USA Elections Whole New Ballgame

[koolking1]

I think I've made my self

clear on subsidized health care but I'll retiterate it with a solution.

If a person doesn't have health

care insurance they should not be denied care, after all, we are compassionate and caring in this country. I would

have them sign a contract before getting care that states something like "I hereby agree to take a 3 day course in

how to change bedpans, beds, bedding, and delivering food to patients". "I also agree to work weekends at $8.

hourly until my bill is paid off, or my kid's bill is paid off".

[belgareth]

What does the bill say about

ownership of all those houses and mortgages? Suspecting is one thing but facts are so much better to deal with. I

personally haven't got around to reading it yet.

[belgareth]

I think

I've made my self clear on subsidized health care but I'll retiterate it with a solution.

If a person doesn't

have health care insurance they should not be denied care, after all, we are compassionate and caring in this

country. I would have them sign a contract before getting care that states something like "I hereby agree to take a

3 day course in how to change bedpans, beds, bedding, and delivering food to patients". "I also agree to work

weekends at $8. hourly until my bill is paid off, or my kid's bill is paid off".

Sorry if I missed where

you said that in the past. I agree with you in principle but I would say the payback should be in any form of work

the client is capable of doing and at prevailing wages. It might even do some good by teaching some new skills.

[koolking1]

on the

meltdown:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qLefrvxbq8

Admittedly, I haven't read the bailout

proposal and have made my statements regarding it based upon what some financial and political pundits have made,

folks I tend to trust more than what the government puts out. It's just when something like this becomes "so

urgent" that I begin to suspect the motives. I also make my assumptions based upon past experiences and can't

really recall ever when the average US Taxpayer benefitted.

BTW, Lehman Brothers aren't being bailed out

but somehow they have a reserve large enough to give an average of 250K to each of their laid off employees.

[koolking1]

something from folks

smarter than myself:

Paulson's Plan
I listened to Treasury Secretary Paulson a lot this morning as he

explained the "plan." Under his concept, the federal government will buy a great deal of presently worthless

securitized mortgage debt, hold it for years and then sell it to someone who wants it, presumably because the value

of the underlying real estate has gone up. The institutions from which the federal government will buy the debt

will play a large, perhaps decisive, role in setting the price at which they "are willing" to sell the now worthless

debt to the federal government.

Paulson hopes that the institutions that will be unburdened of this

worthless paper will once again soar like eagles (wasn't there a song?). This would seem likely to lead to high

profitability for the unburdened institutions with lots of money for all.

Wait! Not so fast! Paulson is not

enthusiastic about requiring the "unburdened" to give the government warrants for future stock sales to the

government. Such warrants would enable the tax suckers (us little people) to buy the companies at distressed prices

(like, now prices) and sell the stock at later higher prices so that the Treasury of the United States (us tax

suckers) could make money out of this whole thing.

Paulson also does not think that in return for the US

government buying the nearly worthless mortgage securities, the "unburdened" should accept restrictions on executive

compensation. Why? He believes that such a restriction would cause the presently burdened institutions to refuse

to sell the government their "treasured" worthless paper. Hmmm.

When asked why he thought the presently

worthless mortgage "bundles" will become valuable some day "over the rainbow," he expressed faith in the future of

America. Bless him! pl

If I do not understand this, explain it. pl



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...X64&refer=home

21 September

2008 in The economy | Permalink

TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this

entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/462571/33687374

Listed below are links to weblogs

that reference Paulson's Plan:

Comments
Colonel,

It is a scam; the bailout gives dictatorial

powers to the Bush/McCain Secretary of Treasury. Wall Street gets 700 billion dollars for its worthless paper; free

and clear, with no strings attached.

The money would be much better spent on stabilizing the housing market

by refinancing family home mortgages at affordable monthly payments. Bush/McCain and the puppet Congress can’t do

that. That is socialism for American citizens just like VA Home Loans.

Posted by: VietnamVet | 21 September

2008 at 01:13 PM

One of the most interesting details of this Paulson scam is that the government is going to

buy back "mortgage related securities." This is really different than buying back the actual mortgage pools that

contain real mortgages. A good example of a "mortgage related security" is a forward contract where, say, last

september, a trader bought the right to receive delivery of a million dollar mortgage pool this month that, last

September, was worth $100,000,000 and now is trading at $50,000,000 or half its purchase price. This contrace IS NOT

a mortgage backed contract, but is a "mortgage related" contract. Essentially, it is a direct wager on the future

price of existing mortgage pools that has gone sour. Normally contracts such as this are settled, not with the

actual delivery of a pool of mortgages, but by a monetary transfer of the difference between the forward price at

the time the deal was made and the current market price of such securities. Thousands or millions of contracts such

as this must exist in the market place. Probably many more contracts exist than mortgage pools exist to complete

them. These wagers are the type of contract Paulson is suggesting that we, the taxpayers buy.

