A Great Way to Pay Off the National Debt....
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
October 6, 2008 4:49am CST
Prs. Bush wanted to save the economy, so he pulled $700 billion bucks out of his butt and asked Congress to approve the spending.
The Democrats in the House added the wrong kind of pork, so some Democrats and Republicans Said, NO WAY!
The Senate decided that it wasn't so much "the wrong" kind of pork that turned off some of the Housemembers, so they pulled another $100 or so billion bucks out of their butts and sent the crap back to the House... who eagerly accepted the House's crap and signed it.
Prs. Bush didn't even let the stink permeate the Oval Office before he signed the pork...er I mean "Bail Out" into law.
So, if Bush can pull $700 Billion out of his butt and teh Senate can pull another $150 Billion out of theirs, why can't they all just cut loose on some collective diarrhea and pull $10 Trillion out of their butts to pay off the national debt?
It may be stinky money, but apparently all they have to do is squat and it's there!
3 people like this
5 responses
@arnoldream (1332)
• Philippines
6 Oct 08
that i what politics are all about. and these people are just doing the rule of the game, and what is at stake are the interest of the people and their welfare.. i dont know what are the adverse effect of these delay in the approval of this bailout anyway once approved it will pacify the financial crisis the economy is facing now specially the banks and the financial institution that declares financial emergencies that prompt your government to make some bailout to mitigate the situation..
@dlbruce85 (110)
• United States
6 Oct 08
This bailout will continue the course of inflating our currency to the value of dirt. Every time the Federal Reserve prints money it is loaned to our government with interest attached to it, driving the national debt up, and the value of our dollar down. More inflation can not conceivably help this problem, as it is inflation that got us here in the first place. The fact is we need a manageable government, a small federal government as the constitution dictates. Congress is also supposed to be responsible for coining money, and the concept of a central bank is against everything our forefathers stood for. Every time the federal government decides it needs to overthrow a country or fund a bank's debts, that money is loaned to our government from the Federal Reserve Bank, increasing our national debt. Say there are $1,000 in circulation. One person has $300, the bank has the other $700. The person goes to the bank because he needs another $500, they loan him $500 at 20% interest. So when the person pays back the $500 + $100 in interest, the person is left with $200 of his original money. Say the person needs to fund a project and needs to borrow another $500 at 20% interest. Again, he pays the $600 back to the bank, leaving him with only $100. The bank now has profited $200 bringing it's total to $900, 90% of the circulated money. The bank itself prints the money on demand, and without the bank there is no money, so when your left broke, what is your only option? Borrow more money from the bank. Over time the interest accrued becomes a profit for the bank, but there is no money printed to cover the interest costs, therefore the debt exceeds the circulated money. This is how the federal reserve works, if you think of our "person" as our federal government, and the "bank" as the federal reserve bank. Seems like a scam even a grade schooler could avoid, but when they do it on a huge scale and complicate it with complex rules and numbers, people just become submissive to it, and never bother to question it;s integrity.
1 person likes this
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
6 Oct 08
I heard that it figures out to about $2600 for every American citizen if you divide it out - I'd rather have my $2600 in my bank account, thank you very much!
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Oct 08
I would rather have the $2600 in my account too, but giving it to us would devalue the dollar, increase the national debt and be just as wasteful as what they did do.
@devylan (695)
• United States
10 Oct 08
ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, now, Ted, that would make just too much sense, now wouldn't it? Yeah, I have had a discussion with my mom about the deficit. This was about two years ago maybe or maybe longer--these days it all seems to blend together for me, lol--and she was talking about how great it was that President Bush was giving money to Africa for Aids. Now, before anyone jumps to any conclusions here, I am all about Aids research and finding the cure, and I am very aware that Africa was and probably still is in dire need of help regarding this, but I had to ask my mom, "Where is all this money coming from? I mean, aren't we in debt?" She didn't want to hear it. She isn't even a Bush supporter, by the way, but she is an advocate for anything having to do with helping our fellow man. That's the problem, though, with both sides (and that's why it's both sides of the same coin). It's all great to spend all this money when it makes you look good to the average American, but seriously, where the hell is it coming from? I wish every time I sat down on the toilet or took a squat period that even twenty dollars would come out! I bet the American public would be far less constipated if that happened!
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Oct 08
Absolutely!
I have to laugh when Democrats cry that we don't have enough money to be spending billions in Iraq, but then proceed to tell us exactly how they would spend the money they just said we don't have. :~D
1 person likes this
@Lee_Rites (845)
• United States
6 Oct 08
I did find it interesting that they could just throw 800 million dollars around. It seems they could have done something much sooner that wouldn't have been so costly. They knew there was trouble brewing and just waited for it to boil over.
@devylan (695)
• United States
10 Oct 08
Of course they could have done something much sooner. That's why both Obama and McCain keep spouting off about what they warned everyone about "two years ago." Of course, I have a feeling this problem started much longer ago than just two years. Please. Give me a break.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
10 Oct 08
It's not what they could have done before, it's what they shouldn't have done... bail out companies that are going under, prevent small recessions as part of the normal economic cycle and fore mortgage companies to make loan decisions based on social engineering instead of sound business practices.