True, I am thinking only about me. :) I just do not see how the long term consequences of a bailout mentality are going to do us any lasting good.

Slightly off topic, but I am curious...if that is the way we go, and we as a government do the bail out, are we then a socialist nation?

Why are you blaming the Dems if you didn't want the bill to pass? They did what you wanted but you still want to blame them for it anyway? :1orglaugh

+1..... dems delivered more than half of the votes to make things happen... the reps only had to delivere half their votes to get the bill to go thru... but they couldn't do that....

Bush is "very disappointed" with the vote.

I'm against the $85,000,000,000 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 billon that equals $425,000.

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%.

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 in their pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.

What would you do wi th $297,500 to $595,000 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 bai l 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 Family plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because
$25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Im down with this plan :thumbsup

Somebody needs to check out that cool calculator that comes free with Windoz :)

By definition, yes we would be. But as we have seen, capitalism hasn't been our strongest trait as a country as of late.

There are no real answers here and I don't want to sound like a know it all. I am 100% sure that a lot of my beliefs are flawed. It is however how I have summarized it all in my head, and I do agree with a poster earlier:

We need to stimulate the economy by instituting better infrastructure: roads, bridges, etc...Which in turn will put more jobs out there for us, will make our communities nicer and it will pump up some public morale by seeing "change". :thumbsup

I was surprised 40% of the Dems voted against it.

I would say Webair for President! However, the GFY republicans will scream: "handouts! Bail out the banks and insurance companies, but not the people. That'd be Socialism."

CHECK THE MATH....EACH PERSON WOULD ONLY GET $425....Not $425,000. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

edited....

This bailout is bad people, it is not something you want unless you want inflation to be so fast that nobody, not the richest to the poorest, could afford even the most basic commodities.

We should "never" bail out other Countries Corporations, even if they are tied to ours. The logic on this is just stupid as Companies of all kinds fail in our own Country our Job losses is going up, we bail out "other non-americans" before our own. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

And we should "never" give the Gov a blank check without fully demanding the problem be corrected first. Do you understand that they are giving 700 billion, and "never corrected the problem". Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.

Did you know they don't actually need 700 billion? That's just a guess of what "might" be needed. Nothing has actually been done to see what the real damage is, so they are guessing they "might" use this amount.

Have you ever gotten a loan without some type of collateral? Not many of us have that's for damn sure. Now, how many have filed bankruptcy, lost everything, and a few weeks later got a loan 500x times worth your net worth? - This is what "we" are allowing.



And finally, if we give 700 billion today, they will ask for Trillions tomorrow. Don't think this is even close from being done. I'm not talking about the banks, housing marking or our Eco. Well, I am - but in a different direction. Just wait until the Jumbo Loan issues kick in, to name another small example.


We must let the Majority of these Companies fail and the free market stand strong by buying up loss, taking a hell of a hit, but at least allowing our dollar some ability to come back. If you dilute the market with "free printed/made/fake money" - IT WILL NEVER BOUNCE BACK.

Again, DO THE ACTUAL MATH. $85B divided by 200mil people is $425 a person, NOT $425,000. People who can pay off their mortgages with $425 aren't the people being foreclosed on. :thumbsup

Oh, no, I appreciate you exchanging posts with me, as I know I am not the most knowledable person on the subject. :)

I will say this. I believe we have to do the bailout, and I believe it because Buffet said we had to. Him I believe. (or that was my interpretation of what he said)

While there are no guarantees in life, I could swallow the bitter bailout pill a little better if I could believe that we as a collective whole would learn anything from it.

That is what I don't have a great deal of faith in. :)

That is the problem with the majority of voters..They believe everything they read before looking into it further. With that plan, people would see $425. Hardly enough to do anything for the economy, and with that fact, that plan is worthless as a whole.

People need to research before making decisions, as opposed to listening to Political candidates make promises that are skewed and far from fact checked in real time. :2 cents:

Good read and not a bad idea :thumbsup

Well, if you can't do the math on your own, at least trust Snopes :)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/dividend.asp

I bet webair feels smart now.

I posted before doing the math fact checking. I still believe the post I made regardless. If his math was correct, that's exactly the way it would be. Cries of Socialism.

Peaches, seriously.. you don't have to say "Do the math" more than once and post to every person that replies to webair.

exactly... :thumbsup

Similar to this maybe?

In fact, a Forbes.com article at MSN Money spells out other possible uses for the $700 billion contained in the latest bailout proposal:

* The nation's bridges need $180 billion in repairs.
* Rail infrastructure needs $185 billion in maintenance.
* $150 billion would provide every American with private health insurance, and also pay for a universal automated health-information system.
* The government could pay off the $500 billion cost of the war in Iraq. "Unlike investments in distressed assets, paying for the Iraq war won't produce a return, but $700 billion would stem the government's future debt obligations to its creditors," the article says.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...00Billion.aspx

I just had some cookie crisp. Talk about yummy.

