Reply to thread

Good points..  But since the taxpayers of the future are going to get reamed anyway, no matter where the money is spent, we might as well give them a break at the get go.. and allow them to not have to pay the interest-only on their mortgages for one year.  We put the bailout money into banks to cover their losses in interest-not-received...and we don't cover the losses completely, as a punishment to the banks for their bad-lending practices.  After all, it was their sharkish get-rich-quick short-sided scheming which lured people in over their heads.  The banks, like any business, will have to suffer the hardships of poor business practices, scale back corporate salaries and perks, tighten the collective belts of all who work there, cut the fat, and so on..


And anyway, people want to live in their own homes.  Most people I know who are losing their homes are losing them to job losses and illnesses.. things beyond their control.  Why punish people for this?  The simple fact is that if John and Jane Doe mortgage payer have a year off from the burden of huge interest payments on their loan, then they have more money to spend on goods and services.  Last time I checked, goods and services create jobs.  You create more of a demand for them, you create more jobs.  More jobs mean more people able to afford to buy back more land, buying back (or staying in) more land stablizes housing values and, therefore,  the banks' net worth.  Their net worth gets better, more loans are made.  More people are able to access money to start new business, more business creates more jobs, and voila!  The economy gets the zap to the heart that starts its automatic beat again.


The problem started with the housing crises...so that's where the solution needs to be. 


People might even have enough money to buy new cars...and the auto industry gets a boost...and so on...



If you're referring to the Marie Antoinette quote...I know it's not the original meaning of what she reportedly said.  It doesn't matter.  What matters is the message that type of hubris sends to the reader.  At once it depicts the absolute disconnectedness of the rich from the factual plight of the poor.  The recent attempt of the bailed-out bank to purchase a 50million dollar corporate jet for posh and speedy jaunting about, with taxpayers' monies who are dropping like flies, is equally illustrative of that point.


The hubris, the utter hubris.


Back
Top