Aa
How do you feel about these big company bail-outs ?
I'm thinking it probably had to be done to try and save us from a complete melt down. I'm not really for them, but don't have the brains to figure out how else to get us out of some of this mess. I just keep thinking about how the people that were forclosed on must feel. No one bailed them out.
I'm not saying there weren't dems involved. But they haven't been large and in charge for the last eight years. I know for absolute certainty that McCain was involved. Heck his chief economic advisor is PHIL GRAMM - architect of deregulation! So why would we want to put him in charge of this mess?
I agree that people who did greedy and stupid things shouldn't be rewarded- and that includes the folks at the top. Why do the sellers get saved and Joe Blow who was sold a mortgagae that the seller KNEW he couldn't pay- loses everything? That's why I find Sander's detailed respose so thought provoking. There have to be provisions so that the culprits at the top don't get off any easier tham Joe Blow.
Trickle down misery started at the top.
I agree that people who did greedy and stupid things shouldn't be rewarded- and that includes the folks at the top. Why do the sellers get saved and Joe Blow who was sold a mortgagae that the seller KNEW he couldn't pay- loses everything? That's why I find Sander's detailed respose so thought provoking. There have to be provisions so that the culprits at the top don't get off any easier tham Joe Blow.
Trickle down misery started at the top.
Would you write a check to a contractor for a huge amount, let them cash it and tell them ......we can worry about the details of the contract later ?
If congress signs that check without any stipulations and regulations they will never get them, and we will be screwed once again.
I do agree they need to work quickly, but not foolishly.
If congress signs that check without any stipulations and regulations they will never get them, and we will be screwed once again.
I do agree they need to work quickly, but not foolishly.
What Obama said, anyone could have said. Such fluff and no substance. The mayor of NY did say that McCain and Obama have a very tough time trying to explain these complicated issues in just a few short words, let alone understand them on such short notice. We should NOT bail out people that obtain loans beyond there means, thats just as bad as CEO's getting golden parachutes for a failing corp. But no one knows how we can perform such a feat. So we'll bail irresponsible people too. So it goes.
Indeed both sides should come together to ensure confidence in the financial markets otherwise we'll all be out of work. It will be interesting to see how both sides work together. And for goodness sake, quit blaming the republicans, there is PLENTY of blame to go around. I can cut and paste plenty of facts that show the dems were involved in this mess. Lets fix the problem first, then catch the crooks, then determine how not to let this happen again.
Indeed both sides should come together to ensure confidence in the financial markets otherwise we'll all be out of work. It will be interesting to see how both sides work together. And for goodness sake, quit blaming the republicans, there is PLENTY of blame to go around. I can cut and paste plenty of facts that show the dems were involved in this mess. Lets fix the problem first, then catch the crooks, then determine how not to let this happen again.
I see two scenarios:
a) The culprits get saved and we get screwed.
b) The culprits get screwed and so do we.
I'm of a mind to take 'em down with me.
So here is a compromise solution to consider:
By Senator Bernie Sanders
The current financial crisis facing our country has been caused by the extreme right-wing economic policies pursued by the Bush administration. These policies, which include huge tax breaks for the rich, unfettered free trade and the wholesale deregulation of commerce, have resulted in a massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the very wealthy.
The middle class has really been under assault. Since President Bush has been in office, nearly 6 million Americans have slipped into poverty, median family income for working Americans has declined by more than $2,000, more than 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance, over 4 million have lost their pensions, foreclosures are at an all time high, total consumer debt has more than doubled, and we have a national debt of over $9.7 trillion dollars.
While the middle class collapses, the richest people in this country have made out like bandits and have not had it so good since the 1920s. The top 0.1 percent now earn more money than the bottom 50 percent of Americans, and the top 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The wealthiest 400 people in our country saw their wealth increase by $670 billion while Bush has been president. In the midst of all of this, Bush lowered taxes on the very rich so that they are paying lower income tax rates than teachers, police officers or nurses.
Now, having mismanaged the economy for eight years as well as having lied about our situation by continually insisting, “The fundamentals of our economy are strong,” the Bush administration, six weeks before an election, wants the middle class of this country to spend many hundreds of billions on a bailout. The wealthiest people, who have benefited from Bush’s policies and are in the best position to pay, are being asked for no sacrifice at all. This is absurd. This is the most extreme example that I can recall of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.
