What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
207 Comments
- NorthMass, on 07/21/2009, -15/+49Can it be clear now that Obama is NO BETTER than any other politician like Bush or McCain or Frank or Dodd that voted for this atrocious, evil bailout?
- richmomz, on 07/20/2009, -13/+44Well, that's about 2 years worth of GDP, enough to pay off every mortgage in the country a couple times over or the equivalent of $80,000 for every U.S. Citizen... how we're going to come up with that without destroying the currency or taxing ourselves into another Great Depression is beyond me.
- Babassboy, on 07/21/2009, -4/+33Yeah this bull s*** estimate assumes
"that every home mortgage backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac goes into default, and all the homes turn out to be worthless. It assumes that every bank in America fails, with not a single asset worth even a penny. And it assumes that all of the assets held by money market mutual funds, including Treasury bills, turn out to be worthless.
It would also require the Treasury itself to default on securities purchased by the Federal Reserve system."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/business/economy ... - Sideshowslob, on 07/20/2009, -12/+40I wonder if we have enough trees to print all that money.
- marcabminion, on 07/20/2009, -10/+37God help the US Taxpayer.....!!!
- Zolkalter, on 07/20/2009, -15/+39Every member of Congress who supported this should be immediately removed from office. This is an outrage.
- ZenMojo, on 07/21/2009, -3/+25300,000,000 x 1,000,000 = 300 trillion dollars.
Math fail. - URnotheonly1, on 07/20/2009, -22/+43Could have just given every American a million bucks and it would have been cheaper.
That's where we are folks. - Richandler, on 07/21/2009, -3/+23So 23 Trillion dollars obligated by the US Government is Free Market Capitalism?
- marcabminion, on 07/20/2009, -9/+27It's pure insanity! $80,000 for every US citizen WITHOUT the consent of that citizen - remember "only" $700 billion was allocated through congress, rest is simply unconstitutional theft of all US taxpayers future income.
- richmomz, on 07/20/2009, -4/+22That much money could pay off every mortgage in the country... THREE TIMES OVER!
- CaughtThinking, on 07/21/2009, -5/+22Read The Article. If EVERYTHING WENT ABSOLUTELY WRONG then it would cost 28 trillion.
Just like if you were hit by a car and a plane tomorrow that would cost a lot of money. - deema1, on 07/20/2009, -11/+27And somehow the only people who escape criticism and blame are the politicians who made this all possible.
- uptwolait, on 07/21/2009, -6/+20Oh what's that? CONGRESS during the Bush administration was responsible for TARP? And they're all still around now, and making MORE bad financial decisions?
*crickets* - Ymeg, on 07/21/2009, -3/+16Who's saying we have free market capitalism?
- alman783, on 07/21/2009, -2/+14Get out of the left right paradigm.
If I attack Bush that doesn't mean Im a democrat.
If I attack Obama That doesn't mean Im a republican. - schnikies79, on 07/21/2009, -4/+15I'm a conservative (fiscally) and am against all forms of deficit spending. When Bush did it, it was wrong. When Obama does it, it's equally wrong.
- URnotheonly1, on 07/20/2009, -4/+15and have change
- bewareofthecow, on 07/21/2009, -0/+11At this point 23 trillion is an imaginary number. You might as well say a bazillion gazillion dollars.
- lordmike, on 07/21/2009, -7/+18Thanks Paulson and Bush!!!
- Dregganaut, on 07/21/2009, -14/+25Lets all huff and puff and blame Obama.
Oh what's that? Bush was responsible for TARP?
*crickets* - steveblevins, on 07/21/2009, -1/+1123,700,000,000,000 / 306,964,568* = $77,208
Still, a lot of money.
* from http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html - jayjayjoni, on 07/21/2009, -9/+18Listening to wingnuts again?
- jrobbi, on 07/21/2009, -1/+9from article...
"The Treasury Department disputed Mr. Barofsky's estimate as 'inflated.' Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said Mr. Barofsky's estimate "does not take into account the assets that offset the risk in these programs" and also doesn't reflect 'fees and other charges that compensate the U.S. taxpayer for the risks incurred.'"
meaning everyone shouldn't panic unless a majority of the programs don't work - lordmike, on 07/21/2009, -4/+12Yes, it makes a stunning headline, however, if the actual conditions that would actually trigger a catastrophe would require a complete collapse of the entire world economy. In other words, if we had a nuclear war that took out 90% of our population, then we would probably owe $23 trillion dollars. However, we would have much bigger problems to worry about if that happened.
- jedikd, on 07/21/2009, -2/+10Yup, buried as inaccurate.
- vbullinger, on 07/21/2009, -6/+14The worst thing is that you can figure that out. I can figure that out. The fifteen people who have dugg you (so far) can figure that out.
So... why can't our leaders figure that out?
