Concerned about the new 900 billion dollar bailout

[Bioture]

I was listening to C-SPAN nonchalantly this morning, and heard that this bailout will cost every american around $6500.

Now, I'm not especially keen on politics, but how does htis work out exactly? I think I might be looking at a stimulous package of around 800 this year. Last year's 700 billion bailout netted me less than 600. Is my money going to other people? The housing market? What exactly?

[kthx]

You don't get any money from the financial bailout packages, they are used to prop up companies that are 1. either "controlled" by government types such as Fannie/Freddie or if they have too many people working for them to let them actually shut down. And it doesn't really cost the average Tax Payer anything because the money is coming from thin air, we don't have a cap on the amount of money we can produce, so if we need a trillion here or there to give to lazy ass auto unions or ignorant fraudulent companies like Freedy/Fanny/AIG etc etc etc its no problem because we can just go print it out. So basically the only way it "affects" you is that the value of the dollar you earn will eventually fall to shit as the foreign market buys more and more of America while our dollar is low.

[Nycle]

It doesn't necessarily lead to all tax payers paying $6500, because then you'd be assuming that the 'toxic assets' that were bailed out are completely non-redeemable. There's a high probability that the persons that have subprime mortgages (which are the toxic assets) will be able to pay off a substantial amount of their initial loan sum, and that will all flow back to the government which can subtract it from the $900 billion. No one knows how it'll develop though, in the most optimistic scenario all of the $900 billion will be paid back and the tax payer will only have to pay for 'just' the interest rate that the government pays over its loan from the capital market to finance the bailout.

Imo, you're far more likely to pay the bill for economic stimulus packages rather than bailouts if a government doesn't apply fiscal discipline to itself after a stimulus package has been executed.

[Nycle]

And it doesn't really cost the average Tax Payer anything because the money is coming from thin air, we don't have a cap on the amount of money we can produce, so if we need a trillion here or there to give to lazy ass auto unions or ignorant fraudulent companies like Freedy/Fanny/AIG etc etc etc its no problem because we can just go print it out.

I see a contradiction. If a government can print out any amount of money for itself, why does it need the tax payer's money?

[kthx]

Well, we have to pay something in, but you can't tell me we have the money to be making trillions of dollars in loans and market share buyouts with government money right now when we are in "the worst economic crisis since the great depression"

[D1st0rt]

I see a contradiction. If a government can print out any amount of money for itself, why does it need the tax payer's money?

Because when the government produces money, it's not just creating it. It has to be borrowed into existence under the premise that eventually those debts will be repaid. The problem you run into is that it gets paid back plus interest so when you borrow say $100,000 into existence you are actually introducing like $110,000 into the money supply. This is the nightmare that is the Federal Reserve.

[RATTY...]

I see a contradiction. If a government can print out any amount of money for itself, why does it need the tax payer's money?

You can't just print money out of nothing. Printing too much money causes inflation, like in Germany and Zimbabwe.



People like liquid black doesn't get far with this kind of money.

EDIT:rrrrrrrr

[Liquid Blue]

god damn do you and lizard fuel jack off thinking about me when you come here?

I know I had a fan club but jesus admit you're into black guys already and try out some dick

it will be good for you

[Kolar]

I was listening to C-SPAN nonchalantly this morning, and heard that this bailout will cost every american around $6500.

Now, I'm not especially keen on politics, but how does htis work out exactly? I think I might be looking at a stimulous package of around 800 this year. Last year's 700 billion bailout netted me less than 600. Is my money going to other people? The housing market? What exactly?

http://recovery.gov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nvestment_Plan

http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/a...173509_42.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5603066.ece

Edit: It's a lot but if the money is going to be spent (there's little that can be done stop it right now) at least the money isn't being dropped on the table for the big banks or auto sector. A lot of it seems to be heading in the direction of infrastructure, energy development, health care and education. The 700 Billion wasn't all spent but somewhere between half and 75% of it was without any knowledge of where it went or if it had any effect.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Because when the government produces money, it's not just creating it. It has to be borrowed into existence under the premise that eventually those debts will be repaid. The problem you run into is that it gets paid back plus interest so when you borrow say $100,000 into existence you are actually introducing like $110,000 into the money supply. This is the nightmare that is the Federal Reserve.

sort of - they call it "loaning" but since it's a loan from their own ass, it's created. they avoid the lie of "creation" by saying that it will be paid back, and if it's paid that, that implies that the money represents real labor, material, etc... no. it represents theft if you look at it on an abstract level but no rants today

it's like how our politicians will announce that they are taking control of the means of production in an industry - while then acting confused when accused of being "socialist". just as long as you call it what it's not... then it ain't.

I see a contradiction. If a government can print out any amount of money for itself, why does it need the tax payer's money?

You raise a very good rhetorical argument against central banking - the fact that it's a way to create potentially infinite dollars if need be :P

Central banking was created in part of the lack of money coming from taxes. Wilson could either raise taxes which would make him look bad, or create the Federal Reserve ("free prosperity", Wilson called it, quite literally). The idea of an alternate source of funding has roots far back, with the first American national bank being created in... 1792?

The mainstream opinion towards this bailout seems to be odd... the line of thought goes something like "we gave all that money to the banks and nothing happened... so it needs to go to THE PEOPLE". Such a view is pretty ignorant of alot of aspects, economic and political. And of course, there's the classic question of "Two whom? From whom? For what purpose?" that in the long run would (and will) neuter any effectiveness of this bailout.

For instance: the money set aside for contraceptives. Do we REALLY need more? Then why the fuck are people going to be paid to make more? How is that useful in the long-run at all? At best a few dudes stay employed for a few more months... before they become a mini-GM and implode.

Anyone think the bailout is a good idea? I'd really like to know why.

(BTW, I saw Ron Paul on Glen Beck a few days ago. Beck was talking about "our long-time friend", the "brilliant" Dr. Paul. He also casually mentioned the "recession we've been in since 2007", as if everyone wasn't busy being in denial right up until october 2008. The media sickens me.)

edit: btw, remember when you guys were like "ugh we NEED this bailout because it will stop the sinking economy" to which i replied "it will be the first of many, and it will fuck us"? i mean i hate to rag but cmon

[kthx]

I am pretty sure that in that thread that the bailout was pretty unpopular. I know I was against it.

[Kolar]

Yeah I thought so too. Though Wark and friends probably were against it because they thought it was pure socialism. The other side opposed it because it was perceived to be Washington handing a blank check to their Wall St. buds kicking everyone else to the curb. The truth is somewhere in-between that.

[kthx]

I realize both sides are guilty, Obama and McCain voted for the bailout. I just think it was a stupid ass decision whether it was liberals or republicans who made it. This is one of those non partisan issues.

[Jerome Scuggs]

it's all about rich vs poor but i'm all about taxpayer vs. the dudes with guns

[Izor]

man, these bailouts are dumb as fuck. The gov't is going to create money out of thin air as they now are allowed to do on a whim, and as a result inflation is going to happen. As a result of inflation or coming straight out of your pocket from taxes, thats where you lose 6500$. It's not contradictory Nycle. Either way affects the taxpayer, its just a matter of it being direct or not