In my view, we need to go forward in addressing this financial crisis by insisting on four basic principles:
(1) The people who can best afford to pay and the people who have benefited most from Bush’s economic policies are the people who should provide the funds for the bailout. It would be immoral to ask the middle class, the people whose standard of living has declined under Bush, to pay for this bailout while the rich, once again, avoid their responsibilities. Further, if the government is going to save companies from bankruptcy, the taxpayers of this country should be rewarded for assuming the risk by sharing in the gains that result from this government bailout.
Specifically, to pay for the bailout, which is estimated to cost up to $1 trillion, the government should:
a) Impose a five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers. That would raise more than $300 billion in revenue;
b) Ensure that assets purchased from banks are realistically discounted so companies are not rewarded for their risky behavior and taxpayers can recover the amount they paid for them; and
c) Require that taxpayers receive equity stakes in the bailed-out companies so that the assumption of risk is rewarded when companies’ stock goes up.
(2) There must be a major economic recovery package which puts Americans to work at decent wages. Among many other areas, we can create millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and moving our country from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. Further, we must protect working families from the difficult times they are experiencing. We must ensure that every child has health insurance and that every American has access to quality health and dental care, that families can send their children to college, that seniors are not allowed to go without heat in the winter, and that no American goes to bed hungry.
(3) Legislation must be passed which undoes the damage caused by excessive de-regulation. That means reinstalling the regulatory firewalls that were ripped down in 1999. That means re-regulating the energy markets so that we never again see the rampant speculation in oil that helped drive up prices. That means regulating or abolishing various financial instruments that have created the enormous shadow banking system that is at the heart of the collapse of AIG and the financial services meltdown.
(4) We must end the danger posed by companies that are “too big too fail,” that is, companies whose failure would cause systemic harm to the U.S. economy. If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. We need to determine which companies fall in this category and then break them up. Right now, for example, the Bank of America, the nation’s largest depository institution, has absorbed Countrywide, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, and Merrill Lynch, the nation’s largest brokerage house. We should not be trying to solve the current financial crisis by creating even larger, more powerful institutions. Their failure could cause even more harm to the entire economy.
a) The culprits get saved and we get screwed.
b) The culprits get screwed and so do we.
I'm of a mind to take 'em down with me.
So here is a compromise solution to consider:
By Senator Bernie Sanders
The current financial crisis facing our country has been caused by the extreme right-wing economic policies pursued by the Bush administration. These policies, which include huge tax breaks for the rich, unfettered free trade and the wholesale deregulation of commerce, have resulted in a massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the very wealthy.
The middle class has really been under assault. Since President Bush has been in office, nearly 6 million Americans have slipped into poverty, median family income for working Americans has declined by more than $2,000, more than 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance, over 4 million have lost their pensions, foreclosures are at an all time high, total consumer debt has more than doubled, and we have a national debt of over $9.7 trillion dollars.
While the middle class collapses, the richest people in this country have made out like bandits and have not had it so good since the 1920s. The top 0.1 percent now earn more money than the bottom 50 percent of Americans, and the top 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The wealthiest 400 people in our country saw their wealth increase by $670 billion while Bush has been president. In the midst of all of this, Bush lowered taxes on the very rich so that they are paying lower income tax rates than teachers, police officers or nurses.
Now, having mismanaged the economy for eight years as well as having lied about our situation by continually insisting, “The fundamentals of our economy are strong,” the Bush administration, six weeks before an election, wants the middle class of this country to spend many hundreds of billions on a bailout. The wealthiest people, who have benefited from Bush’s policies and are in the best position to pay, are being asked for no sacrifice at all. This is absurd. This is the most extreme example that I can recall of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.
In my view, we need to go forward in addressing this financial crisis by insisting on four basic principles:
(1) The people who can best afford to pay and the people who have benefited most from Bush’s economic policies are the people who should provide the funds for the bailout. It would be immoral to ask the middle class, the people whose standard of living has declined under Bush, to pay for this bailout while the rich, once again, avoid their responsibilities. Further, if the government is going to save companies from bankruptcy, the taxpayers of this country should be rewarded for assuming the risk by sharing in the gains that result from this government bailout.
