"Banks got Bailed Out We got Sold Out" reason for US Marches

[whatbogsends]

It seems to me those responsible to pay would have been those who defaulted on their mortgages and the banks who were in danger of bankruptcy. As I recall, conservatives wanted them to take personal responsibility by allowing the process to work. Those who couldn't afford their homes would lose them and the banks who took on too much risk would go bankrupt.

They did pay. They are not the ones who caused the larger picture financial crisis. That was, and is, a result of the practices of the banking institutions.

 

[kermit]

Isn't this a case of liberals bemoaning liberalism?

Nope. This is a case of a group demoaning corporatism.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." -- Sinclair Lewis, 1935

<cough>...TEA Party ...<cough>

 

[Phileas]

That big banks got bailed out is not reason to protest big banks. Protest the big government that bailed them out. And that includes the Obama administration. Even if you accept the argument that banks had to be recapitalized, it could have been done in a way the actually benefited the public. Right now, the public derives no real benefit from low interest rates. Banks borrow money from the FED at 0% can you do that? Are rates on credit cards 0%? Have they gone down at all or are they still 15%-30% rates? Sure, many people have been able to refinance, but not those who were caught in the credit bubble--those that need it the most.

Aside from fiddling around the edges, the housing collapse hasnt been addressed at all. If you are going to throw trillions of dollars around, throw it at the public. Give every homeowner a voucher for ten grand. That would run you about a trillion dollars. The homeowner could only use the vouchers for mortgage payments or down payments on a new home. People behind on their mortgages could catch up, thus reducing foreclosures and everyone else would have several months of mortgage payments made for them freeing up that money to invest or spend on consumer goods.

The boost in economic activity would be temporary, of course, but at least everyone would get to enjoy the benefits of deficit spending before that dragon bites us in the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

You know what, for once I kind of agree with you. All the quantitative easing going on is, supposedly, creating new money in the economy. However it seems to just vanish into the financial sector black-hole never to be seen again and then pumps up inflation. To my mind if the world economy is going to go down this route we could at least use this money for something of real-world worth such as improving aging infrastructure Roosevelt/Keynes style. It would have the added benefit of providing a bit of a boost to employment.

 

[MachZer0]

Nope. This is a case of a group demoaning corporatism.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." -- Sinclair Lewis, 1935

<cough>...TEA Party ...<cough>

Let me refresh your memory regarding the title of the thread:

Banks got Bailed Out We got Sold Out

Thus, it is indeed about liberals bemoaning liberalism

 

[MachZer0]

People who default on loans generally can't pay them. Trying to squeeze more blood from those stones isn't any kind of solution. There money just isn't there.

In case you misunderstood, the person defaulting on a mortgage "pays the price" and accepts personal responsibility by losing the home in foreclosure as opposed to loking g to the government for a bailout. Hope that cleared things up for you

 

[MachZer0]

They did pay. They are not the ones who caused the larger picture financial crisis. That was, and is, a result of the practices of the banking institutions.

Not all had to pay, especially the banks. Taking "personal responsibility" would have meant bankruptcy as opposed to bailout. And the reasons for the crisis could actually be traced back to government over regulation of the banking industry

 

[Awesome_Frog]

Let me refresh your memory regarding the title of the thread:

Banks got Bailed Out We got Sold Out

Thus, it is indeed about liberals bemoaning liberalism

Liberalism isn't an economic stance, so liberals (who ever this group is, because its a vague term with a very squishy definition) aren't moaning about liberalism ( another vague term with no set in stone meaning). A lot of different people are mad at US corruption and both the Tea Party and OWS are just 2 groups pointing it out. Both sides are filled with ignorance, but both sides recognize that there is something wrong here.

 

[MachZer0]

Liberalism isn't an economic stance, so liberals (who ever this group is, because its a vague term with a very squishy definition) aren't moaning about liberalism ( another vague term with no set in stone meaning). A lot of different people are mad at US corruption and both the Tea Party and OWS are just 2 groups pointing it out. Both sides are filled with ignorance, but both sides recognize that there is something wrong here.

Sorry if "liberal" and "liberalism" are vague terms for some. And for the record, the Tea Party is for smaller government, lower spending whereas the OWS (the best I can figure) is for bigger government and more spending which inevitably means more corruption

 

[Awesome_Frog]

Sorry if "liberal" and "liberalism" are vague terms for some.

