My Photo

July 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Sign Up Now

Become a Fan

« Baltimore Loses A Bank | Main | TARP Application »

Comments

Seinberg

It's an outrage, totally, that they're getting all that money. They're slimebuckets. But to be fair, none of the banks got money with "no strings attached" -- there are certainly stipulations, and strong ones, for bail out money, and the other semi-bailout money (i.e. the loans) are just like any other loans that need to be repaid.

aaron4unitruth

The bailout of Wallstreet and the auto industry is wrong for many reasons but most importantly because the federal government is far more powerful than it was ever intended. As a condition for bailing out the auto industry the fed can now be a stockholder? Sounds like socialism.

http://www.theartdeptchronicles.blogspot.com

aaron4unitruth

Sorry, I only meant to post once.

fordprefectajt

The bailout of Wallstreet and the auto industry is wrong for many reasons but most importantly because the federal government is far more powerful than it was ever intended. As a condition for bailing out the auto industry the fed can now be a stockholder? Sounds like socialism.

The government has been about subsidizing corporations and other groups for a long time. This time just happens to be on a larger scale. If the banks and the like had been able to "self-regulate," like the free marketeers (kind of like mouseketeers), then maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. Americans like socialism, but maybe just when they can not notice/think about it and still think they're in a free market society.

Then again, I guess it's just homeowners who default on their mortgages who are stupid people who shouldn't be helped out. Let's go bail out corporations who played fast and loose and lost.

This would be laughable if it weren't actually happening.

Incidentally, today is the day when I found out that "laughable" is not spelled "laffable." Why did I think this? I don't know. It's a sad day.

Amboy Dukes

Couple of things - Seinberg's post isn't accurate.

Please list 5 stipulations of the financial industry bailout.

See, my point is if there are stipulations for our money - we don't know what they are.

And really, it's more a buy in then a bail out as much of the money going to banks isn't technically in the form of loans.

Part of the idea of the bailout in theory (because what I believe the finance industry bailout to really be about is one last effort in the part of the Bush Administration to redistribute wealth from the bottom/middle to the top) was to give banks money to loan to businesses/people to keep the economy going.

Only guess what, they ain't doing that because, it would seem, we are a bad credit risk, what with our economy collapsing and all.

So one of the things that means is that people aren't buying new cars - because there's no loan money available. So, an already unstable Detroit collapses.

And what are banks doing with that money? Aside from throwing expensive parties and giving out bonuses to CEOs who have lead their companies into a position where the public had to bail them out? They're buying up assets - smaller banks, etc. Look at M&T Bank and Provident. How is this sort of consolidation happening when the public has to give billions to banks?

And if you want a clear example of why consolidation is not a good thing, just look at the Baltimore Sun. Love it or hate it, we'd at least still have a viable local newspaper if it wasn't for consolidation. But now, not so much...

But another part of the problem is there is no transparency. When we catch glimpses of what actually is going on with the money we gave them, we're outraged. But that's all we're getting - glimpses.

But the larger question this post brings up is this:
when banks said they needed money, the response of our political leaders was okay, right away.

But when we suggested part of that money be used to help Americans with faltering loans, the response was - why should we help bail out people who got in over their heads?

See the inconsistency?

Okay. Now, compare how we responded to the financial industry to how we responded to the auto industry:

How did you get here? You flew?

If we help you, you need to take pay cuts and fire the CEOs responsible for getting you into this mess.

If we help you, your workers need to take pay cuts to put their salaries on par with non union workers in foreign auto plants.

So comparatively, you can see how it would appear to the lay person that the banking industry got truckloads of money sans strings.

As for aaron4unitruth's post - nothing like some good ol' fashioned anti-government right wing neo-militant paranoia to make me reminisce about the mid-90s.

Look, even the Maestro of Free Market Economics, Greenspan, admitted that he has now realized Free Market Economics is flawed and doesn't work.

You say socialism like it's a bad thing. There is nothing inherently bad about socialism.

If you really were just concerned about a federal government that is far more "powerful than it was ever intended" (many people who disagree with each other claim to know the intent of the founders - it doesn't mean they do), why are you just now complaining?

After 8 years of Bush consolidating power, dominating all 4 branches of gov't, of suspension of habeas corpus, of illegally spying on US citizens, of monitoring our email, of invading other countries who posed no serious or direct threat to us - after 8 years of that bullshit NOW you're worried about a strong federal government? Because billions are given to industry? Just as a Democrat is about to take over? Now you are upset?

Way too little - way too late - and highly suspect.

Some recommended reading regarding The Bailout Profiteers.

The comments to this entry are closed.