These are tulmultous times. No more investment banks on Wall Street
Comments
-
I wonder what country we've been turning into a male society.......lol.......But all the aid that we give to other countries for tsunami relief, AIDS epidemic relief, earthquake relief, feminine relief and so on.comment comment comment comment. bitchy. -
The treasury could in a matter of hours pay the entire national debt in full. They have the full power to "print" as much money as they care to....they can truly create money. They would simply pay off every treasury instrument holder in full and the debt goes away. Of course the inflation rate would increase several thousand % and the cash would be better for burning as fuel than for purchasing anything. But that is another matter.
If done right a bailout of some sort should have no long term negative impact on taxpayers...certainly less than the impact an implosion of the financial system would create.
True. But now the drums of politicizing are beating full-blast and the regular Joes across the land are about to be convinced to convince their reps that they (we, the regular Joes) need to be able to shoot our own selves in the leg by saying "no bailout".
Is this a great country or what? -
Bikezappa Thanks for the clarification. You are saying that there will be NO tax increase if the bailout is passed.
Jstus I cannot say that nor did I say that. Do not put words in my mouth. The bailouts are not the responsibility of the U.S. tax payer but the funding from the bailout comes from the pot of money the U.S. taxpayer put there to begin with.
I have no idea what you are trying to say to me or this group.
It appears to me that you are contradicting yourself.
Um, no I'm not. The taxpayers put the money in the Federal Reserve and the elected officials (i.e.: Congress) that we have elected to act for us in governing this country are authorized to use that money for whatever is deemed necessary through a vote determining the majority of those in favor or against the policy/bill/law/whatever. If the bailout is necessary and everyone agrees, We, The People, through our elected representatives in Congress LOAN our pile of money to the entity in need of the bailout. The LOAN gets REPAID. If the bailouts are done properly, the taxpeyer should not see any financial burden at all. The operative word here is SHOULD.
And learn how to use the quote button and if you are at least going to try to tear me down through silly fallacies masquerading as arguments about semantics, learn to spell my name correctly.Jstas, you need to read the bailout agreement. It states at least 20 times how the Government is trying to minimize the cost to the Taxpayer.
I understand the Reserve is the main one reponsible but it will hit all of us also.
You're talking about the bailout bill that didn't pass, right? Because that small fact right there is critically important. It didn't pass. And yes, I did read the actual bill and I did not read what all the news rags were telling me what was in the bill. I read all 119 pages of it. Well, skipped over a few part that were for clerical purposes. But I know what was in the bill and I know what it said needed to happen. That bill didn't pass and I'm kinda glad it didn't pass because it was too hastily put together and tries to give everyone involved a get out of jail free card. That cannot happen. But what is woefully needed right now is an influx of capital to give us time to clean up this mess. That, IMO, needs to happen. As to why, we have gone over it ad nauseum in this thread already.Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
I wonder what country we've been turning into a male society.......lol.......
DOH! Stupid auto complete in SeaMonkey!
Was supposed to be famine.Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
You're talking about the bailout bill that didn't pass, right? Because that small fact right there is critically important. It didn't pass. And yes, I did read the actual bill and I did not read what all the news rags were telling me what was in the bill. I read all 119 pages of it. Well, skipped over a few part that were for clerical purposes. But I know what was in the bill and I know what it said needed to happen. That bill didn't pass and I'm kinda glad it didn't pass because it was too hastily put together and tries to give everyone involved a get out of jail free card. That cannot happen. But what is woefully needed right now is an influx of capital to give us time to clean up this mess. That, IMO, needs to happen. As to why, we have gone over it ad nauseum in this thread already.
Word.
Oh, wait. +1.;) -
I'm not an economic expert and do tend to over-simplify things like this, but here's my input...
I think what John is saying is 'technically' correct, in that the bailout funds 'technically' come from the reserve, not the tax payer. However, he also indicates the the tax payers fund the reserve.
A logical person is therefore going to conclude that the bailout funds come from the tax payer, albeit indirectly - the whole "If A=B, and B=C, then A=C" thing...
John is either at a higher level thinking than the rest of us where his thoughts transcend above the level of our logical correlation, has information about a factor unknown to the rest of us that breaks that correlation, or we're just not all on the same page.
John, you can't say something like "the bailouts come from the Federal Reserve, NOT the taxpayers" and then say "Your taxes may increase, they may not" and expect people not to be confused by that. While each statement in it's own vacumn may technically be correct, they simply contradict each other.