Then give me a definition. Or better yet tell me if I'm a liberal or conservative based on this list.
I'm for a flat tax across the board for all citizens.
I'm for legal Gun Ownership with a person's right to bear arms to not not be infringed.
I am for strong infrastructure such as universal health care, Road system, Mail service, social security, unemployment, disability, community collages, and food stamps.
I'm against illegal immigration
I'm a supporter of the US military and its soldiers
I'm a supporter of the freedom of religion and am such a supporter of everyone's right to their own religion that I think that there should be safe guards in place to keep a single religion from controlling the entire people. Such as the first amendment.
I'm against bail outs because its funneling money into the private sector from the US citizens.
I'm for same sex marriage in both a church that freely chooses to marry them and on both the State and Federal level.
I'm also a capitalist in the sense that I think I should be able to manufacture a good and sell it based on the market's needs. But I recognize that the government has to regulate the system a little bit to prevent companies from monopolizing the market and to keep my customers safe from scams and fraud.

Lets see how easy it is to fit me into the false dichotomy box of Liberal/conservative

And for the record, the Tea Party is for smaller government, lower spending

Oh, another buzz word that means nothing. What do you mean by smaller government? Smaller military spending? Reduced infrastructure? Lower taxes? Or are we talking about the strong nationalism side that would beef up home defense, immigration roadblocks, anti equality under the law, and the ignoring of the first Amendment's equality clauses for non christian religions?

whereas the OWS (the best I can figure) is for bigger government and more spending which inevitably means more corruption

Actually the biggest problem with OWS is that there is no unifying stance. There are people protesting Student loan debt, bank corruption, government corruption, the wars, Infrastructure corruption, anti lobby, health-care, etc.
Before you criticize a group for having a unified left wing liberal agenda, it would be nice if the group even had an agenda to start with.

 

[acropolis]

In case you misunderstood, the person defaulting on a mortgage "pays the price" and accepts personal responsibility by losing the home in foreclosure as opposed to loking g to the government for a bailout. Hope that cleared things up for you

Ah yes, another wrathful expression of conservatism without considering the consequences.

 

[MachZer0]

Then give me a definition. Or better yet tell me if I'm a liberal or conservative based on this list.
I'm for a flat tax across the board for all citizens.
I'm for legal Gun Ownership with a person's right to bear arms to not not be infringed.
I am for strong infrastructure such as universal health care, Road system, Mail service, social security, unemployment, disability, community collages, and food stamps.
I'm against illegal immigration
I'm a supporter of the US military and its soldiers
I'm a supporter of the freedom of religion and am such a supporter of everyone's right to their own religion that I think that there should be safe guards in place to keep a single religion from controlling the entire people. Such as the first amendment.
I'm against bail outs because its funneling money into the private sector from the US citizens.
I'm for same sex marriage in both a church that freely chooses to marry them and on both the State and Federal level.
I'm also a capitalist in the sense that I think I should be able to manufacture a good and sell it based on the market's needs. But I recognize that the government has to regulate the system a little bit to prevent companies from monopolizing the market and to keep my customers safe from scams and fraud.

Lets see how easy it is to fit me into the false dichotomy box of Liberal/conservative

You're a mixed bag with liberal leanings

Oh, another buzz word that means nothing. What do you mean by smaller government? Smaller military spending? Reduced infrastructure? Lower taxes? Or are we talking about the strong nationalism side that would beef up home defense, immigration roadblocks, anti equality under the law, and the ignoring of the first Amendment's equality clauses for non christian religions?

I'll give you an example. If you eliminated the Dept of Education, you'd have smaller government. If you expand with a new department or expand the powers of existing governments, you'd have bigger government

Actually the biggest problem with OWS is that there is no unifying stance. There are people protesting Student loan debt, bank corruption, government corruption, the wars, Infrastructure corruption, anti lobby, health-care, etc.
Before you criticize a group for having a unified left wing liberal agenda, it would be nice if the group even had an agenda to start with.

They do have an agenda, expansion of socialist policies

 

[MachZer0]

Ah yes, another wrathful expression of conservatism without considering the consequences.

Allowing people to suffer the consequences of their own actions is now wraathful conservatism

 

[acropolis]

Allowing people to suffer the consequences of their own actions is now wraathful conservatism

You operate under the false notion that everything that happens to a person is a direct result of their actions, which is an infantile concept that ignores the complexities of life, such as an economy which simply doesn't have enough jobs for the number of people in it, among other things. It's just a single example of blaming the victim, something conservativism is defined by more than anything else.

