[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=XBoxBoy]In California it really doesn’t matter who you vote for, all 54 electoral votes will go to the Democratic candidate. That’s pretty much a given. (Intrade.com is currently giving odds of 94% chance of Obama carrying Cali. 7% for McCain) If you lived in a swing state, your vote might count for something, but with the electoral college system and living in California, it doesn’t.

XBoxBoy

[/quote]

This is something we should change also. We should demand that our electoral college be divided proportionately. I wish every state would do it. It would definitely change the game. Remember that Kerry only got 54% or so of Cali (if I remember right).

[mike92104]

[quote=XBoxBoy]In California it really doesn’t matter who you vote for, all 54 electoral votes will go to the Democratic candidate. That’s pretty much a given. (Intrade.com is currently giving odds of 94% chance of Obama carrying Cali. 7% for McCain) If you lived in a swing state, your vote might count for something, but with the electoral college system and living in California, it doesn’t.

XBoxBoy

[/quote]

This is something we should change also. We should demand that our electoral college be divided proportionately. I wish every state would do it. It would definitely change the game. Remember that Kerry only got 54% or so of Cali (if I remember right).

[mike92104]

[quote=XBoxBoy]In California it really doesn’t matter who you vote for, all 54 electoral votes will go to the Democratic candidate. That’s pretty much a given. (Intrade.com is currently giving odds of 94% chance of Obama carrying Cali. 7% for McCain) If you lived in a swing state, your vote might count for something, but with the electoral college system and living in California, it doesn’t.

XBoxBoy

[/quote]

This is something we should change also. We should demand that our electoral college be divided proportionately. I wish every state would do it. It would definitely change the game. Remember that Kerry only got 54% or so of Cali (if I remember right).

[mike92104]

[quote=XBoxBoy]In California it really doesn’t matter who you vote for, all 54 electoral votes will go to the Democratic candidate. That’s pretty much a given. (Intrade.com is currently giving odds of 94% chance of Obama carrying Cali. 7% for McCain) If you lived in a swing state, your vote might count for something, but with the electoral college system and living in California, it doesn’t.

XBoxBoy

[/quote]

This is something we should change also. We should demand that our electoral college be divided proportionately. I wish every state would do it. It would definitely change the game. Remember that Kerry only got 54% or so of Cali (if I remember right).

[mike92104]

[quote=XBoxBoy]In California it really doesn’t matter who you vote for, all 54 electoral votes will go to the Democratic candidate. That’s pretty much a given. (Intrade.com is currently giving odds of 94% chance of Obama carrying Cali. 7% for McCain) If you lived in a swing state, your vote might count for something, but with the electoral college system and living in California, it doesn’t.

XBoxBoy

[/quote]

This is something we should change also. We should demand that our electoral college be divided proportionately. I wish every state would do it. It would definitely change the game. Remember that Kerry only got 54% or so of Cali (if I remember right).

[mike92104]

We might be able to if we start to systematically vote just about all the incumbents out of office.

[mike92104]

We might be able to if we start to systematically vote just about all the incumbents out of office.

[mike92104]

We might be able to if we start to systematically vote just about all the incumbents out of office.

[mike92104]

We might be able to if we start to systematically vote just about all the incumbents out of office.

[mike92104]

We might be able to if we start to systematically vote just about all the incumbents out of office.

[mike92104]

I was disgusted when I heard the people calling their reps were being labeled as the “vocal minority” by the media. It dawned on me that the financial hacks all over the airwaves were up to the eyeballs in the stock market and NEEDED to get this passed. They were willing to say whatever they needed to.

[Author]

Posts