Specifically, to pay for the bailout, which is estimated to cost up to $1 trillion, the government should:
a) Impose a five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers. That would raise more than $300 billion in revenue;
b) Ensure that assets purchased from banks are realistically discounted so companies are not rewarded for their risky behavior and taxpayers can recover the amount they paid for them; and
c) Require that taxpayers receive equity stakes in the bailed-out companies so that the assumption of risk is rewarded when companies’ stock goes up.
(2) There must be a major economic recovery package which puts Americans to work at decent wages. Among many other areas, we can create millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and moving our country from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. Further, we must protect working families from the difficult times they are experiencing. We must ensure that every child has health insurance and that every American has access to quality health and dental care, that families can send their children to college, that seniors are not allowed to go without heat in the winter, and that no American goes to bed hungry.
(3) Legislation must be passed which undoes the damage caused by excessive de-regulation. That means reinstalling the regulatory firewalls that were ripped down in 1999. That means re-regulating the energy markets so that we never again see the rampant speculation in oil that helped drive up prices. That means regulating or abolishing various financial instruments that have created the enormous shadow banking system that is at the heart of the collapse of AIG and the financial services meltdown.
(4) We must end the danger posed by companies that are “too big too fail,” that is, companies whose failure would cause systemic harm to the U.S. economy. If a company is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. We need to determine which companies fall in this category and then break them up. Right now, for example, the Bank of America, the nation’s largest depository institution, has absorbed Countrywide, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, and Merrill Lynch, the nation’s largest brokerage house. We should not be trying to solve the current financial crisis by creating even larger, more powerful institutions. Their failure could cause even more harm to the entire economy.
Heh heh... If elected I promise to give long, meandering speeches that, when carefully examined will be shown to say nothing of any actual content!
Pat, the only real good reason to do these bailouts is because large companies going under can erode consumer confidence and cause a run on the markets and banks, which WILL lead to an economic collapse. Which is why I said it's a good short run solution; better taxpayers hopping made about footing the bill than tax payers terrified and causing a run on the market.
You know, NONE of this would be happening if the republicans hadn't stripped away all of Roosevelt's "New Deal" regulatory policies to prevent irresponsible activity by big businesses. They voted these reg's out of existence some 8 years ago and look how long it took the large corporations to bollucks up the whole economy without regulatory oversites in place; 6 years?
That's like, a world record for totally smegging up a situation!!!
Pat, the only real good reason to do these bailouts is because large companies going under can erode consumer confidence and cause a run on the markets and banks, which WILL lead to an economic collapse. Which is why I said it's a good short run solution; better taxpayers hopping made about footing the bill than tax payers terrified and causing a run on the market.
You know, NONE of this would be happening if the republicans hadn't stripped away all of Roosevelt's "New Deal" regulatory policies to prevent irresponsible activity by big businesses. They voted these reg's out of existence some 8 years ago and look how long it took the large corporations to bollucks up the whole economy without regulatory oversites in place; 6 years?
That's like, a world record for totally smegging up a situation!!!
Many economists are now expressing grave reservations about the " Blank Check" bailout plan - http://news.yahoo.com/story//politico/20080921/pl_politico/13689
Here is the Obama reaction to the proposal :
"First, there must be no blank check when American taxpayers are on the hook for this much money.
Second, taxpayers shouldn’t be spending a dime to reward CEOs on Wall Street.
Third, taxpayers should be protected and should be able to recoup this investment.
Fourth, this plan has to help homeowners stay in their homes.
Fifth, this is a global crisis, and the United States must insist that other nations join us in helping secure the financial markets.
Sixth, we need to start putting in place the rules of the road I’ve been calling for for years to prevent this from ever happening again.
And finally, this plan can’t just be a plan for Wall Street, it has to be a plan for Main Street. We have to come together, as Democrats and Republicans, to pass a stimulus plan that will put money in the pockets of working families, save jobs, and prevent painful budget cuts and tax hikes in our states."
http://www.wcnc.com/news/ politic...h.9ad4f8ca.html
Here is the Obama reaction to the proposal :
"First, there must be no blank check when American taxpayers are on the hook for this much money.
Second, taxpayers shouldn’t be spending a dime to reward CEOs on Wall Street.
Third, taxpayers should be protected and should be able to recoup this investment.
