I'm confuse ..

[TritonAL186]

The Government gives the taxpayers money to the banks ( Bailout ) and then the taxpayers have to replenish the money back to the Government, not the banks. Man are we getting screwed twice . I say we fire everyone in Congress and start all over from the beginning..... emoLaugh

 

[beetlespin]

Yep

 

[elwestb]

Ok, .... I'm with you ... now what?

 

[oggism]

beetlespin - 11/27/2009 9:18 PM

Yep

QFGT

 

[Bubbakat]

Lets let them know that they can start counting their days until the next election.

 

[Possum]

They don't give the banks nothing, they loan the banks money by buying bonds from banks. It is called open market operations. The Great depression could have been much less severe had they understood monetary policy back then. Lots of good businesses went under during the depression simply because for the most part banks did not have the money to lend, which ment more layoffs, and more people going under. The snowball effect, which is what the FED is trying to avoid now.

 

[TritonAL186]

Possum - 11/27/2009 10:52 PM

They don't give the banks nothing, they loan the banks money by buying bonds from banks. It is called open market operations. The Great depression could have been much less severe had they understood monetary policy back then. Lots of good businesses went under during the depression simply because for the most part banks did not have the money to lend, which ment more layoffs, and more people going under. The snowball effect, which is what the FED is trying to avoid now.

If that's the case , then why all we here in the news is that the Government gave AIG, Citi, Chase and among others millions of bailout money. They never called it a loan and was told that they don't have to pay it back. Am I missing something here ? When I borrow money from the bank, it's called a loan, not bailout money. Under normal conditions , they do buy bonds from the banks and if that's the case here, why do we have to pay more taxes to replenish the Government if the Government is getting paid back from the banks.....Enlight me please.....

 

[foodsaver]

One could argue that those businesses obviously weren't as good as you imply or they would have had the financial stability to weather the depression. In a free market economy good businesses thrive and bad businesses go out of business. Sounds like a thing of the past to me! Why should the Government get to choose which businesses stay in business and which businesses close their doors?

 

[beetlespin]

They should have let them fail! There was no reason to intervene. It may have lessened short term pain but it will increase long term pain. Politicians should have to forfeit their salaries aif the budget isn't balanced. That would take care of all these handouts.

 

[Possum]

I don't know why they call it bailout money. It however is loans, just like government buying a bond from the bank, just another name for a loan. That is how the FED gets money into the banking system. Government did not just give those businesses the money, everyone who holds gvernment debt would be getting out, if the Fed was giving that kind of money away. Investing in the future however, will keep those folks around. Guys, I don't want to sound like a know it all, but it is what I do. Sometimes I wish I had done something else.

 

[Liveliner]

Nothing you can do about it but gripe. I truely hope that the good that comes from all this is that it will educate the idiots who vote. Pay close attention and read between the Lies I mean LINES before you vote.

 

[Guest]

I have often wondered what McCain would have done differenly or better for the USA if he had been elected?

 

[Liveliner]

Doc1 - 11/29/2009 10:50 PM I have often wondered what McCain would have done differenly or better for the USA if he had been elected?

</p>

Not much he could do. This is not a one man problem regardless who the man is. Greed is the root and it is way too widespread to be fixed quickly.</p>

 

[Sniperchoke]

Maybe McCain would have only spent 1 trillion instead of 3 trillion for a start.

 

[Guest]

Sniperchoke - 11/29/2009 8:52 PM Maybe McCain would have only spent 1 trillion instead of 3 trillion for a start.

</p>

I thought it was only 2 trillion and Bush spent the first one before he left office. </p>

 

[Possum]

Outside of health care, McCain would have probably done the same thing, you would just have different folks gripping. No President, or congress would want to see the colapse of an economic system. That is why we have the safety nets in place and economic indicators that tell us when to act.

 

[Sniperchoke]

The economic system wouldn't have collapsed. Capitalism always works. The assets of the failing companies would have been bought on the cheap by the successful ones and the economic recovery would have been speedier. By artificially propping up failing companies the gov't is only lengthening the recession and by the way the gov't is also gaining a lot of power. Never a good thing.

 

[Possum]

We are not a capitalist country. We are a mixed economic system. More capitalistic features than anything else, but still mixed. Snip you might be right, but history does not support that theory.

 

[foodsaver]

I would be griping regardless. I didn't like mccain or obama. Show me a fiscal conservative and I will do cartwheels in support of them. Possum you are right we aren't a capitalist country anymore but the principles that the country was founded on were capitalist. Everytime the government gets more power they find a way to screw it up. Why should we voluntarily increase their control in our lives? Give me a strong dollar, strong military, good schools, and good roads and then leave me the heck alone.

 

[Sniperchoke]

Actually history does support my theory. Between 1787 and 1930 our country saw both mild to severe economic downturns. These downturns ranged from 1-7 years. During that time there was no thought of the congress or gov't enacting any type of economic stimulus package, jobs programs or corporate handouts. Probably because there is no constitutional authority to do so. It took the Hoover and Roosevelt administration and a derelict supreme court to initiate an unconstitutional intervention into our economy that turned a 2-3 year downturn in the economy into the great depression that lasted until after WWII. The best example is the 1921 recession where wholesale prices, industrial production and manufacturing employment fell by 30 percent. There was very little gov't intervention and by early 1922 the economy naturally recovered and we were off to the roaring 1920's. History can show us our mistakes but no one takes the time to look.