Who thought the bailout wouldnt work....i did

[Itsmethatguy]

Okay I know this is an old subject, but I think it needs to be brought up again so we can learn from our mistakes. That money should have never gone to those corporations. If AIG, and others weren't smart enough to save money, put that rainy day money away, and had proper management in terms of where the corporation was heading, they would not need a bailout. I thought the whole idea behind the free enterprise that we have is for big companies to fall and smaller companies to take over. I thought it was all about competition, not favortism.

My friend figured out that if we were to give that 700 billion dollar bailout, to the American households (thats the key word, not individuals), that were under $70,000 yearly income, combined or not, each household would recieve roughly $23,450. Now imagine a household with that much money, how much they could pay off with that. All that money would circle around and it would eventually get to these major corporations. There would be no houses lost, no cars taken away, and credit cards would be paid off. Wouldnt that boost the economy more?

I personally believe throwing money to corporations like AIG, and these banks, is like throwing money into a black hole. Not result came from it, and it's gone forever. Oh didn't I mention that those corporations we threw that money at is still seeing losses? So in this economic ressession we are in, was it wise to throw away 700 billion dollars?

Thats just my opinion anyway.

 

[HUGGY]

Okay I know this is an old subject, but I think it needs to be brought up again so we can learn from our mistakes. That money should have never gone to those corporations. If AIG, and others weren't smart enough to save money, put that rainy day money away, and had proper management in terms of where the corporation was heading, they would not need a bailout. I thought the whole idea behind the free enterprise that we have is for big companies to fall and smaller companies to take over. I thought it was all about competition, not favortism.

My friend figured out that if we were to give that 700 billion dollar bailout, to the American households (thats the key word, not individuals), that were under $70,000 yearly income, combined or not, each household would recieve roughly $23,450. Now imagine a household with that much money, how much they could pay off with that. All that money would circle around and it would eventually get to these major corporations. There would be no houses lost, no cars taken away, and credit cards would be paid off. Wouldnt that boost the economy more?

I personally believe throwing money to corporations like AIG, and these banks, is like throwing money into a black hole. Not result came from it, and it's gone forever. Oh didn't I mention that those corporations we threw that money at is still seeing losses? So in this economic ressession we are in, was it wise to throw away 700 billion dollars?

Thats just my opinion anyway.

Your friend must be pretty important to have somebody like you going back and forth between him and the internet.

 

[AllieBaba]

I knew the bailout wouldn't work and I was, along with millions of other republicans, revolted when members of congress voted for it (repeatedly) against the outspoken and public criticism from the constituents.

Which is why I could give a shit about the Republican Party anymore, and why I quit caring towards the end of the campaign whether or not McCain won. If it had been Sarah Palin running, I would have been gung ho...she wouldn't have voted for it.

But McCain is a two faced piece apologist who would be so busy placating the libs he wouldn't be able to get any work done. I'm fine with having Obama as pres for a while, to completely disillusion the idiotic libs who thought he was going to make everything right using policies which cannot work.

 

[Sweet Willy]

The bailout, although it is easy to dislike and surely had a lot of questionable spending, most likely has staved off a depression style crash. These banks that are now returning the money still can't survive a run and never will be able to survive a run. Anytime that threat appears, it will be cheaper to throw a bunch of money at confidence than to have to pay out depositors from the FDIC. If you really want to see the dollar collapse, let them fail. The FDIC would have to borrow a spectacular amount of amount of money. 700 billion would be baby food.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The recession was absolutely necessary, trying to stave it off by wasting hundreds of billions of dollars only prolongs the agony. The recession is the period where the market attempts to correct itself by reallocating resources from failed businesses to more viable areas.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

That's a laugh. It has not slowed the decline of the economy a nit.

If you want to see the dollar collapse, print one or two more trillion dollars for healthcare you can't pay for.

 

[Oddball]

The bailout, although it is easy to dislike and surely had a lot of questionable spending, most likely has staved off a depression style crash. These banks that are now returning the money still can't survive a run and never will be able to survive a run. Anytime that threat appears, it will be cheaper to throw a bunch of money at confidence than to have to pay out depositors from the FDIC. If you really want to see the dollar collapse, let them fail. The FDIC would have to borrow a spectacular amount of amount of money. 700 billion would be baby food.

 

[Sinatra]

Okay I know this is an old subject, but I think it needs to be brought up again so we can learn from our mistakes. That money should have never gone to those corporations. If AIG, and others weren't smart enough to save money, put that rainy day money away, and had proper management in terms of where the corporation was heading, they would not need a bailout. I thought the whole idea behind the free enterprise that we have is for big companies to fall and smaller companies to take over. I thought it was all about competition, not favortism.

My friend figured out that if we were to give that 700 billion dollar bailout, to the American households (thats the key word, not individuals), that were under $70,000 yearly income, combined or not, each household would recieve roughly $23,450. Now imagine a household with that much money, how much they could pay off with that. All that money would circle around and it would eventually get to these major corporations. There would be no houses lost, no cars taken away, and credit cards would be paid off. Wouldnt that boost the economy more?