As for the point "Well they'll have to pay it back, so it won't cost us anything" that I've heard numerous people make, maybe that's true, but then again maybe it's not. Unless you can guarantee me that all of that debt will be repaid, which you can't, then that in itself is still a risk. As a taxpayer, I'm in effect 'loaning' the banks money on the premise that they may pay it back, so there's still an assumed risk on my end. Ya I know it comes from the Reserve and all that, but it stands to reason that if we take money out of there we're going to have to put it back at some point, and if the banks are unable to repay then that burden is going to fall on the taxpayer.
Plus, I want to know 'how' the banks are going to pay that back, really? You think all those people that welched on their debts are just going to pony up the dough and pay them off. People aren't going to have the funds or motivation to pay off those debts, so how are the banks going to raise money to pay those loans back?
Let's see, I'm a bank, and let's say I have 100 bad loans of 100,000 each, what's that 10 million dollars? So the government loans me 10 million to cover that. Let's say for grins that half of those people pay back their loans because they're good people, and I fork over that 5 million to the government to pay back the loans. That still leaves me owing the government 5 million.
Let's say all the banks effected fall under this scenario. That leaves the government being owed 650 billion, how are the banks going to raise that kind of money? Oh, I know, we'll increase our fees or interest rates for our other customers, we charge everyone a few extra bucks here and there and recoup the money that way. Only problem with that is now we the taxpayers are still the ones paying down those loans...
One way or another it's going to come out of our pockets. -
I wasn't trying to, but I think the horse may have already bolted on that score. I thought the argument was more of an economic one (the author is a Harvard Economist, after all, and I'm not saying he's right either!).
You mentioned a "Libertarian View" and that's just political flame bait whether you intended it or not.
We have been discussing the federal reserve and the banking system in this country and so far, politics siding with one party or another have been left out. Shack has posted a great deal of good info in this thread as well as others. I would hate to see it shut down over political rhetoric. Just asking to keep political views out of it. I probably could have been nicer about it. Sorry.Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
You're talking about the bailout bill that didn't pass, right? Because that small fact right there is critically important. It didn't pass. And yes, I did read the actual bill and I did not read what all the news rags were telling me what was in the bill. I read all 119 pages of it. Well, skipped over a few part that were for clerical purposes. But I know what was in the bill and I know what it said needed to happen. That bill didn't pass and I'm kinda glad it didn't pass because it was too hastily put together and tries to give everyone involved a get out of jail free card. That cannot happen. But what is woefully needed right now is an influx of capital to give us time to clean up this mess. That, IMO, needs to happen. As to why, we have gone over it ad nauseum in this thread already.
I agree they tried to hurry this bill through. The whole idea of a get out of jail free card for them just ticked me off. The bill wasn't ready and I am sure there were tons of holes in it for these corporate guys to get a nice big payout for a job not done well. Let alone what it could possible have done to the economy in the long run.
I read it myself. What a snoozefest that was. I still believe that these corporations made there own bed now they have to sleep in it.
This all had to come to a boil at some point. Housing prices have gone crazy in the last few years. They had to know they were privcing themselves into a corner.DOH! Stupid auto complete in SeaMonkey!
Was supposed to be famine.
I hate when that happens.
-
AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »Lotsa stuff was here, too much to quote. Click the "View Post" button to see it.
The money in the reserve came from previous taxes collected. It's been there a while.
When we make our budget for the year, it needs to settle out with the amount of taxes we expect to collect. Those taxes go in to the reserve to replenish the money we took out of it to run the country for a year.
If, say, Bear & Sterns takes 70 billion out of the reserve in a bailout, they have to put it back. They won't get the bailout if they cannot put it back. They get sent to a buyout hearing and sold off, like what happened to WaMu. That's a failure and buyout. It preserves the assets but the company is lost.
Bear & Sterns then gets the bailout money because they have enough other assets to continue to grow. The bailout is coming in this case because a risk level for another set of assets they had grew well beyond expectation and became unmanageable. Bear & Sterns cut in to too much capital and lost the financial backing of the other assets they had. This devalues the company and stock prices drop. It makes it hard to recoup capital and raise more because of that. If you can't raise capital, you start losing customers because you aren't returning on investments and people are losing money. They make a run on your bank and essentially you are stripped of capital. No capital, no bank, simple as that.
The bailout comes to inject Bear & Sterns with capital (i.e.: cold, hard cash) to prop them up so they can clean up their mess internally. The other option is to declare bankruptcy. The problem with that is that the investors in the bank lose all assets invested and the bank itself goes to the new owners acquiring the assets through defaulted credit just like the bank forclosing on a home. The investors don't see one red cent though just like a home owner that was foreclosed on. They lose it all.
