It's just dumbfounding to me how folks can continue to say the bank bailout has helped

[bigtree]

Stabilize the markets?

Free up credit?

Who is still in the dark about where the bulk of the money went?

Am I wrong in detecting some naivete from the Obama administration about the criminally negligent way our treasury opened the money spigot and the utterly predictable way that the institutions just pocketed the bulk of the cash?

Does anyone believe that AIG is the only institution which siphoned off bailout money for executive and other payoffs? We still don't know where the vast majority of the money was spent.

Treating these financial institutions like they're 'too big to fail' encourages them to play fast and loose. The closer they came to failure made them better candidates for more money - the opposite of what Congress put the auto makers through for the pittance they granted them.

It's not as if the federal money spigot is now plugged off for these financial executives . . . even knowing what we know about how that money was spent. The effort to scramble and get the bonuses from AIG back is pathetic and weak. The scolding from the WH looks weak. When are they going to say enough is enough?

Think of the miserly way they dole out our tax dollars for our vital needs. Imagine how much better our own economy would be if we had those dollars invested in our direct interest, instead of this logically and functionally-discredited lie that money trickles-down when you shower it over the fat-cats.

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. But..but..but..THANK GOD IT PASSED!

Where are those cheerleaders now? And there were plenty cheering it on. What say they now?

[FrenchieCat]

2. I find it odd that everyone is an economist now.......as long as they are on the outside

looking in.

Funny how not having to do anything but talk the talk makes one so "in the know" about what to do, and less than naive.

[bigtree]

5. Even stone idiots can tell when they're being robbed.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Actually, most don't.

Cause it's been happening since the Banking industry was deregulated. Most obviously didn't have a clue.

[VermeerLives]

3. Agree

It's been rather confusing; one minute we're told that we're in a "catastrophe", that things are "dire". Next we hear that things aren't as bad as previously reported. So which is it??

[FrenchieCat]

4. If there was a time span between the two, perhaps it is what was done

in between time that makes the difference.

What you are saying reminds me of those who believe that a 6 months gap, the changing of Presidents, and the passing of 795 billion stimulus bill somehow doesn't matter if the words "Fundamentals, economy, and strong" are words used in a sentence.

[bigtree]

8. If they can pull back on any of the money

. . . they ought to dedicate it to a second jobs bill. (Kudos to Pres. Obama for the first one)

[originalpckelly]

10. You might want to ask the President why in 2004 PAC money from Morgan Stanley...

and all the other financial companies was OK, but last year it wasn't:
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/S4IL00180

AIG is in there.

[FrenchieCat]

12. We might just want to hang from a tree Bill Clinton and everyone

who ever had anything to do with government since the
banking deregulation happened, while you are at it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. The "non sequitur" fallacy

The markets go down.
The banks receive a huge infusion of cash.
The markets go up.

Therefore, the huge infusion of cash to the banks lifted the markets and, quod erat demonstratum, helped to improve the economy.

Ignore, for the moment, the argumentum ad populam holding that the markets are an accurate reflection of the economy because many people believe such to be the case.

[Vinca]

9. I actually think some of it trickled down to a local bank where I live

because suddenly they had millions of dollars to lend for mortgages.

[bigtree]

11. we had a Chevy Chase Bank in our groccery store

It moved out to a new bank they built in the parking lot, complete with these huge columns and roman-type flourishes.

The bank rarely had a customer when it was in the store.

[dkofos]

13. It did help some rich guys get even richer.

[flyarm]

14. the bailouts sure as hell are not creating jobs!

Or keeping businesses open.

I live in a winter tourist spot and there are hardly any tourists now! The few stores that haven't closed up shop are hanging on by a hang nail.
I have never ever ever seen it so bad here during spring break time.
Most of our local stores make it for the year at this time of the year..I would bet that by next winter almost all the stores will be closed.

Why could all that money not gone to we the people..it has all been pissed away with these corporate whores!

Stores can't get loans, people can't get loans to buy housing..but don't worry the foreign banks got our tax dollars!!
The only people that have bought properties here all winter are the British.
But we in Fla have been in this resession for over 3 years now..i would say it is more a depression for us the past year.

What a disgrace all this money going to the very people that fucked this country!

[Igel]

15. But there's a problem.

Even those with money aren't likely to go to winter tourist spots. Why? They're insecure--they just lost a lot of money. The problem is part financial, part psychological (now, if I could just get my wife to do the 'psychological' part).

[BuyingThyme]

16. It's a new religion.

Have faith.

[HamdenRice]

17. In this recession people can't get credit from banks. Imagine if we couldn't get CASH from banks

I realize that the banking system is hard to understand, but the bailout really did avert a catastrophe. That was its point. To say that we are facing a catastrophic recession despite the bailout does not account for what would have happened if more large banks had been allowed to collapse during the panic of the fall of 08.

Right now the problem is that the banks are too shaky to provide credit. But on a few days last fall they almost became too shaky to provide cash. Now considering what happened as a result of this credit crunch, what do you think would have happened to the economy if people hadn't been able to get cash?

Even left wing economists who have harshly criticized the bailout have said that we were hours from needing gold coins to buy groceries. (See DemocracyNow from around that time). The bailout prevented that.

At least now there's a fighting chance to turn this thing around. If a complete collapse had happened there would not have been a fighting chance.

Aside from the bonus outrage that people are obsessing about, the real problem is that the bailouts have not been aggressive enough to change banks' balance sheets, so they cannot really lend. They have no money to lend. The next step is nationalization and recapitalization, which can now take place without the panic of collapse.

Treasury has been incompetent and timid and refuses to take the next step.

The Fed has been much more effective, and Bernanke is the hero of this mess. Both Paulson and Geithner have dithered while Bernanke has single handedly staved off further disasters. I know this is going to be an unpopular, but Bernanke could go down in history as the greatest Fed chairman ever.

If you study this chart you will understand why. While Treasury has dithered around, the Fed is propping up critical credit markets and intervening directly with companies in a way that the Fed hasn't done since FDR's administration: