U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailouts as Senate Votes

[ReverendHellh0und]

U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailouts as Senate Votes

Bloomberg.com: News


Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.

The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged to provide up to $5.7 trillion more if needed. The total already tapped has decreased about 1 percent since November, mostly because foreign central banks are using fewer dollars in currency-exchange agreements called swaps. The Senate is to vote early this week on a stimulus package totaling at least $780 billion that President Barack Obama says is needed to avert a deeper recession. That measure would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month.

Wow..... This is amazing.... Unfathomable.

 

[rhinefire]

Obammy has no idea what he is doing. Anyone recall he has no or little experience in governing? Now he is in the middle of the greatest financial nightmare in our history and you know we are all doomed. It cannot be avoided.

 

[Goobieman]

Astounding. Simply astounding.

 

[JMak]

Does this count the additional half trillion that Obama will request this week to shore up the banks?

Funny how the Democrats keep telling us they're addressing the root problems here while their passing funding for STD prevention, green buildings, etc., yet, ironically, we have the admin coming back this week for another $500 billion for the banks.

TARP, what?

 

[Goobieman]

All of these things need to fail.

Yes, it will be a disaster, but it will (hopefully) cure people of the notion that they can do whatever they want w/o consequence.

Meanwhile -- stock up.

 

[JMak]

I often wonder why more people haven't considered the perversity of what Obama and his pals are proposing here.

While the rest of us who actually paid their mortgages, paid off their cars, and saved are coping as best we can, Obama and his idiots pals are proposing rewarding mortgagers and lenders who entered into nearly fraudulent mortgage deals by bailing them out, offering ransoms to those willing to buy a house now, bailing out firms that were in control of their own ruin, and are doing so by arguing that the rest of us, you know, who paid their bills, will be saved.

This is perverse.

Who the hell do these people think they are.

Meanwhile, the Obama slappies here are ga-ga over this fool's proposals, drooling all over themselves to explain how the Messiah is going to save us.

I see, saving meaning using my money to reward the poor decisions of massive corporations and a class of Americans who deserve to go bankrupt.

 

[jujuman13]

Will Mods please remove this as thread is already posted.
No doubt I will receive yet another infraction, add it to the many I already have.

 

[jujuman13]

Except it is no longer the Stimulus Bill.
It is now the Reconstruction and Recovery Bill.
Go figure.

IMHO I think it should be called the US Bankruptcy Bill.

 

[American]

Our elected officials are a bunch of loons.

 

[Rodney]

Our elected officials are a bunch of loons.

LOONS ? You did mean MONEY WHORES didn`t you .

 

[American]

No, loons.

 

[Rodney]

Wow..... This is amazing.... Unfathomable.

REV, I absolutely agree with you. I started useing a multiplier of x2 (while watching the news, on economic stim):roll: a few weeks back. I can see now that I`m going to have to get out some exponents and a calculator.

 

[Rodney]

No, loons.

OK... They are quite loony. BTW a money whore would be," one who is idolatrous of money". No offence intended, Just my effort at an accurate characterization of those who brought it on and continue to deepen it.

 

[rudedog]

I think that all offshore banking should be stopped.
All the accounts should be looked at and see if any of our politicians and their cronies or family members have accounts, and how much is in them.
I have a good feeling that a lot of money will be siphoned off.

 

[Rodney]

I think that all offshore banking should be stopped.
All the accounts should be looked at and see if any of our politicians and their cronies or family members have accounts, and how much is in them.
I have a good feeling that a lot of money will be siphoned off.

RUDEDOG for POTUS

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

REV, I absolutely agree with you. I started useing a multiplier of x2 (while watching the news, on economic stim):roll: a few weeks back. I can see now that I`m going to have to get out some exponents and a calculator.

"We're Gonna Need a Bigger Boat":roll:





You know it is funny how I get attacked in all my Obama threads as being petty, yet these same people are always missing in threads like this..... :lol:

 

[Kandahar]

"We're Gonna Need a Bigger Boat":roll:





You know it is funny how I get attacked in all my Obama threads as being petty, yet these same people are always missing in threads like this..... :lol:

Well, you can not be petty without being a hysteric. The bailout and stimulus are indeed a lot of money, but certainly nowhere close to $9.7 trillion. The way this thread is presented is apocalyptic and a half-truth at best. That figure would be if every single company defaulted (in which case our economy would have much bigger problems than an extra $9.7 trillion in debt). We're undoubtedly going to get most of that money back. In a best-case scenario, the government might even turn a profit from the bailouts as they did in the 80s (although that's probably unlikely).

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Really so we are not risking 9.7 trillion? that is a "half truth"?



Please, this porkzilla bill is going to hurt us worse than not doing anything. it's time to look at the costs.

 

[Kandahar]

Really so we are not risking 9.7 trillion? that is a "half truth"?

Only in the sense that any time we do anything with money (including store it in the bank or in a mattress), we're "risking" it. Most of that money will certainly be paid back with interest.

It's funny...you could've made your point using a PLAUSIBLE number and the dollar amount would still be large enough to impress most people. But no, you had to go the hysterical route instead.

Please, this porkzilla bill is going to hurt us worse than not doing anything.

Unlikely. Nothing is as bad as not doing anything. This bill could end up being either a slight loss or a huge gain, but doing nothing will undoubtedly be a huge loss.