Now, when you get a bank so large, like, say, Goldman Sachs, where, say 35% of the country, the whole country, has retirement funds and other investments like mortgages tied up and it goes bankrupt, the economic impact that has is staggering. Cleaning up that mess could take decades.
In the long run, the bailout is the better plan.
Now, the bailout shouldn't cost the tax payers money in the future because the bailout will come with conditions that are intended to replenish the reserve as fast as possible. The only excusable way to cost the tax payers money to put the federal reserve back is in an emergency like a war or a natural disaster that wipes a city like New Orleans off the map.
Otherwise, the bailouts are not give aways. They are also not funded by future taxes. Just like if I let you borrow $5 for lunch, I am not going to go to shack and tell him I need $5 more dollars for lunch than usual because I loaned you $5. If I didn't have the money to loan, I shouldn't have lent it to you. Then again, I shouldn't be going to shack for the money at all. I bailed your butt out of a bind, you owe me. Now if I need $5 and you haven't paid me, I might ask shack to spot me until you pay me back but shack can say no. That's why you should be watching the bills that come up and you need to tell your Congressman that is there is a bill that says we need to replenish the reserve because of the bailouts, they should not only vote no but hell no.Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
[QUOTE=Jstas; I probably could have been nicer about it. Sorry.[/QUOTE]
Ya think? -
Jstas wrote:That's why you should be watching the bills that come up and you need to tell your Congressman that is there is a bill that says we need to replenish the reserve because of the bailouts, they should not only vote no but hell no.
I agree to this point whole heartedly.
I think the bailout could be a great thing, but I don't think it will happen until after the election. The boys in Washington are to afraid of there voters to do it beforehand. I also worry that it will get screwed up and end up hurting us. Sorry for the political view but it is part of the reason the bailout didn't happen.
My only question is how can any of these companies be ready to pay back the "Loan" by the next US budget? And when they don't who gets the bill?
Not trying to stir the pot just asking. -
Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
-
I agree to this point whole heartedly.
I think the bailout could be a great thing, but I don't think it will happen until after the election. The boys in Washington are to afraid of there voters to do it beforehand. I also worry that it will get screwed up and end up hurting us. Sorry for the political view but it is part of the reason the bailout didn't happen.
My only question is how can any of these companies be ready to pay back the "Loan" by the next US budget? And when they don't who gets the bill?
Not trying to stir the pot just asking.
The bailout doesn't have to be repaid by the time the next budget rolls around. It's not part of the U.S. Governmental budget. It's a bailout from the Federal reserve. Any money gets paid back by the bank and gets put in to the reserve directly. The only reason that the Government gets involved is because the reserve is made up of taxpayer money. They need to have oversight and they need to have regulation. That is what the bill is for, to outline the terms of the bailout.
As much as it seems the government wastes money, they always account for it. Even if the money is allocated wastefully, they appoint overseers to make sure the money is appropriated and used according to the bill/law that got that money to where it was going in the first place.
Don't think it doesn't happen? My last company got run through the ringer over the whole Coast Guard/Deepwater project. They watch, they know and they will not hesitate to call you out on the mat when it comes to tax payer money. Even if they make a bill saying every first born child will automatically be issued an ostrich buffer and put funding in place to do it. That is a waste of time and money but the tax payers voted for it because their congressional representatives voted for it. So every first born gets an ostrich buffer courtesy of Uncle Sam. As long as they get their buffers, everything is ok, doesn't matter how stupid it is, the bill was passed, the contract was written and put up for bid, the contractor was chosen and hired to build the buffers and money was allocated.
But if someone takes money allocated to buy ostrich buffers and dish them out and uses that money to buy tomato squeezers and give them to disadvantage Swahili children in Hoboken, then some government oversight committee or some independent watchdog will find out and someone will get fined and strung up for it. As silly as it all seems, that is honestly what happens. And I know first hand. 12 years doing government contracting work. I KNOW how that money system works!
That's also why it is important to vote and get the people in office that are going to do the best job they can.Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
I was merely quoting the Editor's note from the article:
Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.
No problem at all. I wasn't expressing any political view myself. I still think the article contributes to the discussion and, as I interpreted it, I didn't think it was really attributing blame especially to either party. I apologize if this was perceived as flaming, it was certainly never intended.
The article is very relevant and I didn't think you were flaming. I didn't want anyone flaming you with political rhetoric. That gets stuff shut down and I hate seeing threads with good info and discussion get shut down over it.Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you! -
Good article KEX
The following quote makes sense to me.
By Jeffery Miron
The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.
