress socialism will make here. And these people VOTE.

Once again, Stormy Mac starts out with a flawed premise.

The thing is, we USED to have this right, when we practiced Socialism=lite. When 33% of the workforce was unionized, workers had strong rights, the rich paid high tax rates.

The Capitalists hated this. Not because they weren't making money, they were. They hated the idea of sharing it with the people who did the work.

 

[sparky]

Our economy is cyclical

and i'm starting to think this by no means accidental....

~S~

 

[DustyInfinity]

I know this won't matter to the Randians out there, but...

70% of Americans say they are struggling financially

Hey, if they're working hard and still struggling, fuck 'em, y'know? They and their kids are to blame.
.

So if a good job market and rising wages is not the answer, what is? What exactly do you want to do to make the people happy?

The middle class simply doesn't have either the spending power or the economic influence it once had, and income inequality is the worst it has been since we recorded data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...n-since-census-started-tracking-it-data-show/. Those are facts, and we are choosing to not address them.

We are choosing to kill capitalism by not managing it. We need more controls both at the corporate level (such as stock buy-backs and how corporations can direct money, returning Glass Steagall or something like it, and de facto monopolies, for starters) and the individual level (adding new margins on the top end to deal with the rapidly expanding wealth disparities). We can make changes to how unions and benefits operate to increase income to the middle class without financially crippling employers.

As a capitalist, I'm not really thrilled to suggest those things. But I choose to look at reality: In any given socio-economic system, there will be a small percentage of the populace who simply have a much better personal capacity for creating wealth. That will invariably lead to imbalances that can't be ignored.

Do you want to know why socialism is becoming so popular? It's because we're not managing capitalism properly, disparity is only increasing as a (predictable) result, and people are looking for other options. The longer we choose to be stupid, the more progress socialism will make here. And these people VOTE.
.

Thanks for the specifics Mac. I know dealing with the ignorant is frustrating, but I'll need a little help here. Are you basically suggesting caps for corporations and individuals? I have no problem with empowering the middle class as long as it is not something like wage fixing. As long as the market determines prices, I'm pretty open to ideas. I don't think anyone is thrilled with all of the obvious monopolies. Thanks again.

 

[Mac1958]

I know this won't matter to the Randians out there, but...

70% of Americans say they are struggling financially

Hey, if they're working hard and still struggling, fuck 'em, y'know? They and their kids are to blame.
.

So if a good job market and rising wages is not the answer, what is? What exactly do you want to do to make the people happy?

The middle class simply doesn't have either the spending power or the economic influence it once had, and income inequality is the worst it has been since we recorded data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...n-since-census-started-tracking-it-data-show/. Those are facts, and we are choosing to not address them.

We are choosing to kill capitalism by not managing it. We need more controls both at the corporate level (such as stock buy-backs and how corporations can direct money, returning Glass Steagall or something like it, and de facto monopolies, for starters) and the individual level (adding new margins on the top end to deal with the rapidly expanding wealth disparities). We can make changes to how unions and benefits operate to increase income to the middle class without financially crippling employers.

As a capitalist, I'm not really thrilled to suggest those things. But I choose to look at reality: In any given socio-economic system, there will be a small percentage of the populace who simply have a much better personal capacity for creating wealth. That will invariably lead to imbalances that can't be ignored.

Do you want to know why socialism is becoming so popular? It's because we're not managing capitalism properly, disparity is only increasing as a (predictable) result, and people are looking for other options. The longer we choose to be stupid, the more progress socialism will make here. And these people VOTE.
.

Thanks for the specifics Mac. I know dealing with the ignorant is frustrating, but I'll need a little help here. Are you basically suggesting caps for corporations and individuals? I have no problem with empowering the middle class as long as it is not something like wage fixing. As long as the market determines prices, I'm pretty open to ideas. I don't think anyone is thrilled with all of the obvious monopolies. Thanks again.

No, not caps.

First of all, I think we should keep corporate tax rates low. Let's let our corporations make shitloads of money, as the market will bear. The question is, what happens to that money? If the corporation invests that money in its people in the form of higher wages, better benefits, and higher-quality jobs, great. If it uses it to buy back stock, make highly-leveraged mergers or pay insane bonuses, we have to look at that. So in this case, controls exist so that the company works in its best interest, in its shareholders' best interest, but in a way that also is in its people's best interests.

Then, of course, controls and regulations need to be better and more efficient so that markets are protected. The Meltdown of 2008 was all about that, and it appears that we learned very little there.