I personally believe throwing money to corporations like AIG, and these banks, is like throwing money into a black hole. Not result came from it, and it's gone forever. Oh didn't I mention that those corporations we threw that money at is still seeing losses? So in this economic ressession we are in, was it wise to throw away 700 billion dollars?

Thats just my opinion anyway.

Your friend must be pretty important to have somebody like you going back and forth between him and the internet.

Sadly, Huggy has no friends....

Oh, what shall I post on the Internets today??? Oh they shall rue the day they ever matched witless with the HUGGY!!! I am HUGGY dammit! HUGGY!!!

 

[Zoom-boing]

Okay I know this is an old subject, but I think it needs to be brought up again so we can learn from our mistakes. That money should have never gone to those corporations. If AIG, and others weren't smart enough to save money, put that rainy day money away, and had proper management in terms of where the corporation was heading, they would not need a bailout. I thought the whole idea behind the free enterprise that we have is for big companies to fall and smaller companies to take over. I thought it was all about competition, not favortism.

My friend figured out that if we were to give that 700 billion dollar bailout, to the American households (thats the key word, not individuals), that were under $70,000 yearly income, combined or not, each household would recieve roughly $23,450. Now imagine a household with that much money, how much they could pay off with that. All that money would circle around and it would eventually get to these major corporations. There would be no houses lost, no cars taken away, and credit cards would be paid off. Wouldnt that boost the economy more?

I personally believe throwing money to corporations like AIG, and these banks, is like throwing money into a black hole. Not result came from it, and it's gone forever. Oh didn't I mention that those corporations we threw that money at is still seeing losses? So in this economic ressession we are in, was it wise to throw away 700 billion dollars?

Thats just my opinion anyway.

I thought the auto makers should have claimed bankruptcy months ago. Oh no, they said, bankruptcy is not an option. Billions later . . . . what's that I hear? Bankruptcy? Unfuckingbelievable. It boggles the mind that there simply doesn't seem to be any common sense floating around out there.

I can tell you that if we had received $23,000 we would have bought a new car. No doubt. Would have also gone on vacation this year. Rented a house down the shore for a week and spent another couple of thousand dollars.

 

[sealybobo]

Okay I know this is an old subject, but I think it needs to be brought up again so we can learn from our mistakes. That money should have never gone to those corporations. If AIG, and others weren't smart enough to save money, put that rainy day money away, and had proper management in terms of where the corporation was heading, they would not need a bailout. I thought the whole idea behind the free enterprise that we have is for big companies to fall and smaller companies to take over. I thought it was all about competition, not favortism.

My friend figured out that if we were to give that 700 billion dollar bailout, to the American households (thats the key word, not individuals), that were under $70,000 yearly income, combined or not, each household would recieve roughly $23,450. Now imagine a household with that much money, how much they could pay off with that. All that money would circle around and it would eventually get to these major corporations. There would be no houses lost, no cars taken away, and credit cards would be paid off. Wouldnt that boost the economy more?

I personally believe throwing money to corporations like AIG, and these banks, is like throwing money into a black hole. Not result came from it, and it's gone forever. Oh didn't I mention that those corporations we threw that money at is still seeing losses? So in this economic ressession we are in, was it wise to throw away 700 billion dollars?

Thats just my opinion anyway.

Make no mistake about it. If we didn't give the bankers the $750 billion that they demanded, that would have caused many many problems.

And 15% more people now feel that the economy is on the right track, and is doing better. And we expect to be out of the recession by the end of the year. So if 15% thought so before, now its 30%. Getting better.

Of course that would suck for you, rush and mitt romney.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

And it will be 180% more people who think the economy is doing better by 2012.

Do the math, people!

 

[WillowTree]

how many billionaires would 3.6 trillion dollars make??

 

[Sweet Willy]

The FDIC can not insure what it has promised. Nowhere remotely close. The purpose of the FDIC is to create confidence and deter a bank run. If the run actually happened, the banks would fail, the FDIC can't pay and confidence gets spanked for a VERY long time. I am not sure that many people understand what the consequences of allowing this to happen are or how close we were to that scenario. 25 or so small banks have failed. If just one giant failed, the dominos would, in all probability, be set in motion.

So, what's the problem? The problem is that the insurance company, the FDIC, insured without the proper conditions. If your homeowners insurance company could see that you were setting a fire in the middle of your kitchen floor, on purpose, every night, they would decline to insure you until you stopped being stupid. The FDIC however, continues to insure while the banks burn themselves down. It's a question of regulation.

The auto bailouts are another can of worms.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

So Bush can't claim he prevented a supposed second terrorist attack but it' irrefutable that Obama prevented a supposed depression.

Roger that.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Basically we had to bail out the financial sector thieves and their well intentioned but misguided Washingtron regulators and Congressional members to avoid hysteria and possible collapse of the what is basically the lubricant of our economy.

