23 trillion...yes 23 trillion is the new estimate of what the total cost of the bailout will be to the USA.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html
so when is enough enough?
- Thread starter MUSKYMAN
- Start date
ACTUALLY... I hate to spoil the hatefest here, but that's a worst-case scenario estimate. Seeing as some of the companies we loaned money to are already turning a profit now, I seriously doubt we'll be looking at a worst-case scenario, IE, it'll be less than 23 tril.
And yeah, it's a lot. A HELL of a lot. ...but our chickens will come home to roost - I bet in the end this will prove a profitable choice. Remember that the bailouts weren't handouts. They were investments/loans.
And yeah, it's a lot. A HELL of a lot. ...but our chickens will come home to roost - I bet in the end this will prove a profitable choice. Remember that the bailouts weren't handouts. They were investments/loans.
knewsom said:
first it was 3 trillion
then 7.3 trillion
then 11.5 trillion
now 23 trillion
are you just fucking blind or what?
this is going in the wrong direction
Hmm at what point do you stop investing in the product/system and reevaluate that product/system itself? Its like pumping money into a new invention that does not work and will not sell.
knewsom said:
The chickens are fucking dead man. The sad part is that they were not even eaten. They were waisted and now we have no chickens.
I guess the new question will be "which did we lose first the chicken or the egg" In these times I will say the chicken. Only because all the eggs are gone.
DiscoJen said:
lol, yeah, it's really cool when you can spend somebody else's money and you have no downside risk. Geithner's PPIP is a model to be admired in this regard -- right out of Wharton, meh.
Please Mr. Obama, hear my plea. Please put pressure on the Fed and get rid of Bernake in Jan. Please get rid of Geithner ASAP. We simply cannot afford to keep these crooks around any longer.
DiscoJen said:
yup thats how the quote goes, the unwritten context here is "your own" money
NOT "you gotta GET money to spend the money to make money"
SERIOUSLY..................
Blue said:
In Dollar value? Well when you consider our GDP, ~13.84 trillion dollars, that doesn't account for equity, the net value of the USA must be CONSIDERABLY higher.
Remember that money is essentially made-up, and this 23 trillion is basically just "new money". Yes, this is going to cause inflation. Remember that Bush ordered that the M3 report no longer be published by the fed - we NO LONGER KNOW HOW MUCH ELECTRONIC US CURRENCY THERE IS IN CIRCULATION.
The idea here is to eventually remove an appropriate amount to fight the inflationary effects of this, the impact of which will grow over time - inflation doesn't usually happen overnight. Hyperinflation however, does. Let's hope that doesn't happen - I don't think we're quite to that point yet.
Also remember that the loans/investments were not to one company, they were to MANY. I wouldn't count all that money as just "gone". We WILL see some returns from it - whether or not there's PROFIT? I dunno. But we'll be getting something back. ...and the increased revenues from building our economy back up, and doing so in a more intelligent fashion, that will make it worthwhile.
As for knowing the causes, remember that a congressional commission is now underway.
I'm sure we'll learn SOMETHING from it, perhaps not everything, and maybe it won't change everything, but at least we'll learn something.
DiscoJen said:
No, no, that wasn't it... the actual quote was, "We've got to spend money to get out of debt."
It's only 3 trillion in the last six months, here's an example:
http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
Congress knows how bad the deficit really is and has decided not to tell us -- we little people. The report is ready to be published, but they are not going to publish it until they go on recess, then we can't complain.
If you think about it, it's a very open and honest way of doing things... compared to the Soviet Union.
Last edited:
Agreed. But if shortbus does get ousted in '10, the next guy is screwed anyway. We are almost past the point of " fixing". I just " hope" all of the kool-aid consumers are still as "giddy" about their "boy" now as when he sweet talked them during the primary.d2dave said:
I do agree with him on one thing. We can only "HOPE" for "CHANGE" in 2010.
2010? *hand to forehead*
man, you guys really ARE idiots. Good thing the rest of the country is smarter than you, and will re-elect the best president we've had in what feels like forever.
man, you guys really ARE idiots. Good thing the rest of the country is smarter than you, and will re-elect the best president we've had in what feels like forever.
knewsom said:2010? *hand to forehead*
man, you guys really ARE idiots. Good thing the rest of the country is smarter than you, and will re-elect the best president we've had in what feels like forever.
W#ow, you may wish you hadn't , I wonder who the idiot really is. I hope your kidding.
United States Presidents serve a four year term. It's in the Constitution. Look it up. BHO was elected in 2008. 8+4=12.
unless they were talking about midterm elections, but nothing in their posts suggest that.
unless they were talking about midterm elections, but nothing in their posts suggest that.