Jude 2

So I just saw that the economic bailout terms have been reached at least in principal. So somebody, somewhere is going to put $700 billion to help our countries financial situation. Where does this $700 billion come from? I am no econ-wizard but from my mind, wont this decrease the value of the dollar even more and if the root-cause of this situation that got us here is not addressed, this will only be a financial band-aid?

Paully_44 wrote:So I just saw that the economic bailout terms have been reached at least in principal. So somebody, somewhere is going to put $700 billion to help our countries financial situation. Where does this $700 billion come from? I am no econ-wizard but from my mind, wont this decrease the value of the dollar even more and if the root-cause of this situation that got us here is not addressed, this will only be a financial band-aid?

your right!!!!! the money wont even be paid back if republicans have there way. they dont understand that a country in debt this bad is going the wrong direction. and dont seem to care!! as long as tax for big business dont go up eveything is great!!!

dawgs10 wrote:

Paully_44 wrote:So I just saw that the economic bailout terms have been reached at least in principal. So somebody, somewhere is going to put $700 billion to help our countries financial situation. Where does this $700 billion come from? I am no econ-wizard but from my mind, wont this decrease the value of the dollar even more and if the root-cause of this situation that got us here is not addressed, this will only be a financial band-aid?

your right!!!!! the money wont even be paid back if republicans have there way. they dont understand that a country in debt this bad is going the wrong direction. and dont seem to care!! as long as tax for big business dont go up eveything is great!!!

Not to mention it will only encourage debt-ridden people to spend money they don't have.

According to the Wall Street Journal, if this goes well the government could see a financal BOOM from this deal that would even solve any Social Security or Medicare problems.

The "bailout" is a buyout. These are still REAL assets... just devalued. Say they buy at 10 cents on the dollar. Then when the market returns.. they could sell for 30 cents on the dollar and more than double the profit.

Thus supporting Geralds post.

Gerald Creasy wrote:According to the Wall Street Journal, if this goes well the government could see a financal BOOM from this deal that would even solve any Social Security or Medicare problems.

untill the next prop up!!!!!!!

It is a investment in a sense. Your assessment is incorrect, I do find it funny that a democrat is talking about giving things away with out paying it back j/k

I want to start a business selling ice to Inuits. Start a huge factory in Siberia, and if I fail, uncle sugar will help me out.

Full Quiver wrote:I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of
giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a "We Deserve It Dividend".

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S.
Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So
200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a "We Deserve It Dividend".

Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every indivi dual 1 8+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends
$25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband
and wife have $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college - it'll be there
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car - create jobs
Invest in the market - capital drives growth
Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18 + including the folks who lost
their jobs at Lehmann Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And
of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it... instea d of trickling
out a puny $1000.00 ("vote buy") economic incentive that is being proposed by
one of our candidates for President.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S
Citizen 18+!

As for AIG - liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to
being American General. Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector
bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."

But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion "We Deserve
It Dividend" more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington D.C.

And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5
Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Uh, that's $425 per adult. Dude that originally wrote that piece couldn't remember his decimal places

dawgs10 wrote:
your right!!!!! the money wont even be paid back if republicans have there way. they dont understand that a country in debt this bad is going the wrong direction. and dont seem to care!! as long as tax for big business dont go up eveything is great!!!

What you don't seem to understand is that there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. Why are these banks going under? They made stupid mortgage loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back. Why did they do this? During the Clinton Administration, Janet Reno threatened to investigate and sue the banks if they didn't start making loans to poor people (which equals Democratic voters) for "affordable housing". So the banks started decreasing their requirments for home mortgage loans. Now they've made billions of dollars in these loans, hard times have hit, and these people, who had no business getting a loan in the first place, can't pay them back.

That being said, I'm against this bailout. We're spending too much money as it is. We need to cut back (especially on entitlements).

Under both Clinton and Bush the requirements to get a mortgage were lowered. Whatever the politics were both presidents signed off on what Republican congresses passed.
They both wanted to be popular and now they will be.

DaJudge wrote:

dawgs10 wrote:
your right!!!!! the money wont even be paid back if republicans have there way. they dont understand that a country in debt this bad is going the wrong direction. and dont seem to care!! as long as tax for big business dont go up eveything is great!!!

What you don't seem to understand is that there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. Why are these banks going under? They made stupid mortgage loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back. Why did they do this? During the Clinton Administration, Janet Reno threatened to investigate and sue the banks if they didn't start making loans to poor people (which equals Democratic voters) for "affordable housing". So the banks started decreasing their requirments for home mortgage loans. Now they've made billions of dollars in these loans, hard times have hit, and these people, who had no business getting a loan in the first place, can't pay them back.

That being said, I'm against this bailout. We're spending too much money as it is. We need to cut back (especially on entitlements).

All true. I would add that mortgage lenders got nuts, crazy bonkers, insane dollar signs in their eyeballs, all that and marketed these new, innovative thanks-to-the-Democrats loan products like mad. This started happening big time by 2000, 2001. The law that made it possible was law before Bush ever got elected. It is just historical fact. BUT, Republicans stood idly by while the house of cards got built bigger and bigger. A couple of people we know said something about it. Greenspan. McCain. No one listened.

I don't know that this boom that's being discussed will ever materialize, but if the government does do this (and I hope it doesn't) it will be better assets than the S&L bailout. Problem is if government makes a profit, it gets spent by government and not returned in real dollars to the taxpayers who finance the bailout.

dolfan wrote:
All true. I would add that mortgage lenders got nuts, crazy bonkers, insane dollar signs in their eyeballs, all that and marketed these new, innovative thanks-to-the-Democrats loan products like mad. This started happening big time by 2000, 2001. The law that made it possible was law before Bush ever got elected. It is just historical fact. BUT, Republicans stood idly by while the house of cards got built bigger and bigger. A couple of people we know said something about it. Greenspan. McCain. No one listened.
.

True. Even the Bush Admin., as screwed up as they are on economics sometimes, tried to sound the alarm a few years ago. On Rush's show today he played a clip of gay congressman Barney Frank (Democrat) saying just last year how sound Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were, and how, even if they went under the government wouldn't bale them out.

Uh, that's $425 per adult. Dude that originally wrote that piece couldn't remember his decimal places

So much for email forwards. I didn't even think to do the math. What a great though though.

$85 trillion would equal the $425,000.