View Poll Results: Should the taxpayers bailout the banks?

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, businesses need to be able to fail even if it is painful

    15 83.33%
  • Yes, the taxpayers should step up to prevent recession.

    0 0%
  • I have no clue and am not going to pretend like I do.

    3 16.67%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11  
    Senior Member enslaved1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kingman, Arizona, United States
    Posts
    1,226
    Unfortunately, I have to agree with Bill O Riley, this mess has gotten too big, and the government needs to step in. I don't like it, they are going to screw it up no matter who comes in next year, but the hit to the nation is going to be to big to let business pull out on their own. Hopefully, we will learn from the mess, but I'm not laying any money on it.
    Romans 6:18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

    Differences between Obama and God: God's plan to save us is actually written down for people to read. Rush Limbaugh.

    My blog: How Things Look From Here Politics, religion, random stuff, now on Wednesdays!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    HR Corporate Scum patriot45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Plant City, Florida
    Posts
    10,931
    Quote Originally Posted by MrsSmith View Post
    Same response, more money this time.
    I like my solution better! :D
    http://www.conservativeunderground.c...ead.php?t=5373

    : “Grow your own dope. Plant a liberal.”
    ” Obummercare, 20 percent of the time it works everytime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member LogansPapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Surf City, USA
    Posts
    3,782
    Quote Originally Posted by enslaved1 View Post
    Hopefully, we will learn from the mess, but I'm not laying any money on it.
    Actually - you are. :(
    At Coretta Scott King's funeral in early 2006, Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert Kennedy, leaned over to him and whispered, "The torch is being passed to you." "A chill went up my spine," Obama told an aide. (Newsweek)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Thailand/Arizona
    Posts
    766
    You know, I hoe everyone that wants the govt to do nothing has plenty of guns, ammo and food set aside. And I hope you got enough land to sustain yourself for a while.

    I hate this shit. But letting the nation slide into a full scale depression isn't my idea of fun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    John
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by hampshirebrit View Post
    I'd vote no normally, but because of the size of the companies, and their interconnectivity to the economy, if they fail, it will hurt us all if nothing is done.

    It might be that we are just looking at two alternatives, one only slightly worse than the other.

    I am not at all sure that Paulson has a clue about this, any more than I do.
    If these companies fail, yes it will hurt, but if we prop them up, they will fail eventually, and then it will hurt a whole lot more because the bubble will have gotten a lot bigger. We, as a nation, will have further to fall. The wealth of the United States, even the world, is not limitless. Truth be told, many, many Americans have been living beyond their means for a long time. Can all those suburbanite Americans really afford the McMansion, Chevy Tahoe, Jet Ski and 42" Plasma w/ home theater? No they can't and it caught up to them. All that debt catches up when it comes time to pay the piper. Injecting cash into the creditor's coffers will only buy time. The debt is still out there , and it will still be toxic. Nationalizing a portion of unpaid consumer debt will serve no real purpose in the end. Either way, the market will reset to a state where it reflects the actual wealth of the nation's consumers now or later. Like I said, later we'll have further to fall.

    Quote Originally Posted by expat-pattaya
    You know, I hoe everyone that wants the govt to do nothing has plenty of guns, ammo and food set aside. And I hope you got enough land to sustain yourself for a while.

    I hate this shit. But letting the nation slide into a full scale depression isn't my idea of fun.
    I do have plenty of guns and ammo, but I'm not worried about it going that far even if Congress does nothing to bail out failed business practices. I think, if we don't bail out the banks, we'll see a '79ish recession. Interest rates will stay low, hurting the investor, and inflation will stay high hurting the consumer until this toxic debt is replaced with new wealth. If we prop up the system for a few more years, and then the bubble bursts, I think it will be more like a 30's era depression. All in all, if there is no bail out, no state of 'emergency' dire enough to bring troops into the streets to quell insurrection will be needed. We Americans will just be poorer than usual for a while. (That's still pretty rich by the standards of say, Guatemala)

    In other words, the nation is in for recession or depression no matter what congress does. What do you think the bailed out financial institutions are going to do with the bail out cash? They are going to re-lend it of course, to try to pull in interest on the cash. At the same time, the nation's consumers will be feeling the one-two punch of the inflation created by the $700bn infusion, coupled with the tax hike it's going to take to cover the toxic debt the government now owns. Meanwhile, the investors will be feeling the crunch of a drop in interest rates in an effort to entice borrowers to borrow, the investor's money won't grow, the market will remain volatile, and it's likely that many will pull their portfolio's all together. With that kind of pressure on the consumers and the lending system, it stands to reason that there could very well be another round of 'toxic debt' at the end of this road.

    In closing, I'd like to bring up a few points Ron Paul made recently, just to keep this board happy. I know they miss him. :D (After all, as the only man talking about recession during the primaries, he did tell us so).

    First of all, the people who claim they have the plan to bring us out of this are the same people who developed the failed 'economic stimulus package', as we can see, it didn't work. They also represent the same organizations that led us to this mess in the first place. It takes a severe level of naivety to believe that those who led us to this end, and already failed once to bring us out of it, will succeed when given a third chance.

    Secondly, the U.S. must decide whether we are capitalists or not. This mix and match of capitalism and socialism embodied by Fannie May, Feddie Mac, and the socialist policies that drive them to make unsafe loans clearly doesn't work.

    Just to sum up, I have just a rudimentary understanding of national and global economics and I can see these problems plain as day. It's no wonder why many, many economists, bankers, and CEO's of major corporations do not agree with Bernanke & Paulson's plan. The Bernanke/Paulson plan has too many assumptions and it doesn't address the 'What Ifs'. If the lending system does not earn back interest on that $700bn, their plan will fail. To date, I've never seen anyone explain how a bank is to earn back interest on it's bail out cash when the borrower is faced with the inflation, the tax hike, and the lack of investment.
    Last edited by John; 09-27-2008 at 01:41 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •