I have the solution...unionize the banks! Then they can get the same sweet deal the automakers got :up:
Excellent point. Maybe it appears that the loans to anyone that knows how to walk in the door are over.
If someone needs a co-signer, it is probably a good indication that that person should not be receiving a loan. Just say, NO!
yeah - it was a tongue-in-cheek statement of fact, you moron. ...which is exactly what is said. u r gud at math, BTW. people skills, not so much. that or i could join the sheep who seem to have accepted this slavery to the upper class (and yes - i am aware of the irony) yet continue to complain without offering any kind of alternative solution. so let me get this straight - in your world, Banker A, who after the collapse of his industry still has his job, plays the stock market well using taxpayer money, takes home $6.5 million dollars after taxes. unfortunately, middle class saps Bill, Bob, and Jim had to be fired so he could still take home his accustomed bounty, but hey - cost of doing business in tough times, right? they can collect unemployment. Bank A uses its proceeds to repay the taxpayer money, with interest, and still posts ridiculous profits because the government charged less interest on the loan than the bank was able to make on its investments. but instead of hiring Bill, Bob, and Jim back as soon as things turned around, decides to give Banker A a little bump for his trouble. so when the banks (or whatever other big revenue generators) make money, they get to keep it no matter the cost, but when they lose money, we middle class saps have to eat it one way or another. and to you, this is OK. maybe i am a moron, b/c i can't see it.
Speaking of Unions; I heard some news story this morning about how Obama has promised the Unions that he will give them a discount, or exemption, on the unions high end insurance policies that everyone else will get taxed on. The Amish will also get an exemption. I wonder how much the Amish religion will grow because of this. It would seem that that would be challenged as being preferential treatment, and thus, illegal. On a second note; I heard them talking about the question of how would we handle the medical treatment here, if some catastrophic event such as that in Haiti, occurred here in the US. Some Senator named Weiner, or Weener, ?, stated that under our present health care system, even without insurance, everyone would be taken care of. He stated that our system, as is, isn't the problem. The problem is distribution of health care. Kind of throws a new angle on things.
You're delusional if you think life was ever meant to be fair... The governments attempts to redistribute wealth are laughable, and only work to hurt the middle and lower class further increasing the impact of your earlier statement "and the rich get richer". It's hilarious...you're for the exact thing your against
i'm beginning to realize this. you have no idea what it's like to live with me. i'm actually becoming a Republican, and it's like giving birth.
You know, this is a good point I don't see mentioned often enough. While the banks are certainly not lending like they ought to be (it'd be hard for them to lend any less, really), the reversion to 1980s-esque lending standards is going to eliminate a huge swath of the people that were previously getting loans. They should be lending much more, yes, but anyone expecting a return to 2005 lending standards--ever--is foolish at best.
I don't think that was his point. He was complaining that the government fired a C.E.O. and dictating pay and calling it Fascism. I'm saying that ownership has a right to do just that, no matter who ownership happens to be. I see what you're (apparently) saying, that government ought not to be in an ownership position, and I agree completely. But they are. So I want them to do make whatever personnel moves they need to make to protect what is essentially my investment.
Except in the case of banks some were coerced to accept money. Oh and what about Ford who did not take money? The rules still apply to them. Further the difference is simple, take over by a private entity is DIFFERENT! Personally I don't want to live in a fascist country as the track record of citizens benefitting is zero I believe. When a private company buys another it is with the resources they earned, when the government does it is with resources they confiscated.
Are banks that did not partake or paid back in full still subject to the proposed taxation? Also is part of the taxation aimed at getting a return for monies spent elsewhere on other fronts (non-banking industries)? Yes, to any of the above is unjust. I heard a qoute attributed to Gibbs, paraphrasing, basically saying, that if you are in a position to award bonuses you should not complain about paying via taxes to contribute to the recovery.