If the problem

is bad mortgage pools themselves, then a better approach for the taxpayers would be for the government to take on

the job of guaranteeing payment of the actual existing mortgage payments as they come due with a mechanism for

working out the defaulting homeowner's financial problems and reductions in mortgage interest rates so the

mortgages would not have to be foreclosed and the people lose their homes. Over time, such a program could

revitalize things.

Paulson's plan, making bad bet untied to real mortgages is just theft and has nothing for

the citizens.

Also, the banks such as BOA that are borrowing huge amounts of money from the government at

nominal interest rates should be forced to reduce their usureous credit card rates substantially. If a consumer has

a credit card with interest running at 30% had that rate reduced to five percent, the consumers could begin to catch

up even if their credit card accounst were frozen and they could no longer charge. It is unconsionable that credit

card companies can borrow at near zero cost and still charge the consumers such unreasonably high

rates.

Right now, the solutions presented simply are not a good deal for the consumer citizen taxpayer, they

are a massive theft by the pirates who run the place.

Posted by: WP | 21 September 2008 at 01:36 PM

I

say no deal unless the government ends up with equity interest. There is no free lunch. If the current shareholder

get diluted out, then that is good. It is a feature, not a bug. It mitigates the moral hazard.

Take this to

the bank: for all of their blathering about supporting personal responsibility, there is no group more allergic to

notion of accountability for their mistakes than the current GOP. On virtually every issue.

If Democrats end

up supporting this disaster, they need to go, too.

Posted by: Ronald | 21 September 2008 at 01:40 PM

[koolking1]

Justin Raimondo:

"In

reading about the federal bailout of all those financial wheeler-dealer outfits that are supposedly "too big to

fail," the layman may be forgiven for failing to comprehend the intricacies of the arcane financial instruments

currently backfiring on their whiz-kid inventors. Such exotic creatures as "credit default swaps" may elude the

understanding of the hoi polloi, but one thing the man in the street does know: he'll never be "too big to fail,"

of that he can be sure. "

[koolking1]

Christopher

Manion:

"Pay No Attention To That Man …

James, Paulson and Co. understand the nature of the

“emergency”: if too many Americans pry into the text of the "emergency" legislation, they will find this at Article

VIII:

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to

agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

It reminds me

very much of Article VI of the Constitution of the The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics"

[koolking1]

"Writes Felix Moreno: "

I'm amazed that absolutely no-one in the media points out how much Goldman Sachs is going to get from the taxpayers

via their old CEO, Henry Paulson."

[koolking1]

James

Ostrowski:

"The power elite is in a big hurry. They want this bailout of the super rich to be enacted quickly

before the champions of the taxpayers and the working class have time to read the bills and expose the Fed's coup

d'etat.

Can anyone name a major piece of legislation enacted in a panic that turned out good?

I say

slow down and let Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and company get the truth out there.

Maybe we can still stop the

greatest heist in history."

[belgareth]

Generally speaking, I've found

it best to ignore the pundits' opinions and develop my own. At least then when I screw up I know it was from my own

doing.

Nice posts though

[koolking1]

literally thousands of people are calling their CongressPersons today demanding a hold on this legislation and it

is having some effect.

[koolking1]

is that the

major actors in this legislation are trying their best to get this done by Thurs/Fri.

[belgareth]

Yes, I know that but I do not

think it is going to happen that way. I believe it is going to recieve a pretty heavy review before it is enacted.

[idesign]

I think the urgency is a result

of the uncertainty in the equities market. Stocks are falling and money is moving to commodities (see today's oil

spike). Everyone just wants stability, at whatever cost. Any kind of panic would be disastrous.

Another problem

is inflation worries, which is pretty much going to happen if the Feds print a Trillion dollars to bailout these bad

mortgages. Its a mess.

As an aside, a bill was before Congress in 2005 to bailout Freddie and Fannie and create

some sort of Super Regulator. Freddie in particular was being horribly mismanaged. Well, the Dems blocked the

bill, led by Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama. McCain supported the bill.