It's on the individual side that I'd add four new margins on the top end (along with other tax tweaks). This is what I meant when I said that there are some people who are naturally better-equipped to create wealth within a given system.

I fully understand and appreciate free markets, and the dynamics and potential of capitalism. But leaving it alone to run wild will only (a) increase imbalances and (b) increase the possibility of more and more socialism when enough people have had enough.
.

 

[gipper]

I know this won't matter to the Randians out there, but...

70% of Americans say they are struggling financially

Hey, if they're working hard and still struggling, fuck 'em, y'know? They and their kids are to blame.
.

So if a good job market and rising wages is not the answer, what is? What exactly do you want to do to make the people happy?

The middle class simply doesn't have either the spending power or the economic influence it once had, and income inequality is the worst it has been since we recorded data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...n-since-census-started-tracking-it-data-show/. Those are facts, and we are choosing to not address them.

We are choosing to kill capitalism by not managing it. We need more controls both at the corporate level (such as stock buy-backs and how corporations can direct money, returning Glass Steagall or something like it, and de facto monopolies, for starters) and the individual level (adding new margins on the top end to deal with the rapidly expanding wealth disparities). We can make changes to how unions and benefits operate to increase income to the middle class without financially crippling employers.

As a capitalist, I'm not really thrilled to suggest those things. But I choose to look at reality: In any given socio-economic system, there will be a small percentage of the populace who simply have a much better personal capacity for creating wealth. That will invariably lead to imbalances that can't be ignored.

Do you want to know why socialism is becoming so popular? It's because we're not managing capitalism properly, disparity is only increasing as a (predictable) result, and people are looking for other options. The longer we choose to be stupid, the more progress socialism will make here. And these people VOTE.
.

Thanks for the specifics Mac. I know dealing with the ignorant is frustrating, but I'll need a little help here. Are you basically suggesting caps for corporations and individuals? I have no problem with empowering the middle class as long as it is not something like wage fixing. As long as the market determines prices, I'm pretty open to ideas. I don't think anyone is thrilled with all of the obvious monopolies. Thanks again.

No, not caps.

First of all, I think we should keep corporate tax rates low. Let's let our corporations make shitloads of money, as the market will bear. The question is, what happens to that money? If the corporation invests that money in its people in the form of higher wages, better benefits, and higher-quality jobs, great. If it uses it to buy back stock, make highly-leveraged mergers or pay insane bonuses, we have to look at that. So in this case, controls exist so that the company works in its best interest, in its shareholders' best interest, but in a way that also is in its people's best interests.

Then, of course, controls and regulations need to be better and more efficient so that markets are protected. The Meltdown of 2008 was all about that, and it appears that we learned very little there.

It's on the individual side that I'd add four new margins on the top end (along with other tax tweaks). This is what I meant when I said that there are some people who are naturally better-equipped to create wealth within a given system.

I fully understand and appreciate free markets, and the dynamics and potential of capitalism. But leaving it alone to run wild will only (a) increase imbalances and (b) increase the possibility of more and more socialism when enough people have had enough.
.

To say nothing of the political power the extreme wealthy attain, because of their wealth.

Bezos and the rest tell government what to do, and it is always for their benefit.

 

[Mac1958]

I know this won't matter to the Randians out there, but...

70% of Americans say they are struggling financially

Hey, if they're working hard and still struggling, fuck 'em, y'know? They and their kids are to blame.
.

So if a good job market and rising wages is not the answer, what is? What exactly do you want to do to make the people happy?

The middle class simply doesn't have either the spending power or the economic influence it once had, and income inequality is the worst it has been since we recorded data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...n-since-census-started-tracking-it-data-show/. Those are facts, and we are choosing to not address them.

We are choosing to kill capitalism by not managing it. We need more controls both at the corporate level (such as stock buy-backs and how corporations can direct money, returning Glass Steagall or something like it, and de facto monopolies, for starters) and the individual level (adding new margins on the top end to deal with the rapidly expanding wealth disparities). We can make changes to how unions and benefits operate to increase income to the middle class without financially crippling employers.

As a capitalist, I'm not really thrilled to suggest those things. But I choose to look at reality: In any given socio-economic system, there will be a small percentage of the populace who simply have a much better personal capacity for creating wealth. That will invariably lead to imbalances that can't be ignored.

