Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What if a friend came to you claiming he needed $5000 or he and his family would be out on the street and you later found out he went to the casino with it?
same thing here, we are taxed by the fedguv to fund certain services and that money should not be used to gamble.
I think Bush probably knew that, but he felt that letting AIG go under would have been even worse than taking them over.
I think Bush probably knew that, but he felt that letting AIG go under would have been even worse than taking them over.
You're exactly right. Bush is on record saying that if the financial ****storm that was coming was as real as his economic advisors believed, then he'd rather be Roosevelt than Hoover. Neither of the options were pretty, but the Roosevelt option was the lesser of two evils in terms of total financial collapse.
Uhhhhhhhh.....that's like saying we'll have an awesome day at the beach today as long as the sun shines and it doesn't thunderstorm on us. Can I control the thunderstorms? No. Can the government control the stock price of AIG? No.
No, they cannot control the prices but they have been able to create an environment where S&P has increased 120% in three years. Are you happy about that?
No, they cannot control the prices but they have been able to create an environment where S&P has increased 120% in three years. Are you happy about that?
Warren Buffet is. He was on TV yesterday screaming how one would have to be insane to not invest in the market right now. When the reporter asked him about a bubble he scoffed it off. Gotta keep the mules pulling the cart along so he can make bank then when he jumps ship and cashes in everybody else follows and the mules are left toting the cart off the cliff.
You're exactly right. Bush is on record saying that if the financial ****storm that was coming was as real as his economic advisors believed, then he'd rather be Roosevelt than Hoover. Neither of the options were pretty, but the Roosevelt option was the lesser of two evils in terms of total financial collapse.
Yes, I believe that allowing the banking sector (and AIG and big Auto) to go down probably would have created another depression. The question is, whether or not the US economy would have emerged form it on a better foundation than it is on now, and the answer is 'probably yes'. The problem was that the depression could have lasted 7-10 years, and there are very few politicians who want to see that happen.
As for seeing it coming, I'd say he didn't see squat. If he had, he would have acted in 2004, but he did the exact opposite of what was needed to cool things down. He went on a mortgage deregulation spree lowering the standards 40 times and in the end anyone could walk into a bank and get a no-money down mortgage. Remember his promise to put 5 million low income Hispanics into new homes? Anyway, that is not the topic of this thread.
Warren Buffet is. He was on TV yesterday screaming how one would have to be insane to not invest in the market right now. When the reporter asked him about a bubble he scoffed it off. Gotta keep the mules pulling the cart along so he can make bank then when he jumps ship and cashes in everybody else follows and the mules are left toting the cart off the cliff.
Everyone with a 401K is happy about it. Whether or not NOW is a good time to get in is another story
If this is true it still doesn't account for the trillions loaned at rock bottom interest rates by the fed, nor does it excuse the fact that these companies should have been allowed to fail. It sets a dangerous precedent when you let wall street off nearly scott free for their fraudulent behavior.
If this is true it still doesn't account for the trillions loaned at rock bottom interest rates by the fed, nor does it excuse the fact that these companies should have been allowed to fail. It sets a dangerous precedent when you let wall street off nearly scott free for their fraudulent behavior.
Yes, I agree. I believe there is now a law whic makes repetition of 2008 not possible. Some politicians want to repeal that law, but I think they are just playing political games.
I would like to know where the money goes when the government sells the stocks. Profit is profit, but how about the $180B? It shoud be eliminated, but is it?
Yes, the government is indeed making money off of many of the banks that they bailed out, but so what? The bank failures are what caused this economic recession in the first place and are what caused Americans to lose $11 trillion in wealth since. Contraction of the economy coupled with the loss of tax receipts due to the recession has also contributed enormously to the current massive budget deficits.
If this is true it still doesn't account for the trillions loaned at rock bottom interest rates by the fed, nor does it excuse the fact that these companies should have been allowed to fail. It sets a dangerous precedent when you let wall street off nearly scott free for their fraudulent behavior.
Hank Paulson was an adamant believer in moral hazard and even said that after the Lehman bailout there would be no more bailouts. Once he saw AIG starting to fall, he put his ideologies aside and was the one that forced banks to take the bailouts. If the US government didn't bail out the banks that cause a cancer to spread through out our ENTIRE financial system and economy, the US would have been sent back to the stone age if every single major bank and AIG were allowed to fail. It would have been economic chaos as well as huge amounts of citizen unrest. Imagine waking up one day to find that you have $0 to access and buy necessities for life because your bank is no longer solvent. You're likely to go out with an armed weapon and start taking what you need in order to survive. If we let the banks fail, it wouldn't have just been letting the banks fail, it would have been complete utter collapse of this entire country. Anyway, the important question is not whether or we should or shouldn't have let the banks fail, it is how we even let them get there in the first place and how a cancer like CDOs was allowed to spread systemically.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
