"Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage
Yes, they should, as long as the government has had no roll in their failure.What about business that over leverage themselves and then can't pay their debts?
Should they be allowed to fail?
Not to mention the companies that held all the bad debt on Lemans and AIG. They wanted the bail out so they could get paid and pay themselves. But they knew the debt was bad. They knew the paper was crap. They had placed bets against it--hedged their bets.
Wells Fargo is the bank (singular) that you're talking about. Citigroup and BofA had to take it as they were sitting on a ton of bad paper and bad debt.Gross oversimplification. Plenty of "winners, job-creators" who had nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis. Blackmailed the treasury? Banks were forced to take TARP funds even though many of them opposed it.
The winners, job-creators that we talk about are the 1% -- highly invested in the markets. You know the ones that would have collapsed had we no bailed out AIG.
You missed the connection. That's okay, it seems many in the thread have forgotten who has taken the biggest hand-outs.Non-sequitur? You're losing coherence fast.
Keep in mind, corporations are people. So were not talking about the individuals that worked in the successful divisions of AIG or GM. We're talking about AIG and GM. You know, the people-Corps who failed. The people-corps who should have been put out on the street like a failed person who overindulges and can't make his credit card payment. But we propped them up, gave them a few weeks and rehab, refilled their coffers, and let them continue.Sure, plenty of successful people at all of those companies. Plenty of incompetent people as well.
You are correct. I mispoke in the wee hours and thank your for correcting me.Treasury had nothing to do with these loans. It's call the Federal Reserve. Kind of a big difference.
Since the secret Fed loans have been made public, where is the outrage from the right. If we were secretly loaning money to students at 0.01%, then buying it back from them at a loss, Fox would be all over that story.
Last edited by hazlnut; 12-06-11 at 10:40 AM.
True, the GOP did take the House back but since Congress is divided, not in 2008, we are back into gridlock which is not necessarily a bad thing. Again, we did bail them out and they paid the majority of it back. The BTCs cut taxes on ALL brackets what logic is it to raise only one portion of payers? The growth during the Clinton years was built on the dotcom bubble as he admitted in the 2009 GDI forum. Clinton also pontificated on the basis of growth in the ‘00’s being housing, personal and public debt the three of which are not sustainable and highly volatile, which I agree with. We can raise taxes now but on what basis? What is the basis of our economic growth now? Green energy?...Really?2010, who took over the house?... After we bailed them out, they continue to make huge profits… Because rolling back taxes to Clinton era rates (you know, when we had tremendous growth) would hurt small businesses??
Why just the 1% untouchable? Why not either the 100% untouchable or 100% touchable?The bulk of the 2010 New Kids economic platform has been debunked and deboned by economists, fact-checkers, and the CBO. But they still persist. The wealthiest 1% is still untouchable.
Again, the funds were mostly paid back with interest.Those who paid themselves bonus compensation from Treasury funds.
I personally don’t demonize the OWS protestors wholly only the few that hold extreme positions and participate extreme actions. I wish they had a better message in HOW they plan to execute their demands legitimately.The OWS protestor who wants a lot of the same things the Tea Party protestor wants -- accountability, no bail-outs, no moral hazard, no free lunches... Why are the OWS protestors the monsters?
So, if a company went under during the recession, because business slowed down, because people weren't spending, because consumer confidence went down, because the markets were down, because, in part, of something the Gov did or didn't do...???
Do you see where I'm going?
With your conditional bail-out approval, anyone hurt is entitled. Joe lost his job at the butchers because they had to lay some staff off because fewer customers were buying quality meat, because consumer confidence was low, because the markets were tanking, because Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac gave mortgages to people who couldn't pay and AIG insured that paper...
Shouldn't Joe get unemployment benefits? And why do we put a limit on Joe's unemployment benefits, but allowed executives to receive bonuses equal to 100 times what Joe gets. The people running BofA when they were sitting on a ton of bad mortgages got their bonus compensation, as did the CEO of GM, Rick Wangoneer for running a company that built cars no one wanted and lost $38 billion in 2007 under his watch.
The GM pension plan at the time of the bail out allowed executives to retire at 60 with full benefits. So those running the failing company get full benefits, yet the far-right outrage is at the public sector workers making $40k year or less.
The above section is somewhat ambiguous. Comparing pensions of private companies versus public sector workers is not legitimate. The bailouts that protected the ‘executives pensions’ also protected auto workers union pensions. It is not that we on the right are outraged by public sector workers income or pensions but rather the sustainability of them especially considering the current plight of those low/middle income non-public workers.
All good points.
But, for the record, Citicorp was the only bank the tax-payers made any profit on. The banks were able to pay back so fast because the fed manipulated an entire industry.
What's more, government agencies and the Federal Reserve rushed to the assistance of the banking sector by guaranteeing banks' debt, intervening in capital markets, and slashing interest rates to zero. In essence, the government altered the banking environment so that it would be astonishingly easy for the banks to profit and thus earn their way out of trouble. As a result, critics said, the banks were being spared many difficult and painful decisions. All carrots and no stick.
After TARP, the banks borrowed money at a below market Fed window rate, then were sold 2-year Government bonds at a higher rate.
The Federal Reserve Bank loaned funds to major Wall Street banks at rates of between 0.10 percent and 0.25 percent and at the same time banks were encouraged to purchase U.S. Treasury bills. Two-year Treasury bills the federal government was selling were fetching more than one percent interest. The deal — borrowing at a discounted rate from one agency of the federal government and taking loans earning interest at a higher rate from another agency of government — amounted to a cash transfer from the federal government to the big banks that Bloomberg estimated netted the banks some $13 billion in profit.
The people that ran the company, not the factory workers, were highly compensated for failure. I believe the UAW did later on negotiate for a large sum of back pay.
The businessmen all over the country who lost their dealerships and were stuck with cars no one wanted; they laid off their employees. Some of whom had mortgages. It comes full circle.