Don't lose site of what Obama is doing...

So I take it you are going to refuse social security checks? Or maybe just take only as much as you put in, then stop? No have I dont think the US shouldve taken control of the two companies, or that they should have a say in bank policies. But then they didnt ask me. They ask the board members of these companies if they wanted the money. And guess what..the board members sold out employees and executed dealerships. Or did they? If Chrysler had just gone bankrupt, would all thier dealerships remain open? Yes the board members. Those poor poor guys who have to pay a higher percentage of taxes than the schmucks they sold down the river.

 

I bet a guy who lost his job doesnt give a crap who fired him. Ask him if he would rather be fired through free enterprise or government intervention.

 

I dont have the answers to help this country grow. But I dont bitch about not having them. Those companies werent forced to take the deal. No matter what Ken Lewis says

 

Capitalism can't be unfettered or you will end up with 8 year old kids working 10 hours a day in a coal mine.

 

What is Europe doing Jack is spending money on its economy, taking banks into part ownership until they can sort themselfs out, giving out aid oh now dont that sound rather like Obamas plan
Now lets look at your question about a person recieving goverment handouts.
Who does more for the economy Jack a person with some cash or a person with non?
This crisis started way back before Obama took office Jack, the unemployment rate has been rising steadily since 2008 (now that was the free market at work) repossesions were rising dramaticly last year, I remember some people here telling me I did not know what I was talking about when I said it would hit middle America and that it was only the lazy that was been hurt.
You want the markets to sort the problem out Jack fine but please tell me how? by allowing the banks to fold? by allowing people to become homless? by allowing the construction industry to go under?
Ok so the work he proposses to create is make work but think on this Jack that make work will in turn create more work. As people spend then manufacturers will increase output that is a simple economic fact of life, sometimes the market requires a outside boost.
OK my comment was a little over the top but you guy's scream Socialism at everything your President does, Midas screams Muslis at everything so why not
No one is forcing any company to take the aid offerd Jack they in a number of cases went cap in hand to the goverment. and as a final reminder it was the free unregulated market that brought this financial crisis on in the 1st place.
Now France is slightly different to most countries as there getting credit is extreemly hard so they were not hit quite as badbut even so a number of there finacial institutions required goverment help.
Germany they have a low home ownership so they were not hit quite as hard but again the banks required help.
What you fail to mention is that a number of these institutions are allready paying the money recieved back (yes even in this country)

 

One other question for you all to ponder, if what President obama and the American goverment are doing is so bad How are the markets reacting?
What is the state of the Stock market? has it gone into free fall or is it showning signs of stabalisation and recovery?

 

You just can't have employees without employers first and foremost...these are the people that work harder, work longer, and risk their own capital. After all, over 80% of people that work in the U.S.A. work for small businesses (employers).

For the love of Pete, ask yourself WHY in the world would one (an employer) want to want harder, longer, and risk their capital if the government continues to seize MORE and MORE of the fruits of their labor???

The top 50% already pay over 97% of all taxes collected. Corporate tax rates in this country are only second to Japan where our government is taking more and more every year!

For you socialists out there...

HOW MUCH MORE TAXES and REGULATION DO YOU WANT???

Lincoln said it best, "You cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poor."

Sound logic and rational...even a government schooled student should be able to figure this one out!

 

This is so typical when you try to have a logical and rational debate with a liberal. If you try to have a point-counterpoint argument , you will find that their retorts (as above) will bear no relation to what you've said -- unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, hate-mongering, or whether you are a fascist.

When in doubt, never address the point and/or topic...just go after the messenger.

Before you raise your voice, why don't you try to reinforce your statements.

 

Hahaha. This has been a great thread.

As far as Ford is concerned though, before I'm willing to shout total success from the mountain tops, I will have to give it a few years. I think Ford is a major beneficiary of the other two being taken over by the government. Everyone knows how F'd up government run things can go so many have lost confidence in the brand. Leaving Ford as the sole, private, U.S. company that many consumers trust and to reap the benefits.

It obviously wasn't working with all 3 being privately owned or two of them wouldn't have needed govt help or bankruptcy. And the last I heard, Ford was burning through their own cash at an alarming rate in order to survive. Maybe things have straightened out there now. Maybe not. I'll judge how they're doing in a few years from now. Too early to tell what's real at this point.