That would be the chain letter with the horribly incorrect math I was referring to.

that sounds so good right now. and on topic, i watched the top economic guys ont the tele talkin about the money being given to us to spend as well. i totally agree with that idea over any bailout that wont change a thing. stimulate spending and the rest will follow

watched this whole thing today .... nuts

and we closed at - 777.68 .... nuts!

Thats some great math :1orglaugh

Must be by the same people who sold houses to people with no income.

actually, we should stimulate saving. if everyone took that $425 and saved it THAT would go a long way towards getting things squared away.

If you host with webair I would double check that hosting bill
:winkwink:
LOL

paulson is gonna come on tv and cry now.

Webair you suck at teh mathz

BREAKING NEWS - New economic stimulus plan announced: https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/858307-webcashmaker-com-introduces-webmaster-bailout-plan.html

The republicans just lost the presidency for John Mccain.

I bet Barack is already celebrating.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

and he didn't help himself just now on tv when he said they all need to come together on this and stop the blame game... then in his next breath blame Obama and his people for today's hold-up...

Gotta love that ol' fella.. :)

mcpain!!!!!!!!

Consider one more experimental example to prove the point: the ultimatum game. You are given $100 to split between yourself and your game partner. Whatever division of the money you propose, if your partner accepts it, you each get to keep your share. If, however, your partner rejects it, neither of you gets any money.

How much should you offer? Why not suggest a $90-$10 split? If your game partner is a rational, self-interested money-maximizer -- the very embodiment of Homo economicus -- he isn't going to turn down a free 10 bucks, is he? He is. Research shows that proposals that offer much less than a $70-$30 split are usually rejected.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail


Wall Street / Paulson offered at $90/$10 split. America balked.

How can you "pay off" the $500 billion cost of the Iraq war by borrowing $500 billion? The fact that they went on to add that it would "stem the government's future debt obligations to its creditors" is even more stupid.

The $150 billion would only buy one year of universal health coverage for every American.

It's not like the govt had 700 billion just sitting around and now the President wants to use it on this financial bailout instead of something else.
We have to borrow 700 billion because it's an emergency...the whole idea of "we could do this or that with the money instead" is pretty ridiculous.

Id just like to point out that no one is "giving" 700B to anyone. The government is proposing becoming a "market maker" or buyer-of-last-resort for distressed assets (ie high-risk securities backed by not-so-great mortgages).

If it saves the system, the long term benefits far outweigh the short term ramifications. I don't think anyone wants to live in an illiquid economy, that means ONLY the rich will have anything. If businesses don't have easy access to credit, the first thing they do is fire people. If people don't have access to credit they don't buy homes or cars or appliances.. or anything other than the basic necessities. But lots of people wouldn't be buying anything since they would be unemployed.

free money for everyone!

yay!111111

The market should fall so we can see what it's real value is. If the market wasn't already filled with fake assets, bids, ect - inflation would be much more under control and we could deal with this bailout at a much more logical level.

We did fine in the 80s when nobody was buying shit on Credit since the interest rate was through the roof. We still had growth through the 80's even though we had a few mild recessions.

An Economy that has to survive on credit isn't doing so well, credit is what caused this problem. 99.9% of the people that did get a loan business or personal, wouldn't have qualified for the same loan with the same credit, 10 years before, or even 5.

Companies don't need loans, what they need is to not be taxed 35% on the money they bring into the Country. Who wants to open a business, move 1B over and be taxed 35% just to start a new business? Nobody.....

People really don't understand what it means. They think they have the safety to cast judgement and luxuriating in the financial sector getting their comeuppance. That opposing the plan is taking care of the normal everyday American. Thats all fine while they sit at home watching the market tumble and they've got no shares or direct investments and they still see the rebills coming in and not being able to think 6, 12, 18 months out and what happens when the credit markets freeze and they don't have the luxury of schadenfraude when it's no longer just a stock market problem...

Sorry mate, but this isn't true and besides you're framing the question using companies, what about small businesses? People don't have 1B to move arround. Most small businesses need some kind of loan to get going and have the money to employ people. Credit isn't inherently bad. Without credit there is no American dream, there is no individual going out and making it with an idea and blood and sweat. He can't even borrow money from family because they don't have access to anything. Cutting tax rates 10% aren't going to help him. He can't get started and he can't go on to employ people. People will eventually realise what this means.

:error

$85,000,000,000 / 200,000,000 = $425

Four hundred and twenty five dollars.

my ballssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

The majority of Democrats voted against it... but the for % was higher in Dem's than the GOP.

That was funny. :1orglaugh

Stupid to blame the democrats, just shows how your knee-jerk reactions cloud your better judgment.

If the democrats had "got together" and voted to win it outright themselves, they're taking ALL the responsibility for this bill. If it fails, or MIGHT fail, or has anything to do with failure, HELL, even if it mostly worked, the Republicans can just turn around and blame the democrats, saying they all voted against it, and the democrats voted it in by themselves.

That might show a little bit of... hahaha... NAY EV I TAY.