Story HERE.
Really, this is getting old. Record unemployment, record foreclosures, etc, etc. Some of this caused by the very companies who seek aid.
Sure, people who bout too much house are responsible for themselves right? People who didn’t get training for a new job before they got the boot should be responsible for themselves right? Sure, I can go with that. BUT should the companies that gave these bad loans and (knowing that they were bad) and bundled these loans up in a marketable security and made record profits for years in this system BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS?
Well, with this 20 Billion bailout, Citi Bank shares have soared, so they seem to be benefiting from bad choices, where are all the neo-con capitalist no socialism when it comes to universal health care at now?
Remember over the last 15 years or so, whenever universal health care came up some moron who was broke as a joke anyway would rant: “Whose gonna pay for it?”, Looks like the money was always there just not the will.
Fact is, part of employer's problems (as far as being COMPETETIVE is health care), the only fair thing to do is to begin a universal healthcare program, a new system needs to be made. Well, at the least I would expect some “early” tax rebate checks for the average guy who needs help right now, I’m just saying…
We make bad decisions it's called bankruptcy, when they make bad decisions its called bailout.
I defaulted on my student loans and they canceled my operating license for work until they get their money. I'm essentially out of business....but are they? NO!
Glad I live under an authority higher than them or I'd be in serious trouble!
Posted by: MizClark | 24 November 2008 at 01:10 PM
I think these bail-outs are a bad idea on several fronts. I've not said a lot about them, but plan to do so soon. One argument I'll make here is how do you decide who to bail-out? What makes Citi worthy, but not some of the others (I think JP Morgan was the first to ask this question)
Posted by: Randy | 24 November 2008 at 02:01 PM
So - I saw this too...this TOTALLY sucks...like, for real. 20 Billion...really?
Posted by: Darius T. Williams | 24 November 2008 at 08:14 PM
So much for that "invisible hand of the market" BS, huh, neo-cons? They talk big about unregulated capitalism, but like a game of chicken, as soon as their cronies start to sweat, they throw money at 'em. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Posted by: Will Staples | 24 November 2008 at 11:17 PM
It's out-and-out thievery. Republicans and Democrats have combined to form the Social Banker's Party. Wait 'til next year, when they "solve" the auto industry's problems by screwing all the union members out of their pensions.
Posted by: tom | 25 November 2008 at 01:48 PM
I think Bankruptcy and bailout appears to be the two sides of the same coin. However I think it depends upon the current financial state and requirements of a given company to figure-out the need for bailout at the time of expected bankruptcy. The painful contents of bailout option can not be avoided,however may be reduced by reconstruction of new financial system of a company for better future business.
Posted by: voordeligste hypotheek | 02 March 2009 at 11:23 PM