 

We're still in the shadow of a mind boggling economic stimulus bill!!! And I would have to imagine things aren't nearly as great as they thought they would be right now. What's going to happen when that money runs out and the training wheels come off?

Have you ever tried to jump start a car that was totally dead? That's the U.S. economy. The 800 billion dollar stimulus plan was the jump start. But what permanent jobs have been, will be, can be created when all these companies are already gone? Five years from now will be the true barometer, assuming they don't pass more stimulus bills.

I personally don't think we've seen anything yet compared to what's coming.

 

Agree with you Vess1, it is EASY to print money, run up staggering debt, tax producers and generate class warfare and attack naysayers as "hate mongers",

But guess what? you eventually run out of somebody else's money and watch what is coming...ridiculous inflation and a national debt that is so out of control, that our unborn great grandchildren will look back and think, "What the F....!!, what were you thinking???"

 

Yes, yes usual same old story but not one of you have said what the goverment should do.
You say let the market sort it fine, then your economy would have dissapeared with the failure of your banks, your insurence companies, your morgage companies. Sure you might still have had some small local banks but they do not lend money to the big corporations who employ the masses of the people now do they. No banks mean no one can lend money this has a knock on effect in all areas of life and it was starting to happen. Any one here care to tell me I am wrong about that?
Any one here care to tell me what would have been the result if AIG had been allowed to utterly fail? Just that one single company.
You all sit there pontificating on What Obama has done wrong well he did not start this sorry process so for once try laying the blame were it realy belongs.

 

With your government intervention philosophy, I guess we should have bailed out the buggy-whip manufacturers at the turn of the last century along with those that manufacture pay-phones in lieu of cell phones.

Yes, we need to let companies fail. That is how the free market system works. Otherwise, companies will continue to make bad decisions because socialists will offer their bad business decisions a tax-payer golden parachute. That is wrong and everything against the free market system.

If you don't let companies fail because of the free market, that is another step to more government control and more intervention in EVERY aspect of our lives.

Let's look at a simple, but a popular product that is sold and used by millions of households...

It took the makers of WD-40...you guess it...40 attempts to get the water displacing formula for this American icon to work out. The company failed the previous 39 times, and did NOT ask for government assistance. They probably could have released the 38th or 39th formula and settled into mediocre, but the company and the market saw otherwise. They were NOT depending on a government. They had to succeed or else face the consequences that all businesses face when they do not serve the free market place..."Out of Business"

This dependance on the government has to stop...after all, when was the last time you went out to dinner and said, "Gee...the service sucks here, what we need is a government agent to run it."

Get real...

 

What would have been the effect on the American economy if the company who produce WD 40 went under for the 40th time? answer minimul a few job losses and that would have been it.
So before you again start with the get real scenario try answering my questions they are fairly simple ones (yet you continualy try side stepping them) What would have happend if AIG had gone under, now that is one single company which according to you should have been allowed to fail. Ok so now tell me what the fall out would have been.
You talk as if the goverment stepping in to save a company is new, it is not. the goverment has been keeping the arms industry alive for years LOL

 

The number responsibility of the federal government is protect and defend...hence the reason why the president raises his hand to uphold the oath to office. The government receives bids from private companies who make the better jet fighter and weapons, not the other way around.

As for your support of bailouts...

There was time when the saying was, "How goes the railroads, so does the country"

But guess what? We found a better and faster means of travel and the free market spoke.

Using your mindset, you want to provide every large company with a golden parachute which is NOT what the free enterprise system is all about. Using your government intervention policy, we should have bailed out the railroads as well...along with the steel industry and others. With that thinking, it is not a FREE market system anymore.

So what is the goal? To grow a company so large so the government can now back it in case it makes bad decisions??

That is is ridiculous and a socialist mindset!

 

Again no answer just rhetoric, you actualy have no idea if I support a goverment bail out or not as you have not taken the time to ask, you just attack as is your want.
So what would have happend to the American Economy if AIG had been allowed to fail (Please do try to answer it even if it is only to say you dont know)
Now if you want to talk about goverment procuerments LOL oh that would be a joy, with the continual overspends on projects over the years LOL

 

I will attempt to answer your question if that sooooo pleases you. It will not be easy, but I will do my best.