Fourth, this plan has to help homeowners stay in their homes.
Fifth, this is a global crisis, and the United States must insist that other nations join us in helping secure the financial markets.
Sixth, we need to start putting in place the rules of the road I’ve been calling for for years to prevent this from ever happening again.
And finally, this plan can’t just be a plan for Wall Street, it has to be a plan for Main Street. We have to come together, as Democrats and Republicans, to pass a stimulus plan that will put money in the pockets of working families, save jobs, and prevent painful budget cuts and tax hikes in our states."
http://www.wcnc.com/news/ politic...h.9ad4f8ca.html
LOL I had two read this a couple of times and still say HUH ? Sign of a good politician.
The only comment I'll make at the moment is...
The AIG Bailout and those like it are a very safe, positive solution for a short term solution to the problem.
(notice how cleverly a Savas uses the words "short termed" in a dismissive fashion!!!)
I swear, I should be a political advisor. How about this;
"The present economic situation is a potential opportunity for a clearing of the less than desirable elements from the financial market place.
It is almost economically guaranteed that the positive elements of a sudden dip in the economy will lead to the immediate result of positive, fluid growth in a market that can only increase in profitability!"
(translation: lots of people will go broke, everyone will be screwed, then...well heck, someone will be around to take advantage of it!!!)
Come on one of you presidential wannabees!!! Hire me, and I'll have you elected with a landslide!!!! :-)
The AIG Bailout and those like it are a very safe, positive solution for a short term solution to the problem.
(notice how cleverly a Savas uses the words "short termed" in a dismissive fashion!!!)
I swear, I should be a political advisor. How about this;
"The present economic situation is a potential opportunity for a clearing of the less than desirable elements from the financial market place.
It is almost economically guaranteed that the positive elements of a sudden dip in the economy will lead to the immediate result of positive, fluid growth in a market that can only increase in profitability!"
(translation: lots of people will go broke, everyone will be screwed, then...well heck, someone will be around to take advantage of it!!!)
Come on one of you presidential wannabees!!! Hire me, and I'll have you elected with a landslide!!!! :-)
I just read an article on CNN and it states that it's a risk for taxpayers, but there is very little choice. The article also states that McCain and Obama both agree this had to happen. Let's hope it works and that we don't end up stuck with the bill as taxpayers!
Mixed feelings and still have much to learn about the whole situation. I also have mixed feelings about the people being foreclosed upon. If they took out an interest only loan without the means to afford, no sympathy whatsoever. What struck me was (still learning) how these lending institutions were able to shell out loans to people that clearly were higher risk.
I am afraid they may have been necessary. That does not mean that I like it.....those CEO's that corrupted corps and ran should be hunted down and every penny they fleeced the companies out of should be returned. Then they should be left in the desert to find their way home.............the deserts in Iraq....
I think we should have charged more than 11percent intrest and if they are one day late let the intrest increase to 29.99 like they do to us .
Mary,
I agree it probably had to be done, but you know who is going to pay for it don't you? You're a smart lady and I'm sure you do! :) However, it just makes me nervous when I see the government taking control of these businesses. It just makes me feel like we are getting closer and closer to a total government control of everything. To be honest, it really scares me! The whole reason our forefathers came here was to get away from the government controlling everything we do as well as religious freedom. I'm very concerned that government has no right to be involved in so much and yet they are starting to control more and more. It's not just one party either - it's the two largest parties doing it. I just hope we can survive this somehow!
I agree it probably had to be done, but you know who is going to pay for it don't you? You're a smart lady and I'm sure you do! :) However, it just makes me nervous when I see the government taking control of these businesses. It just makes me feel like we are getting closer and closer to a total government control of everything. To be honest, it really scares me! The whole reason our forefathers came here was to get away from the government controlling everything we do as well as religious freedom. I'm very concerned that government has no right to be involved in so much and yet they are starting to control more and more. It's not just one party either - it's the two largest parties doing it. I just hope we can survive this somehow!
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Addiction: Social Community
Is treating glaucoma with marijuana all hype, or can hemp actually help?
If you think marijuana has no ill effects on your health, this article from Missouri Medicine may make you think again.
Julia Aharonov, DO, reveals the quickest way to beat drug withdrawal.
Tricks to help you quit for good.
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
