Bailed-Out Banks' Execs Got $1.6 Billion
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
Kamala Trump
Verified User
How can we get the best and brightest if we don't allow them to rob the system blind?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Americans got raped in broad daylight and there ain't shit we can do about it but take it.
"The rescue plan" .. so says Obama.
"The rescue plan" .. so says Obama.
And you have to call them "loans" instead of takeovers. Shhh...
Use Newspeak or you'll be where the lights never go out.
uscitizen
Villified User
HUH ?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
It must be still sleepy-time in Lala land.
If the banks and markets were stabilizing, why couldn't the automakers go to the banks for loans .. which is why banks were given billions of dollars?
When you wake up you'll find that nothing has stabilized.
You're using the automakers as an example? Pathetic.
The banks are basically stable at this point, and no more failures are imminent, barring something completely unexpected. Credit is starting to flow again to most SMALL businesses & borrowers, and the markets are reflecting that. I'm not saying 'we're back,' but clearly, the free-fall has stopped, and things have stabilized to an extent.
Fool.
So Bush stabilized the banks? Wow.
You can tell they are stabilized because the execs who ran them into the ground got huge bonuses.
When asked where the money went, the largest 21 recipients said either, "I dunno" or "Won't tell you."
Thank gawd for all that tracking and "openness" we were promised.
I have a lot of problems with the bailout, and with exec bonuses. I would not argue that there isn't much to criticize about it.
That said, anyone who thinks we wouldn't be worse off without it isn't paying attention. It was a necessary evil.
We'll see. The market over-reacted to the crisis in the fall, and so did consumers, which exacerbated the situation. We're not out of the woods yet, but it doesn't have to get worse.
Personally, I'm optimistic. The stimulus package will pass within a month, and I think it will make the difference.
I think we could have made it better without using fascist tactics of government control. Although we should have insured that none of the execs who presided over the failure got to keep their jobs or any bonuses, trying to say that the government will be able to run it any better is pretty stupid.
uscitizen
Villified User
It's ironic that you talk about fascist tactics, and that others cry about socialism, but then call for even more controlling measures from the government.
Firing the failures isn't control, it's simply the right thing to do.
Giving money to proven failures is retarded.
I haven't cried about "socialism". I named it what it is fascistic (note: not fascism we have a long way to go until we get there) practice to try to take government control of privately owned business. Look it up.
Saying we should have demanded they first fired the failures before we gave them bailout cash isn't "crying about socialism". Its complaining about crappy policy. You can cheer on Bush and how much he saved us if you want, I prefer to keep my eyes open.
uscitizen
Villified User
I have yet to see any new rules or regulations that will prevent this from happening again. On the contrary some of the the already too big to fail are getting bigger.
Retarded.
Saying, "Either get rid of the people that drove your business there or you don't get a loan" is something that any smart financial institution would require.
Instead we take over voting shares and actually take control and keep the failed execs at the same time. Which is worse?