I beleive we should of let AIG fail in the true spirit of free enterprise and free markets...and BTW, it has nothing to do with bonuses that were PAID after they started receiving bailouts from OUR tax money! Of course, the whole idea of bonuses with our bail-out money would make any capitalist shake their head in disgust!

I think this so-called rescue of AIG is killing the banking system and unnecessarily extending the credit crisis into a deeper mess.

Now, AIG made its money in the past by dealing withg CDS's (cash default swaps). Most of AIG's losses have been attributed to its failing positions in credit-default swaps (CDSs)...right? What AIG did was to swap cash flows with other institutions whereas other banks then paid AIG a small sum on a regular basis, and then under certain conditions (i.e, mass foreclosure or other corporations' defaulting their loans), AIG then pays out a large sum back.

In other words, AIG sold insurance; its problem is that it was paying out too much versus what they were taking in...a formula for GOING OUT OF BUSINESS.

AIG's insurance on bank foreclosures and other defaults is not like insurance for car accidents and natual disasters; while earthquakes in L.A, are not correlated with earthquakes in New York, foreclosures are spiraling out of control together, fueled by this widespread recession where idiots bought more house then they could and should have been approved for!

Regardless of the details of the various cash default swap contracts, they all represent potential transfers of wealth between financial institutions. If the free market consolidated the entire financial sector, all these debts would effectively vanish...yes, vanish!

Look at your house with home owner's insurance. Many institutions hold insurance on your house; on the other side are insurance companies and there are those making an opposite bet. If your house is destroyed, one group of institutions wins and the other group loses.

Considering all of the financial institutions collectively together, no money was actually lost. Some of my financial friends call this a "zero-sum" gain. In good times, risk-hungry institutions love this game, but now they have become the opposite, and the game seems to have changed. Think about it...how can many of the banks simultaneously claim enormous swap losses without a single bank claiming significant profit?

From what I can gather, there are two possibilities: either the vast majority of these cash default swaps — not just AIG's — are held by investment banks, or a significant portion is held by other financial institutions like hedge funds.

Suppose all swaps are held by banks. Since swaps are a zero-sum game, the banking industry as a whole cannot lose money on swaps, hence there is no need for a bailout.

Alternatively, if a hedge fund hold significant positions, then it is possible for the banking industry as a whole to net a loss on these swaps. That loss would be the hedge funds' gain. This means the bailout is ultimately saving the hedge funds. Is that what we want??

Whichever it is, if the number of institutions involved in swap-trading were limited to those trading with AIG, then AIG is probably not too big to fail. We have to worry about chains of claims. Just because AIG dealt only with banks does not mean those banks did not rewrite similar contracts with hedge funds.

I believe the best solution for this cash default swap problem is to settle all such agreements and eliminate their uncertainty from the equation. If the payments are reversed, or the payments are stopped, or they are settled once and for all, the uncertainty will vanish.

The problem with keeping the swaps on the banks' books is that their potential payoff or loss is random, depending on the particular details of the contract and various outcomes in the world. Moreover, banks today are risk-averse and often factor worst-case scenarios into current pricing. Thus, they are far more likely to claim losses than profits on these instruments.

At the very least, there should be full transparency for us...the tax payer. Any institution receiving money from the government — and ultimately from American taxpayers — should reveal its holdings.

These bail outs have focused too much on each individual bank and its possibility for failure. The economy does not need every bank nor business to survive; it needs most. Right now, we need to know which ones.

By throwing good money at these financial institutions that are subject to unknown potential losses, the government is prolonging the uncertainty about whether they will fail or not.

This perpetuates the crisis of confidence in which banks do not trust one another enough to loan money...and that is exactly what we don't need!

(that was tiring)

 

All very good but again you failed to answer a simple question, I never asked you what AIG did, nor for a run down on insurance, nor did I mention the bonus payments. I simply asked you what the effect of AIG going under would have been for the American economy. You failed to mention the hunderds of thousands of policy holders, who would have no longer been insured now that was the easy one.

 

Never mind...you have not contributed any rhyme or reason to this discussion.

 

''No just sound fiscal responsibility...letting the free markets work as they always have...without government telling you and other private companies what to make, how to service, and what to sell.''-Midas

There has never been any of that in your lifetime. So how would you know it is best? There has always been government involvement; from child labor laws to rectrictions on toxic waste. So now what?