Can anyone prove to me that we couldn't have "saved the economy" by giving $ to the people instead.

[shadowknows69]

[madokie]

1. Handouts were good for our Native Americans, NOT

We don't need to be giving anyone anything. It needs to be earned. IMO
I'm not convinced that we need to do anything except kick some asses concerning this bailout.

[knitter4democracy]

11. Um, okay.

Totally ignore that the Native Americans deserved it and that our government entered into treaties (aka law) with them and then broke them repeatedly. Also ignore the fact that most of the time, the government didn't supply what it promised (which still continues). Ignore the fact that we shoved the Native Americans to reservations far from economic centers on purpose. Exactly how the hell were they supposed to "earn" it?

[madokie]

15. You've taken what I was saying totally out of context

I don't even know where to start to correct that.

Peace

[knitter4democracy]

16. Your post made it sound like you disagreed with keeping to our treaties.

You said that that handouts to the Native Americans were a bad idea, correct? Perhaps you could explain a bit further?

[madokie]

17. This is so far off from what I was saying

come we :grouphug:

[knitter4democracy]

18. I'll always take a hug, but I'd also like an explanation.

I'm sick and tired of hearing people say that First Nations peoples just sit around and get handouts for nothing, and here your post said the same thing--handouts are bad, people should have to earn it somehow, and First Nations people aren't doing so great because of handouts.

Please explain.

[Hugin]

2. Shoring up the base of the economy is necessary for a real lasting recovery.

But, this bailout is a temporary solution at best. No, the alternatives haven't be reviewed.

The Leadership is still oblivious to the fact everything and I do mean everything the Republicans
to is political. You'd think they would have learned by now.

[mdmc]

3. we can't "give" our way out of this problem

People made risky investments.
The problem now seems to me to be a legal one.
Was the law broken? If yes, then prosecute.
If unprofitable investments were made, then the market will correct itself.
The problem is a lack of trust. Banks no longer trust each other.
Restoring trust, through regulation, is the only true way to move forward.
imho, of course.

[shadowknows69]

6. You want economic stimulus give every taxpayer in the US 10-100,000 dollars

So many of us have had so little for so long we'll spend the shit like water. Hell, I'll even invest some of mine or maybe rescue my failed business and employee some people. How could Wall Street not get better if the entire economy improved?

[mdmc]

13. well, in my area for instance, you could not currently purchase a

home for 100,000.

The only way to purchase a home is for a bank to trust you enough to loan you the money - a mortgage.

If we print up 700 billion and give it to Americans, we would still have this problem of trust. Plus, the dollar would be worth less, I would think.

While I am a big government liberal, I oppose a bailout and would prefer to focus on creating trust in the economy. There are many ways of doing this.

And for the record - if Bernie Saunders is on board with a bailout, then count me in too. I think he has a good idea of what is going on.

What would be really helpful right now is a major investment in public transportation and green tech. And a "made in the USA" movement that values union made American products over "designer" crap manufactured by slaves in the third world.

[pnwmom]

4. Which people? And how would that deal with the liquidity crisis? n/

[shadowknows69]

9. People would be able, or forced as a condition, to pay their creditors

[L. Coyote]

5. The proposed bail-out is $7,000 per taxpayer. Seems like it might work better

to give the money to taxpayers as low interest loans, instead of paying interest for decades after (printing the money and) loaning it to the government to give away to the rich to salvage worthless debts.

[TexasObserver]

7. No, they cannot.

They're talking about an infusion of $250 billion immediately. That's roughly $800 for every man, woman and child in America. If you gave every living American $800 to spend the next month, any way they wanted, it would juice the economy in the short term, and the banking system would see that cash many times over.

But it wouldn't save some big companies that made some very dumb long term decisions.

I'm not a fan of the bailout, but since our team is going to go for it, I'm on board for the duration. I want to see the bailout look good for our team, from now through the election. After the election, we take a hard look at it and see what needs to change.

[napi21]

8. Giving $$ directly to "the people" wouldn't change the loss of

confidence that lenders have in businesses and WS that is preventing even reasonably solvent banks from lending any $$ for daily operations. If there are no loans granted, businesses can't meet payroll, farmers can't borrow to operate and survive, and the stock market drops like a rock which hurts EVERY individual who has been forced into a 401K plan for their retirement instead of being able to rely on company sponsored pension plan as they did many years ago.

In order to give the $$ directly to "people" to make sure everyone was solvent, the cost would be so astronomical it would be impossible!

[elocs]

10. I heard on the radio last week that for 1/10th of that $700 billion asked for a bailout

that every home at risk of foreclosure could be saved and the housing market would be sound again. This really sounds as good as the "give us the money, or else" argument.

[dkofos]

12. The only way out of this mess is to start using the trickle up theory of economics.

[MichiganVote]

14. There are three issues at play and they are......

1. Bank failures due to debt that they cannot absorb because the mortgage sales have been so credit laden, diversified and are woven throughout the entire banking and investment components of our country. The debt is no longer in what we conceive of as "mortgages". Instead the debt is in packages of pieces of mortgages, car loand, credit card debt, business loans.

2. The impending demise of the credit system in American. Like it or not, that has become the basis of our economic system and it began to become that under Nixon. Without credit, out businesses cannot and will not function--meaning almost all will be out of a job---soon.

3. The regulations, procedures, and the role of the government in the private sector's financial WHEN they threaten the very country we live in.

So no, paying off "mortgages" alone, even if it could be done,is not going to stabilize our economy.

[Kip Humphrey]

19. We're not saving the economy. We're gambling to save the derivatives and hedge funds markets. /nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. This guy thinks AIG shouldn't get a dime, instead give their share to the people.

http://www.yelp.com/topic/san-francisco-pass-on-the-aig-bailout-and-give-the-money-to-the-people