>The Obama administration has been saying any more bailouts will come with conditions and reporting requirements. The first $700 billion went out with basically no strings attached. In most cases the recipients have socked the money away rather than lending it, which was the whole idea -- to get money flowing again so the economy could pick up.
>
>>I've been wondering why the money just dumped into
>>the system when the banks are still not providing credit.
>>As I understand it, credit for loans is a big issue. So, why isn't the
>>government forcing the banks to provide credit? Then the
>>banks would be allowed, with proof, to recoup the money
>>they loaned from the government?
>>
>>Canada has also set a few billion aside to fight the ressession.
>>
>>
>>>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/28/special-groups-line-piece-stimulus/
>>>
>>>They'll spend us out of debt, right?
>>>
>>>Lots of new jobs to revitalize the economy in..
>>>
>>>"$400 million for global warming research; $335 million for the Centers for Disease Control to combat sexually-transmitted diseases; and $650 million coupons to subsidize TV viewers for digital television conversion"
>>>
>>>I bet they can add another trillion to the deficit (which is a good thing, right?) before the end of February.

It's good that they jumped in put a stop to cash hording, which may lead to it dramatic devaluation. Sales must happen and money must move.