Write Your Senator!!!

[CA renter]

Let me add #4, which is really the most important one:

4. Because $700 billion is not large enough to make a difference. It will vaporize within weeks, if not days, and they will be back for more, but the next demand (and the one after that) will be even more urgent:

“Look how bad the markets are, they’re FROZEN!!!!! Hurry and give us another $3 trillion so we can stop the bleeding NOW. Clearly it’s worse than anyone could have expected as the disappearance of $700 billion shows us that the problem is HUGE and URGENT and it’s THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!!!!”

Best to let the crack heads experience the withdrawl which will either kill them or make them healthier. No matter what, it needs to happen. The sooner we get this over with, the sooner we can create REAL jobs and get back to business. Until we reach bottom (either quickly via no bailout, or slowly via failed bailout after failed bailout — with longer periods of unemployment and declining wages/growth), we will not be able to turn the economy around.

[Arraya]

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“The [privately-owned] Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly
hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution…
if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their
currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations
that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property
until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered.”

[Arraya]

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“The [privately-owned] Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly
hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution…
if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their
currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations
that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property
until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered.”

[Arraya]

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“The [privately-owned] Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly
hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution…
if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their
currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations
that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property
until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered.”

[Arraya]

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“The [privately-owned] Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly
hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution…
if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their
currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations
that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property
until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered.”

[Arraya]

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“The [privately-owned] Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly
hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution…
if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their
currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations
that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property
until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered.”

[mike92104]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Please don’t flame me but actually answer this question. I am asking it genuinely.

Would it be better for you as an individual to not have an economic bailout/rescue/stimulus/bucket-of-money-for-bank?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Again, not looking to fight, I am curious what people think of this. I know everybody is pissed off but I am curious what else is in the thought process.

–Dan[/quote]

I think in the short term, it may keep things from correcting for a few more weeks. It may in fact work somewhat by allowing the banks to dump all of their toxic securities.

However, I have lost all trust in the government and the banking system to not abuse the hell out of this and just make things worse in order to pocket more money. If I am going to have to spend money (1 trillion/US population = about $3200 for every man woman and child) I would rather do it in saving the lower and middle classes after a correction has occurred. Let the scoundrels who made billions on schemes which have failed six different times in our history lose their shirts. I understand the argument over the lending freeze, but I don’t think this will help at all. Don’t banks make money by lending it? If they want to stop trying to make a profit, let them. Ultimately it is in their interest just as much as ours to continue lending. Looking at the government, the ratio of senators/reps that voted for the bill who had received significant contributions from the benefactors of the bill and those that voted against who did not receive contributions tells a pretty bleak story.

[mike92104]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Please don’t flame me but actually answer this question. I am asking it genuinely.

Would it be better for you as an individual to not have an economic bailout/rescue/stimulus/bucket-of-money-for-bank?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Again, not looking to fight, I am curious what people think of this. I know everybody is pissed off but I am curious what else is in the thought process.

–Dan[/quote]

I think in the short term, it may keep things from correcting for a few more weeks. It may in fact work somewhat by allowing the banks to dump all of their toxic securities.

However, I have lost all trust in the government and the banking system to not abuse the hell out of this and just make things worse in order to pocket more money. If I am going to have to spend money (1 trillion/US population = about $3200 for every man woman and child) I would rather do it in saving the lower and middle classes after a correction has occurred. Let the scoundrels who made billions on schemes which have failed six different times in our history lose their shirts. I understand the argument over the lending freeze, but I don’t think this will help at all. Don’t banks make money by lending it? If they want to stop trying to make a profit, let them. Ultimately it is in their interest just as much as ours to continue lending. Looking at the government, the ratio of senators/reps that voted for the bill who had received significant contributions from the benefactors of the bill and those that voted against who did not receive contributions tells a pretty bleak story.

[mike92104]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Please don’t flame me but actually answer this question. I am asking it genuinely.

Would it be better for you as an individual to not have an economic bailout/rescue/stimulus/bucket-of-money-for-bank?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Again, not looking to fight, I am curious what people think of this. I know everybody is pissed off but I am curious what else is in the thought process.

–Dan[/quote]

I think in the short term, it may keep things from correcting for a few more weeks. It may in fact work somewhat by allowing the banks to dump all of their toxic securities.

However, I have lost all trust in the government and the banking system to not abuse the hell out of this and just make things worse in order to pocket more money. If I am going to have to spend money (1 trillion/US population = about $3200 for every man woman and child) I would rather do it in saving the lower and middle classes after a correction has occurred. Let the scoundrels who made billions on schemes which have failed six different times in our history lose their shirts. I understand the argument over the lending freeze, but I don’t think this will help at all. Don’t banks make money by lending it? If they want to stop trying to make a profit, let them. Ultimately it is in their interest just as much as ours to continue lending. Looking at the government, the ratio of senators/reps that voted for the bill who had received significant contributions from the benefactors of the bill and those that voted against who did not receive contributions tells a pretty bleak story.

[mike92104]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Please don’t flame me but actually answer this question. I am asking it genuinely.

Would it be better for you as an individual to not have an economic bailout/rescue/stimulus/bucket-of-money-for-bank?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Again, not looking to fight, I am curious what people think of this. I know everybody is pissed off but I am curious what else is in the thought process.

–Dan[/quote]

I think in the short term, it may keep things from correcting for a few more weeks. It may in fact work somewhat by allowing the banks to dump all of their toxic securities.

However, I have lost all trust in the government and the banking system to not abuse the hell out of this and just make things worse in order to pocket more money. If I am going to have to spend money (1 trillion/US population = about $3200 for every man woman and child) I would rather do it in saving the lower and middle classes after a correction has occurred. Let the scoundrels who made billions on schemes which have failed six different times in our history lose their shirts. I understand the argument over the lending freeze, but I don’t think this will help at all. Don’t banks make money by lending it? If they want to stop trying to make a profit, let them. Ultimately it is in their interest just as much as ours to continue lending. Looking at the government, the ratio of senators/reps that voted for the bill who had received significant contributions from the benefactors of the bill and those that voted against who did not receive contributions tells a pretty bleak story.

[mike92104]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Please don’t flame me but actually answer this question. I am asking it genuinely.

Would it be better for you as an individual to not have an economic bailout/rescue/stimulus/bucket-of-money-for-bank?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Again, not looking to fight, I am curious what people think of this. I know everybody is pissed off but I am curious what else is in the thought process.

–Dan[/quote]

I think in the short term, it may keep things from correcting for a few more weeks. It may in fact work somewhat by allowing the banks to dump all of their toxic securities.

However, I have lost all trust in the government and the banking system to not abuse the hell out of this and just make things worse in order to pocket more money. If I am going to have to spend money (1 trillion/US population = about $3200 for every man woman and child) I would rather do it in saving the lower and middle classes after a correction has occurred. Let the scoundrels who made billions on schemes which have failed six different times in our history lose their shirts. I understand the argument over the lending freeze, but I don’t think this will help at all. Don’t banks make money by lending it? If they want to stop trying to make a profit, let them. Ultimately it is in their interest just as much as ours to continue lending. Looking at the government, the ratio of senators/reps that voted for the bill who had received significant contributions from the benefactors of the bill and those that voted against who did not receive contributions tells a pretty bleak story.

[Author]

Posts