It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


10 Ways to Bail Out Wall Street (and Main Street) Without Soaking Taxpayers in Debt

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:08 PM

10 Ways to Bail Out Wall Street (and Main Street) Without Soaking Taxpayers in Debt


Lawmakers in Congress appear to have assumed that the federal government will simply borrow more money to foot the bill for the bailout. The national debt ceiling will rise to a whopping $11.3 trillion, up from $8 trillion a year ago.

But this rush to borrowing merely shifts the bailout burden onto the backs of future taxpayers. Congress needs to change course -- and develop a "pay as we go" plan that makes Wall Street pay.

The lion's share of bailout funding should come from the high-finance gamblers and the wealthy CEOs who have so profited from our casino economy.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:09 PM
If the US government is going to embrace this form of soft capitalist-only-benefit socialism it should stop, re-think, say "tough luck" to their cronies and spread the wealth around by making it workable, realistic, and FAIR.

We are seeing welfare for billionnaires when real people needing real welfare are begrudged payment.

People cannot afford to be ill because insurance companies are little more than government sponsored rip off merchants - that's before we even get to the insurance companies not paying out.

Real people are suffering, real people are in danger of losing their homes and many are now stuck in negative equity traps, but the people being bailed out are those who own huge mansions and who still have hundreds ofmillions in the bank.

Two thirds of corporations (according to the article) paid no income taxes between 1998 and 2005, and now the ordinary taxpayer is expected to bail out these same companies.

It's the little people that suffer AGAIN as another example of the stupid bushenomic theory of drip down economics is again being foisted upon people to pay for those who killed the golden derivative.

How often does the government bail out a corner store which has been badly managed?

Why the hell should wall street be any different?
Simple - they are all friends of the government, diverting funds to campaigns and lobby groups to keep the gravy train rolling for those precious few who control the vast amount of the wealth in the US.

(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:12 PM
Why would they take the easy option? It wouldn't cause fear or serve their further purposes.

By their I mean TPTB btw...

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:17 PM
I thought this was an awesome article, that someone in a different thread suggested, regarding what is REALLY going down regarding the bailout scam.

It's the Derivatives, Stupid!

"The point everyone misses," wrote economist Robert Chapman a decade ago, "is that buying derivatives is not investing. It is gambling, insurance and high stakes bookmaking.

And there's the catch: what if the hedge fund doesn't have the $100 million? The fund's corporate shell or limited partnership is put into bankruptcy; but both parties are claiming the derivative as an asset on their books, which they now have to write down. Players who have "hedged their bets" by betting both ways cannot collect on their winning bets; and that means they cannot afford to pay their losing bets, causing other players to also default on their bets.

The dominos go down in a cascade of cross-defaults that infects the whole banking industry and jeopardizes the global pyramid scheme. The potential for this sort of nuclear reaction was what prompted billionaire investor Warren Buffett to call derivatives "weapons of financial mass destruction." It is also why the banking system cannot let a major derivatives player go down, and it is the banking system that calls the shots. The Federal Reserve is literally owned by a conglomerate of banks; and Hank Paulson, who heads the U.S. Treasury, entered that position through the revolving door of investment bank Goldman Sachs, where he was formerly CEO.

Also wanted to say that when this bailout plan came out, people complained... DO NOT LET UP!!! KEEP ON THEM!!! Because what will happen is a few side deals will be made here & there to get it to pass, but the majority of it - THE $700,000,000,000 STOLEN FROM US AND GIVEN TO THE GAMBLERS - will go through if we don't.

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by mecheng

Its not the derivitives, stupid. The main objective to use usa to take over the world, brought about all that debt. Ron paul says it best, bring troops home and get out of peoples countries.

[edit on 9/25/2008 by andy1033]

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:36 PM
I don't disagree regarding the war, but the article brings up points that I think most of us never knew about (at least I didn't)...

In congressional hearings in the early 1990s, derivatives trading was challenged as being an illegal form of gambling. But the practice was legitimized by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan...

Since then, derivative trades have grown exponentially, until now they are larger than the entire global economy. The Bank for International Settlements recently reported that total derivatives trades exceeded one quadrillion dollars – that's 1,000 trillion dollars.

And there's the catch: what if the hedge fund doesn't have the (money)?... The dominos go down in a cascade of cross-defaults that infects the whole banking industry and jeopardizes the global pyramid scheme

[edit on 25-9-2008 by mecheng]

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:42 PM
From a quick reading of the points, it comes down to a "the rich make and own too much" so let's get "our" money back from them. While CEO's salaries are obscene, making the Govt. mandate limits won't really help. Most of this companies are publicly traded and as so the shareholders could and should mandate what salaries are paid to their executives.

The "Mansion proposal" which would eliminate the deduction of mortgage interest on houses over $200,000 is horribly wrong. I don't know where they live, but $200,000 doesn't buy much of "mansion" here. No butlers, no gardeners, no maids. That proposal would end up hurting millions of homeowners.

Their " Progressive Inheritance Tax" they never spell out percents. I guess the over 50% tax on very wealthy estates are not enough. I guess if you manage to be successful and earn 5 million, you shouldn't be able to pass it down to your kids.

The best part of the whole proposal was this:

A $130 billion annual investment in renewable energy to stimulate good jobs anchored in local economies and reduce our dependency on oil.

Most of the other stuff would not really help the middle class, just get the higher income households to pay for this mess, which was made by Congress in the first place. Congress was the one who lowered Freddie and Fannie's lending guidelines to increase home ownership. They (Congress) conveniently forget to mention that it is a problem of their own making.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by pavil]

top topics


log in