pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
I agree...however given the choice of let piece of crap banks die, and take the US econ down with it costing many many people there jobs ...I would rather keep people working and the econ from complete disaster.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
If Jesus had been an American
- Thread starter Dawkinsrocks
- Start date
I agree...however given the choice of let piece of crap banks die, and take the US econ down with it costing many many people there jobs ...I would rather keep people working and the econ from complete disaster.
Werbung:
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Says business..until they want goverment to do something for them...Just like Nuclear power is great...so long as its not near you...Coal is great...so long as its not near you....people should be able to do what ever they want with there property...untill the house next to you in bright orange, glows in the dark with strobe lights and shaped like a boot....
unless I'm missing something the econ did go down and many people lost their jobs.
not unlike the auto nationalization the only difference is that friends of DC got taken care of and the rest of us got left holding the bag.
the gravy train rolls on...
the point is government should not "do something" for them.
how did you find out where I live ?
I would rather allow for a true market correction -- so we are not running up against the same problem in 5 years.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
It is much more than that and I suspect you know it.
Government bailouts are arbitrary (see Lehman Brothers and GM bond holders, etc......) and at least partially, if not entirely, designed to enrich and empower government. These bailouts while not entirely without historic precedent, seeded too much power to government. The government now is protecting corporations they think are too big to fail. This has government and business in bed together. It is a form of Crony Capitalism...which is really a form of Socialism. And, most of us know Socialism ALWAYS fails.
Not going to dispute it -- solution is of course to let bad business models fail.
thats what Chapter 11 was made for.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I agree with much here. The gov should not have been involved in the business of the banks when determining what loans they would or would not take, and should not have bailed them out either. The poorly managed companies should have gone bankrupt. I have not seen evidence yet that their demise would have wrecked the whole economy. If that were the case then letting them fail systematically would have been better than bailing them out - which as has been said here is really cronyism. We need to get rid of the cronyism whether it be perpetrated upon us by either the dems or the pubs. This kind of favoritism is the fault of congress more than it is the fault of the companies that ask for it. They can only ask but congress has the power of law and the power to give or not.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
yes it did...but it could have gone down far more then it did...If your falling out of the plane a mile above the ground...and you are given a parachute...would you not pull it if I told you, well your going to still hit the ground? If we did what you wanted...and let them all fail...and all those big banks failed..all of the auto industry failed ( yes even Ford would most likely have gone under) ...and UnEmployment hit 18%....would you rather have that. or bail them out...get paid back for some ( and much/all of it in the case of the auto industry) and have it hit 9%...what choice would you take?
A: Feel Morally superior and happy you held to your ideology...costing 9% more of the nation to lose there jobs..Also many there homes, there health care...and yes there lives ( suicide and lack of health care)...would you be fine with that?
or B, Help people and lose some money ( and possibly stop yourself from losing even more) ( banks that dont exist and people not working don't pay taxes..and cost more)
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
what would you call evidence that says that it would have wrecked the econ? Not Failing sure took a bite out of it..you don't think that having that many large banks fail at once would have a greater impact? The issue I would say your half correct is the Cronyism part...but not in the bail out itself...but How Bush did it was the bigger problem there. he did not push for a bill that actually changed or fixed the problem...he left that to others rather then use it when we had the leverage to actually do it.
If I felt all of those Banks could have failed without major damage to the econ..I would have loved to watch them burn to the ground in there own greed...
The (formerly) Big Three would have been fine. Chrysler and GM would have been much better. Ford may have taken a Chapter 11 path just to stay even.
There were better ways to address the bank problems that would not have amounted to a cash trough. As it went down nothing was done to address the real problems and so they persist and will for years to come. We should be on the way back but are mired in bad decisions.
As is so often the case in politics -- when presented with an A/B comparison -- the most likely comparison is really D, and the best policy choice is really C.
As an FYI as well -- taxpayers lost billions in the auto bailouts.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
More then 50% of the bail out has been paid back, plus the taxes paid in by workers and companies that would not exist without them...plus the downward pull on the overall economy had we had them fail.
I find it funny listing to republicans talk about jobs..when all of there plans are...let everyone lose there job...somehow in the end we will all win...trust me.
Werbung:
Do you mean let them restructure in bankruptcy? Something they had to do anyway.
The Republican position (while certainly split) was to use mechanisms already in place to let these companies restructure. That is what needed to occur -- and what occurred anyway after the bailouts.
Similar threads
