Had the economy not been in a dive, none of this would have happened anyway so to say it is a control move or tit for tat on campaign contributions is mute at that level. We have never had to bail out at this level before because the economy was not as bad off before.

No I fully understand it will be massive negative impact. I am a proponent of this mindset because 1. I believe government has no place in the marketplace, and 2. it's the only option I've seen thus far that enforces a positive ideal to those that are currently caught up in the middle. IMO, the bailouts are more politically motivated than economically. there are many on wall street that have given good money to those in washington... the good old boys in washington wouldn't want to let some of their best financiers down, now would they?

for the record, Dodd and Obama are in the top 3 recipients from AIG. how's that for conflict of interest.

personally, I think every national campaign should be given federal funds and could use only those funds for the campaign and private parties are not allowed to get involved either. it'd be way cheaper than paying out to special interests that's for sure. everyone in washington is dirty. That's why I laugh and scoff at those who think this is any real kind of change. It's now obama and the democrats' turn to repay the favors.

"Democracy's become a tattered vision of truth, the corporate sponsorship raping and ruining the land. Do you think what you say will make it any better, yeah it's been this way two hundred years, it's gonna stay this way forever." --Strung Out, "In Harm's Way"

but all i hear is change. it's never anything but this "government handles it all" answer and there's never any real logic behind anyone's answer. why do we need to go this route? why must the government assume 86% of the risk with these assets while not reaping 86% of the reward? Why must the government do everything? I think it's abundantly clear that government has been a large portion of the problem up to this point - why should we trust them to fix it?

There is so much wrong with this statement I cannot even begin.

1. the issues we have right now are the result of the problems we need to address. The economy was the result of our current problems (artificial prosperity), not the other way around.

2. campaign payoffs happen all the time. this just happens to be an ideal time to repay the financial industry by making sure they're taken care of.

3. We've never had to and still don't have to bail out. We don't have to do anything.

Psst, make them leave out all "conspiracy to take over the country" parts too

He is not a Marxist.

Ok guys, if you all think your on the rigth track and Obama is not, please spell out what would happen if we just let them ALL fail, and please include all that is involved with all these companies and all the companies and emplyees dependent on these companies?

I am not being a smartass here, I want to know.

What interesting timing, I posted a answer myself, but what would happen to fall into my inbox, but this:

Bankruptcy Is Economic Stimulus
by Ron Paul

The distraction on Capitol Hill this week has to do with the jackpot bonuses that executives at AIG recently received. The argument is over a relative drop in the bucket. The total amount of bonuses given out was $165 million. The government has put $170 billion into AIG so far. Many now are demanding we get this money back. We ought to be spending our time and effort doing something more worthwhile, like figuring out how the Federal Reserve is handling the trillions of dollars they are creating and pumping into the economy, and how that is affecting the purchasing power of dollars in your pocket.

The big mistake was appropriating the TARP funds in the first place. A Johnny-come-lately bill of attainder won’t stop the spending epidemic. This whole situation is a perfect demonstration of why “doing nothing” and letting failing companies fail would have been much better than sinking valuable money and resources into them.

When a company makes a profit, it is a signal that it is taking resources and increasing their value while controlling costs. When a company operates at a loss, it is a signal that it is decreasing the value of its resources or letting out-of-control costs outstrip any value it has created. A company operating at a loss is therefore an engine of wealth destruction. Bankruptcies are a net positive for the economy because more productive competitors are rewarded by opportunities to buy up remaining assets at bargain prices to strengthen their operations. In an economy that allows this kind of growth and change, any jobs lost by bankruptcy are soon replaced by new ones as the most efficiently managed businesses gain access to more assets and expand.

Bankruptcy was the stimulus that we needed in the case of AIG. More bankruptcies would clean out malinvested resources and enable economic growth again.

AIG, by losing money and maneuvering their operations to the brink of bankruptcy, was telling us that they were inefficient. So what did we do? We forced the taxpayer to assume the losses, and now we are supposed to be shocked that it is not working out. Had AIG gone bankrupt, it would have been impossible to hand out these bonuses. The taxpayer would have been fleeced for $170 billion less last year. Had they gone bankrupt, the world would not have come to an end, it would just continue on with one less engine of wealth destruction.

We should have learned from Japan. The 1990’s is referred to as Japan’s “lost decade” because of the zombie banks kept on life support by the Japanese government. Any productivity was redirected through these engines of wealth destruction, resulting in long-term stagnation. We should and can avoid this outcome if we come to our senses.

A recession should be a time of strengthening and regrouping for an economy. But as long as the government insists on maintaining the status quo by propping up failed institutions, we will continue to dig a bigger hole for ourselves.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul514.html

McCain/Palin as a choice was not an option for me!

I have asked this of you before and got no answer. You say you that economics is your educational high point. Please share with us your extensive educational background. Where did you attend college? What was your major and what was your GPA. If you are gonna claim having extensive knowledge of economics....PLZ SHARE! Prove to these people its not because you stayed at THE Holiday Inn Exspress. Show them you have the education that all of "Those" exsperts have to back it up!!!!! Harvard? Yale? Prove them all wrong!!!

I have no formal education but have said that a recession is a good thing and naturally occurs in a free market. It curbs inflation and costs. It will heal itself and should be let to fall where it may. So we have the same views on it I think but I do not have the education to back it up..

The problem here is not about just a bankruptcy or two, if it was the bailouts would not be needed. The housing market failing by toxic assets in the scale that we have now is way more than a bankruptcy or two.

I continually watch the experts talk about this. Because I am not a financial wizard and I want to understand.

This is more serious than a few companies going bankrupt. If allowed to happen the studies of the depression of the 30s say that we will see something worse than back then. This is the problem.

To prevent depression actions need to take place. We have a government that can do it. We are Americans and we will come through it.

I want them to try everything they can to stop the depression from happening.

I think all Americans should want them to do all they can to stop a depression from happening.

Recessions are not that big a deal but depressions are.

Palin was a publicity stunt. McCain was the "liberal" republican nominee that the religious right and social conservatives could stomach while still remaining remotely appealing to the left. Ron Paul is too socially liberal to get nominated in a party ruled by personal social beliefs

Dr.Paul is Socially Liberal?

You have got to be sh!tt!ng me.

Dr. Paul is a Constitutionalist, if thats being a Social Liberal, then I'm a clone of Tupac Shakur.

Dr.Paul is Socially Liberal?

You have got to be sh!tt!ng me.

Dr. Paul is a Constitutionalist, if thats being a Social Liberal, then I'm a clone of Tupac Shakur.

I appoligize, I can't believe I wrote it like that and totally misspoke. I meant to refer his stance on several socially liberal or more "other side" items. For example, while it sounds to me like he prefers the man-woman definition of marriage, he said in an interview that he supports gay marriage a couple years back IIRC. And while he's staunchly anti-abortion, his actions show a support of stem-cell research . Also, the decriminalization of narcotics is another ding against him as well. Not to mention his full disapproval of the war in Iraq and other foreign interventions that the majority of Republicans tend to favor. Things like these are what would prevent him from being nominated by a party that sticks to it's guns on stem-cell research and anti-homosexuality (let alone marriage)