The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.
Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.
In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources. -
bikezappa wrote:Good article KEX
The following quote makes sense to me.
By Jeffery Miron
The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.
The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.
Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.
In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.
A bank is a different animal than just any business. An insolvent bank is a bank and not a business that just any creditor can buy and run. Sometimes the failed bank is sold to someone else (like WaMu and Wachovia) but more often than not, it simply closes it's doors. Some of the assets may be sold to someone else, but very often the government takes over the assets, covers insured depositors and the bank just fades away."Just because youre offended doesnt mean youre right." - Ricky Gervais
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." - Stuart Chase
"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." - Bernard Berenson -
Shack
I agree banks are different from airlines. Shouldn't the government back any bank investment up to $100,000?
It just upsets me and many others to bail out bad banking or businesses practices with a bailout without preventing future risky business practices. -
bikezappa wrote:Shack
I agree banks are different from airlines. Shouldn't the government back any bank investment up to $100,000?
It just upsets me and many others to bail out bad banking or businesses practices with a bailout without preventing future risky business practices.
Actually the banks themselves pay for the $100,000 that the FDIC covers. Every commercial bank pays SIGNIFICANT premiums to the FDIC insurance fund. The US Treasury must step in and cover anything the fund won't. Under normal circumstances bank failures are easily covered by the fund and it is constantly being replenished by the banks via premiums.
These are very unusual times however. It would take only ONE of the largest banks to fail and that fund is gone. It was not designed for what we have now. That is why I say large scale bank failures would cost significantly more than the so called bailout.
As I have stated in several posts, the issues of the type of lending that caused this problem within the banks has been addressed. Issues of what risk the the secondary market is willing to accept is another matter. But I wll tell you that commercial banks will not be able to make subprime mortgage loans for their own portfolios an most other type lending is being heavily watched. Bank examiners have extroidinary powers over the industry when/if they use them. I assure you they are using them."Just because youre offended doesnt mean youre right." - Ricky Gervais
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." - Stuart Chase
"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." - Bernard Berenson -
I say divy up that 700 billion between the American people.....That should get things rolling again....Testing
Testing
Testing -
That's what, $2300 per person, more if you only divy it between the taxpayers...I say divy up that 700 billion between the American people.....That should get things rolling again....
Works for me
-
Standby for the next round. Commercial property defaults are about to skyrocket.
In markets like Dallas, they have gone completely nuts with new apartments,
shopping, and office buildings. They are building new buildings next to vacant ones.
They are projecting only a 5% increase in XMAS shopping over last year.
They are in for a surprize. Guys hanging by a thread like CC and
Blockbuster are going down. My guess, 10% drop over last year.
No science. But like in stock picks, the monkey always wins. I'd like to think
I'm as lucky as a monkey."The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson -
Bikezappa Thanks for the clarification. You are saying that there will be NO tax increase if the bailout is passed.
Jstus I cannot say that nor did I say that. Do not put words in my mouth. The bailouts are not the responsibility of the U.S. tax payer but the funding from the bailout comes from the pot of money the U.S. taxpayer put there to begin with.
I have no idea what you are trying to say to me or this group.
It appears to me that you are contradicting yourself.
Its really not that difficult to grasp man. The Federal Reserve has been saving money before any of us were born. Jstas has already stated what it gets used for.
But if we use, say 700B bucks today, that does not mean youre going to get less of a refund when you file your next W2.
Yes, the money does come from the taxpayers. But think of it this way. You have a water faucet thats always on (the flow of money that goes into the Fed. Res.). Your faucet fills up a large container (the Fed. Res.) You use this water to water your dogs(what we take money out for) once a day (every time theres an event big enough to warrant taking money out). You have a bucket that you dip into your large container to water your dogs. Now this bucket can take out much more water than your faucet is putting in during the same time frame. Fortunately, your dogs only need water once a day, so by the time you need to use it again, its filled back up.
I don't think we've ever pulled out this much money (or would have had it gone through), and we have money in the fed. res. to pull it out from, so obviously were putting more in than were pulling out. So hopefully it'll be another 95 years before we have to do something like this again...hopefully never.
As said time and time again, our government is the only entity in the world that has the money (and time for a ROI) to fund something like this. But letting this continue will have much, much worse repercussions.
-CodyMusic is like candy, you have to get rid of the rappers to enjoy it -
I'm not surprised to see these misconceptions about the Fed.