Another aside, Freddie and Fanny are

huge conduits for money flowing to the Dem party. Among the top 3 PAC donees are Chris Dodd (Dem, Banking Comm

Chair), Obama, and Kerry. Harry Reid and H.Clinton round out the top

12.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008...d-freddie.html

http://blog.her<br /> <br /> itage...ilism-exposed/

[idesign]

Food for thought, and excellent

commentary. The whole article is worth

reading.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2070.cfm

"As a general principle, the federal

government should not intervene to stave off the consequences of unwise business decisions—even when those

decisions are influenced by bad incentives or regulations emanating from the government. Bailing out firms that have

miscalculated in the market shoulders taxpayers with costs that should be borne instead by those who made the

mistakes. And any indication from government that it will save one group of investors encourages others to line up

for help, and the prospect of ultimate protection induces many more to make riskier business decisions—a

phenomenon that economists refer to as “moral hazard.”

But there can be rare situations in which a

wave of bad decisions in one sector has such dire consequences for the most basic operations of the economy that

other sectors are threatened, jeopardizing the functioning of the entire economy. We are in such a situation. And in

these rare cases another principle comes into play: Government institutions have a critical role in helping to

assure the integrity of the market’s infrastructure, from the sanctity of contracts to the liquidity of the

financial markets. When government fails to carry out this role in critical times, such as its failure to maintain

liquidity after the stock market crash of 1929, the results can be catastrophic."

The authors go on to make

recommendations. Here are the highlights:

"Do not prop up failed or failing institutions.

Do not try to

support prices.

Do not allow the government to become the permanent “owner of last

resort.”

Strictly limit legislation to the immediate need to stabilize the financial situation.

Limit

taxpayer exposure and keep actions temporary"

[belgareth]

"Do not

prop up failed or failing institutions.

Do not try to support prices.

Do not allow the government to become

the permanent “owner of last resort.”

Strictly limit legislation to the immediate need to stabilize the

financial situation.

Limit taxpayer exposure and keep actions temporary"

Those are a good set of

basic rules

[belgareth]

In view of our recent

discussions, this was irresistible. It might actually be a pretty good idea too.

Bel



This idea sounds

just crazy enough to possibly work, so naturally it
won't be given serious consideration. How great is our

bureaucracy!!
>
>
>
> Hi Pals,
>
> I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.
>
> Instead,

I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We
Deserve It Dividend.
>
> To make the math simple,

let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide
U.S. Citizens 18+.
>
> Our population is about 301,000,000 +/-

counting every man, woman and
child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..
>
> So divide 200

million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals
$425,000.00.
>
> My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+

as a We Deserve It
Dividend.
>
> Of course, it would NOT be tax free.
>
> So let's assume a tax rate of

30&#37;.
>
> Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.
>
> That sends $25,500,000,000 right back

to Uncle Sam.
>
> But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.
>
> A husband and wife

has $595,000.00.
>
> What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
>
> Pay off your

mortgage - housing crisis solved.
>
> Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
>
> Put away money

for college - it'll be there
>
> Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
>
> Buy a new car -

create jobs
>
> Invest in the market - capital drives growth
>
> Pay for your parent's medical insurance -

health care improves
>
> Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else
>
>
> Remember this is for every adult

U S Citizen 18+ including the folks
who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is
cutting

back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.
>
> If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's

really do it...instead of
trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( 'vote buy' ) economic incentive that is
being

proposed
> by one of our candidates for President.
>
>
> If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's

bail out every
adult U S Citizen 18+!
>
> As for AIG - liquidate it.
>
> Sell off its parts.
>
> Let

American General go back to being American General.
>
> Sell off the real estate.
>
> Let the private sector

bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
>
> Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.
>
> Sure

it's a crazy idea that can 'never work.'
>
> But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!
>
> How do

you spell Economic Boom?
>
> I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
>
> We

Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in
Washington DC
>
> And remember, The Birk plan only

really costs $59.5 Billion because
$25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
>
> Ahhh...I feel

so much better getting that off my chest.
>
> Kindest personal regards,
>
> Birk
>
> T. J. Birkenmeier, A

Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic
>
> PS: Feel free to pass this along to your pals as it's either good

for
a laugh or a tear or a very sobering thought on how to best use $85
Billion!!

[koolking1]

I just got off the phone

with my Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter's DC office. They are going to vote on this tomorrow. They told me she

made a statement on it today, not yet releasable, and they wouldn't say how she will vote. I said, the elections

are coming up, my vote depends on her vote.

Please call you CongressPerson today, tomorrow will be too

late.

