No BAILOUT!!!

[Timmy!]

This right here tells me that the bill wasn't "right" just yet:

Ample no votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle. More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill.

[jwanck11]

I am not sure why we "need to see rock-bottom." That is like saying we are on a sinking ship and being determined to stay on it even as it sinks just to see how far down it goes. I do not understand the rationale in that.

Congress is worried about their jobs. nuff said.

Private sector afficianiados are saying this is needed and needed now. I agree with them.

As for calls of socialism; a bit of a stretch... yikes to say the least.

This is about survival - global survival.

Frozen credit markets will (most likely) lead to terriroty that no one in their right mind wants to go to.

[talltigeguy]

I am not sure why we "need to see rock-bottom." That is like saying we are on a sinking ship and being determined to stay on it even as it sinks just to see how far down it goes. I do not understand the rationale in that.

Congress is worried about their jobs. nuff said.

Private sector afficianiados are saying this is needed and needed now. I agree with them.

As for calls of socialism; a bit of a stretch... yikes to say the least.

This is about survival - global survival.

I also agree, it does not make sense to 'need' to see rock bottom. But reality has to set in. The gobs of money made by mortgage people has to be paid for. It either will come at the expense of the taxpayers, (that means people who are rich enough to own a boat) or those who made the bad decisions. I prefer it not be the taxpayers. The lax mortgage standards were pushed because every American 'should' own a home, even when some cannot afford it. Fortunately, when those homes go into foreclosure, there is at least something of some value left behind, and those people still have to live somewhere, so that will soften the crash to some degree.

2 years ago, when my home was worth double what it cost to build it, did I 'make' money? Heck no. Now we are coming back to what the land, bricks, timber and labor is actually worth.

[jwanck11]

I also agree, it does not make sense to 'need' to see rock bottom. But reality has to set in. The gobs of money made by mortgage people has to be paid for. It either will come at the expense of the taxpayers, (that means people who are rich enough to own a boat) or those who made the bad decisions. I prefer it not be the taxpayers. The lax mortgage standards were pushed because every American 'should' own a home, even when some cannot afford it. Fortunately, when those homes go into foreclosure, there is at least something of some value left behind, and those people still have to live somewhere, so that will soften the crash to some degree.

2 years ago, when my home was worth double what it cost to build it, did I 'make' money? Heck no. Now we are coming back to what the land, bricks, timber and labor is actually worth.

The value of land, bricks and timber are all arbitrary. There is no "set value" other than what the market is willing to bear. The "actual worth" of said raw materials are in equilibrium at all times. This is the basis of the argument, is it not?

When homes go into foreclosure, banks fail leading to credit markets freezing - no one will buy the debt and consequently there is no lending. No lending means no innovation. No innovation means no jobs. How much more evidence is necessary???? Those that can afford boats may not be in the same position for long as and if we continue on the slippery slope. Make no mistake - this is reality and the Bush backed plan was, in the opinion of most private sector think tanks, the best option available to keep the levees in tact.

Thinking about this froma future perspective might shed light on the fact that the burden to the taxpayer is negligable compared to the pain we are likely to feel if we stay on the sinking ship.

[da.bell]

However, we have been living the High Life for a long time. Economy growing at double digits per year awhile ago. Someone has to take a hit.

IMO, we live in a Capitalistic country. Not saying we should hit bottom with the boat but again, I do have a boat to spare. j/k

I am sure there is a better way to spend 700 billion. What that is, I don't know but there can be a batter plan somewhere.

[jwanck11]

The someones that ought to take the hit have protective umbrellas.

This is global. The US economically props up the globe.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news...ion=2008092904

[da.bell]

The someones that ought to take the hit have protective umbrellas.

This is global. The US economically props up the globe.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news...ion=2008092904

I do like that option better. Convert the ARMS into fixed loans without credit checks would be nice. Problematic if the people default but treat is like a student loan. If you don't pay it, then you are in some deep do-do...

[G-MONEY]

I am sure there is a better way to spend 700 billion. What that is, I don't know but there can be a batter plan somewhere.

An email I got today


I agree 159.94%. I have been trying to make this argument with my friends, family and coworkers every since I heard about the . $700,000,000,000.00 bailout Giving money back to big business, who by the way are the ones that caused this problem in the first place, doesn't do anything to help the tax payers. This problem has destroyed millions of tax payers credit. So, by giving big business the money to re-loan doesn't help the people who has lost their homes, cars, jobs, the broke vets returning from war, small and medium business owners who lost their businesses, etc. Giving money back to the tax payers to pay off their debt and increase their buying power, in turn gives big business money to re-loan to tax payers who now have no debt. I don't know, but this just makes sense to me. It's a win win situation.


This guy gets my vote.
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 bon-a-fide U.S. Citizens 18 and older.

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 individual 18+ 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 has $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 Lehman 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. Instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 economic incentive (vote buy) 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 and over.

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 DC.

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

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
Feel free to pass this along to your pals as it's either good for a laugh, or a tear or a very sobering thought on how to best use
$85 Billion!!

