ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/16/2018 08:31 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.211 Visits   1 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
11/12/2008 08:04 PM ID: 74792 Permalink   

Bush Administration Changes how Bailout Money is Spent

 

The Bush Administration has chosen to redirect the $700 billion bailout money from bad assets to bank stocks. Treasury Secretary Paulson said buying bad assets, which was the core of the plan, is not the most effective way to save the economy.

Bank stock purchases are anticipated to improve balance sheets and encourage more lending. Politicians are looking to expand the bailout plan to include the auto industry and credit card companies.

 
  Source: www.msnbc.msn.com  
    WebReporter: Mr. Wright Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  24 Comments
  
  Idiots  
 
I have a proposal. How about giving the money to the people? That should bail out our whole economy, and not just a single sector.

Anyone who owes money to the banks will find it easier to pay up. Anyone who doesn't owe money can still put there money in their bank accounts, thus helping the banks. This isn't rocket science, people! You can't create one of the most expensive pieces of legislation in history and just change it up in a month.
 
  by: Mr. Wright     11/12/2008 08:07 PM     
  @Mr W  
   
  by: isuzu     11/12/2008 08:14 PM     
  These guys  
 
just keep throwing band-aids on gunshot wounds. Help people stay in their homes, and give people some cash to spend. That is what will help save our economy.
 
  by: nephew     11/12/2008 08:55 PM     
  Who ever said  
 
this bailout plan was rushed? Interesting that after Paulson and the Bush admin spent more time looking into it, they completely changed the foundation of the plan.
 
  by: barryman9001   11/12/2008 08:56 PM     
  Well then...  
 
Why don't we take the money away and come up with a better plan?
 
  by: bala_mt   11/12/2008 08:58 PM     
  The sky didnt fall?!?!  
 
That was the feeling the Bush admin was trying to give everyone if congress didnt rush this legislation through! Now that it has passed, the banks that have received their funding are doing what?

Oh thats right they are hoarding the money and not spending it!

Oh and the sky has still yet to fall for Chicken Little Bush.
 
  by: slavefortheman     11/12/2008 09:03 PM     
  Why doesn't Dubya just get honest...  
 
Hell there are only a few months left. Just stuff the money into a big duffel bag and run like hell.
 
  by: valkyrie123     11/13/2008 03:11 AM     
  One  
 
Super corrupt administration.
I somehow doubt much will improve with the next.
Both parties have an agenda and the peoples welfare is not part of it.
Controlling the masses is and to accomplish their goals.
 
  by: thinking   11/13/2008 07:13 AM     
  @mr.wright...  
 
nah cant do that... that would be socialist... or worse.... communist... LOL

seriously though maybe peiople have been saying this... if theres going to be a bailout... bail out THE PEOPLE.

and not only that think of it... it directly stimulates the economy because most people spend everything they make anyways, beit a new house, new car, groceries, bills/mortgage, clothes, fast-food/restaurants or entertainment.
 
  by: HAVOC666     11/13/2008 08:21 AM     
  @HAVOC666  
 
If they gave the money to the people.
The US would collapse.
Why do I say this, say if everyone was given a million each which still adds up less then the bail out proposed.
The US would collapse, no one would be working for minimum wage and prices of all things would rise accordingly.
But at least the people would of enjoyed it for a time.
If someone had a million do you think they will be wanting to mow a lawn or put up with crap working at the dinner etc?
The US survives off the back of the minimum wage earner, which are the ones that pay taxes unlike some of the highest earners in the US.


 
  by: thinking   11/13/2008 09:52 AM     
  LOL Valkyrie123  
 
Maybe they could try not taxing the hell out of everything so the people with VOLUNTARY debt can pay their bills.
Aw yeah, that corruption thing
 
  by: Torturor   11/13/2008 10:22 AM     
  @thinking  
 
Actually, $700B spread to the 300M people is less than $2500 each. So, people would all go out and buy a big screen TV and maybe a nice dinner.
 
  by: justaperson     11/13/2008 06:11 PM     
  @justaperson  
 
Though if you only give it to current homeowners then that is quite a bit more per person...
 
  by: bala_mt   11/13/2008 06:23 PM     
  @bala  
 
You can't just give it to homeowners. That would be unfair to renters and everyone else.

I understand that banks are specifically given the money because they are supposed to pay it back with interest. That's more money for the government in the long run. However, I think if the people's money is being used in the transactions, the people should receive the benefits of the interest.

The government does not stand to make a profit by giving the people back their own money. They already profit off us with taxes.
 
  by: Mr. Wright     11/13/2008 06:45 PM     
  @Mr. Wright  
 
No matter who ends up with it. It will be unfair to someone else. How is it fair that half money given to banks sofar is being used to pay shareholder dividends rather than for making loans or fixing the problems?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
 
  by: bala_mt   11/13/2008 06:51 PM     
  @justaperson  
 
I thought there was also another 2 trillion dollars had been allocated under the bail out from the fed.
 
  by: thinking   11/13/2008 08:10 PM     
  @bala, thinking  
 
bala:
I never said it was fair that half the money so far has gone to dividends. It is very unfair. That is why I said give the money to the people. That is the most fair way to deal with this. This corporate socialism is in direct contradiction to the "free market" concept.

thinking:
Those $2 trillion are not part of the bailout. It is an unregulated loan given to undisclosed benefactors. Hopefully someone will get to the bottom of this.
 
  by: Mr. Wright     11/13/2008 10:09 PM     
  Breakdown  
 
Has anyone found a breakdown of this 700 billion (and supposedly shady 2 trillion in loans) for each taxpayer, based on their income bracket? I'd be curious to see out of how much I pay, what's going towards these failed plans...
 
  by: goran   11/14/2008 01:39 AM     
  Breakdown  
 
Has anyone found a breakdown of this 700 billion (and supposedly shady 2 trillion in loans) for each taxpayer, based on their income bracket? I'd be curious to see out of how much I pay, what's going towards these failed plans...
 
  by: goran   11/14/2008 01:39 AM     
  stockmarket wellfare  
 
why are markets getting wellfare.the very people who wasted your money are now getting more money to waste.stop the waste pay bills is the only option.pull back prices on all products and government waste will renew spending on all levels....
 
  by: flukemol   11/15/2008 01:16 PM     
  well  
 
it's not as if it would help to give the indebted MORE money. They already get free money just for having kids and they spend it on new Jordans. To hell with the lower class, they continue to ruin everything for everyone by not paying their due. It's high time we seperated the lazy from the needy and told the lazy to bug off so we can take care of the needy without feeling like chumps for it.
 
  by: mrmarler     11/16/2008 02:39 AM     
  oh and ps  
 
the way this forum is going you would think everyone voted for Ron Paul. And yes, i'll keep sayin it after he's long dead and gone.
 
  by: mrmarler     11/16/2008 02:41 AM     
  yeah  
 
the way this forum is going you would think everyone voted for Ron Paul. And yes, i'll keep sayin it after he's long dead and gone.
 
  by: mrmarler     11/16/2008 02:41 AM     
  @mrmarler  
 
Unfortunately, Ron Paul was not on the ballot. He would have had my vote.
 
  by: Mr. Wright     11/17/2008 09:26 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com