Letters to the Editor
-
Socialism
Everyone should be asking this question. How come the banks get to get rich making risky if not outright insane investments, but as soon as they get in trouble the taxpayers are on the hook? This capitalism for the poor but socialism for the rich should have everyone angry--liberals because the rich get away with their mega-bonuses while us poor slobs pick up the tab, and conservatives because it goes against everything they claim to believe in. Which banks are too big to fail? If the tax payers are on the hook for losses, shouldn't we at least get a share of the profits? Jim Bunning is absolutely right on this question, even if he is a Republican.
-
Free Marketeers
I will fall down dead if I EVER meet a free marketeer who believes in the free market when their business is in trouble.
Airlines after 9/11 anyone? Let the government bail them out. We all know how well our tax dollars were spent on that.
-
It's an American Tradition
The government in this country, as long as I've been alive, has always been quick to bail out any large company particularly if it's a bank or a really large employer, that get's itself into trouble through it's own greed and short sightedness. The first example I can remember was the GM bailout way back in the 70s. followed shortly therafter by the savings and loan bailout in the early eitghties.
But god help you if you suggest that there needs to be a social safety net for the working classes. That makes you a socialist.
I'm thrilled to hear the a Republican Senator call this bailout what it is. And no matter how necessary it may have been there's no pretending that it was anything but corporate welfare. So, now how about a little of that same socialistic support for the homeowners and small investers that got caught up in this same mess?...No?...I didn't think so.
-
It's only socialism if
it's government action for the little people. If you do it for the rich and famous, that's capitalism.
But of course, it's really different in the BS case: the whole market was going to collapse if we didn’t bailout the stockholders. No, we can’t punish them like, say, forbid any of the BS directors from ever being in business again for bringing down the house. If you a “rogue” trader making small money at a bank and get the bank into trouble, you go to prison for a long time. If you’re a BS director/CEO and do wild trading and bring down the whole world economy, the government will guaranty you shares.
-
Actually, Senator...
Isn't it Keynesianism?
If we nationalized Bear-Stearns (i.e. a Federal "buyout" rather than a bailout) it would be socialism.
-
@tinyBubbles
A "Freemarketeer" is defined as an entreprenure who has never been in recievership. Everybody is a socialist when THEIR buisness is failing.
E Pluribus Unum does NOT translate as "I got mine."
-
Ahhh..if only it were socialism....
Dear Senator Bunning,
Let's leave aside the fact that the Republican's, from subsidies to oil companies to no bid contracts to their friends, should be used to handing out no strings attached tax payer money.... but surely the idea of socialism has to do with community ownership... But really, this is far from socialism.. this is just another hand out with no real strings attached of tax payer money for corporate irresponsibility. It's not socialism...it's thievery. (come on Senator, your party's stock and trade is thievery and deception ... how do you think we have ended up with a 10 trillion dollar deficit?)
You should be concerned... I'm concerned too... but it's not socialism that is in fact at play here...but fascism.
-
Like Ralph Nader's father always said...
"Why will Capitalism always survive? Because Socialism will be there to bail it out."
Same shit, different day. Nothing to see here.
-
paraphrasing the donald
Donald trump said something like "If I owe you a $100,000 then I have a problem. If I owe you $100,000,000 then YOU have a problem.
The real question then, is who does Bear-Stearns owe all those billions to? It certainly isn't the stock holders or executives. The best we've heard so far is "the market" but that is just a distraction.
As we've heard so often: "Follow the money".
-
it's the "must not happen again" that got me...
Maybe he, like many Americans, still confuses socialism with Soviet communism.
-
It was Chrysler that got bailed out
Not GM..
-
Let's Not Split Hairs on this Topic
Keynesianism, socialism, whatever...we all see what the game is about: shielding the wealthy and powerful from the consequences of their socially reckless behavior, to the detriment of the citizenry and the larger economy.
This is nothing new at all. Look at the $12 billion bailout that the airlines got after 9/11. End welfare, right? Yeah, right. It's only a crime if you're spending your government handout on groceries or healthcare.
American political and economic policies seem increasingly designed to work in tandem towards a bizarre, two-tiered system of "socialized oligarchy," whereby the main function of the government is to subsidize the lifestyles and work ethic (or lack thereof) of America's "management class." Meanwhile, the actual blood cells of the economy--working citizens--are left to rot, if not actively persecuted. The median lane which used to be available as a conduit for merit-based oppourtunity and advancement from poor to wealthy--the middle class--is disappearing.
We've reached a dangerous point in history where far too many of us can plainly recognize this problem, which is actually a national catastrophe in the making, for what it is, yet we're still not doing anything serious to rectify it.
If Big Business is going to now be continually receiving obvious, blatant handouts of taxpayer dollars from the government every couple years, solely to prevent the latest economic "blood fever" from infecting the top 5% of income levels, then the major infrastructure industries such as energy, transportation, communication, etc. might as well be fully nationalized. I don't like the idea on principle, but this routine of America's elected officials representing nothing but to deflect accountability from corporate America is getting very tired, indeed.
-
I wish Jim stuck with his chosen profession
I'm surprised that Jim even listened. The man cares much more about baseball than the welfare of America. Now that I know that Jim Bunning opposes the bailout of Bear Stearns, I'm swayed to think that the bailout was the right decision.
As for bailouts in general, as a believer of Government intervention, I generally support them if they're warranted. I support them for the little guys and the big guys. The problem is that for too long now in the recent past we've only had ones for the big players. When bailouts are appropriate they help both the little guys and big guys. Helping consumers help companies, and helping companies critical the day to day operation of the economy aids consumers. Nobody benefits if the banking system were to collapse.
Though to agree with the previous poster, I don't see why the Fed couldn't have structured the bailout of Bear to expose the taxpayer to some of the upside. The bailout works because of the limits placed on the downside. JP Morgan in acquiring doesn't actually need to profit from the portfolio of Mortgage Backed Securities if they're value were to return. Of course that would place the Government is a slightly unholy spot of holding a market position...