It's called Toxic for a Reason
The 700 billion bailout plan has a few issues with it, as one might imagine if they have any cognitive abilities at all. Hank Paulson, who in my opinion if the greatest traitor this nation has had the opportunity to continue working with, along with his side kick Ben Bernake, have failed to explain even vaguely how the bailout plan will help save the economy. They just will. If you trust in them, they will save us. Just like trusting in them in the past averted the greatest economic catastrophe the country has ever faced. Oh wait...
So my big question revolves around the term "toxic debt" or "toxic paper". The government needs to buy this from the banks because if they don't, it explodes and the banks fail. So why doesn't it explode if the Government buys it? No one seems to know. The government is hoping they can stabilize the debt and sell it off, or just make money off it once people start paying their mortgages again.
Now remember, the problem the banks had was that they couldn't sell the debt to anyone in their right mind. So if you were wondering on the mental health of your government, I'd like to make an armchair diagnosis.
One of the huge problems with the bailout plan is that it counts on regaining it's losses by people paying off their mortgages that are already in default. Realistically, about 5-10% will pay that off. If there were a good chance people would be able to pay, it wouldn't be called "toxic debt" and the banks wouldn't need to be bailed out.
The only way for this plan to work is if you could guarantee that it would generate jobs. The plan is not designed to generate jobs. What they have said is that the plan would staunch the massive layoff or firings of people currently employed. That doesn't help the people that can't currently pay on their credit bills because they've either already been laid off or are underemployed. And these are the people that must improve their circumstance in order for the plan to work. Otherwise the only thing going on is the government pulling money out of the Federal Reserves' ass to be paid back at interest.
What this bailout will do is increase the national debt, devalue the worth of the dollar, and cause hyperinflation for the consumer while stocks start to deflate. It's really hard to imagine a worse case scenario. But this is what happens when a nation turns over their monetary system to the private Federal Reserve.
We were warned against this long ago, but apparently forgot it:
"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.
I wouldn't support a bailout plan unless it was contingent in the plan that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is abolished and Ben Bernake and Hank Paulson are the first against the wall.
Whatever happens there is only one thing we can count on, this is going to hurt.
So my big question revolves around the term "toxic debt" or "toxic paper". The government needs to buy this from the banks because if they don't, it explodes and the banks fail. So why doesn't it explode if the Government buys it? No one seems to know. The government is hoping they can stabilize the debt and sell it off, or just make money off it once people start paying their mortgages again.
Now remember, the problem the banks had was that they couldn't sell the debt to anyone in their right mind. So if you were wondering on the mental health of your government, I'd like to make an armchair diagnosis.
One of the huge problems with the bailout plan is that it counts on regaining it's losses by people paying off their mortgages that are already in default. Realistically, about 5-10% will pay that off. If there were a good chance people would be able to pay, it wouldn't be called "toxic debt" and the banks wouldn't need to be bailed out.
The only way for this plan to work is if you could guarantee that it would generate jobs. The plan is not designed to generate jobs. What they have said is that the plan would staunch the massive layoff or firings of people currently employed. That doesn't help the people that can't currently pay on their credit bills because they've either already been laid off or are underemployed. And these are the people that must improve their circumstance in order for the plan to work. Otherwise the only thing going on is the government pulling money out of the Federal Reserves' ass to be paid back at interest.
What this bailout will do is increase the national debt, devalue the worth of the dollar, and cause hyperinflation for the consumer while stocks start to deflate. It's really hard to imagine a worse case scenario. But this is what happens when a nation turns over their monetary system to the private Federal Reserve.
We were warned against this long ago, but apparently forgot it:
"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.
I wouldn't support a bailout plan unless it was contingent in the plan that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is abolished and Ben Bernake and Hank Paulson are the first against the wall.
Whatever happens there is only one thing we can count on, this is going to hurt.