am i missing something?
so, in plain english, what i am understanding is that the bush administration wants to bail out the banks and corporations that have gotten themselves in trouble by granting bad loans. supposedly, they will “buy” up all the unwanted foreclosures, collection accounts, and the like from these organizations, and that will free up money for the banks to then loan to thier customers, being that such loans have practically been frozen. the idea, as i understand it, is that the benefits will “trickle” down to the regular american by allowing them to then take out more loanns [ which are not guaranteed anymore than the first round of loans that got the banks in trouble in the first place], especially given the current status of the economy. the government’s answer seems to be to give money to the banks and corporations, billing the common taxpayer for this gift, and in turn, allow the taxpayer to borrow once again. basically – a plan to give to the rich and tax the poor to middle income while encouraging them to get themselves in more debt. am i missing something?
today, on several cable news shows, there were reports of millions of dollars being paid in severance to outgoing bank and corporation ceo’s. so… these organizations have the money, evidently, to pay exorbitant amounts of money to get rid of someone they feel has led the bank or corporation down the hole, yet, they don’t have money keep themselves afloat? hello!
ok, i am definitely oversimplifying this, but maybe if they would take responsibility for their own loans, as americans up until now have had to do, then the chips would fall where they should, and those banks and/or corporations that acted responsibly with good practices will survive, grow, and even prosper. sort of a natural selection of corporate america if you will. think about it. what happens when we rescue children, adults, or even criminals from the consequences of their bad behavior?. they never learn. they are prone to repeat the offense. nothing ever changes. perhaps we should apply this same principle to corporate america.
the criticism of this is that the american economy will suffer. by economy, do they mean the wealthy? well, the wealthy can afford to suffer a little bit. it’s the people who don’t have food who can’t.
and that’s my two cents worth, which, i am told, is worth about .0443 of a cent in today’s global market.
Posted in
humanity & politicsTags:
700,
administration,
america,
bailout,
banks,
behavior,
billion,
blogosphere,
borrow,
bush,
ceo,
class,
commentary,
congress,
corporation,
criminal,
down,
economy,
falling,
global,
hungry,
loans,
market,
mccain,
middle,
obama,
politics,
poor,
responsibility,
rich,
street,
suffer,
tax,
taxpayers,
theory,
thoughts,
trickle,
wall,
wealthy
[with a z] ...
thoughts on the proposed bailout
6 Comments
am i missing something?
so, in plain english, what i am understanding is that the bush administration wants to bail out the banks and corporations that have gotten themselves in trouble by granting bad loans. supposedly, they will “buy” up all the unwanted foreclosures, collection accounts, and the like from these organizations, and that will free up money for the banks to then loan to thier customers, being that such loans have practically been frozen. the idea, as i understand it, is that the benefits will “trickle” down to the regular american by allowing them to then take out more loanns [ which are not guaranteed anymore than the first round of loans that got the banks in trouble in the first place], especially given the current status of the economy. the government’s answer seems to be to give money to the banks and corporations, billing the common taxpayer for this gift, and in turn, allow the taxpayer to borrow once again. basically – a plan to give to the rich and tax the poor to middle income while encouraging them to get themselves in more debt. am i missing something?
today, on several cable news shows, there were reports of millions of dollars being paid in severance to outgoing bank and corporation ceo’s. so… these organizations have the money, evidently, to pay exorbitant amounts of money to get rid of someone they feel has led the bank or corporation down the hole, yet, they don’t have money keep themselves afloat? hello!
ok, i am definitely oversimplifying this, but maybe if they would take responsibility for their own loans, as americans up until now have had to do, then the chips would fall where they should, and those banks and/or corporations that acted responsibly with good practices will survive, grow, and even prosper. sort of a natural selection of corporate america if you will. think about it. what happens when we rescue children, adults, or even criminals from the consequences of their bad behavior?. they never learn. they are prone to repeat the offense. nothing ever changes. perhaps we should apply this same principle to corporate america.
the criticism of this is that the american economy will suffer. by economy, do they mean the wealthy? well, the wealthy can afford to suffer a little bit. it’s the people who don’t have food who can’t.
and that’s my two cents worth, which, i am told, is worth about .0443 of a cent in today’s global market.
Tags: 700, administration, america, bailout, banks, behavior, billion, blogosphere, borrow, bush, ceo, class, commentary, congress, corporation, criminal, down, economy, falling, global, hungry, loans, market, mccain, middle, obama, politics, poor, responsibility, rich, street, suffer, tax, taxpayers, theory, thoughts, trickle, wall, wealthy