Well, the first question is, if it's a loan why is the nomenclature given to it by the administration "Bailout"?

If it is a loan, what is the collateral against which the loan is being provided? Are the companies themselves going to repay the loan, or is the payment supposed to come from the sell of the debts purchased? How is it a loan if there is no language about how the money will be repaid? The money is supposed to come from the sale of the debts collected? So, our government will sell those debts back to the same institutes that created them. Any assurances that our government will sell them for a price higher than when it was purchased? Any assurances that our government will not overpay for those debts when first purchasing them?

I'm hardly an economist, but that just puts me in the majority.

Here are my understanding of what a loan and a bailout are.

1. A loan is when you let someone borrow money from you and they repay it along with interest.

2. A bailout is when you give someone money for something which you may or may not be able to sell in the future.

Right now, the system through which money flows is broken. Unless it is fixed, everyone loses access to the money they need to operate.

-- luckycat

So.... Are you saying that we purchase these debts/assets at the current market price? Isn't the current market price part of the reason why they can't be sold between the finance companies? Too low and we really don't know what something is worth? If we purchase them at the current market price, aren't those companies still going be be losing money on those debts/assets? And, are you saying that the companies that sell at such a low price will be willing to buy back those same debts/assets at fair market price when they are back on their feet? When the price is higher? Finance companies are willing to take a loss in order to stay in business?

Like you said, most people don't understand macroeconomics. So, I'm asking.

Hmm, I really don't believe that GG has stated that some assistance to the financial market is unwarranted. And, the people with whom I've spoken, have all pretty much agreed the same thing. And, those same people weren't happy with the bill as presented.

We (my small world) want to be educated. We want to hear something other then unbridled fear. I haven't gotten anything from my representatives that I wholly believe or find completely logical. The only consistency I get from nearly everyone behind the bill is that a collapse is imminent. We are being told we need to be scared; I'd rather be told how to be brave.

Okay, so about the class warfare... My class is not getting direct help. Our help is supposed to 'trickle down' from the top. We don't trust that mechanism as it has not produced any benefits for us in the current past. So, once again, we are being told 'Trust Us' when we, in fact, don't. Give us more.

What about giving help to both ends? Bottom and top? Because, I'm sorry, helping only the top is fucking bullshit.

Spocko points out that Levin is not some doofus yapper. He's been one of the principal neo-con accusation generators for many years. The meme-o-the-day often starts with him. If it doesn't start with him, he has been one of the loudest amplifiers. It is deliberate, it is a propaganda tactic, and Levin and those who dote on him know exactly what they are doing.

-- Ché Pasa

I want Levin to be stupid. Because the alternative is sickening.

I sometimes wonder if we'll get a homegrown terrorist group that will target MSM.

Not sure I'll get an answer, but I'll ask anyways.

Blunderdog, the two previous companies that were non-profitable... Did they fail?

I think Annie meant Modesto, CA.

Also, when you mention farmers, are you saying that most of them need to take out loans to purchase fuel and seed? I don't know one way or the other if they do, I'm asking because I don't.

Actually, I was just curious. The last company I was with was a start-up and is only continuing to function because the founder keeps it going. Funding ran out, etc. I was just wondering the frequency of failure for start-ups outside of reading stale statistics.

I'm going to ask two purposefully naive questions....

1. Why can't the government provide loans directly to the businesses that need them? I thought it already had programs for this.

2. Instead of buying the toxic debts directly, why can't it provide loans to companies that will buy them?

What? Leadership has gender? Is it good to see women as successful leaders? Yes. But leadership is genderless. Leaders can have gender, but it should mean so little as to not be relevant.

My 'favorite' passage from Pearlstein's column is:

And they will come around, reluctantly, to the understanding that the only way to get out of these situations is to have governments all around the world borrow gobs of money and effectively nationalize large swaths of the financial system so it can be restructured, recapitalized, reformed and returned to private ownership once the crisis has passed and the economy has gotten back on its feet.

Returned. Nothing more. Just returned. We'll make it better, give it money, and maybe put in some oversight. After that? Just give it back. ROI? Not sure if there is one.

And, I'm sorry, but anyone demonstrating his 'prowess' by alluding to past accomplishments is an ass. And, if what you're saying is refuted by a ton of people who actually know of what they are speaking, you're motivation has to be questioned. That last statement was directed to both Pearlstein and Paulson.

I'm ranting. I know. Sorry.