$700,000,000,000.00

[Alex179]

You've overdosed on the CNN fear mongering, reality is  most of the population is going about their business as always.

CNN is basically the liberal equivalent of Fox.   They both suck.   That is why I can't be bothered with the news most of the time.   It is depressing no matter which way either side spins the story.

[Christopher McCandless]

You've overdosed on the CNN fear mongering, reality is  most of the population is going about their business as always.

Not at all, I have heard first hand from people the problems the current economic climate - and I live across the pond. I imagine its worse over there, and if Congress does nothing, its only going to have a more and more noticeable impact.

Btw, I am watching the veep debate. Anyone voting for Palin needs a retrospective abortion performing on them, preferably before they get to a ballot box.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

I'm hearing a lot of economists now saying the bailout is not really going to do anything, but are only hoping that it might.

Besides even if they do free up the credit lending with the bailout, consumer confidence is falling as a lot of people already have uncontrollable debts and are barely struggling with buying essentials, so retailers will still be reluctant to get loans if they feel profits are not sufficient to pay it back OR in worse case, they do get more credit, only to find themselves unable to pay it back without downgrading their profits, laying off employees, or even go bankrupt in the long run, thus still leading to a economic slowdown and possible recession/depression anyway (pretty much a similar result to without a bailout, but worse long-term). But then you have the issue that once lending is going again, people desperate for cash will start accumulating new debts with new credit cards, taking out loans, thus leading to a bunch of more people who cannot pay back their debts, leading to further debts to accumulate and eventual re-freeze on credit lending until another 'bailout' is done (so even if consumer confidence improves, it'll likely be most if not nearly all credit based, still causing a problem). Then you have to factor the potential increases in taxes to American taxpayers along with all this and the picture gets real ugly. The vicious cycle continues with this growing monster of debt until everything collapses into oblivion, while the rich rape everyone of their money during it. The whole system is a economic time-bomb, and a bailout will basically increase it's yield damage on the economy when it explodes.

The system needs to collapse for a overhaul, those bankers responsible for the mess need to be prosecuted to set a principle of saying "No more!", and new regulations need to decease the amount of bad loans, risk and bad credit lending allowed to take place. Once the bad apples are gone, new apples will grow in their place, combined with incentive to not mess it up again and regulations to ensure that they don't go over themselves.

Don't keep fixing a broken engine, get it replaced I say.

[Callaway]

I'm hearing a lot of economists now saying the bailout is not really going to do anything, but are only hoping that it might.

Besides even if they do free up the credit lending with the bailout, consumer confidence is falling as a lot of people already have uncontrollable debts and are barely struggling with buying essentials, so retailers will still be reluctant to get loans if they feel profits are not sufficient to pay it back OR in worse case, they do get more credit, only to find themselves unable to pay it back without downgrading their profits, laying off employees, or even go bankrupt in the long run, thus still leading to a economic slowdown and possible recession/depression anyway (pretty much a similar result to without a bailout, but worse long-term). But then you have the issue that once lending is going again, people desperate for cash will start accumulating new debts with new credit cards, taking out loans, thus leading to a bunch of more people who cannot pay back their debts, leading to further debts to accumulate and eventual re-freeze on credit lending until another 'bailout' is done (so even if consumer confidence improves, it'll likely be most if not nearly all credit based, still causing a problem). Then you have to factor the potential increases in taxes to American taxpayers along with all this and the picture gets real ugly. The vicious cycle continues with this growing monster of debt until everything collapses into oblivion, while the rich rape everyone of their money during it. The whole system is a economic time-bomb, and a bailout will basically increase it's yield damage on the economy when it explodes.

The system needs to collapse for a overhaul, those bankers responsible for the mess need to be prosecuted to set a principle of saying "No more!", and new regulations need to decease the amount of bad loans, risk and bad credit lending allowed to take place. Once the bad apples are gone, new apples will grow in their place, combined with incentive to not mess it up again and regulations to ensure that they don't go over themselves.

Don't keep fixing a broken engine, get it replaced I say.

Exactly.  Bailng them out by throwing money at the problem without overhauling the situation that allowed them to get into trouble in the first place only encourages them to make even more risky loans to people who should not be getting them, having them default on these loans, and then expecting to be bailed out by Uncle Sam again, since a precedent will have been set.

[Christopher McCandless]

I'm hearing a lot of economists now saying the bailout is not really going to do anything, but are only hoping that it might.