They can. And they have. That means that there are two explanations:
1. They just don't care.
2. They want it to happen.
Either way, it's insane and unconscionable. - EvansHall, on 07/21/2009, -1/+9The above comment is currently the most dugg comment.
That's where we are folks. - Pinkertinkle, on 07/21/2009, -0/+8Well that's a worst case scenario and if that happened it wouldn't matter how much the government owed because the only thing that would matter is how much guns and ammo you've stockpiled to survive the upcoming Fallout style apocalypse.
- bearsandbulls, on 07/21/2009, -14/+21The dollar will collapse in the next year and a half when all this money hits the market.
- alman783, on 07/21/2009, -3/+10lol at you thinking our current system is real capitalism.
- lordmike, on 07/21/2009, -2/+9Well considering that this includes obligations from the FDIC, you'll need to go after congressmen from the 1930's.. I imagine most are dead and not running for re-election.
- stox, on 07/21/2009, -3/+10Yet some more simplistic BS. The overwhelming majority of that money was lent, not spent. The real issue is whether or not the government will time the withdraw of that money from the system properly. Too early, and we have another recession, too late, and we have hyperinflation, just right, and all will be fine.
- bobcat7407, on 07/21/2009, -1/+8What they said^^^^^^^^^
- Bullislander05, on 07/21/2009, -0/+6Those don't sound like incredibly bad ideas to me...
- gizmo78, on 07/21/2009, -3/+9oh good grief. This guy was an assistant U.S. attorney from Manhattan – which means A he's a lawyer and B he's a publicity seeker. He didn't release any detail behind this ridiculous number, probably because it is b.s.
Lawyers can't do math folks. I'm sure to get this number threw everything and the kitchen sink, adding loan guarantees, double counting, etc. To get there every bank in the country would need to fail, and every house go into foreclosure.
These inspector general jobs are dead-ends unless you get a lot of attention and publicity by making ridiculously stupid dire predications. - MinimumEffort, on 07/21/2009, -0/+6"Certain groups are allowed to reap all the benefit of risk and none of the loss of failure."
I watched a CBS special on the GM bailout. You would not believe how they started. They started out mentioning that "creative destruction" is one of capitalisms greatest strengths then went into how the GM bailout was such a great thing. They don't mention that the losing ones are the taxpayers (the only ones taking on additional risk) and the ones who benefit are the stock holders, bond holders and union (the certain groups you mention). A free market wouldn't have done that. Only government can come in and separate the benefit of risk from the loss of failure.
Here is the flawed argument why it's good: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268985129632443 ... - Ymeg, on 07/21/2009, -14/+20But don't worry, guys. It's all an investment. What's a couple trillion more? We know that the government is an extremely efficient, well oiled machine.
- inactive, on 07/21/2009, -0/+6It may in fact already be too late to rescue the USA from utter collapse. Time will tell, but there is a huge legacy of graft and corruption at all levels of government both local and federal that greatly undermine the hope of any real and lasting recovery.
USA = ROME and ROME lasted longer! - ElHeffe, on 07/21/2009, -4/+10Don't need trees when it's made up money
- richmomz, on 07/21/2009, -0/+5I didn't calculate the $24 trillion figure - that number comes from the article. Now I will say that it's certainly within the realm of possibility (we've already burned through at least $5 trillion that we know of with all the bailouts and stimulus's) and we're losing half a million jobs a month so we've got a long way to go before the government is done burning cash.
- Phernoree, on 07/21/2009, -1/+6I highly doubt Ron Paul would be goading stimuluses and bail-outs as a means to recovery if he was President.
- Phernoree, on 07/21/2009, -1/+6Well, the U.S. government would then commit to spending $309 trillion to clean up the radiation, despite there only being 15 million taxpayers.
- uptwolait, on 07/21/2009, -3/+83. It's the most expedient way to usher in the New World Order.
- ltchimpo, on 07/21/2009, -4/+9I heard it was $7,000. Not sure what the was based on though. Seriously people, I know Bush was a bad president, but do we hate him so much that we've forgotten that we can't trust ANY politician?
- BalooUrsidae, on 07/21/2009, -1/+6You do realize reversing a law once passed requires congressional action, right? Could it be that there's no way in hell that you're going to stop the Bush handouts when you're answering to a bunch of porkbarreling senators and house reps?
- ruddy4, on 07/21/2009, -3/+8democrats passed it under a republican administration. WAKE UP PEOPLE, both sides are taking turns ***** us.
- BasalCellBossk, on 07/21/2009, -4/+9cue the !right wing shills whining and crying again. Seriously, at this point it's pathological.
- uptwolait, on 07/21/2009, -3/+8"free market capitalism" needs to stop being ALTERED by the government. Mild regulations, a few guidelines, and let the market decide the rest.
- ghatid, on 07/21/2009, -3/+8The OP is scary looking...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 223 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is