Those were also my initial reactions. If companies use poor business practices, and they pay the price for that (both literally, and metaphorically) why should that be my problem? Bad business is bad business and we don't need big business as much as big business seems to think we need them. Their company can go down the drain for all I care, rather than $700 billion of my tax money that really the goverment doesn't even have, what with war debt and all. ...Unfortunately maybe we do need big business as much as they think. We've seen that it's having effects. I don't know much about economics or finance policy (though I think "Reaganomics" is a joke and the tax policy it justifies is laughable. Trickle down, indeed :roll: ), it was never of interest to me, so I am unknowledgable here. However enough financial experts seem to be saying we need this "bail-out", unpopular though it is, which makes me suspect that there's something to it. There's all sorts of things that the voting public wants that aren't actually the best policy decisions for themselves. Sometimes the unpopular decision is necessary (which is of course, one of democracy's main problems, and part of what turns elections into the circus shows that they are.) Though I read an article on the BBC last week that I wished I'd book-marked. It discussed financial crises of the last century and how each was handled, and with what kind of success. Apparently Japan took a similiar action on buy-outs of bad assests in the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s. They later sold those assests and ended up making money in the end. So who knows. Part of why finance never appealed to me is that it all feels a bit like gambling, and it makes me uncomfortable. I say, let the experts decide. I'll just sit back neutrally and watch them debate. It's a new feeling not to have an opinion about the current exploits of my goverment.
Haha. That's the catch, isn't it? Yes and no. Mostly no, party yes. I was just expressing the sorts of thoughts I've considered both in opposition and support of the bail out. Instinct tells me to oppose it, but who knows. There are some topics that you just have to accept ignorance on.
Same reaction here. Failures of big businesses should be their own, but, then again, we are all tied together. Who knows how far these bank closures and the fallout will go...
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=5388&edition=2&ttl=20080929095829 There is an interesting, informal collection of opinions compiled on the BBC's website, from readers all over the world.
If we do bail them out, heads need to roll - not literally of course, but those involved need to pay, hearings need to be held, and some need to go to prison. Of course with so much of congress having thier hands dirty in the whole mess, that will only happen if we vote in new people. Like Klot, I'm not much for numbers. Afterall, I'm a social worker not an accountant. However, I do know one thing. If they cut taxes (putting money in the hands of the people), tap into our own resources rather than purchasing oil from terrorist, and stop excess spending (Bush acts like a democrat in that area) we can overcome this financial crisis without a bail out and without decreasing the dollar even further.
It passed in the Senate, but approving in the House is still uncertain. I found interesting that in fact the plan in the same, only "bribes" were added. And when I say bribes, I think various apendixes, which have nothing to do with bailout plan, but they satisfy desires of relevant political groups. Like various tax allowances, subsidies etc...
I think there was a bit about limiting the pay of executives and CEO types of the companies that receive money from the bail-out. Then again, maybe that was just something that was talked about, and people said was a problem with the original bill...I wonder if that change did get added in the end?
At this point, the argument doesn't seem to be whether we should save the lenders from their own mismanagement for their sake, but for the sake of the economy that is in a horrible liquidity(no free flowing money) crisis because of what their greatly overextended loaning policy. There were voices in the wilderness warning that such a thing could happen, but the regulators didn't want to hear that.
The word you're looking for is "pork" or "pork barrel projects." Yes, many things get funded in the US this way, and many congressman unfortunately are able to get re-elected this way--by adding such pork for their constituents to otherwise vastly more important legislation, they show how much they're doing for the local economy, etc. Business as usual in Washington--they can't even pass "emergency" legislation without adding in pork. (Yes, this is why we have such a large deficit!)
The pork is really beyond sick. My personal favorite: the tax breaks for makers of wooden arrows. Gee I guess without them our economy would surely collapse. Compared to that at least the rebates to rum makers make sense coz we all gonna need a stiff drink soon :roll: According to various post the pork alone adds up to anywhere in between 110 – 150 extra billions to the bill. But hey! What’s few extra billions among friends … right? It’s not like those jokers are gonna pay for it or anything. I’m very happy the two votes representing Alabama were “no”.
I was thinking :idea: it must be realy nice to destroy your company then turn around and get paid by the US Gov. CEO and Managers getting big bucks for scre____ ups! Scr__ up move up. These big Fortune 500 companies, all that we are to them is a number They do not even know your name, just your employee number, sorry suckers, throw them all in jail. They need to change my name on můj shirt z Jody to pee-on :lol: :lol: I have to take full responsibility for můj small business. So can they. Let them pay, no bail out. The Goverment is buying them out, the Gov. is going to own everything. Looks like a step towards One World Gov. Banks failing world wide. :wink: :wink: sr--w up move up.
