AP RedMy blog makes no money, so where's my bailout?
September 27th 2008 18:28
Just another random thought thrown out into the digital world. So much for a blog having a general theme.
So, the US government wants to use tax money to save the troubled financial sector. Companies that have been run to the ground get saved by the American taxpayer of 2008.
These financials made bad decisions, created/inflated values of securities where nothing was added or even existed to begin with, broke these securities apart (like a chop shop which is def illegal) to increase "value" yet again, and that $1 item you started with is now "worth" $6 in all of about 10 minutes or even the time it takes to do a few keystrokes. After making money appear from thin air, the top level securities managers and CEOs compensate themselves and also get new out clauses with golden parachutes (Note the WaMu head getting a chunk of change that could be confused with the GDP of a third world country or a lotto winner.
The housing bubble bursts, families lose homes that they honestly couldn't afford, and now the speculators who created the mess are gonna get a bailout from the taxpayer. Since when does a free market economy save businesses because they are failing? I thought the purpose was for businesses to sink or swim on their own. If the govt. owns businesses, wouldn't that make us a communist state?
Oh, but this bailout helps the people in the long run. Why don't you bail Hanes out then? You can save 8,000 jobs and keep those people paying taxes. Wouldn't that help the people out? Or maybe you could reward companies that actually do good so they can hire more people and accelerate the rebound. Nah, that makes too much sense. Lets just buy a bad company and pray for a turnaround.
And what if there is a turnaround? Which taxpayers get money? The person that pays taxes during the crisis or the people that are paying taxes in 5 years? Some freshman in college just gets a job in 2011 and pays taxes in 2012. So he gets the profits from the bailout of 2008? Is that fair?
Don't worry though. You don't have to slap around any high schoolers and collegians for money. The government will say that they're using the profits from the bailed out companies to improve the infrastructure of the country. Bridges need to be fixed (yup), roads need to improve (sure), we need to drill for oil (hey wait a sec), we need to make more refineries (more freebies for gas companies already raking it in?), and lube for the taxpayers that think the government is looking out for them.
I honestly don't have any quick fixes to the problem. I only know what I think could make it worse or at the very least is unfair. If I go to the bank and pull out $5 k to bet to win on Curlin and he breaks his leg and loses, do I get a bailout? So these companies that gambled that the housing market would keep going up and up and their secured bond packages would be backed by that are different from betting on the horse how exactly?
If I had to take $9,000 from taxes, I'd rather put it on a good horse than a bad company. That's just me though.
So, the US government wants to use tax money to save the troubled financial sector. Companies that have been run to the ground get saved by the American taxpayer of 2008.
These financials made bad decisions, created/inflated values of securities where nothing was added or even existed to begin with, broke these securities apart (like a chop shop which is def illegal) to increase "value" yet again, and that $1 item you started with is now "worth" $6 in all of about 10 minutes or even the time it takes to do a few keystrokes. After making money appear from thin air, the top level securities managers and CEOs compensate themselves and also get new out clauses with golden parachutes (Note the WaMu head getting a chunk of change that could be confused with the GDP of a third world country or a lotto winner.
The housing bubble bursts, families lose homes that they honestly couldn't afford, and now the speculators who created the mess are gonna get a bailout from the taxpayer. Since when does a free market economy save businesses because they are failing? I thought the purpose was for businesses to sink or swim on their own. If the govt. owns businesses, wouldn't that make us a communist state?
Oh, but this bailout helps the people in the long run. Why don't you bail Hanes out then? You can save 8,000 jobs and keep those people paying taxes. Wouldn't that help the people out? Or maybe you could reward companies that actually do good so they can hire more people and accelerate the rebound. Nah, that makes too much sense. Lets just buy a bad company and pray for a turnaround.
And what if there is a turnaround? Which taxpayers get money? The person that pays taxes during the crisis or the people that are paying taxes in 5 years? Some freshman in college just gets a job in 2011 and pays taxes in 2012. So he gets the profits from the bailout of 2008? Is that fair?
Don't worry though. You don't have to slap around any high schoolers and collegians for money. The government will say that they're using the profits from the bailed out companies to improve the infrastructure of the country. Bridges need to be fixed (yup), roads need to improve (sure), we need to drill for oil (hey wait a sec), we need to make more refineries (more freebies for gas companies already raking it in?), and lube for the taxpayers that think the government is looking out for them.
I honestly don't have any quick fixes to the problem. I only know what I think could make it worse or at the very least is unfair. If I go to the bank and pull out $5 k to bet to win on Curlin and he breaks his leg and loses, do I get a bailout? So these companies that gambled that the housing market would keep going up and up and their secured bond packages would be backed by that are different from betting on the horse how exactly?
If I had to take $9,000 from taxes, I'd rather put it on a good horse than a bad company. That's just me though.
| 30 |
| Vote |