Besides even if they do free up the credit lending with the bailout, consumer confidence is falling as a lot of people already have uncontrollable debts and are barely struggling with buying essentials, so retailers will still be reluctant to get loans if they feel profits are not sufficient to pay it back OR in worse case, they do get more credit, only to find themselves unable to pay it back without downgrading their profits, laying off employees, or even go bankrupt in the long run, thus still leading to a economic slowdown and possible recession/depression anyway (pretty much a similar result to without a bailout, but worse long-term). But then you have the issue that once lending is going again, people desperate for cash will start accumulating new debts with new credit cards, taking out loans, thus leading to a bunch of more people who cannot pay back their debts, leading to further debts to accumulate and eventual re-freeze on credit lending until another 'bailout' is done (so even if consumer confidence improves, it'll likely be most if not nearly all credit based, still causing a problem). Then you have to factor the potential increases in taxes to American taxpayers along with all this and the picture gets real ugly. The vicious cycle continues with this growing monster of debt until everything collapses into oblivion, while the rich rape everyone of their money during it. The whole system is a economic time-bomb, and a bailout will basically increase it's yield damage on the economy when it explodes.

The system needs to collapse for a overhaul, those bankers responsible for the mess need to be prosecuted to set a principle of saying "No more!", and new regulations need to decease the amount of bad loans, risk and bad credit lending allowed to take place. Once the bad apples are gone, new apples will grow in their place, combined with incentive to not mess it up again and regulations to ensure that they don't go over themselves.

Don't keep fixing a broken engine, get it replaced I say.

Exactly.  Bailng them out by throwing money at the problem without overhauling the situation that allowed them to get into trouble in the first place only encourages them to make even more risky loans to people who should not be getting them, having them default on these loans, and then expecting to be bailed out by Uncle Sam again, since a precedent will have been set.

Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.

[El]

Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.

Oh please god, let quixotic optimism like this actually come to fruition.

[Christopher McCandless]

Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.

Oh please god, let quixotic optimism like this actually come to fruition.

Its realism. Clinton did a far better job economically than either Bush I or II, and I am sure the next democratic president is going to do a lot better job than the alternative: Bush III

[Alex179]

Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.

Oh please god, let quixotic optimism like this actually come to fruition.

Its realism. Clinton did a far better job economically than either Bush I or II, and I am sure the next democratic president is going to do a lot better job than the alternative: Bush III

Greenspan is not in charge any longer, we can try to put blame on Ben Barnanke.   Greenspan is placed with blame for the majority of the crisis this nation is in as he was the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

How much blame do you place on Greenspan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan

[Callaway]

I'm hearing a lot of economists now saying the bailout is not really going to do anything, but are only hoping that it might.

Besides even if they do free up the credit lending with the bailout, consumer confidence is falling as a lot of people already have uncontrollable debts and are barely struggling with buying essentials, so retailers will still be reluctant to get loans if they feel profits are not sufficient to pay it back OR in worse case, they do get more credit, only to find themselves unable to pay it back without downgrading their profits, laying off employees, or even go bankrupt in the long run, thus still leading to a economic slowdown and possible recession/depression anyway (pretty much a similar result to without a bailout, but worse long-term). But then you have the issue that once lending is going again, people desperate for cash will start accumulating new debts with new credit cards, taking out loans, thus leading to a bunch of more people who cannot pay back their debts, leading to further debts to accumulate and eventual re-freeze on credit lending until another 'bailout' is done (so even if consumer confidence improves, it'll likely be most if not nearly all credit based, still causing a problem). Then you have to factor the potential increases in taxes to American taxpayers along with all this and the picture gets real ugly. The vicious cycle continues with this growing monster of debt until everything collapses into oblivion, while the rich rape everyone of their money during it. The whole system is a economic time-bomb, and a bailout will basically increase it's yield damage on the economy when it explodes.

The system needs to collapse for a overhaul, those bankers responsible for the mess need to be prosecuted to set a principle of saying "No more!", and new regulations need to decease the amount of bad loans, risk and bad credit lending allowed to take place. Once the bad apples are gone, new apples will grow in their place, combined with incentive to not mess it up again and regulations to ensure that they don't go over themselves.

Don't keep fixing a broken engine, get it replaced I say.

Exactly.  Bailng them out by throwing money at the problem without overhauling the situation that allowed them to get into trouble in the first place only encourages them to make even more risky loans to people who should not be getting them, having them default on these loans, and then expecting to be bailed out by Uncle Sam again, since a precedent will have been set.

Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.

You need to check your facts, Hadron.  Biden voted for the deregulation that allowed the crisis to happen in the first place, and Clinton supported the legislation.

BIDEN: Complained about "economic policies of the last eight years" that led to "excessive deregulation."

THE FACTS: Biden voted for 1999 deregulation that liberal groups are blaming for part of the financial crisis today. The law allowed Wall Street investment banks to create the kind of mortgage-related securities at the core of the problem now. The law was widely backed by Republicans as well as by Democratic President Clinton, who argues it has stopped the crisis today from being worse.

