A Question of Outrage

I agree with most of the posts, but particularly the one that said some kind of bailout is probably needed. This is irresponsible bonus chasing gone made - and abject failure at all levels of the chain to cry bullsh*t. Individuals loans were made that never should have been made, but agents were allowed to and get a volume bonus. The securitizations and insuring of these things never should have happened - they should have failed in due diligence. But the bankers get bonuses on volume.

Unfortunately, when the private market fails to regulate itself responsibly we all get sidled with an over reactive set of regulations. So now having been crashed by irresponsible behavior, we will be sidled with over regualation.

Nice one wall street.

Isn't it great how the debt is nationalized but the profit stays private? Why is it that I'm always on the wrong side of that stick? The new American Way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maplemaker

Done and done, of course.

One thing that they're really being sneaky about is, if you notice the language and fine print, this is an open account on revolving credit. The wording is that they will use UP TO 4 billion at any given time, not that the total amount will equal 700 billion. Slight, but telling, difference there. Right now I'm too mad to think clearly. I never, ever, ever, ever thought I'd see the day...

I might also ad: Those who fail to learn history probably aren't doing too well in science and math, either.

---

I got the numbers wrong. It's up to 700 billion revolving credit. I don't know how I came up with 4.

I think it is going to get really interesting from a regulation stand point for the next 10 years. After the GOP worked pretty hard at getting a bunch of the regulating dropped too. The finger pointing is going to go on and on and in the end, the result looks like a higher tax burden for me no matter who we elect. :rant:

It totally stands to reason that if you leave the kid (wallstreet) in the same room with the cookie jar, alone, the kid is going to stuff himself. I am not for regulating everything, but our country needs to figure out the fine line between unregulated and regulated with respect to our financial system. Either that or they need to erect a gallows on the exchange floor and hang guys who are caught padding bonds and scamming loans.

-Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

...I can hear it now. "My fellow Americans, as you all know it will cost around 500 billion dollars or more to resolve this situation so you know that $2500 tax return you got last year? This year you ain't going to get it. As a matter of fact every taxpayer no matter your income level or tax bracket will remit a check for $4,000 to the IRS."...

---

I still don't understand though. You do know that the US budget deficit gets higher every year, right? We don't even pay for what we spend as it is, so what difference does it make? We're so far behind and insolvency is banging on the door. If the taxpayers were going to be expected to pay for everything the government spends money on, they would have been asked to pay for those things by now. If taxes were high enough today just to cover the current budget, that $4,000 check per taxpayer in addition to current taxes would hardly be enough even for half of what's being spent now.

Maybe $6,000 per person, or $20,000 per filer per year on top of current taxes might be enough to pay for the US federal yearly expenditure. Imagine how that would affect the economy. Or even better, we could place more tax burden on corporations. The US corporate federal tax rate as a percentage of income is already the highest in the world. Current income tax revenues are what, 800 billion a year, the budget is nearly 4 times that much, and the interest on the national debt alone is 400 billion. The only reason I work on Saturdays is so I can afford to pay down the ever-rising interest on our national debt that the idiot don't-fire-us-we-want-to-spend-your-money-better group in Congress keeps stacking up

My point? We have to cut spending. As it is, the federal income tax is an unnecessary burden as it doesn't really provide anything compared to what is spent.

If my personal finances were in this sort of state, what would my first reaction be - to find more money to pay for my reckless spending? No, stop the bleeding first. Meet current obligations. The government "bailout" proposal is like trying to save a sinking ship. Except instead of "let's plug the hole and then start bailing the water we've taken on", it's "I know, let's drain the water out by drilling a hole in the hull! In fact, let's drill the hole so big that we can promise the crew that they can continue to sit around and watch that way they won't fire us"

Didn't that nut Ron Paul say it over and over during the primaries? "We have to cut spending"

I don't believe in regulations just to give more civil servs. jobs and slog down business that actually provide good or servises.
I'm talking about the casino like investment houses that no longer lend for a return on a loan or stock share, instead they are short term gimicks that are computer generated, to get a retun on a NON investment such as short sales or derivitives . These are based on math models much like bookies in vegas use for sports betting on teams.
These should be regulated so as to slow down the quick turn around, non investment or taxed at a higher rate.
Al

I still don't understand how a company (because in basics that's what any government is) can say "we're massivly in debt, soo much in fact that we don't expect to be ablt to pay back the money for another 50 years or so. We need money to spend to solve something, I know!! Let's borrow EVEN MORE!!"

To solve budgetary problems loaning even more is NEVER a solution (and don't worry..the idiots in parliament over here do the exact same thing). My momma taught me not to spend more money than I have....

Doesn't everyone's momma teach that to their kids? (I know...grammar...it's horrible).

If you want to spend money on one thing...you're going to have to spend less on something else...unless more money is coming in.