Hundreds of Billions of our tax dollars now going to pay for Toxic Loans
By lilwonders
@lilwonders456 (8214)
United States
September 19, 2008 11:13am CST
Congress (along with President Bush) are now drafting a "rescue"plan for all the companies and our ecomony. They are going to buy (with our money) the toxic loans and property that is causing the housing market and stock market problems. So what is the government going to do with these loans and property? They are not going to be able to sell it and get the money back. So we the tax payers are going to take a huge loss. How do you feel about this? Should you tax dollars be use to bail out companies and wall street? Isn't the rewarding them for bad behavior. They took the risk by giving out those bad loans or investing in them. They knew the risks. They decided to do it. I do not feel a bail out of any kind is right. But part of me also wants to point out, why is it that the companies and investors get bailed out but not the ordinary tax payer that lost or is loosing their home. No one is bailing out them. Is that fair? What do you think?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
19 Sep 08
Lilwonders,
My take on this may surprise you but does anyone see the more prevalent danger in all of this? This is how most socialist/communist states begin! That's right, the government becomes the provider and the people are at its mercy! This has to be stopped NOW even if we face a depression far greater than the early '30s!
1 person likes this
@evanslf (484)
•
19 Sep 08
I doubt that the Bush administration has socialist policies in mind when it arranges these takeovers and bailouts, though I can see your point: there is a real danger that these companies think there is no risk to what they are doing as they will always be bailed out by the government.
It angers me that public money is being wasted to support these collapsed banks that have got into this mess because of their greedy bosses cavalier attitude to risk taking.
So we are being held hostage by these people:the argument being that if we don't put public funds to prevent these banks from failing, they go bankrupt and do I understand it correctly that the administrators of these bankrupt banks would then force homeowners with mortgages to repay their mortages back immediately? If that is the case, I can see why the government is bailing these banks out, otherwise many many people would lose their homes (but please correct me if I am wrong)
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
19 Sep 08
I see exactly what you see and it scares me. But you never hear about on the news. And the ones of us that do realize it are just put off as crazy. Welcome to the crazy club!
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
19 Sep 08
Right off the bat government should not be allowed to bail out failing companies. Instead of creating a new agency with a bloated bureaucracy just take away from government the power to take money from you and me and buy loans like these. No one would touch these loans with a ten foot pole, unless given something back in return, like a fifty thousand dollar loan for only ten thousand. Even at that maybe no one would buy the loan from the Feds. If you do not know how I fell about this well I will tell you, this bail out violates free market economics. An economic system based on the survival of the fittest cannot have government, with taxpayer money bailing out bad loans. If you are a bank that loaned someone money that could not pay it back then guess what, that bank deserve to die off. Failure is like a bayonet in the back, you either move in the opposite direction of the failure bayonet or the bayonet stabs you in the back. Failure as a punishment is a great motivation to succeed. The is a risk reward to everything, high the risk high the reward. If a bank makes high risk loans then there is a chance for high reward, but also high lose like we see now.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
19 Sep 08
I completely agree. I saw on the news that the bail out on AIG gives the federal government contolling shares in the company. Like 77%. How is that ethical. For our government to own controling shares in a corporation that is publicly traded. This violated Free Trade. All these bail outs violate free trade. I completely agree with free trade. But it looks like Washington doesn't./
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
19 Sep 08
We as a nation needs more free trade not more managed trade. Bailing out all of these banking firms is creating managed trade. The federal government is playing god over the economy, which is not their place to do. Business is an organism that must fight for survival or die.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
19 Sep 08
I completely agree. Now try conviencing Washington of this.
1 person likes this
@xParanoiax (6987)
• United States
21 Sep 08
People are talking about it being a "necessary evil" on tv, but their tones are strained. I understand some people feel it's like buying time, but so far most regular people like us input I've seen in unanimous. Government intervention is bad and could lead us down a very dangerous path as a free country, it's also morally wrong since we are encouraging bad behavior which may hurt so many people and already has hurt people. It's like saying, "Go ahead and do this to us again".
Plus, it's something of a double standard. They wouldn't come save us citizens from our financial woes...but they'll save some huge multi million dollar corporation, some of which have had greedy practices and huge problems with corruption.
What will they do if their -maybe- turns out to be a 'definitely not'? There's no turning back after this, whatever comes after will be the problem we all have to work through and solve...and none of us knows where that leads us to.
