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.
I'm guessing you would have preferred the other option: "Let it all fail"?
Right?
Actually, yes. Let it fail, let the pieces be sold off, let other companies be built to provide the goods & services people want & need. It's called capitalism, and it should be allowed to work.
These are companies that used their investors money to "invest" in a variety of assets. They took risks hoping for big profits. For a long time, they acheived those profits, their investors profited, the companies grew and took more risks. And when they took a risk that finally didn't work, they SHOULD have failed. Yes, people would have lost money. But it would have been the people that invested in the company that took the risks. Instead, WE, the American taxpayers, have lost. We lost the money that we handed to these companies becasue they were "too big to fail." Why did we have to lose that money though? I know I wasn't given a share when they were making money all those years. Did you get a slice of the profits from the banks in which you doidn't invest? So why should you have to cough up to pay for their failed risk?
Actually, yes. Let it fail, let the pieces be sold off, let other companies be built to provide the goods & services people want & need. It's called capitalism, and it should be allowed to work.
This was beyond a few failing companies. Please don't feign ignorance here. This was about interwoven global banks about to fail and bring the entire country down with it. In the beginning they did allow a couple of these institutions to fail and it had disastrous results. After that the government stepped in to stop what would have been the next Great Depression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan
These are companies that used their investors money to "invest" in a variety of assets. They took risks hoping for big profits. For a long time, they acheived those profits, their investors profited, the companies grew.......
I didn't like it when Bush did it, and I'm not thrilled about it when Obama did it. But unfortunately I see it as necessary. You may not see, or care to believe the enormity of the problem, but I tend to accept it. IMO it's stubborn in this scenario to "Let it fail." In essence, it already did fail, the entire system, a giant ponzi scheme, and the outcome of this failure would have destroyed our country as we know it. There is good reason why BOTH right and left did the same thing. They were privy to the reality of it all.
Why are the folks on the right wing trying to pretend like Obama was the one who started TARP?
What became of TARP wasn't what was envisioned.
The global financial market came close to collapse. People bought into Bush's TARP as they believed banks would fail and capital would not be available to them; while a many others thought the market should correct itself and a lesson learned.
Bush gave Detroit and Wall Street loans. Obama nationalized them.
Obama rebranded TARP (blamed it on Bush), took advantage of the crisis and expanded gov't further into the private sector.
Geithner refuses to release Bush administration TARP documents to Judicial Watch | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Geithner-refuses-to-release-Bush-administration-TARP-documents-to-Judicial-Watch-70412807.html - broken link)
Alot of very impressive opinions, now instead of laying blame, let's hope someone will come up with a solution. Once we are back on track then we can have time to figure out who is to blame. I have never seen an arson investigation completed before the fire was put out.
One of your posts in a different thread was one of the several recent posts on this matter that prompted me to write this. You said Obama was to blame for AIG and Bush was not. Is that not revisionist?
I'm not arguing about whether Obama is or isn't changing what Bush did. What I'm trying to figure out is why the sudden misinformation campaign that is trying to pin the whole of the TARP to Obama.
NO I did not say that!!! When someone made the comment about how Bush ruined the country and used that as an example I simply pointed out that Obama did the same. Do NOT twist my words I am well on record about how I felt about Bush and the whole TARP thing.
I do not know one conservative that was happy about it.
Why are the folks on the right wing trying to pretend like Obama was the one who started TARP? I have seen at least 5 posts in different threads that are saying the Obama administration bailed out AIG and the banks.
Is this one of the marching orders the overlords of the right are giving to their minions, a la "operation chaos" or is this really a result of people who have short term memory problems?
I disagreed when Bush did and I disagreed when Obama did it. The problem is when people make the claim that Bush ruined the country especially when Obama has changed little of what Bush did.
the thing is. no republican outlets were complaining no Limbaugh no Hannity no Gretchen nadda, that's whats so funny about it AND IF OBAMA HAS TRULY change little what bush did republicans should not be complaining but they are.
what? were they scared to ridicule bush.
No tea parties Then during all of this..massive spending under bush before bailouts came about
the thing is. no republican outlets were complaining no Limbaugh no Hannity no Gretchen nadda, that's whats so funny about it AND IF OBAMA HAS TRULY change little what bush did republicans should not be complaining but they are.
what? were they scared to ridicule bush.
No tea parties Then during all of this..massive spending under bush before bailouts came about
Well I really don't remember what the news was saying to be 100% honest. If you say they didn't then I will go with that and assuming that is the case then they most certainly were wrong not to not but again when people make the claim that Bush ruined the country when Obama is doing the same exact thing I have to call that out.
Bush started/had bailouts,that's not news.Obama has continued and expanded on a bad idea,but it's easier to blame Bush.When will Obama be held accontable for taking a bad idea and making it far worse?Bush had Bernanke,Obama wants to keep him.Obama wants to help the very same middle class his policies are destroying.Obama is in the pockets of Big Banks and Big Business.Wall Street not Main Street is his priority.Even though Bush was horrible at least he sent stimulus checks to working Americans unlike Obama who backs Bankers then cries about it afterwards,some leader.Instead of giving millionaire and billionaire bankers cash so they could give themselves MASSIVE bonuses why doesn't he send working American families money instead that would help the economy faster than his failed policies.
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.
$$$$$$$$