[Alex179]

Exactly what I have heard Callaway.   They are all to blame.   That is my problem with politicians and their posing and posturing.   

[Christopher McCandless]

Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.

Oh please god, let quixotic optimism like this actually come to fruition.

Its realism. Clinton did a far better job economically than either Bush I or II, and I am sure the next democratic president is going to do a lot better job than the alternative: Bush III

Greenspan is not in charge any longer, we can try to put blame on Ben Barnanke.   Greenspan is placed with blame for the majority of the crisis this nation is in as he was the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

How much blame do you place on Greenspan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan

In practise, he had very little power compared to either the executive branch or congress.

[Christopher McCandless]

I'm hearing a lot of economists now saying the bailout is not really going to do anything, but are only hoping that it might.

Besides even if they do free up the credit lending with the bailout, consumer confidence is falling as a lot of people already have uncontrollable debts and are barely struggling with buying essentials, so retailers will still be reluctant to get loans if they feel profits are not sufficient to pay it back OR in worse case, they do get more credit, only to find themselves unable to pay it back without downgrading their profits, laying off employees, or even go bankrupt in the long run, thus still leading to a economic slowdown and possible recession/depression anyway (pretty much a similar result to without a bailout, but worse long-term). But then you have the issue that once lending is going again, people desperate for cash will start accumulating new debts with new credit cards, taking out loans, thus leading to a bunch of more people who cannot pay back their debts, leading to further debts to accumulate and eventual re-freeze on credit lending until another 'bailout' is done (so even if consumer confidence improves, it'll likely be most if not nearly all credit based, still causing a problem). Then you have to factor the potential increases in taxes to American taxpayers along with all this and the picture gets real ugly. The vicious cycle continues with this growing monster of debt until everything collapses into oblivion, while the rich rape everyone of their money during it. The whole system is a economic time-bomb, and a bailout will basically increase it's yield damage on the economy when it explodes.

The system needs to collapse for a overhaul, those bankers responsible for the mess need to be prosecuted to set a principle of saying "No more!", and new regulations need to decease the amount of bad loans, risk and bad credit lending allowed to take place. Once the bad apples are gone, new apples will grow in their place, combined with incentive to not mess it up again and regulations to ensure that they don't go over themselves.

Don't keep fixing a broken engine, get it replaced I say.

Exactly.  Bailng them out by throwing money at the problem without overhauling the situation that allowed them to get into trouble in the first place only encourages them to make even more risky loans to people who should not be getting them, having them default on these loans, and then expecting to be bailed out by Uncle Sam again, since a precedent will have been set.

Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.

You need to check your facts, Hadron.  Biden voted for the deregulation that allowed the crisis to happen in the first place, and Clinton supported the legislation.

BIDEN: Complained about "economic policies of the last eight years" that led to "excessive deregulation."

THE FACTS: Biden voted for 1999 deregulation that liberal groups are blaming for part of the financial crisis today. The law allowed Wall Street investment banks to create the kind of mortgage-related securities at the core of the problem now. The law was widely backed by Republicans as well as by Democratic President Clinton, who argues it has stopped the crisis today from being worse.

One act out of about 400 which have contributed to this mess (McCain voted for over 95% of them). The fact is, if the US had not wasted £5.7tn in the last 8 years, they would have been able to comfortably take the fall.

[Alex179]

Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.

Oh please god, let quixotic optimism like this actually come to fruition.

Its realism. Clinton did a far better job economically than either Bush I or II, and I am sure the next democratic president is going to do a lot better job than the alternative: Bush III

Greenspan is not in charge any longer, we can try to put blame on Ben Barnanke.   Greenspan is placed with blame for the majority of the crisis this nation is in as he was the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

How much blame do you place on Greenspan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan

In practise, he had very little power compared to either the executive branch or congress.

Historically they have done what he has advised 95% of the time. 

[Christopher McCandless]

Nope. If Obama and Biden get elected then they will actually regulate the economy properly, reducing the chances of this happening again.

Oh please god, let quixotic optimism like this actually come to fruition.

Its realism. Clinton did a far better job economically than either Bush I or II, and I am sure the next democratic president is going to do a lot better job than the alternative: Bush III

Greenspan is not in charge any longer, we can try to put blame on Ben Barnanke.   Greenspan is placed with blame for the majority of the crisis this nation is in as he was the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

How much blame do you place on Greenspan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan

In practise, he had very little power compared to either the executive branch or congress.

Historically they have done what he has advised 95% of the time. 

He is not going to advise anything that goes against the current political ideology though, simply because he knows it wont be passed. 

[Trigger 11]

Exactly what I have heard Callaway.   They are all to blame.   That is my problem with politicians and their posing and posturing.