[belgareth]

Already done, faxed them

actually. I do better with the written than the verbal.

[koolking1]

also try to get your

friends/relatives to do same, the more the better of course.

[belgareth]

Sorry, can't do that. What

others do is there concern. I have voiced my opinion. Now they need to make their own decisions about what to do.

Hopefully, after careful thought and a little research.

[koolking1]

the math in the email

message is a bit off, actually it would amount to about $425.00 per person,

but, I'd rather each of us had

the $425.00 than AIG.

[belgareth]

Obama's

Not Exactly's:


1.) Selma March Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents

felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google' Obama

Selma ' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)

2.) Father Was A Goat

Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.




3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent

governments Kenya has ever had.


4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin

Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya . It is the

first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and

establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Oba ma, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New

Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that....and

for more.



Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia Muslim law in place

there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and

children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election

process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.

5.) My

Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own

interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name

is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in

that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.


Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he

would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50&#37; Caucasian

from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein

Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs... Barack Hussein Obama's father was only

12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).

From....and for more....go to.....



http://www.arcadeathome. com/newsboy.

phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-American,_only_6.25%25 African

7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you

practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your

wife made you change, so you could run for office.

4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in islam''

http://www.wnd.com/index. php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559



8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble

in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).

February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a

year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent.

In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described

the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.' This is just one example of what Pamela is

talking about when she says 'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling

facts.


9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.




10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages

of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn except how to study the Koran and watch

cartoons.

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East

(bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest

allies.


12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high

school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were

just fine

13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you

mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.

14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life

- NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.



15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you

would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.

16.) Voting 'Present'

is Common In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.

17.) Oops,

I Misvoted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.



18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

19.) I Was A Constitutional

Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT

EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it or create it.

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT

EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill

was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor,

Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008,

state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden

within.

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people

who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

25.) My Economics

Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0,

and even YOU voted against your own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your

own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year -

NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist

you in a future bid for higher office.

28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY,

the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

29.) I Am

Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah

supports the destruction off Israel .

30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates

decide.

31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the

voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State

Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.

33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not

Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

34.) I Don't Take

PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.

35.) I don't Have Lobbysists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47

lobbyists, and counting.


36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign

worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you

weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.

38.) I Have Always

Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to

buy it.

39.) My uncle liberated Auschwitz concentration camp - NOT EXACTLY, your mother had no brothers and the

Russan army did the liberating.

[koolking1]

and send a strong

message to DC. Republicans, Democrats - all the same.

[belgareth]

and

send a strong message to DC. Republicans, Democrats - all the same.

Absolutely!




People tell me that my refusal to vote for unwanted major party candidates is giving a vote

to the other side. I personaly think that is dodging the real issue which is the failure of so called major party

candidates to offer real change. Were everybody who dislikes both candidates in the major parties to vote for a

better choice from the third parties or refuse to select any candidate while still voting on other issues the

message would be sent and recieved. So long as people take the approach of voting for the lesser of evils from the

major parties things are going to continue to deteriorate.

[Bruce]

I got very excited about this when I

first read it, but um, isn't the "simple" math going to give us $425. each rather than the big wad mentioned

here?

On a more negative mathematics involving division of $ by citizenry, check

out
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock
Their figure uses all citizens, including babies and seniors. If

we use the 200 million 18 +, we get $50K debt per person
Now if we only use taxpayers.... The Wiki says there are

138 million in the US. That gives each one a whopping $71,000. share in the national debt. Ouch!
OR... if we use

the number of *households* (116 million), we get nearly a $95,000. portion each.

BUT (hold on to your hats) while

Googling around about households and taxes, I found that OVER HALF (57&#37 of households in the US no longer make

enough money to PAY ANY INCOME TAX AT ALL!!!! (as compared to 15% in 1970). So that means, as a group, US

households even remotely in a position to take responsibility for the national debt, would have to cough up over

$200,000. each to pay it off!

Got $200K hanging around that you'd like to use to bail out your

country?

---------
This idea sounds just crazy enough to possibly work, so naturally it
won't be given serious

consideration. How great is our bureaucracy!!
>
>
>
> Hi Pals,
>
> I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00

bailout of AIG.
>
> Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We
Deserve It Dividend.
>


> To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide
U.S. Citizens 18+.
>
> Our population

is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and
child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and

up..
>
> So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals
$425,000.00.
>
> My plan is to give

$425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It
Dividend.
>
> Of course, it would NOT be tax free.
>

etc

etc etc

[Bruce]

In this article, they figure the

debt from the bailout on a per household basis and come up with $6000.

each:

http://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/f...269100546.html

They also mention that

it will be paid for by ratcheting up the national debt to over 11 trillion!