[zad0030]

An email I got today


I agree 159.94%. I have been trying to make this argument with my friends, family and coworkers every since I heard about the . $700,000,000,000.00 bailout Giving money back to big business, who by the way are the ones that caused this problem in the first place, doesn't do anything to help the tax payers. This problem has destroyed millions of tax payers credit. So, by giving big business the money to re-loan doesn't help the people who has lost their homes, cars, jobs, the broke vets returning from war, small and medium business owners who lost their businesses, etc. Giving money back to the tax payers to pay off their debt and increase their buying power, in turn gives big business money to re-loan to tax payers who now have no debt. I don't know, but this just makes sense to me. It's a win win situation.


This guy gets my vote.
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 bon-a-fide U.S. Citizens 18 and older.

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 individual 18+ 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 has $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 Lehman 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. Instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 economic incentive (vote buy) 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 and over.

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 DC.

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

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
Feel free to pass this along to your pals as it's either good for a laugh, or a tear or a very sobering thought on how to best use
$85 Billion!!

I guess you missed the other thread that had the same thing. Whats funny is that Math is wrong.
You would really only get $425

[Timmy!]

As I was reading that "email" I was doing quick math in my head and couldn't figure out where they were getting $425,000 per person - so I used a calculator and got $425 as well. That sucks because it sounded good - too good...to be true!

[jwanck11]

yeah... but try it with 700 billion.

[Moki]

That's only $3500.

[Moki]

The value of land, bricks and timber are all arbitrary. There is no "set value" other than what the market is willing to bear. The "actual worth" of said raw materials are in equilibrium at all times. This is the basis of the argument, is it not?

When homes go into foreclosure, banks fail leading to credit markets freezing - no one will buy the debt and consequently there is no lending. No lending means no innovation. No innovation means no jobs. How much more evidence is necessary???? Those that can afford boats may not be in the same position for long as and if we continue on the slippery slope. Make no mistake - this is reality and the Bush backed plan was, in the opinion of most private sector think tanks, the best option available to keep the levees in tact.

Thinking about this froma future perspective might shed light on the fact that the burden to the taxpayer is negligable compared to the pain we are likely to feel if we stay on the sinking ship.

jwanck is right, this is not anymore about bailing out the greedy lenders or those people who purchased homes they could not afford. This problem has frozen the credit system, which freezes economic growth. If this problem is not resolved, this will trickle down to everybody.

Also, it is not a 700 billion dollar price tag in that we are spending and will not recieve anything back. The plan has the potential to make money or in the very least, pay back a large portion of the funds. It is not like we just purchaes $700 billion dollars worth of goods. I have already lost more than $3500 and stand to lose a lot more if this crisis is not resolved.

[talltigeguy]

The value of land, bricks and timber are all arbitrary. There is no "set value" other than what the market is willing to bear. The "actual worth" of said raw materials are in equilibrium at all times. This is the basis of the argument, is it not?

When homes go into foreclosure, banks fail leading to credit markets freezing - no one will buy the debt and consequently there is no lending. No lending means no innovation. No innovation means no jobs. How much more evidence is necessary???? Those that can afford boats may not be in the same position for long as and if we continue on the slippery slope. Make no mistake - this is reality and the Bush backed plan was, in the opinion of most private sector think tanks, the best option available to keep the levees in tact.

Thinking about this froma future perspective might shed light on the fact that the burden to the taxpayer is negligable compared to the pain we are likely to feel if we stay on the sinking ship.

You are correct. But I am not sure that encouraging the US to be a society that has more money in loans than in savings is economically healthy. Isn't that what has us in this situation in the first place? People borrowing money that they cannot afford to pay back? There will still be those who have money and are willing to spend it to make more money.

It sounds like you have a lot more economic understanding than I do, but the debt does not disappear when the government bails things out...it then gets transferred to the national debt and managed by a gargantuan beauracracy. Won't that result in more inflation? I think the private sector could manage that debt more efficiently. It would be painful, but managing this debt is going to painful now or later, might as well buck up and get it over with. We spent ourselves into this mess, now it is time to pay the piper.

[Moki]

Tall,
You are correct, reform also has to come into play. Meaning that lending standards need to be tightened and there is the whole credit card mess that is out there looming. We all know somebody who is completely living beyond their means by living off of credit. I don't want to bail that guy out. But the problem we face is that the US is consider a "safe haven" for foriegn investors, that confidence is being eroded and currently the US government needs foriegn investment to sustain our economy. We need some kind of a plan to restore stability and confidence. A lot of the sell off is fear-based that started with the collapse of Bear Stearns and the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers.

In regards to personal savings and reducing debt. There is no doubt that Americans save too little and are burdened with too much debt. I would like to see reform in how much credit can be extended by predatory banks to stupid people who can't make the payments. The idea of the government assuming the debt is that it restores confidence in the financial system and that the government will be able to recoup the debt when the housing market turns up. The bad side of the plan from my perspective is inserting the government more into the market and the possibility of turning our nation more into socialist nation.

The thing that really pisses me off is Washington's dysfunctional response of partisanship politics. In a true national crisis, all they can do is try to get political gain and blame the other. Both parties are to blame, especially the democrats wanting Fannie Mae to be the vehicle to provide a "home for everybody". But when either party wanted to try to solve the problem, the other would block it out due to partisanship. We need a leader that can bring the country together. Bush is too unpopular and too much of a lame duck. Pelosi demonstrated today that she is not that leader. Can McCain or Obama do it?