Do you want to know why socialism is becoming so popular? It's because we're not managing capitalism properly, disparity is only increasing as a (predictable) result, and people are looking for other options. The longer we choose to be stupid, the more progress socialism will make here. And these people VOTE.
.

Thanks for the specifics Mac. I know dealing with the ignorant is frustrating, but I'll need a little help here. Are you basically suggesting caps for corporations and individuals? I have no problem with empowering the middle class as long as it is not something like wage fixing. As long as the market determines prices, I'm pretty open to ideas. I don't think anyone is thrilled with all of the obvious monopolies. Thanks again.

No, not caps.

First of all, I think we should keep corporate tax rates low. Let's let our corporations make shitloads of money, as the market will bear. The question is, what happens to that money? If the corporation invests that money in its people in the form of higher wages, better benefits, and higher-quality jobs, great. If it uses it to buy back stock, make highly-leveraged mergers or pay insane bonuses, we have to look at that. So in this case, controls exist so that the company works in its best interest, in its shareholders' best interest, but in a way that also is in its people's best interests.

Then, of course, controls and regulations need to be better and more efficient so that markets are protected. The Meltdown of 2008 was all about that, and it appears that we learned very little there.

It's on the individual side that I'd add four new margins on the top end (along with other tax tweaks). This is what I meant when I said that there are some people who are naturally better-equipped to create wealth within a given system.

I fully understand and appreciate free markets, and the dynamics and potential of capitalism. But leaving it alone to run wild will only (a) increase imbalances and (b) increase the possibility of more and more socialism when enough people have had enough.
.

To say nothing of about the political power the extreme wealthy attain, because of their wealth.

Bezos and the rest tell government what to do, and it is always for their benefit.

Yup. Money in politics is its OWN mess.
.

 

[gipper]

So if a good job market and rising wages is not the answer, what is? What exactly do you want to do to make the people happy?

The middle class simply doesn't have either the spending power or the economic influence it once had, and income inequality is the worst it has been since we recorded data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...n-since-census-started-tracking-it-data-show/. Those are facts, and we are choosing to not address them.

We are choosing to kill capitalism by not managing it. We need more controls both at the corporate level (such as stock buy-backs and how corporations can direct money, returning Glass Steagall or something like it, and de facto monopolies, for starters) and the individual level (adding new margins on the top end to deal with the rapidly expanding wealth disparities). We can make changes to how unions and benefits operate to increase income to the middle class without financially crippling employers.

As a capitalist, I'm not really thrilled to suggest those things. But I choose to look at reality: In any given socio-economic system, there will be a small percentage of the populace who simply have a much better personal capacity for creating wealth. That will invariably lead to imbalances that can't be ignored.

Do you want to know why socialism is becoming so popular? It's because we're not managing capitalism properly, disparity is only increasing as a (predictable) result, and people are looking for other options. The longer we choose to be stupid, the more progress socialism will make here. And these people VOTE.
.

Thanks for the specifics Mac. I know dealing with the ignorant is frustrating, but I'll need a little help here. Are you basically suggesting caps for corporations and individuals? I have no problem with empowering the middle class as long as it is not something like wage fixing. As long as the market determines prices, I'm pretty open to ideas. I don't think anyone is thrilled with all of the obvious monopolies. Thanks again.

No, not caps.

First of all, I think we should keep corporate tax rates low. Let's let our corporations make shitloads of money, as the market will bear. The question is, what happens to that money? If the corporation invests that money in its people in the form of higher wages, better benefits, and higher-quality jobs, great. If it uses it to buy back stock, make highly-leveraged mergers or pay insane bonuses, we have to look at that. So in this case, controls exist so that the company works in its best interest, in its shareholders' best interest, but in a way that also is in its people's best interests.

Then, of course, controls and regulations need to be better and more efficient so that markets are protected. The Meltdown of 2008 was all about that, and it appears that we learned very little there.

It's on the individual side that I'd add four new margins on the top end (along with other tax tweaks). This is what I meant when I said that there are some people who are naturally better-equipped to create wealth within a given system.

I fully understand and appreciate free markets, and the dynamics and potential of capitalism. But leaving it alone to run wild will only (a) increase imbalances and (b) increase the possibility of more and more socialism when enough people have had enough.
.

To say nothing of about the political power the extreme wealthy attain, because of their wealth.

Bezos and the rest tell government what to do, and it is always for their benefit.

Yup. Money in politics is its OWN mess.
.

The mother’s milk of politics.