The bigger question, IMO at least, is when does that phase end and what comes next. Right now, ruinous out-year spending plans and increased public taxation are being thrown around. If you think the bailout was not in the interest of the average household, just wait. Then there is controlling inflation, the result of government running car companies, and lots of other negative stuff to deal with that has not yet arrived. It is not pretty.

The search for responsible adults in Washington continues.

 

[sealybobo]

The FDIC can not insure what it has promised. Nowhere remotely close. The purpose of the FDIC is to create confidence and deter a bank run. If the run actually happened, the banks would fail, the FDIC can't pay and confidence gets spanked for a VERY long time. I am not sure that many people understand what the consequences of allowing this to happen are or how close we were to that scenario. 25 or so small banks have failed. If just one giant failed, the dominos would, in all probability, be set in motion.

So, what's the problem? The problem is that the insurance company, the FDIC, insured without the proper conditions. If your homeowners insurance company could see that you were setting a fire in the middle of your kitchen floor, on purpose, every night, they would decline to insure you until you stopped being stupid. The FDIC however, continues to insure while the banks burn themselves down. It's a question of regulation.

The auto bailouts are another can of worms.

What would happen if I went into business insuring people and then if/when a tragedy ever occurred, I didn't have enough money to cover everyone?

I would go to jail for fraud. What a scam!!! If you can't pay, then go out of business. Its a free market.

 

[Sweet Willy]

So Bush can't claim he prevented a supposed second terrorist attack but it' irrefutable that Obama prevented a supposed depression.

Roger that.

President Bush initiated the bank bail.

 

[sealybobo]

So Bush can't claim he prevented a supposed second terrorist attack but it' irrefutable that Obama prevented a supposed depression.

Roger that.

No, Bush prevented a supposed depression. Remember, he was the one who asked for all $750 billion and no questions asked.

The Dems only let him give $350 no questions asked. The rest would have oversite, which is how we caught Dodd trying to give bonus'.

This is the virbage Bush tried to slip by:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.


Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: Thirty-Two Words That None Dare Utter

This is the closest I have ever gotten to getting you right wingers to admit that bankers own this country and corporations are behind our problems.

Look, it is Wallstreet/banks/AIG/Credit card companies!!! They're all the same! Robber Barons!!!

We were telling you for 8 years, but you kept denying because you were protecting Bush.

Now you seem to understand, but I don't think you realize you are attacking corporations and the rich. We are finally on the same side. Gotcha!

 

[WillowTree]

The FDIC can not insure what it has promised. Nowhere remotely close. The purpose of the FDIC is to create confidence and deter a bank run. If the run actually happened, the banks would fail, the FDIC can't pay and confidence gets spanked for a VERY long time. I am not sure that many people understand what the consequences of allowing this to happen are or how close we were to that scenario. 25 or so small banks have failed. If just one giant failed, the dominos would, in all probability, be set in motion.

So, what's the problem? The problem is that the insurance company, the FDIC, insured without the proper conditions. If your homeowners insurance company could see that you were setting a fire in the middle of your kitchen floor, on purpose, every night, they would decline to insure you until you stopped being stupid. The FDIC however, continues to insure while the banks burn themselves down. It's a question of regulation.

The auto bailouts are another can of worms.

What would happen if I went into business insuring people and then if/when a tragedy ever occurred, I didn't have enough money to cover everyone?

I would go to jail for fraud. What a scam!!! If you can't pay, then go out of business. Its a free market.

did you feel that way when the obamalama gave the GM creditors 29 cents on the dollar?? hypocrite?

 

[Sweet Willy]

The FDIC can not insure what it has promised. Nowhere remotely close. The purpose of the FDIC is to create confidence and deter a bank run. If the run actually happened, the banks would fail, the FDIC can't pay and confidence gets spanked for a VERY long time. I am not sure that many people understand what the consequences of allowing this to happen are or how close we were to that scenario. 25 or so small banks have failed. If just one giant failed, the dominos would, in all probability, be set in motion.

So, what's the problem? The problem is that the insurance company, the FDIC, insured without the proper conditions. If your homeowners insurance company could see that you were setting a fire in the middle of your kitchen floor, on purpose, every night, they would decline to insure you until you stopped being stupid. The FDIC however, continues to insure while the banks burn themselves down. It's a question of regulation.

The auto bailouts are another can of worms.

What would happen if I went into business insuring people and then if/when a tragedy ever occurred, I didn't have enough money to cover everyone?

I would go to jail for fraud. What a scam!!! If you can't pay, then go out of business. Its a free market.

Insurance companies often can not cover disasters. That's why they beg for a declaration of a disaster. The govenment picks up the private sectors tab and irresponsibility.

In theory, I am with you. But what perhaps some don't get is that the governments job is to protect the people from even domestic threats. So, we can make all this right. Regulate the hell out of it all. You can't insure more than you have. No fractional reserve banking. We can stop all the scumbags from making gross profits on promies they can't keep. But I don't think many would like who this would hurt. I'd be all for it. Either that, or if you aren't going to regulate, you clean up the mess.

The typical conservative free market approach is neither regulation nor government correction. I suggest you move to Somalia. A free market paradise. No government, completely free markets without regulation.