Do you know why bankruptcy is legally allowed? Because it allows people to rapidly recover and rejoin the workforce, which keeps people making money and when people make money they spend it and use banks and that makes the business class richer. Absolving people of their 'own actions' is often good for business, while simply heaping scorn on them and leaving them to rot leads to fiascoes like the Great Depression.

 

[kermit]

Let me refresh your memory regarding the title of the thread:

Banks got Bailed Out We got Sold Out

Thus, it is indeed about liberals bemoaning liberalism

Bailing out banks is not liberalism, it's corporatism.

 

[kermit]

the OWS (the best I can figure) is for bigger government and more spending

What specifically leads you to think that?

 

[kermit]

You operate under the false notion that everything that happens to a person is a direct result of their actions, which is an infantile concept that ignores the complexities of life

In my younger days I played in a number of bands. I was jamming with 2 close friends and a friend of out drummer. Things went well and we planned on getting back together so I left my amp at the practice space of the drummer's friend; it was late, there were a number of flights of steps, some very heavy speaker cabinets and we planned on getting back together soon. Well the drummer cancelled the next practice then the next one got cancelled. So I talked to the drummer to get my stuff back as it was getting too long out of my posession. Well he kept forgetting to call and wouldn't give me the number. Then the guy left town taking my $1100 amp with him. That drummer is a firm libertarian who believes everything that happens to us is a result of our actions, yet it was his actions (or rather inaction) that let to my property being stolen. In fact his inaction got his drums stolen and another guitar amp.

 

[MachZer0]

You operate under the false notion that everything that happens to a person is a direct result of their actions, which is an infantile concept that ignores the complexities of life, such as an economy which simply doesn't have enough jobs for the number of people in it, among other things. It's just a single example of blaming the victim, something conservativism is defined by more than anything else.

When you take out a mortgage to buy a home, there is risk involved and it matters not what causes you to default on the loan. The appropriate result is foreclosure.

Do you know why bankruptcy is legally allowed? Because it allows people to rapidly recover and rejoin the workforce, which keeps people making money and when people make money they spend it and use banks and that makes the business class richer. Absolving people of their 'own actions' is often good for business, while simply heaping scorn on them and leaving them to rot leads to fiascoes like the Great Depression.

And what I'm saying is that the banks should have gone through the bankruptcy process.

 

[MachZer0]

In my younger days I played in a number of bands. I was jamming with 2 close friends and a friend of out drummer. Things went well and we planned on getting back together so I left my amp at the practice space of the drummer's friend; it was late, there were a number of flights of steps, some very heavy speaker cabinets and we planned on getting back together soon. Well the drummer cancelled the next practice then the next one got cancelled. So I talked to the drummer to get my stuff back as it was getting too long out of my posession. Well he kept forgetting to call and wouldn't give me the number. Then the guy left town taking my $1100 amp with him. That drummer is a firm libertarian who believes everything that happens to us is a result of our actions, yet it was his actions (or rather inaction) that let to my property being stolen. In fact his inaction got his drums stolen and another guitar amp.

Actually, it was your actions that resulted in loss of your property. The bottom line though is that it is not the government's job to replace your amp

 

[Awesome_Frog]

You're a mixed bag with liberal leanings

Thought so, its just another meaningless term. I'm also a mixed bag with conservative leanings because of my stance on bailouts, gun rights, Immigration, and the Flat tax. I'm whatever you need me to be to fit your argument.

I'll give you an example. If you eliminated the Dept of Education, you'd have smaller government. If you expand with a new department or expand the powers of existing governments, you'd have bigger government

So you are saying the Tea party is for Cutting infrastructure. As in not auditing and fixing, but just eliminating. So how dose the tea party plan on supplementing the millions of children in the education system when the education system is cut and the private sector still demands and educated workforce?

They do have an agenda, expansion of socialist policies

So what are these socialistic policies and where did you get your information? Also who is the leader (s) of OWS?

 

[Awesome_Frog]

Actually, it was your actions that resulted in loss of your property.

The drummer took the amp. The Drummer committed theft. Its the drummer's fault. You are blaming the victim of theft because someone robbed them. That isn't libertarianism. Its victim blaming.

The bottom line though is that it is not the government's job to replace your amp

Not replace the amp, but to make sure that the drummer is punished for theft, which is illegal. Unless you believe its not the government's/police's job to enforce the law?