Tea Parties: Whats really going on?

[HappySqurriel]

akuma587 said:

Kasz216 said:
You know the Herbert Hoover thing really doesn't make any sense.

I mean... we have the FDIC now. So a bank failing doesn't hurt the "little guys" in that regard.

Also during the beggining of the Great Depression their was tons of credit out there... even with banks failing. It's just nobody wanted to borrow. That's why FDR's Kensyian polcies really didn't do anything other then give people "hope". The poor didn't end up spending most of their extra money. They saved it.

Food prices and other stuff were dropping. Currently those prices are inflating due to the global food crisis.

Basically the hope on this plan succeeding is hoping that poor people are a lot stupider with their money then they were during the great depression.

American stupidity and foolhardiness with their money is one thing you can count on always Kasz. Consumer spending has already started to pick up.

And you bring up a perfectly good point with the FDIC. If all these banks did fail, the government would be on the hook for EVERY BANK ACCOUNT that failed along with them. That amount is probably higher than the amount paid out to bail out the banks. And the bailout money can at least be paid back (and some banks are already starting to pay it back http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/Politics/Story?id=7337061&page=1 ). The government would probably have had to spend MORE money if it hadn't bailed out the banks than if it had let them fail and the FDIC would have had to step in.

So anyway you look at it, the government was going to be paying out a shitload of money. To claim that we would have spent less money if we wouldn't have bailed out the banks is extremely myopic.

 

 

They're only on "the hook" if they can't recover the deposit money through bankrupcy, and (while I could be wrong) I suspect that the FDIC becomes one of the first creditors that is repaid when a bank fails ...