That was the original idea when the bailout was first approved. The government was going to buy up toxic "assets" and get them off the books so the markets could settle. As I understand it, the fundamental problem in the markets is nobody knows what some of this stuff is worth. And we still don't. For reasons which are unclear to me, after the money was approved they then made a right turn and gave it directly to financial institutions instead.

>Same things happened here. The banks have sat on the money or paid themselves.
>
>I don't see why the government(ours or yours) can't set up their own back to basics bank lending at a fair rate to businesses and people.
>
>Just let the banks and all their "toxic" debt sink or swim
>
>>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.