On Sep 23, 4:20*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
mike wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

It's not a "bailout" in the traditional sense: it's an investment.

I hope you're being sarcastic. *If it is such a great investment,
people would be tripping over themselves to buy up the bad mortgages.
Instead, we have government supremacists forcing the taxpayer to take
on debt at gunpoint, and letting the irresponsible off the hook so
they be irresponsible again, and again, and again.

I'm not being sarcastic. And it's not a good investment.

The ROI is terrible, but, in the end, the government will make a profit.

It's not debt at gunpoint either, it's simply the best of several bad
alternatives. Even if the $700 billion goes down the toilet, that's still
better than several trillion in lost productivity due to a collapse of the
credit market.

When I say collapse of the credit market, I'm talking banks calling due all
loans (car, home, etc.), credit card companies stopping all additional
charges and demanding full payment for outstanding balances, and other dire
consequences.

If a business can't borrow to pay for its Christmas merchandise, it won't
have anything to sell in November and December. If it can't make sales, it
can't make a profit. That's no wages, rent, etc. You may buy a gallon of
milk for cash, but the market bought the milk on credit. Cash transactions
make up an insignificant part of the GDP. The rest is credit.

No credit - or a damaged credit system - no GDP.

Not at gunpoint? Great, then I guess I can stop paying taxes and the
gov't won't do a thing. (chuckle)

The entities who caused the problem should fail. That will keep the
problem from occuring again. I agree that PC legislation is behind
the mess. A real solution isn't a bailout that will just destroy
another sector of the economy (taxpayers). A real solution is to
lower taxes for everyone (capital gains, etc) and slash non-essential
gov't spending. Taxes are 5 times too high, and non-essential gov't
spending should be zero.