• 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!

Where companies' new tax savings will likely go

Jack Hays said:
I disagree. We started with $17 in the bank in 1976 (when I began my serious career) and my wife and I are now securely retired in a gated community with ample income and a robust six figure portfolio. We played conservative all the way. I have little sympathy for those who over-leveraged and lost.
Click to expand...

Goldman Sachs overleveraged themselves and then misrepresented their overleveraged garbage and sold it. They lost. Then we had to bail them out - so they really won. On our backs. That's what I was referring to, not people who took out 3 mortgages on the inflated 'value' of their property. I have no sympathy for those folks, either. And GS is just one example. That's who TARP "made whole".
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Goldman Sachs overleveraged themselves and then misrepresented their overleveraged garbage and sold it. They lost. Then we had to bail them out - so they really won. On our backs. That's what I was referring to, not people who took out 3 mortgages on the inflated 'value' of their property. I have no sympathy for those folks, either. And GS is just one example. That's who TARP "made whole".
Click to expand...

Ah. The "too big to fail" debate.
 
Jack Hays said:
Ah. The "too big to fail" debate.
Click to expand...

I guess that's OT?

In my of topic opinion, anything that is too big to fail because its failure would wreck the country is an existential threat to the Republic and should be treated as such. In other words - nothing should be allowed to get that big.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I guess that's OT?

In my of topic opinion, anything that is too big to fail because its failure would wreck the country is an existential threat to the Republic and should be treated as such. In other words - nothing should be allowed to get that big.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're onto something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom