Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

Use the money to pay down the debt and just relax the regulations on capital formation and hiring and let the private sector do the work. And work some type of internet freedom into the constitution alongside freedom to have guns.

On that last note, I think we're already far ahead of the curve when it comes to entrepreneurship. We're encouraging our kids to take chances, but giving them little when it comes to financial education. I think that alone contributes to the large amount of debt per capita in this country.

But since we're on the topic of entrepreneurs, good ideas don't succeed on their own, nothing new here. To elaborate on that, you can't execute without having the capital to get yourself from idea to prototype. That said, I can't tell you how many times I've seen talented individuals hold themselves back from following through on great ideas because they don't know how to set aside money that would later provide them with the time to focus on those great ideas.

Regardless of how one views our educational system, we aren't doing enough to teach the fundamentals of managing money. It's both surprising and depressing how many people don't comprehend the basics of credit cards, loans, insurance, bills, etc..

"The bailout was a mess"

The efforts of big gumment to get people who couldn't afford a house into one that blew a housing bubble that popped and created the worst financial and economic disaster since the Great Depression "was a mess".

The 'bailout', that is, the TARP program was not "a mess" at all but a grand success:

(1) TARP made money. All or nearly all the money has been paid back with very high interest, about 11% per year.

As far as I know, all the TARP money will be paid back without difficulty.

(2) The money was nothing like a 'bailout' but just loans to tell the world that the institutions would not go bust. So, TARP stopped 'runs' on the banks.

(3) TARP was not a 'bailout' but just to solve a short-term 'liquidity' problem, that is, as in 'runs' on the banks.

Note: A 'liquidity' problem is when you are worth $10 million but have only $500 in cash and suddenly have a traffic ticket for $600 and have to pay up or go to jail right NOW.

You have the money but just don't have it in cash right away; you can get the cash easily enough but will need some days or weeks to do so.

So to solve your 'liquidity' problem, you get a loan using some of your $10 million in assets as collateral. The loan is not really at risk; you pay your $600 bill; then a few weeks later you repay your loan with interest.

You are not broke. You are not begging for welfare. The loan is not a gift. The loan is not at risk. The loan is NOT a 'bailout'.

(4) Secretary Paulson called the nine bank CEOs to DC, sat them on one side of a table with a form in front of them, and told them all, "You WILL sign this form before you leave here today.". They all signed.

Goldman Sachs was one of the nine, didn't want or need the money, signed, took the money, but paid it back, with interest, as soon as Paulson would permit.

(5) Paulson's main point was just to tell the world that those nine banks were NOT bust and, thus, to stop 'runs' on those banks.

What Paulson did was fine. It was a good solution to a serious problem. The effort cost the taxpayers $0.00 and actually showed a nice little profit (11% was HIGH interest for such a loan).

To have not done TARP, we might have had cascading runs on all the major financial institutions in the US and all of the industrialized world and, then, been well into a second Great Depression, WWIII, global nuclear war, etc.

Yet too many people want to leap to call TARP a 'bailout'. It was no such thing.

Lesson: Those sources that call TARP a 'bailout' you should realize are providing toxic sewage in place of information for a well informed citizenry. For such sources, you should put on a rubber suit, hold your nose, dump the swill, pull the chain, and call a toxic dump cleanup crew.

Why do these 'news' sources scream 'bailout'? Because they want to grab you by the heart and the gut so that your eyeballs will follow for their ads and know that to grab you they should scream versions of greed, corruption, danger, scandal, etc.

So, they spout glowing, fuming, bubbling, sticky, toxic nonsense.

If the newsies had actually informed us, then we wouldn't have gotten into the popped housing bubble nonsense in the first place. In Iraq, we would have known that there was no good evidence that Saddam had WMDs. If we invaded Iraq anyway, then we would have dumped the Saddam regime and gotten out in three weeks instead of staying for 10 years and losing 5000 dead, 50,000 wounded, and $1.5 trillion. If we had good information on Akrapistan, then we would have been out'a there years ago. With good information, China wouldn't have wiped out much of our textile, manufacturing, and other industries and been ripping off our intellectual property.

Meanwhile, back in the US, the media was telling us ALL about Brit, Paris, Lindsay, Kim, etc. BUMMER.

Bad information from the newsies, such as screaming 'bailout', is the worst and most dangerous problem facing civilization at present.

PG and HN don't like for me to criticize 'big media', but I do so anyway because the media nonsense is the most dangerous problem facing civilization at present. Sorry PG.