As much as he did with creating the internet.
Printable View
As much as he did with creating the internet.
See, compromise implies that the other party is giving up something, but they're not. Our money and our military have been used without our command, which is just fucking ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief Silver
It's the first time that his logic has applied to something caused by humans. And it took his buddies in Congress to create it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooting Love
his buddies in Congress made 8 years of Republican decisions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Recent polls show that a majority of Americans are against any type of stimulus/bailout and are vocal and angry about it. Not like it matters - the Republicans oppose it, saying it's on principle. My guess is it's because they know that they can't actually stop it (and don't want to), but put up a front to look good for their party constituency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Dems, on the other hand, are using this opportunity of having majorities in both House and Senate, as well as their guy as President, to force feed every single taxpayers more "reform" through social spending and creation of red tape. Parts of the stimulus plan that have been covered in the news sound like a Democrat's wish list, and since has been changed and pushed to go to vote and signing without any ample time to review the revised plan.
This is the transparency Obama said he would bring with his office? Everyone keeps crying that the bill has to pass yesterday before our economy is further doomed, yet no real economic spending in it starts til '10-'11. So what's the big sense of urgency for really? It's to rob taxpayers blind while the carpet is swept up from under them. Super.
You're more on the ball than the clowns spending our money. Economically if we allowed things like the banks and auto makers to fail, it would hurt. Workers displaced, out of jobs, and saving. Before long though, if they're worth their pay, they'd find work elsewhere. Companies that succeed need people for expansion, and expand they shall to fill the gap of inferior competitors disappearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finch
It would be hard and messy, but short term. When you give companies no reason to change the status quo and reward failure (like we're doing now), it stalls businesses from learning anything.
A good case example I've read compares Maytag to the US auto makers. When Maytag failed there was no bailing it out - and in turn other appliance makers got with the program and upped their game to avoid making the same mistakes. The US auto industry was already bailed out in the 80s when it was trounced by Japanese manufacturers. Rather than learn something they continued to make poor business decisions up until today, where they ask for yet another handout.
Congress said they wanted to see a viable business plan before committing a single cent, and the industry complied. If they already had a plan to turn their business around, why weren't they applying it in the first place? Why did it have to take government intervention for them to see the light and promise change? One claim is insidious as "why bother working hard when you can fleece the taxpayer," to a more benign, "maybe they never learned from past mistakes as they were never allowed to fail?" In any case it's silly to think that the auto industry was failing despite its own best efforts and so we should feel sorry for them and open our wallets. It saves jobs in the short term but has long-standing effects that we won't be aware of until they're well-documented in some history book.
This is why I think companies need to be allowed to fail - we have Chapter 11 to even ensure there's structure and a promise of rebuilding. I know games companies have done it and come back from the ashes. I know individuals do it, get smart, and get better. Giving certain businesses a pass on accountability means they learn nothing, and teaches other industries to hunt for handouts.
Yeah, we'll see if you're still singing that "let everybody fail hard man" tune when you actually have a career and a family and are told "fuck yourself, we failed" and sent out on the street.
You're more proof in the "IF you don't have any idea of what you're talking about, you always go democrat" theory.
People just fail to see the big picture. It's a systemic risk. I hate how we got here but we're here. People don't realize how much hedging something like an insurance company does. How do they pay you that fixed annuity you bought? They make money on the arb. They're paid to take risks so that you can have your product, your insurance. The counterparties companies like these engage in over-the-counter transactions fail, and then their hedges fail, and then they can't pay out your policies, they may not even be able to continue in business. Think of all the companies that do debt financing through the bond market. All of them do it. They do it to expand, which creates more jobs, they do it to make payroll, to finance innovation, etc. Collapses do the opposite. It is one thing to let a bad company fail, it is another when that failure takes down a series of other companies that are otherwise fine.
Now magnify this across the global scale, to other countries, emerging markets, etc. We're really more fucked than many people even have a clue about. Ignorance is bliss.
True...but part of that failure is a lot of the companies are chasing the bigger returns. We sell annuities and we 'play it safe(r)'. As a result, the gains don't necessarily look as great in the short term, but on the flip side, when this happens, it doesn't take us under.
I don't know what the solution is...'Start Over' sounds nice but isn't really feasible and the bailout may be a happy medium. The problem is there's no way to ensure it actually WORKS and may just be trying to save a sinking ship by dumping buckets of water out the side
There's no doubt about it. I'm not for saving the big banks, I'm for saving the system. If you have to temporariliy nationalize and then resell to the private sector (i.e. private equity) then do so only if there is a change to the system. We don't want to set up a new set of oligarchs to replace the ones currently running this country. Barry should listen more to Rahm Emanuel and Dave Axelrod than Tim "in their pocket" Geithner as it relates to how tough to be on the banks.