Supposably.
-Joe
You should learn to read your citations.
And for all intensive purposes.
Sometimes I wonder if somebody is following gonzo around the boards and editing all his links after he posts them.
I’m thinking he is the physical manifestation of ignorance, who isn’t going down without a fight.
“for all Intents and Purposes”
Although they could be Intensive Porpoises.
whoosh
Whom did this?
Thou did.
Thou sweet!
Outakes from the Amish message board.
You appear to have mislaid a T.
He’ll use it to square away his spelling.
“Pie is not square, fool! Pie is round, ‘T’ is square!”
I will look again when i get back. But I had a cite showing the breakdown of the 350 bill. It listed stocks bought, and all other uses. There is a category for cash infusions separtate from the stocks bought. Pat yourself on the back while you can, but you are wrong.
Oh, I see.
The Federal Government has defaulted on debts? Do tell. This event might possibly merit a short item on page 2 of the Times Business section, which I must have missed.
The problem with assigning values to these assets is that if market value was used the banks would really go under, but if market value was not used then the government would very likely pay too much. It seemed that no one would show up to an auction. Not doing anything made the value drop even more, which made the problem worse. So the problem is not if they are pay more than the assets are worth now, but rather if they are paying more than they will be worth assuming a reasonable recovery.
RandRover has a good point, I think. No matter how you define given, I suspect the average person thinks the government just dumped money onto the banks (see various political cartoons.) That hurts the support of the necessary intervention.
I discussed the gift elements in the OP.
Uncle Sam always pays his debts. He just doesn’t care about reducing them.