Page 1 of 2
Not 700 Billion but 100 Billion
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:19 am
by Blaise (imported)
AKA, a trillion.
Divide the national debt between the top one percent of income recipients and divide that by ten. Are we looking at a mere $320,000 per year surcharge for ten years. Someone check my mathematics. That is nothing for the super rich. They can pay off the national debt and still enjoy being rich and not bother the rest of us. See, it is all so simple.
We can let these special patriots wear special flag lapel pins.
William Greider says the bailout is "all sugar for the villains, lasting pain and damage for the victims."
Re: Not 700 Billion but 100 Billion
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:43 pm
by Bagoas (imported)
NOT aka a trillion. One trillion is 1000 billion or 10^12 or 1,000,000,000,000. That's American billions, or 1,000,000,000. British billions are the same as the American trillion . No matter how you slice it, it's a HELLUVA lot of money.
We owe this horrendous national debt because of deficit financing. Congress insists on spending money which the government doesn't have. You and I can't spend more than our income without running into debt, but Congress believes that it can. If spending increases, taxation MUST increase to cover it, or the national debt increases.
Oh well, we just owe it to ourselves, why worry about it ? I'll tell you why. The only thing the dollar is based on is CREDIT. Just as with individuals, so with the government, the deeper one gets into debt, the worse his credit rating. Our credit, on which our money is based, is harmed by increasing the national debt.
I cringe every time the Secretary of the Treasury says that he is going to "increase the money supply" This means that the government is going to print more paper, with no increase in the credit that backs it. The government can NOT create VALUE with a printing press. Therefore, the value of the new money and the the indistinguishable older money decreases.
Gresham's Law is inexorable. "Bad money drives out good." Increasing the national debt and "increasing the money supply" devalues our currency. It's as simple as that.
Re: Not 700 Billion but 100 Billion
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:08 pm
by Blaise (imported)
Goldman Sachs! That is the outfit that brokers privatizing public assets such as highways by selling them to private investors. The company has major conflict of interest problems with these deals because it prepares to invest in the toll roads market. Has the Bush gang no shame. Apparently not!
Re: Not 700 Billion but 100 Billion
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:51 pm
by Blaise (imported)
Bagoas (imported) wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:43 pm
NOT aka a trillion. One trillion is 1000 billion or 10^12 or 1,000,000,000,000. That's American billions, or 1,000,000,000. British billions are the same as the American trillion . No matter how you slice it, it's a HELLUVA lot of money.
We owe this horrendous national debt because of deficit financing. Congress insists on spending money which the government doesn't have. You and I can't spend more than our income without running into debt, but Congress believes that it can. If spending increases, taxation MUST increase to cover it, or the national debt increases.
Oh well, we just owe it to ourselves, why worry about it ? I'll tell you why. The only thing the dollar is based on is CREDIT. Just as with individuals, so with the government, the deeper one gets into debt, the worse his credit rating. Our credit, on which our money is based, is harmed by increasing the national debt.
I cringe every time the Secretary of the Treasury says that he is going to "increase the money supply" This means that the government is going to print more paper, with no increase in the credit that backs it. The government can NOT create VALUE with a printing press. Therefore, the value of the new money and the the indistinguishable older money decreases.
Gresham's Law is inexorable. "Bad money drives out good." Increasing the national debt and "increasing the money supply" devalues our currency. It's as simple as that.
Thanks, I meant 1000. Sorry about that. So that means that the payout is only ++++++++++! One fewer Maybachs a year per rich person!
Re: Not 700 Billion but 100 Billion
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:38 am
by Blaise (imported)
It is wrong! It is just wrong. There must be another way to provide full faith and credit. It is just wrong to save these institutions.
Re: Not 700 Billion but 100 Billion
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:59 am
by Riverwind (imported)
Blaise (imported) wrote: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:38 am
It is wrong! It is just wrong. There must be another way to provide full faith and credit. It is just wrong to save these institutions.
I dont think its wrong to save them, I think its wrong to let them off the hook. Pay back everything plus a lot of interest and do it in a set amount of time or loose it all.
Oh my, I sound like one of these lenders.
River
Re: Not 700 Billion but 100 Billion
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:06 am
by Blaise (imported)
Riverwind (imported) wrote: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:59 am
I dont think its wrong to save them, I think its wrong to let them off the hook. Pay back everything plus a lot of interest and do it in a set amount of time or loose it all.
Oh my, I sound like one of these lenders.
RiverI think that I agree. And reistate regulations. If these institions are vital, then we must regulate them.
Re: Not 700 Billion but 100 Billion
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:17 pm
by Blaise (imported)
Blaise (imported) wrote: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:06 am
I think that I agree. And reistate regulations. If these institions are vital, then we must regulate them.
No. I change mind. No bailout, at least not now and not according to the plans made by Secretary Paulson, he has been consistently wrong about this entire matter. And he is from Goldman Sachs. When we get to see the details, we are all going to scream theft.
Re: Not 700 Billion but 100 Billion
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:50 pm
by Riverwind (imported)
What is real scary, tonight on PBS the news hour they had both the leaders of the finance committees Republican and Democrat and both saying the same thing. It wont be what Bush asked for and it may take more then a week. The first thing out of both of them was that there would be regulations put in place and oversight.
We shall see.
River
Re: Not 700 Billion but 100 Billion
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:49 pm
by Blaise (imported)
We have to learn to live differently, but we can do that!
