Bailout

December 26th, 2008 | Posted by Smithers at 9:50 am in Politics |

If the bailout had gone to the American public instead of “whatever” each citizen of the USA would have received about $2500.

What that have been better for the economy?

  1. 8 Responses to “Bailout”

  2. By checkbook at 10:16 am on Dec 26, 2008 | Comment | ReplyReply directly to this specific comment

    I don’t know about the economy, but I’d be better off with an extra 25k. Sheeeit.

  3. By checkbook at 10:17 am on Dec 26, 2008 | Comment | ReplyReply directly to this specific comment

    woops. ready one too many zero’s there.
    maybe I need new glasses?

  4. By Bob Schwartz at 11:53 am on Dec 26, 2008 | Comment | ReplyReply directly to this specific comment

    Most Americans, if given that amount of money, would turn around and send it to China. Regardless of whether that was the best place for it or not.

    We took our stimulus checks and paid down debt. That’s how you know we hate America.

  5. By Champs at 12:36 pm on Dec 26, 2008 | Comment | ReplyReply directly to this specific comment

    From that perspective, the bailout is a really good deal.

    What does all of this cost the taxpayer? The $700B TARP is a fund for loans to banks. The bill that sent us $1200 stimulus checks cost $150B, so even with pessimistic figures like 0% interest and a nearly 20% default rate, their upfront cost is exactly the same. On the backend, more people keep their jobs and fewer accounts need insurance payouts.

    We can dislike the lack of transparency in the way this money is being doled out or used to pay big bonuses to asshat fatcats, but revealing the names of the banks in trouble will cause a run that leads an overleveraged bank to fail.

    As an individual, a $5000 check for my household sounds great, but I bet it’s be cold comfort to the teller at a bank that failed. As a taxpayer, I’m none too thrilled with all the new bank tellers suddenly on unemployment rolls, or with all the bank accounts that need insurance payouts, and unless we’re suddenly embracing the supply-siders, the government will never see anything close to $4k as a return investment.

  6. By meow at 1:58 pm on Dec 26, 2008 | Comment | ReplyReply directly to this specific comment

    I would have totally bought a new (track) bike!!

  7. By Tom Hagerty at 3:28 pm on Dec 26, 2008 | Comment | ReplyReply directly to this specific comment

    ‘Better for the Economy’ This phrase is the problem. One needs to define what it means, because for one guy it means ‘I can drive faster and farther in my SUV now.’ For another, it means their neighbor now has a job, and won’t be a nuisance to society. For yet others, it means they can have massages more often. What’s your definition of a better economy?

  8. By Smithers at 9:46 pm on Dec 26, 2008 | Comment | ReplyReply directly to this specific comment

    @Tom Hagerty: What’s your definition of a better economy?

    Whatever gets me the mo monies.

  9. By Dan Cleary at 6:12 am on Dec 27, 2008 | Comment | ReplyReply directly to this specific comment

    yeah, like the general public has been any better at its own personal money management. i’m not so sure either group “the whatevers” or “public” is all that spectacular of a choice. both seem a bit retarded at this point.

Post a Comment

Available Tags: Hyperlink <a href="">, Bold <b>, Italics <i>, Strike <strike>, Underline <u>. Don't forget to turn it off </example>.