$300,000 sounds nice to me.  Suck ass, college debt and hello some fancy new toys!  Of course noting my miserly ways, I would have to save a good bit of it para el futuro.

~Zoo

I couldn't disagree more.  Sorry, sis, but I can't stand with you on this one.  Even if each person got a check for 230.000, it would be impossible to enforce people using it the way you say they should.  Moreover, it wouldn't go into the sectors of the economy where it's needed the most - which is why it can't be given to the taxpayers.  I hate the concept of the bailout as much as the next guy, but it's naive to think it would work like you've explained here if given to the average citizen.

If anything, it would foster a depression rather than stem the tide of one.

But that naivety is one of the reasons I still love you.

I do too. I still maintain that 100% of the 700 billion $$$ should just be forked over to me.

Can I write you in for PRESIDENT? I'll even check that little box on my income tax form to donate $3 of my $300K, and you can do with it as you please!

Vote Cedarbird '08

Give the money to me, I would fix this whole darn mess!  Detts would be paid alright, ever single one of us Americans would not owe anything to anyone anywhere....and then we can take care of commerce. 

What, just to taxpayers?  Does that mean that people who get all their money back (and then some) in april wouldn't be eligible for the handout?   Cedarbird, I'm surprised that you would be so excited about a giveaway for the rich!! :~D

I just want the 300,000.  That's all.  And in a perfect world, it'd work.  Unfortunately, it is NOT a perfect world, so my perfect plan is foiled.

Curses!

Okay.. first..

Grab a calculator sis, and do the math. Let's say on;y 2/3rd of the population is more than 18, that still leave you with about 205 million people in the U.S.A. Please try to divide 700 billion by 205 million...

...

..

done? Yhea, it adds up to about 3400$/person. Which is... err.. slightly less than what you promised us. Now that I've blown up your initial statement, let's see how doing exactly that would wreak the economy even more:

1- You would not solve the problem of the financial institution. The money would be spent on consummation, and not on helping those institution. Companies will still have a credit problem.

2- You will create a big (BIG) amount of inflation just be giving money away to people like that. Basic economic rule : don't give money freely to citizen

3- 3400$ is not ennough to refund a mortgage, so even with the rules you said, nobody would actually be out of their trouble.

I find it ironic that most solutions I have seen so far (funny or serious) still requires taxpayers money, money some claim is coming from everyone (low, middle and high income class) to resolve the issue of a bunch of greedy people (the bandks, the insurances, the politicians, and the people who bought the houses) created most knowing this counld happen but, like in Vegas, took a chance and lost and now are forcing us to fix this for them. But this one (and those similar to this one, funny or not) takes the cake, the market fails, take tax payers money and give it to the people. OK, how does this help the market again?

I have to say I am impressed to see that both Cikmyr and SanCho are actually against the idea of giving money back to the people. Gonna have to keep a back up of this article.

Giving a free large lump of money to the people? Hell yhea I'm against! The single best way of not wreaking the inflation while giving things to the people is by lowering taxes, not simply deciding to give money for.. err.. nothing?

And then AGAIN, giving the money to the people would not solve THE PROBLEM AT HAND. It may sounds nice, it may sounds great, but it WOULD DO NOTHING, save help the consumation for a short period.

Do you actually know what you are talking about?!?! The problem does not lies in having people who bought an overpriced house and not being to pay it back (well, actually, that's the original source, but it's not 'the' crisis we are in).

The problem lies in having the banks re-sell those debts to third parties. Those third parties used those investment debts as assets. Debt is usually a very strong, very secure asset to invest in, and you are looking long-term.

But those third-parties are not the ones who agreed to sell sub-prime mortgage. They are not the one who TOOK a sub-prime mortgage. They simply trusted the credit rating company who told them that the mortgage bank has a debt quality of AAA, and they trusted them. But now, everybody noticed that these commercial papers are not of AAA quality, these are junk bonds! So many, many companies just noticed they have paid over-price for junk bonds, and are overly invested in those. That mean, they lost a lot of money!

YES, people acted recklessly. But it's not "everybody went to Vegas and now are asking for a free out of jail card". It's more of a "there was a new financial gadget on the market and was used recklessly, and is now threatening to wreak the economy".

Actually you answered your own question since I was not only talking about the people who bought the houses, but they are, as you said, "the original source". Or in my words, part of the problem.

Well, in this we will have to look at it from different points of view, because while it may actually be "a new financial gadget on the market and was used recklessly, and is now threatening to wreak the economy", those who used it recklessly treated it as having gone "to Vegas and now are asking for a free out of jail card". 

Well, it WAS at six o clock in the morning when we discussed this...oh well.  It sounded like a great idea in my head...if it worked.  Which it wouldn't, but...it'd be nice to have a couple thousand dollars in my pocket. 

Oh well, guess it's not solved after all.

Meh.

And it never will be...

~Zoo