09-29-2010, 09:21 PM
(09-29-2010, 09:03 PM)--Pete Wrote:(09-29-2010, 07:02 PM)Jester Wrote: Saving the banks was a necessary first step, . . .
Yes, it was. And because of the way it was done, with a no-strings-attached attitude, it went a lot further towards saving the bankers than it did the banks. I didn't notice much of an increase in money flow after the bail out, but maybe I should have been looking to the Bahamas and private accounts.
--Pete
This is more what I was getting at it. I don't have a big problem with the bank bail out, but the way it was done drives me nuts.
I've also had idle speculation on what would have happened to the economy had the government just cut a check for $X dollars to each citizen. I really doubt it would have worked, but I just in my case that if I had gotten say $10,000 (so a $3 trillion "bailout") that some of the big banks would have gotten money back and I would be spending money now on consumption and not trying to get out from under my debt load. But I realize that being sick and unemployed for over 3 years puts a different debt load on a person.
---
It's all just zeroes and ones and duct tape in the end.
It's all just zeroes and ones and duct tape in the end.