Crooked is as crooked does

So instead of lending out like they are supposed to be doing, they are taking the nice handsome sum of $250 billion and using it to do buyouts of weaker banks. Let me get this straight. The Fed gives them taxpayer money, supposedly because they are weak banks. They don't do anything to shore up their portfolios and then do some econmically supportive lending with it AND they feel they can do anything they wish with it. Buying out stupid little smaller banks is what the Fed had intended ? These were just blank checks to these banks ? There is absolutely nobody looking out for our interests whatsoever in the deal, and we dont largely even get a say on the yes or no on whether we should have allowed the money in the first place. Oh sure congress got a lot of angry phone calls. So they just added more pork and trimmed a few minor things out of essentially the same package deal that americans cried fowl on. The Fed ought to be abolished as apparently they are accountable to noone (except perhaps the elite rich who influence) and if we dont somehow stop the nonsense immediately, rest assured they will keep pillaging the people for every dime they have, and making the ownership of all of america rest with fewer and fewer of the super rich. I don't know about you, but to me this is getting old. Very old. And yet there seems to be noone willing or able to do a darn thing about it. It surprises me we dont have something akin to whats happening in Thailand right now here in the US. I mean this government and the FED are simply running roughshod all over the american people. When will people actually wake up to what is happening rather than accepting this ? May the good Lord help us all.

Edited by nimblebear, 30 October 2008 - 05:23 PM.

Who do you think they should lend it to? Maybe the car dealer? Or how about some strapped homeowner who needs another home equity line? Has it occurred to you that perhaps they are being careful, cautious? Whatever the case, it is not "pilfering"! And so what if they buy a smaller weaker bank? Doesn't that make that weak bank now part of a stronger system? Doesn't this help to shore up the system? This is what was wrong with the bailout bill. Somehow you think the government is supposed to have some type of right after they gave the money, and by inference, you have a right. Keep in mind that some of these banks didn't want or need the money. It was forced on them. IT

Edited by IndexTrader, 30 October 2008 - 06:16 PM.

Who is redistributing what to whom?

Who is redistributing what to whom?

Paulson had to move fast. His time is running out at his current job..."guarding" the chicken coop.

Last night I posted an article with a similar situation in regard to the A.I.G. "bailout." No rule, no cares, the money is now theirs.

Edited by milbank, 30 October 2008 - 07:38 PM.

Who do you think they should lend it to? Maybe the car dealer? Or how about some strapped homeowner who needs another home equity line? Has it occurred to you that perhaps they are being careful, cautious? Whatever the case, it is not "pilfering"!

And so what if they buy a smaller weaker bank? Doesn't that make that weak bank now part of a stronger system? Doesn't this help to shore up the system?

This is what was wrong with the bailout bill. Somehow you think the government is supposed to have some type of right after they gave the money, and by inference, you have a right. Keep in mind that some of these banks didn't want or need the money. It was forced on them.

IT

So you really trust the banks to make good decisions, after the horrendous ones they've made to get us all to this point ?

Interesting position you are assuming there. Reminds me of bending over and grabbing one's knees, without the benefit of petroleum jelly.

Who do you think they should lend it to? Maybe the car dealer? Or how about some strapped homeowner who needs another home equity line? Has it occurred to you that perhaps they are being careful, cautious? Whatever the case, it is not "pilfering"!

And so what if they buy a smaller weaker bank? Doesn't that make that weak bank now part of a stronger system? Doesn't this help to shore up the system?

This is what was wrong with the bailout bill. Somehow you think the government is supposed to have some type of right after they gave the money, and by inference, you have a right. Keep in mind that some of these banks didn't want or need the money. It was forced on them.

IT

You might try another view of america from outside our borders. try this on for size. there are many folks out there finally waking up to the fact they largely dont need us. im surprised frankly it hasn't happened sooner, but now that american consumers have no choice but to re-trench, america is going to become an also ran in the world economy. WS and our Fed and our banks basically sold us all out and pilfered away our wealth and our sovereignty. It might not be as dire as this guy says bc I think there is some venom there, but it aint goign to be easystreet for many many americans who have been living on borrowed time and borrowed money. that gig is over.

Who do you think they should lend it to? Maybe the car dealer? Or how about some strapped homeowner who needs another home equity line? Has it occurred to you that perhaps they are being careful, cautious? Whatever the case, it is not "pilfering"!

And so what if they buy a smaller weaker bank? Doesn't that make that weak bank now part of a stronger system? Doesn't this help to shore up the system?

This is what was wrong with the bailout bill. Somehow you think the government is supposed to have some type of right after they gave the money, and by inference, you have a right. Keep in mind that some of these banks didn't want or need the money. It was forced on them.

IT

So you really trust the banks to make good decisions, after the horrendous ones they've made to get us all to this point ?

Interesting position you are assuming there. Reminds me of bending over and grabbing one's knees, without the benefit of petroleum jelly.

This is exactly how the system gets distorted. Did we then, or do we now, need to "trust' the banks? Geezuz. If we don't "trust" them, then why did we bail them out? And if there were no conditions with the money, why didn't your government put them in?

If they were simply untrustworthy and incompetent, we could have let them go (if they were going), and saved ourselves the bailout money.

But again, the fact is that the government forced the money on the banks. There was no choice.

Finally, I got news for you. You, me, and everyone else "assumed the position" the day the bailout passed the house. Wake up. This is what socialism does. It puts control in the hands of the most incompetent party...the government.

Finally, I notice you didn't answer the question. Who do you want them to loan it to? Car deals, retail stores, strapped consumers?

IT

Edited by IndexTrader, 31 October 2008 - 08:39 AM.