 

[DustyInfinity]

I know this won't matter to the Randians out there, but...

70% of Americans say they are struggling financially

Hey, if they're working hard and still struggling, fuck 'em, y'know? They and their kids are to blame.
.

So if a good job market and rising wages is not the answer, what is? What exactly do you want to do to make the people happy?

The middle class simply doesn't have either the spending power or the economic influence it once had, and income inequality is the worst it has been since we recorded data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...n-since-census-started-tracking-it-data-show/. Those are facts, and we are choosing to not address them.

We are choosing to kill capitalism by not managing it. We need more controls both at the corporate level (such as stock buy-backs and how corporations can direct money, returning Glass Steagall or something like it, and de facto monopolies, for starters) and the individual level (adding new margins on the top end to deal with the rapidly expanding wealth disparities). We can make changes to how unions and benefits operate to increase income to the middle class without financially crippling employers.

As a capitalist, I'm not really thrilled to suggest those things. But I choose to look at reality: In any given socio-economic system, there will be a small percentage of the populace who simply have a much better personal capacity for creating wealth. That will invariably lead to imbalances that can't be ignored.

Do you want to know why socialism is becoming so popular? It's because we're not managing capitalism properly, disparity is only increasing as a (predictable) result, and people are looking for other options. The longer we choose to be stupid, the more progress socialism will make here. And these people VOTE.
.

Thanks for the specifics Mac. I know dealing with the ignorant is frustrating, but I'll need a little help here. Are you basically suggesting caps for corporations and individuals? I have no problem with empowering the middle class as long as it is not something like wage fixing. As long as the market determines prices, I'm pretty open to ideas. I don't think anyone is thrilled with all of the obvious monopolies. Thanks again.

No, not caps.

First of all, I think we should keep corporate tax rates low. Let's let our corporations make shitloads of money, as the market will bear. The question is, what happens to that money? If the corporation invests that money in its people in the form of higher wages, better benefits, and higher-quality jobs, great. If it uses it to buy back stock, make highly-leveraged mergers or pay insane bonuses, we have to look at that. So in this case, controls exist so that the company works in its best interest, in its shareholders' best interest, but in a way that also is in its people's best interests.

Then, of course, controls and regulations need to be better and more efficient so that markets are protected. The Meltdown of 2008 was all about that, and it appears that we learned very little there.

It's on the individual side that I'd add four new margins on the top end (along with other tax tweaks). This is what I meant when I said that there are some people who are naturally better-equipped to create wealth within a given system.

I fully understand and appreciate free markets, and the dynamics and potential of capitalism. But leaving it alone to run wild will only (a) increase imbalances and (b) increase the possibility of more and more socialism when enough people have had enough.
.

Honestly, I wouldn't care what letter someone has after their name, if they proposed something that used common sense, I'm sure the voters could come on board. Instead, we get this radical bs that even the non-business majors know is insane. Thanks Mac.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's not a bail out for the economy

Thats precisely what it is, when the Fed steps in to give cheap loans to banks. That's literally what a large part of the last bailout was.

 

[Markle]

Thats precisely what it is, when the Fed steps in to give cheap loans to banks. That's literally what a large part of the last bailout was.

As you know, those loans to banks, originated by President George Bush, all of which were repaid, in full, with interest and ahead of schedule.

The loans made by President Obama, in order to rescue the Auto Unions...nope.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thats precisely what it is, when the Fed steps in to give cheap loans to banks. That's literally what a large part of the last bailout was.

As you know, those loans to banks, originated by President George Bush, all of which were repaid, in full, with interest and ahead of schedule.

The loans made by President Obama, in order to rescue the Auto Unions...nope.

You don't know what you are talking about. TARP was profitable due to rule changes instotued bu the obama administration. I am not interested in your partisan crybabying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's not a bail out for the economy

Thats precisely what it is, when the Fed steps in to give cheap loans to banks. That's literally what a large part of the last bailout was.

The banking system has $1.3 trillion in excess reserves.
Adding liquidity, not a bailout.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's not a bail out for the economy

Thats precisely what it is, when the Fed steps in to give cheap loans to banks. That's literally what a large part of the last bailout was.

The banking system has $1.3 trillion in excess reserves.
Adding liquidity, not a bailout.

Yes, a bailout, else they would be getting daily loans through normal channels instead of 14 day loans propped up by the Fed. Again, it's not a good sign. Not impending doom yet, but also not a symptom of economic health.