• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof: You give them an inch, they take a mile.

we simply can't afford "too big to fail" corporations.
 
There you go. Under Obama's watch. Would it have been any different under the GOP? Heyall NO! Grab a clue, people. Keep voting for the same parties and expecting change is insane. Vote third party.
 
If it was in the cards they should have failed.

"The government is not empowered to trample shareholder and property rights even in the midst of a financial emergency,"

In this he is right though. I hope he wins. The entire TARP deal was a huge fiasco.
 
From the source:The suits accuse the government of taking valuable assets from AIG's shareholders without their consent or fair compensation, in exchange for the government's 80 percent stake in the company.

Read more: Former AIG Chief Sues Government Over Bailout | Fox News
Click to expand...

They have a point. Just because the company took a government bail out, doesn't mean that the shareholder gave their constitutional rights.
 
Risky Thicket said:
There you go. Under Obama's watch. Would it have been any different under the GOP? Heyall NO! Grab a clue, people. Keep voting for the same parties and expecting change is insane. Vote third party.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't with government bailing out "too big to fail" entities. That is merely a symptom. The problem is the fact that entities are allowed to become "too big to fail" in the first place.
 
StillBallin75 said:
The problem isn't with government bailing out "too big to fail" entities. That is merely a symptom. The problem is the fact that entities are allowed to become "too big to fail" in the first place.
Click to expand...

well, i can understand limiting the size and scope of banks... but as an insurance company , i'm not sure how you can legally limit the size they grow to.

the best limiting mechanism I know of is letting them fail when the sh*t hits the fan.....other than that you are faced with how to decide which metric used ot limit them.
" you made 10 billion in revenue, you are only allowed 9 billion... time to break you up into little pieces"... nah, that doesn't sound to good to me.
 
Thrilla said:
well, i can understand limiting the size and scope of banks... but as an insurance company , i'm not sure how you can legally limit the size they grow to.

the best limiting mechanism I know of is letting them fail when the sh*t hits the fan.....other than that you are faced with how to decide which metric used ot limit them.
" you made 10 billion in revenue, you are only allowed 9 billion... time to break you up into little pieces"... nah, that doesn't sound to good to me.
Click to expand...

I can actually agree with some of that. I would also propose that Moral hazard is perhaps one reason why some firms become to big to fail.
 
Allowing bankrupt companies to go under and be liquidated is the one issue I see everyone from left to right and up to down agreeing on. It's a basic tenent of a fair marketplace. A 5-year old could understand the problem.

The next time any corporations blow up, we need to all oppose the bailout, whether it's a D or an R in charge. No more AIGs or Gov't Motors!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom