Well, the trillions dollars has to come from somewhere right?

Is it from Tax? If government raise tax it will cuts into everyone's
paycheck. People having less to spend and ultimately ruin the economy.

Is it from printing money? That will lead to even lower dollar and
high inflations, also very bad for the economy. Not to mention how
pissed China will be because of all the US dollar they are holding.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Nope, you're right on the money. I suggest everyone read Peter
Schiff's latest commentary at www.europac.net, it's a good read and
outlines things pretty well. I'd link the actual article but I'm on my
iPhone being driven down I-90 right now, so I can't.

I'm betting on more inflation because much higher taxes would be
politically unacceptable.

Troy is right on europac web site. I read
it everyday. It cuts through the hype and BS.
I'm also going to buy Peters book. This bailout
is going to put a lot of pressure on the dollar.
I'm guessing the FED will print more money like
crazy and we get to pay it back. I think it wise
to cover on all this junk that is going on.
I get the feeling we are being setup to fail.

The money doesn't come from anywhere. Money, like time, is a
philosophical construct, that exists to allow us to think and operate
in certain ways.

In a fiat currency system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

Money exists because the government says so. Since the US dollar is
the world's reserve currency, the US government can simply print more
money to pay off it's debts. This is known as a growth in the money
supply, which generally causes inflation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

Inflation is fairly odd, and in many ways counter intuitive, for
instance. inflation causes goods and services to be more expensive,
but it causes debt to shrink. This is because new goods and services
are bought at today's prices,  while debt is financed at the prices
that existed when the debt is assumed.

Low inflation is good for consumer prices, since they remain stable,
yet debt is harder to get rid of, since you have to repay the full
amount, in kind.

Deflation on the other hand lessens the value of money, this causes
consumer prices to fall, but makes it even harder to repay debt, as
you have to repay the debt in a devalued currency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation

increase of money supply causes inflation?  it is inflation!  prices
rise DUE to inflation!

gah, people need to quit thinking about inflation as a 'price thing'
and think of it more as a 'monetary volume increase thing!'

Money comes from US Mint in Colorado!

We just print more, but as Ron points out it our dollars are now
backed by unstable paper securities instead out gold like it used to
and should be.

The economy is addicted and needs another money fix, it will be
painful when we try to go off the crack :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGRYdDExn8s

Another question is: "Who does the bailout reward?"
What kind of 'homeower' is being rewarded?
What kind of executives in these firms is being rewarded?

It rewards China and all the other foreign bold holders of Fannie and
Freddy. It rewards speculators that took too much risk. It rewards
lenders that made bad decisions. It rewards politicians that failed to
enforce responsible policies concerning government backed businesses.
It rewards a Federal Reserve that poorly managed the money supply and
continues to do so. It rewards Wall St. and the private sector and
protects their profits while passing on the risk to the public. Below
is a link to a roll call of senators that voted for this bill. Take
note, and remember to vote them out at the next election. Notice Obama
and McCain didn't vote... I have been a supporter of Obama, but no
longer. I will be writing in Ron Paul. To me this vote was as
important as the Iraq war vote, and instead of taking the opportunity
to lead and make a stand one way or another he played politician and
hid from the fight as did McCain. I would have respected a "Yes" vote
more than a "Did not Vote" even if I don't agree with it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080726/ap_on_go_co/senate_rollcall_housi...

There isn't enough gold in the world to underwrite the value of the US
dollars in circulation today, or the size of the US economy.

Then there is the fact that the Dollar has been serially debased, by
every administration since Nixon suspended the convertibility of the
dollar to gold. At that point, the conversion rate was $35 an ounce.
No, that's not a typo.

Four years ago or so, the gold spot was around $330 an ounce. Now,
driven by fears of inflation and lack of faith in the dollar, gold is
over $900 an ounce.

I realise that Ron Paul has some rather radical ideas about economics
and fiat currencies. But regardless of what gold bugs will tell you,
putting the US back on the gold standard is not an option.

"There isn't enough gold in the world to underwrite the value of the
US
dollars in circulation today, or the size of the US economy. "

Yes there is, you do a simply ratio of X amount of dollars to X amount
of Gold. The more dollars you print the higher the dollar to gold
ratio gets. Currently it is 930 dollar units to 1oz gold unit. The
underwriting is not only possible it takes place every day in the open
market, and it is why Gold will eventually be at several 1000 dollar
units to 1oz Gold.

Ron Paul's ideas are not radical, they are fundamental, and the ideas
our financial system used up until 1913. Our current financial system
runs on radical ideas of fiat currency and fractional banking. These
are economic experiments and are the radical ideas.

Bernake borrows money from the leprechauns and pays them back in
smiles and happy thoughts.

How much gold is there in the world?

How many dollars are currently in circulation? What is the size of the
US economy, both now and going forward?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:radical&sa=X&oi...

I think you'll find that radical and fundamental are actually the same
thing. Perhaps not as you understand it, but as it is defined. But I
digress...

The world has got a lot more complicated since 1913, immeasurably so.
What we need is to find a workable way forward, because going
backwards while a good idea in principle means doing away with many of
the things in life we take for granted today. Things like credit, and
free market economics.

What you're talking about is effectively a return to Keynesian if not
classical economics. This would entail, at the very least, a return to
something akin to a command economy, one where the technocrats are in
charge. I appreciate that you're upset about the financial
mismanagement currently on display, but to advocate a return to 1913,
is suicidal.