Posted on 09/22/2008 9:20:26 PM PDT by Glorious Liberty
No taxpayer money should be spent on bailing out financial institutions, period.
What will taxpayers get for their money? Absolutely nothing.
The money goes to pay other folks debts. Why in the world should we do that? They aren’t our debts.
The money goes to the lenders that made bad loans. Why should we bail out lenders who made bad loans? We didn’t make bad loans. Are we supposed to reward bad judgment?
The worry is that credit will dry up, damaging the economy. If that’s the problem, perhaps we need a temporary “loan insurance” program. For a fraction of the bailout cost, loans meeting clear credit standards could be guaranteed, thus encouraging the extension of credit. This serves a productive forward-looking purpose. It has the virtue of actually addressing the problem at hand. And it rewards the banks that are still solvent, the ones with good judgment.
Let the bankrupt financial institutions fail. Let the market sort out the value of their assets. Don’t prop them up with taxpayer money.
(Excerpt) Read more at ravallicountynews.com ...
It's just imaginary money, a number written down on a piece of paper. I never see anyone come around to collect all the billions we pay to keep our millitary running. I just pay my taxes as normal. And they haven't gone up. As long as they don't, I could care less about the paper.
Do you have any idea how many people starved to death in the 30’s?
Do you have any idea how much worse it would be now? You’d have cities filled with millions of people with nowhere to turn, no way to get by without a paycheck, or something of value to convert to food.
It would be 100’s of times worse than the 30’s, and probably very bloody.
“It would be 100’s of times worse than the 30’s, and probably very bloody.”
Based on what evidence again? Just a “feeling”...?
Based on total collapse of the banking system? the stock markets? Pretty much the same things that caused the 30's crash? Where you going to get your money from when you have no job? where you going to live when you can't pay your mortgage?
My 80-year-old parents went through the Great Depression.
Dad recently lost $150,000 when IndyMac collapsed.
This is real, and it’s going to affect millions of people if it isn’t dealt with immediately.
A lot of the people demanding that we not bail out the banks are already rich enough that it won’t affect them personally. They remind me of millionaire actors espousing communism, when they themselves will never be impacted by it.
Why should my elderly parents and I be out on the street just to preserve some wealthy conservatives’ ideological purity?
“Based on total collapse of the banking system? the stock markets?”
Those are interesting speculations but at this point there’s very little evidence for it.
Repeating the same tired rhetoric doesn’t make it so.
Maybe not your street.
But lots of people literally starved. thousands road the rails from one end of the country to another trying to find work. Families lost their homes and lived homeless while trying to cross the country looking for better times.
I may have missed the 30's depression, but my parents didn't.
By 1934 over 9000 banks closed their doors, and one out of every four workers was unemployed.
On top of that, farming collapsed, caused by a combination of poor farming practices and a 7 year drought.
The drought became so prominent that 27 states, or 75% of the country was under its effect. To escape the “Dust Bowl” many people traveled thousands of miles to the west coast looking for opportunities that did not exist there either.
What they mean only bailouts for themselves, friends and family.
They aren’t doing anything; but the same thing.
Based on the hysteria you seem to be peddling here I have to ask if you expect financial gain if there is a bailout?
That's it in a nutshell.
I don’t know the answers to some of your questions, but I do know the answer to your last question, part of it anyway. The stockholders are pensions, retirement accounts, and mutual funds, for businesses and governmental agencies all over the country. Probably nearly all of us have some part in these banks.
Yep. Thanks to FDR and your beloved socialism, the depression lasted a good long time.
Fair question
“Maybe not your street.
But lots of people literally starved. thousands road the rails from one end of the country to another trying to find work. Families lost their homes and lived homeless while trying to cross the country looking for better times.
The part you wrote, “lots of people literally starved” is a blatant untruth. You do understand the meaning of “literally” as oposed to “figuratively” do you not?
Sure, people rode the rails, there were bankruptcies and times were tough. FDR promised to get us out of the depression with his WPA (we poke along) and other government financed programs but only when WWII came along did the depression end. You were taught this part of U.S. history in school, were you not?
Actually, that's what your beloved socialism is good at making happen.
No Bailout. Not one penny.
Look at the Dow from 2000/02 it went down 36 percent
Look at the Dow now 2007/08 it went down 21 percent
NOW is NOT that bad. Not even close to 2000/02 when we had the .com bubble burst AND A TERRORIST ATTACK.
F A C T S. that you won’t hear from the “experts”
You may think you have money in the bank, but when it closes the doors, you have nothing in the bank. Stock markets panic and everything tumbles down to nothing.
You may have thought you had lots of stocks and securities, but suddenly you have nothing, because a run on the floor wiped the value of your stock to nothing.
Shareholders, brokerage firm traders panic and start selling. This causes a "run" on the banks and businesses, and is what causes them to collapse. Just because banks make billions, remember, that is paid out in dividends to it's shareholders. it doesn't pile up year after year in a giant vault somewhere.
Watch your mouth. I'm no socialist, and nor are bailouts "socialist". Sometimes they are necessary. A collapse of the financial market in this country would be devastating. It wasn't caused by "socialism" in the 30's, either. All the unemployed, hungry and homeless that would result couldn't be blamed on "socialism" now could it. It would be the result of a collapse of a capitalist market system. Marxist dictators like Stalin were the cause of millions starving. It was a deliberate act.
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.