700 BILLION DOLLAR BILL MUST READ

[radicalzero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0y70CAeNd4

[BRAHMA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g72BuIvMbWY

[GeoscienceStudent]

@ Hans  and orthers

Here in Germany
the news want to make us believe, that the summ vor the baiout is about 700Mrd and not 700Brd
Can anyone help out with realistik information and perhaps some reference.

helmut

It is $700 Billion raising our national debt to around 11.3 Trillion.  But now the Feds are raising even more  money to pay the interest and may be around $900 Billion separate from the first bill past.  I read about that last night.  I also saw, in addition to the T-bills another poster spoke about, that it began with the sub prime loans that people could not afford to pay for that ran amuck.  The assets had to be assessed at a lower rate and thus there was a loss.  There have been allot of people letting go of their homes and being bankrupt or foreclosure.  The house then goes on the market for a lower price.  The amount loaned is more than the amount the house is sold for.  The bank loses.  They had in turn sold these in a big package on the stock market, and even people over seas, who thought they were safe stock, bought them.  The assessment of the house is down..and there was a domino effect going on there so it was a growing percentage of them, so the stock is worth less money, so the holder loses, and so on, and so on. 
This exciting new idea that "It is Americans right that everyone should have a home."  started under Clinton.  The banks were given new rules on loaning, and loans were no longer based on 25% debt total, good credit, and a percentage down.  People could have bad credit, or no credit, put nothing down, and get a revolving rate that goes up and up and up, out of control.  The people who were getting these loans did not understand budgeting and mortgage issues.  They did not push to get a fixed rate,  sometimes got loads of credit cards from credit card companies with 0% interest (then in fine print 29.9% after the first 6 months) that then would hound them, just knowing they found a victim, then you have to pay escrow for the insurance and raising property taxes, then the house has to have upkeep, etc. 
Bush continued this, because no one realized that it was chancy.  Now this is not the ONLY thing involved here, but one of many.  We also have been having a job loss for 9 consecutive months.  Many companies have closed or moved over seas, outsourcing.  Bush thought if he made it so other companies like China could compete with us better, we'd have better world economy.  Well many of our companies reduced like Ford (who also outsources) or moved like Colgate, and China began importing more goods to us (often poisoned or poor quality).  Then we promptly borrowed a trillion dollars from China.  Also there has been the gas problem going up to $150 per barrel at one point.  This raises the cost of transportation, and manufacturing and has a large effect on overall economy. There is a suggestion by Ken Deffeyes, Princeton University Geologist, and author of "Hubbert's Peak:  The impending world's oil shortage" who suggested at $200 per barrel we would see a slow down of economy (10%) and at $300 (15% total economy) we would have total shut down.  This  has a little to do with it too. 
Under the Reagan Administration 1981, in Maryland it was announced to the science researchers in the Dept. of Energy that There was no need to have newer technology for renewable resources because it would be at least 50 years before we needed it.  My instructor who was a researcher there at the time calls this "The worse decision a President ever made."  (He's not trying to be political, but just assessing the decision itself). We pulled out of the studies in Fusion and quit researching alternative fossil fuels such as tar sands and shale oil, and did not really push things like solar and wind. Even now, as I received a letter from my congressman recently, they are passing bills to send money for research for technology, (much to oil companies) but did not seem interested in trying to increase the use of the wind and solar that we presently have (understand everywhere can't have these sources, but we could put them where feasible such as wind turbines in the Midwest and solar in western states such as New Mexico, California, and Arizona, etc.  He did mention his support in Biofuels though, but did not explain whether he backed corn, or other alternatives.
Bush pushed a mandate of 25% corn to be made into ethanol.  This has a 1:1.3 ratio of fossil fuel input to ethanol output.  Plus during fermentation it puts out carbon dioxide and takes some enzymes added to start the process.  But Cane ethanol has a 1:8 ratio and starts fermenting as soon as it is cut.  Also, there is not much going on to educate anyone about the distribution areas of it.  I asked the local car salesmen where we could get ethanol for the flex fuel cars that are made to either take gasoline or a 85% ethanol mixture.  Now we do have them and geological survey has an interactive map that you can check to find them but they are few and far in between and hard to find.  The salesman had no idea.  The GM (made and assembled in Japan, though an American Co.) cars they had were about $10000 more than the others and plus had about 23mpg average.  Toyota has more, up to 45mpg, but I could not find those cars around here.  Now, who is going to buy a car that has the gas mileage possibility of an SUV, costs more, and you have to use gasoline anyways because you don't know where to get the ethanol?
I told the congressman I'm going to pull out GIS, put the distribution points on it, (make road maps for each local site in each local county), make posters and take them to the car dealerships.  Problem is, it may be too late. 
Here is a link about oil:  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-oil-side1-story,0,2965469.htmlstory?coll=chi-homepagepromo440-fea

And to about the $700 billion:    http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=business&id=20081007/48eadec0_3422_1334620081007-369442566erify the $700B number: 

[GeoscienceStudent]

Corrections from above post:

http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=business&id=20081007/48eadec0_3422_1334620081007-369442566

Sorry for the momentary brain farct:  it's "variable rates," not revolving rates.

Oh did you see, AIG used $400,000 of the 85 Billion obtained from the government to send executives to a spa and now they are asking for 35 Billion more. 

Guess they're trying to get money to get out of here because the taxpayers are mad.   It might not do any good.  Because of these out of control and irresponsible type of actions, the whole world is now caught in a domino effect of the flailing world economy.  They might get rotton vegetables thrown at them if they travel. ( this paragraph is just a joke).

OPEC wants to reduce oil supply to raise the prices back up.  It could be the straw that breaks the camel's back to destroy the economy.  Can we throw rotten vegetables at OPEC? 

[vonwolf]

OPEC wants to reduce oil supply to raise the prices back up.  It could be the straw that breaks the camel's back to destroy the economy.  Can we throw rotten vegetables at OPEC? 

Hi GeoscienceStudent;
   I haven't heard that one yet, I guess this might give you a idea whos side there on. maybee we could throw some nuclear vegetables at them.
Only kidding of course