Posted on 06/26/2012 3:56:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
It's always harder to say "no" in politics anyway, even if it is the optimum overall course of action, but I think the country has reached the tipping point. There are too many voting non-producers (moochers, looters and the genuinely needy) to make it possible for elected politicians to make the vitally important changes that are neccesary if the country is going to have any kind of economic future.
Which one? Ours? Europe's? Public? Private?
We have no choice but to pay off our own public debt, which I would ease by trying to recover more of the TARP monies.
Private debt? Derivative debt and default swaps? It'll have to go smash -- there was never anything behind it anyway, and trying to "pay it off" actually means dragooning the salaries and savings of millions of people to pay off someone else's Las Vegas losses, assessing Suckerland somehow to funnel funds to the people who did all this. They, and they alone, must suffer -- conspicuously (medieval punishments? the guillotine? I'm open to suggestions) -- for trying to palm it off on the public.
Thanks sickoflibs and stephenjohnbanker.
The answer to insolvent, bankrupt individuals, corporations, and banks is BANKRUPTCY.
Congress should expedite changing the BK laws back to what they were before the bankster lobbyists pushed through “reforms” that keep people, mostly poor people, in debt bondage.
Insolvent TBTF banks need to be closed, their execs fired, and assets distributed to creditors.
The law regarding derivatives and other offshore bank assets must be changed to require total transparency. The derivatives need to be traded on an exchange like other securities vehicles with full disclosure and adequate margins. If the TBTF go under, the foreign claimants can go pound sand.
The problem is mountains of debt and the solution is BK. When the debt is wiped out the economy can again grow based on real production and profits.
Yes, there are real solutions for all of the problems.
I guess another way to look at it is:
When we run out of money, we might not want those troops home anyway-—because, you recall, the government thinks that recently separated troops are likely to become terrorists.
[ I am, of course, being very sarcastic here....]
Huh? I have absolutely no idea what this bizarre response is supposed to mean.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.