For those interested in how banks came about, and how the money system with the Fed works, here are two links to videos. The first is about money creation and fractional reserve lending. It's a cartoon. The second requires a small amount of tinfoil, but you can decide for yourself. The one word that I've not seen or heard uttered in any print or TV form lately is the word 'sustainable'. It would be a nice word to hear in conjunction with the economy, or maybe jobs, or earnings, etc.
Link-
Money Creation
Link- The Fed-Ignorance is strength - -
Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. As a tax-paying American citizen, I will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. Instead, I submit the following three steps:
Common Sense Plan.
I. INSURANCE
A. Insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying FHA-type insurance. Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.
B. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things:
1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage.
a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes.
b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. In the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while
working with the borroweragain limiting foreclosures and ruined lives.
2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING and FUTURE CEOs and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. This keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they dont do their jobs.
C. This backstop will cost less than $50 billiona small fraction of the current proposal.
II. MARK TO MARKET
A. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime Tier III bonds/mortgages. This keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate.
B. This move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banksand it costs the taxpayer nothing.
III. CAPITAL GAINS TAX
A. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendousand immediateliquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.
B. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. This will enable all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down. This is not a time for envy, and its not a time for politics. Its time for all of us, as Americans, to
stand up, speak out, and fix this mess. -
average_guy wrote: »Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. As a tax-paying American citizen, I will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. Instead, I submit the following three steps:
Common Sense Plan.
I. INSURANCE
A. Insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying FHA-type insurance. Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.
B. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things:
1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage.
a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes.
b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. In the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while
working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives.
2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING and FUTURE CEOs and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. This keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs.
C. This backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal.
II. MARK TO MARKET
A. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime Tier III bonds/mortgages. This keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate.
B. This move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing.
III. CAPITAL GAINS TAX
A. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.
B. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. This will enable all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down. This is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. It’s time for all of us, as Americans, to
stand up, speak out, and fix this mess.
I've seen the stuff above all over the internet and they are band-aids at best and do nothing to solve the problems.
I will not vote for any Senator or Representative that doesn't have the ball's (figuratively speaking) to do the right thing and approve some sort of plan (call it a bailout if you want) to fix the problems now...and that includes getting the bad assets out of the system. Not trying to dress them up and act like they are desirable investments for the market. Obama's pig comment comes to mind...you can't just put lipstick on it and act like it's now beautiful."Just because youre offended doesnt mean youre right." - Ricky Gervais
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." - Stuart Chase
"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." - Bernard Berenson -
I'm done worring about it. Damed if we do, damned if we don't. The Pubs knew the first 2 bills were turkeys and now they are getting their way on some things to keep us workin' stiffs from emptying our wallets (seriously the right things) and they told the Dems to piss up a rope on giving Acorn 20% of the $750bil.
How is it we mostly elect the sour cream of the crop in DC?
I'm feeling a little better now.
Paul -
People save money. The Federal Reserve devalues savings accounts when it prints up, out of thin air, billions of fiat currency in the form of IOUs. Good grief. No wonder Paulson and his thugs thought he could come into television living rooms and demand $700,000 without any provisions.exalted512 wrote: »Its really not that difficult to grasp man. The Federal Reserve has been saving money before any of us were born. Jstas has already stated what it gets used for.
But if we use, say 700B bucks today, that does not mean youre going to get less of a refund when you file your next W2.
Yes, the money does come from the taxpayers. But think of it this way. You have a water faucet thats always on (the flow of money that goes into the Fed. Res.). Your faucet fills up a large container (the Fed. Res.) You use this water to water your dogs(what we take money out for) once a day (every time theres an event big enough to warrant taking money out). You have a bucket that you dip into your large container to water your dogs. Now this bucket can take out much more water than your faucet is putting in during the same time frame. Fortunately, your dogs only need water once a day, so by the time you need to use it again, its filled back up.
I don't think we've ever pulled out this much money (or would have had it gone through), and we have money in the fed. res. to pull it out from, so obviously were putting more in than were pulling out. So hopefully it'll be another 95 years before we have to do something like this again...hopefully never.
As said time and time again, our government is the only entity in the world that has the money (and time for a ROI) to fund something like this. But letting this continue will have much, much worse repercussions.
-Cody -
We're on the path to becoming Soviet America. An America where you don't work for the state, the state works for YOU!
-
People save money. The Federal Reserve devalues savings accounts when it prints up, out of thin air, billions of fiat currency in the form of IOUs. Good grief. No wonder Paulson and his thugs thought he could come into television living rooms and demand $700,000 without any provisions.
And how does that differ from any other country that prints money?
-CodyMusic is like candy, you have to get rid of the rappers to enjoy it