I usually try to stay out of these things, but this time I just can't. A couple of years ago, I was getting positively killed by $4/gal gas, as a road sales rep. The added expense was the last straw that put my already struggling business under. And I'm supposed to be happy when I hear that Exxon made the biggest profits in CORPORATE HISTORY DURING THAT TIME? Tell me again...I must have missed the rationale there. Not understanding me here? Try this on: I pay $1250 PER MONTH, PLUS 30% for health insurance JUST FOR ME! I require treatments every 6 weeks, at a cost of $9000 PER TREATMENT, just to be able to live a productive life (Crohn's Disease....hello Casey Stoner), of which I am responsible for 30%! So every six weeks, I owe $2700, just for meds! I'm just an hourly workin' stiff! And I've been turned down by over a dozen insurance companies for health insurance because of my pre-existing condition....THIS COVERAGE IS ALL I CAN GET! I don't have any idea how much the rest of you "leave 'em alone' guys make, but it's apparently one fuckload of a lot more than I make! And I've been in the motorcycle industry since 1985! These costs leave me scraping every week just to get by! TELL ME AGAIN HOW I SHOULD BE OK WITH THE STATUS QUO...I NEED TO HEAR IT AGAIN! What makes you clowns think that you deserve a multi-million dollar salary for leading your mega-company to the brink of destruction? And why should I swallow the bullshit line that mega-bonuses are "necessary to keep the best and the brightest", when the "best and brightest" run Enron, or Adelphia, or AIG, or Chrysler, or (the list goes on) straight into the ground!? What makes you guys think that the CEO of GM deserved to keep his job, when for decades the company refused to modernize their designs, build quality, or production OR fuel efficiency! By this line of reasoning, I deserved HUGE money for having my company tank under the burden of outrageous fuel and oil prices that went up 100% in a matter of weeks! Look, I'm sorry for the ranting here, but I just cannot understand how ANYONE in America can be satisfied with the status quo in health insurance. Or with these "too big to fail" banks raising your credit card rates into the 20+% range, or charge for using an ATM, so they can pay back the TARP funds and still collect their million dollar bonuses! Yes, I think those banks and car companies should have been allowed to fail. We (the average working stiff) wouldn't be any worse off than we are now if they had...just as many jobs would have been lost. The cost of living wouldn't have changed. And the morons who brought it on themselves would still have their multi-million dollar bonuses...except there would be fewer of them to take them. Don't you feel slapped in the face when the company your tax dollars propped up sees fit to take obscene bonuses away from their corrupt mis-management practices? Look, I don't have an answer, either. I really don't. But I, for one, applaud any effort to change the SOP's that brought us here. Because laissez-faire economics have allowed these entities to take from me more than I can bring in. And I'm fuckin' tired of it. I work too hard to be where I am right now, and I have for the last 30+ years. Should I really have to work 3 full time jobs to afford the medical treatment that I wish I was healthy enough not to need? I dunno, but it sure seems that you proudly posturing "this is the way it is, get used to it and quit bitching" guys are as disconnected from the reality of the man-on-the-street as the big corps who grow at my expense every year... Are you guys seriously not feeling the effects of the current economy? Really?
This post screams GREED just as much as what is being blamed on the mega corps these days. Yes I am struggling in today's economy, Yes I have my own business, And yes I buy my health insurance privately and last but not least yes I have a chronic disease. So my situation isn't all too different from yours. The only difference is I don't blame anybody else but me for my situation in life. I don't like paying more than you for health insurance but can understand why I do. While my health situation isn't my fault it sure as hell isn't the american people's or the insurance company's fault either. I don't like it that gas and fuel is inching ever so closer to what it was in 2005. but it is. The simple truth is I don't have to pay for anything unless I want to. I'm not forced to even buy gas. One can always reorganize their life where buying fuel is not needed. You are right though in a sense. Greed did cause our economic downturn. The simple fact is pretty much the whole country was living on debt. Our economy depending on it. From the large corp to the average working stiff. That kind of economy is unsustainable in the long run. I made decent money when things were good and now I am glad I didn't over buy on my house, or sink my business in debt up to it's ass. Last month I actually broke even instead of losing money at the shop for the first time in over a year. Hopefully I'll be able to manage through this and survive whiel I have already seen more than a dozen local machine shops close. If I don't..... well it still is all on me. Not the government, not my steel suppliers, not the fuel comapnies etc etc etc..... Life isn't fair and it won't be if the government controls everything either. the only difference is then. Instead of CEOs being overpaid by their boards or somebody making more than you think is acceptable for a certain job all because the market made the call. You'll have government employees or certain businesses or people connected to those in political office making more than you think is acceptable because the government made the call.
