It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

What would have happened had we not bailed out the banks with Tax payer money?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Many people would have gotten off scott free from their debts as the new owner of said debt would have no wet ink signature.
Oh and America would not be in such dire straits.
Oh and a bunch of cufflink wearing necktie geeks would be looking for work picking tomatoes or holding signs on street corners.
The bailouts were an epic failure and mistake.




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I'm not going to apologize for attacking the source from the OP, but he has a piece today at marketwatch called.

Why insider trading should be legal Commentary: We should thank the people who cheat us


Some people say insider trading is a victimless crime and that’s why it should be legal. Like most people with opinions, these people are completely wrong. Not only does insider trading have no victims, it actually helps people.


Altucher and Jim Cramer are also very close, nuff said.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Maybe someone could explain to me how this was a bad idea, but in my view, had we just either given all the TARP funds, etc., back to the people -OR- used it to pay off all mortgages directly (I believe I heard that the original 700 billion was enough to do this), the banks would have been taken care of, all homeowners with mortgages would now *own* their homes outright, that extra money they would no longer be spending on mortgages would be actually in their pockets and stimulating the economy, and we'd be a lot better off.

Instead, we have execs making big bucks, people underwater, a housing industry in crisis, a crippled economy, and hurting citizens.

I'm by no means an expert on any of this, but can someone with better knowledge let me know if I've missed something here? I think the money just went entirely the wrong way, forcing me to ask if this isn't by design...


AND 10 Million homes wouldn't have been lost to foreclosure.

Think about how many families have been displaced.

It's sad and maddening at the same time.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
So...

Because people are wholly CROOKED and willing to do unspeakable things for money (become bankers), and they do their crooked deeds, and because these crooked deeds end up completely destroying the entire foundation of "the economy", we are supposed to support the system which prevents "the economy" from destroying everything?

The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.

But people these days are too chicken @$^# to stand up and face difficult times in order to cleanse out the disease which plagues this land.


If the above situations occurred, what would have been the chance for violence and civil unrest? Probably quite high.


And here is the reason they were bailed out, so the cronies at the top of the system can remain in power, while instead of a catastrophic collapse we have a LONG, drawn-out slump where the middle-class still ends up being destroyed. The top 10%, remain in the top 10%, continue owning 90% of everything.

I don't want to see the world burn. I don't want the economy to collapse. But if a cancer in my leg is going to kill me 10 years down the road, cut the thing off. Everyone else runs around denying there's a cancer in the first place and that doesn't help anyone. We can talk about how awful life is without a leg, and that's exactly what this article does.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Hi woodwardjnr....... how you doing ?

The whole problem is that 'Greed' is accepted as good and normal, wether you are a 'Fat Cat' sitting at the top, a Monkey Banker playing with a calculator, an employee of the public sector or even someone living off the state........

The problem is greed, greed, greed............... until that Attitude is put in the same Bin as say drink driving or Paedophillia then nothing will change except those at the top of the pyramid keep filling their cash wheelbarrows.....

What is someone worth ????? A Banker, a footballer, a nurse or Doctor, a street cleaner, a KFC crew member, a celebrity (oh please I'm going to be sick!), an actor etc etc........

Society needs to look at what value really is before any changes of substance can be made......... Problem is everyone is # scared of losing what massive or small wealth they have created !!!

IMO change will come with a national / global catastrophy which affects everyone and puts things into perspective............ only then will the strong survive......... bit miserable BUT the truth I think....

Cheers

PDUK



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I think many a short sighted as to why we still have a weak economy. This is the NORMAL economy.

Before the crash the preferred way to stimulate the ENTIRE economy was to find a way to increase home ownership. For each NEW homeowner you sell more of the following.
Washer/Dryer
TV(s)
Sheets
Drapes
Dishes
Furniture
Mower
Auto (minivan)

The list goes on. It pretty much covers the entire sales spectrum.

So each time a presidential election nears you need a boost to the economy. So all you need to do is find a way to put new families into a home. The old owners move up and up grade some of the things on the list. Each (old) homeowner climbs one rung of the ladder. A bigger and more expensive house and new toys to fill the house because you made a profit on the old house. Everybody feels better.

But eventually the qualified newbies ran out and they found ways to ‘qualify’ those who were clearly not qualified.

The current sales economy is because no one NEEDS to buy new stuff.
This is the sales volume we would have had if no one ‘stimulated’ home sales.

The concept of just paying off those bad loans and letting the people keep the homes would not have worked for two reasons.
1 You couldn’t sell that to the public at large. My house has been paid off for over ten years and you are not going to stick me with my neighbors debts. At least not directly.
2 You would still have the current slow sales. No newbie homeowners means no new washers etc.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
The banks will keep printing money untill your money is worthless and the debt they own becomes worthless and is paid back in rotton oranges.

its all about physical assets and the banks will try to swap you useless bits of paper to take ownership of your property, car, anything physical by forcing you out of work so you will have to sell.

Protect your money and buy physical silver/gold and get out of debt whilst you still have a job.

Don't play the bankers game because you won't win and i will eat my hat if we don't see a major stock market correction before xmas this year.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Wasn't the amount close to 5 trillion dollars? Did our government really need to bail them out that much?

I'm not an economist myself but I think we would have been better off without all the bail outs...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join