The government needs to spend, spend, spend right now. Consumers and businesses have already stopped spending. If the government ALSO doesn't spend, then who exactly IS spending? That would prolong and deepen the recession because there would be no market for much of anything, and therefore massive layoffs.

it's time to look at the costs.

Sure. There are plenty of things in the stimulus package not to like, and I'm sure you have a laundry list. The bill isn't perfect and it never will be, but that's not a valid reason to oppose it. Overall the bill is a huge improvement over the status quo.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Only in the sense that any time we do anything with money (including store it in the bank or in a mattress), we're "risking" it. Most of that money will certainly be paid back with interest.

It's funny...you could've made your point using a PLAUSIBLE number and the dollar amount would still be large enough to impress most people. But no, you had to go the hysterical route instead.

yeah.... uhm... I didn't right the article. I simply posted it and followed the breaking news guidlines for posting.....


FAIL......

Unlikely. Nothing is as bad as not doing anything. This bill could end up being either a slight loss or a huge gain, but doing nothing will undoubtedly be a huge loss.

Really? you do know there is what already been a 700 billion bailout, now another what 895 billion porkzilla bill.....

What is our current national debt? what will it be after this?

How much has the Iraq war cost us thus far.


Gee I really wish that if i got behind on my mortgage, the bank would give me a huge additional loan for me to pay that loan with,. :roll:

The government needs to spend, spend, spend right now. Consumers and businesses have already stopped spending. If the government ALSO doesn't spend, then who exactly IS spending? That would prolong and deepen the recession because there would be no market for much of anything, and therefore massive layoffs.

Wrong, in order for capitalism to thrive, there needs to be some failure. the creme rises to the top.


throwing money at bankers, automotive, and pet projects will do little to stimulate anything. The market will correct itself.

Sure. There are plenty of things in the stimulus package not to like, and I'm sure you have a laundry list. The bill isn't perfect and it never will be, but that's not a valid reason to oppose it. Overall the bill is a huge improvement over the status quo.

it IS the reason to oppose it. it will deepen this recession, and it will force Obama to raise taxes.

 

[Kandahar]

yeah.... uhm... I didn't right the article. I simply posted it and followed the breaking news guidlines for posting.....

FAIL......

I assume you didn't just pick the article out of a hat? Perhaps you posted the article because you thought it made a point?

Really? you do know there is what already been a 700 billion bailout, now another what 895 billion porkzilla bill.....

What is our current national debt? what will it be after this?

If we take September 30, 2007 as a reference point, the national debt was $9.00 trillion. It will most likely be between $11 and $12 trillion at the end of this year, taking into account the bailout and stimulus.

How much has the Iraq war cost us thus far.

Why?

Gee I really wish that if i got behind on my mortgage, the bank would give me a huge additional loan for me to pay that loan with,. :roll:

I don't understand your analogy. Has the US government ever defaulted on its debts?

Wrong, in order for capitalism to thrive, there needs to be some failure. the creme rises to the top.

In an ordinary recession, sure. A severe recession that has the potential to turn into a depression is not the time to be testing that idea.

throwing money at bankers, automotive, and pet projects will do little to stimulate anything. The market will correct itself.

"Throwing money" at the financial sector is absolutely vital to stimulating the economy. If the credit markets grind to a halt, businesses no longer have any money to do anything. The market might correct itself but it would take years and years, and meanwhile we would have a fullblown depression on our hands. This is not a situation where a couple of banks made some stupid decisions and should suffer the consequences; this is much more systemic. When nearly every single financial institution is on the verge of collapse, the government must take action.

However, you are correct that bailouts of automotive companies or pork projects do little to stimulate the economy.

it IS the reason to oppose it. it will deepen this recession, and it will force Obama to raise taxes.

Uhh Obama is most likely going to raise taxes anyway as soon as the economy recovers, as he should.

 

[American]

All this money will be paid back with interest? By whom, may I ask? Will it be the taxpayers or those who borrow it? This attempt at New Deal II is not going to work, it failed the first time and will fail now. If it weren't for WWII FDR would have gone down in history as the biggest socialist and worst president. FDR is nothing but a myth anyway, time and history have turned failure into a legend. The entire liberal ideology rests in the legend of FDR, so they will deny the failure until their dying days.

 

[Kandahar]

All this money will be paid back with interest? By whom, may I ask? Will it be the taxpayers or those who borrow it?

The companies that survive will pay back their debt with interest. The taxpayers will absorb the rest. It certainly is not risking $9.7 trillion, because that figure assumes that there's a real possibility of every single company defaulting, which there isn't.

This attempt at New Deal II is not going to work, it failed the first time and will fail now. If it weren't for WWII FDR would have gone down in history as the biggest socialist and worst president. FDR is nothing but a myth anyway, time and history have turned failure into a legend. The entire liberal ideology rests in the legend of FDR, so they will deny the failure until their dying days.

This rant is just a series of baseless claims and is not even relevant to what is being discussed.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Why not Kanahar, he brings up a good point.


When was the last time we spent our way out of a recession? It failed with the New Deal, and it will fail again.


But this time there won't be any world war to bail us out.

 

[Kandahar]

When was the last time we spent our way out of a recession? It failed with the New Deal, and it will fail again.

How do you figure? The Great Depression was worst while Hoover was president. It bottomed out in July 1933, just a few months after FDR took office. After that, things began improving almost immediately. 1933-1936 saw steady economic growth as the government spent, spent, spent. Then in 1937, FDR turned conservative at the behest of his advisors and cut back on some of his New Deal programs. The result was another recession in 1937-1938.