[belgareth]

It's become a choice between

bad and worse. I think that the overall bailout is a bad idea despite the fact thatit is going to hurt badly if the

bailout doesn't happen. Instead, the country is going deeper into debt and we will continue to do so. Every person

is suffering due to our debt annd life gets harder daily, especially for low income families as the debt grows.

Perhaps the short term pain of allowing them to fail is better than the longer term pain of ever increasing debt and

poverty in one of the richest countries in the world.

[idesign]

The economy of scale with these

kind of numbers is really hard to get your mind around. All of the examples above ($200K per taxpaying household!)

illustrate the problem in real terms, and I think a LOT of people are seeing this in their daily email rounds.

I

heard yesterday that congressional offices are receiving from 200:1 to 300:1 negative responses about the current

bailout proposal. Thinking citizens are justifiably outraged at the prospect of what amounts to a socialist buyout

of personal property. But I think the average American is more economically motivated.

Bush has been

seriously compromised by Paulsen, and McCain/Obama have proved themselves to be real lightweights during last

night's debate. Where's the insight and leadership? Its no great feat for a politician to throw more national

debt at bad private debt. But they'll pat themselves collectively on their "bi-partisan" backs and expect your

votes... and more of your money.

Bel's idea of "let them fail" is intriguing. Who's to say that it wouldn't

be the best thing to do? Pundits and politicians, that's who.

The underlying problem behind this crisis is

liquidity. Cash. There's enough specific wealth in this country that there's a half-dozen or more individuals

who could do what the gov't is proposing - out of pocket - on an incremental basis, which is what's being proposed

anyway. Let them put their cash where their interest is, buy the paper where the current market stands, stabilize

the markets, and make a killing when the market turns, which of course it will. The gov't is not the only source

of patient investment.

I tend to agree with McCain, our economy is fundamentally sound. Hang on before you

scream. We are still not in a recession, as properly defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The

mortgage crisis is 2 years old, oil prices have tripled in that time (though gas prices have not) and the stock

market is only seeing 5&#37; swings. The $700Billion is is only 5% of the $14Trillion in outstanding mortgage debt,

and the cash needed to save Lehman is much much less than 700B. There's not an economy on earth which can take

this beating and still produce. Though I will admit that there's a large and growing part of our population who

wouldn't mind a small coup, with just a splash of water, but plenty of ice.

Sure, times are tough and getting

tougher for many of us. The fact that a capitalist economy has swings is a fact of life, and no society likes it

when they have to do with less than their expectation of prosperity. We have to acknowledge, though, that we've

been on a freewheeling spend-on-credit binge in this country for well over a decade. What were we thinking? We max

out our credit cards on big-screens, and drive cars and qualify for mortgages we can't afford. Who's fault is

that? In this case, we could easily quote any favorite Marxist and say that "the collective is greater than the

individual", and watch as our accumulated bags of worthless paper are re-distributed back to our doorsteps. Our

mistake has been building a "Workers' Paradise" on debt.

I'm not sure if I have a point to make here, other

than that to the extent that the gov't gets involved, we lose. When the Feds come, we pay twice.

I liken this

whole situation to welfare reform. Incentivise bad behavior, and you'll pay for the rest of their lives. Make

them take responsibility, and everybody wins. Its fundamental; for individuals, businesses, investors and

GOVERNMENTS.

[belgareth]

Bel's idea of "let

them fail" is intriguing. Who's to say that it wouldn't be the best thing to do? Pundits and politicians, that's

who.

I believe that in the long run it would inspire businesses to be more careful about their actions.

They should have seen this situation coming a long time ago and not placed so much into the wild rush towards

instant massive profits. They were killed by greed and there are some lessons to be learned here. The biggest

lesson, which will strengthen the economy over time, is that you have to pay attention because there is no safety

net for careless businesses. It sounds cold hearted and it is but in the long term people will be forced to pay

better attention to where they are taking their investments.

Even if we are pushed into a recession the long

term gains of filtering out the careless will be a benefit to the long term growth of the country while helping to

normalize prices for a while. Even the oil companies will be forced to reduce pump and barrel prices if fewer people

are able to buy. Perhaps take that $700,000,000,000 and create some job programs for needy and displaced workers

instead of dumping it into a failed institution?