When you really think about it, if the $700,000,000,000 would have prevented the worst case scenarios it would have been money well spent.
Except this would not have piled another $700B in debt. It might have piled up none depending on how the assets bought ultimately performed. If they don't work out a deal we get to see if the economic pundits are correct that we will experience a global financial meltdown. If things get as bad as some of the prediction we will end up piling a lot more than $700B on our grand kids shoulders.This is great news. I am so happy that we have not piled another 700 billion in debt on our grandchildren's shoulders.
If they don't work out a deal we get to see if the economic pundits are correct that we will experience a global financial meltdown. If things get as bad as some of the prediction we will end up piling a lot more than $700B on our grand kids shoulders.
That's the problem, though--no one really knows what's going to happen. I've heard intelligent people claim that if we don't pass the bailout, we'll go through a period of short-term pain, but everything will work itself out after that. I've also heard other intelligent people claim that we're facing economic catastrophe if we don't pass the bill. Tough to know who to believe.
To be quite honest, I haven't decided one way or the other, whether "I be fer it, er I be agin it". I can see the good and the bad of either decision.
So I think maybe I'll just go fishin' and see if I can find an absolutely 100% positive outcome in that.......well positive in everyone's eyes 'cept maybe the fish's.
Exactly right. Joe Mainstreet doesn't understand it, complains to congressman, congressman gets scared, votes no.
I'd like to think that. But right now it feels like the choices are to run through a wall of fire (do the bailout) or plunge into a vat of acid (do nothing).
I'd like to play the "good free market capitalist" card but when these Wall Street clowns have the potential to ruin millions of innocent people when they ruin themselves, I don't think "let 'em go under" is necessarily appropriate.
If anything else, it ought to give us cause to reconsider whether a business should be able to become "too big to fail" because of the hurt its failure would put on a lot of innocent parties.
WaMu went splat last week, Wachovia went splat today. I hate to think about what is next.
Tif we'd have passed the bailout bill our downside would have been $700,000,000,000.
But since we didn't pass it our downside could be potentially unlimited. WaMu went splat last week, Wachovia went splat today. I hate to think about what is next.
Now is not the time to roll the dice.
C'mon boys and girls, time to back up the truck. They're having a sale...
C'mon boys and girls, time to back up the truck. They're having a sale...
C'mon boys and girls, time to back up the truck. They're having a sale...
I could be oversimplifying here, but aren't bank failures a sign that capitalism is working? Don't we need failures for the system to work? Didn't we have hundreds more bank failures during the S&L scandal?
.
I guess I am the only one here who is happy about the outcome. It will hurt for the short term, but in the long term, it is best to let te market sort itself out. I still have faith in Capitalism.