OK-- here's a political idea--
First bail out floundering banks and corporations.
Next put limits on the salaries of top executives.
This will accomplish several things:
The companies will be under the virtual control of the government.
The taxpayers will be in debt, and left holding the bag.
The executives will find work elsewhere (they already are).
The wavering companies will lose their best talent.
The companies the government (aka taxpayers) will fail with a larger debt than if they had been left alone.
And yet, there are people who think Obama is doing a good job.
Not to mention that the limitations are unconstitutional.
First help someone out-- so they are indebted to you, then you have control, they do whatever you want and let the people pay.
It works for business, healthcare, housing, etc etc.
Then forget about "the common defense" which was what the U.S. government was established for in the first place.
What is happening to us?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … id=topnews
Haven't you heard? Obama won and we are on our way to socialism.
Well, the saddest thing about it is that if McCain won, you would be on your way to fascism...
You think? I think we'd just have half-hearted capitalism.
If you remember, it was not Obama who started the bailouts. And economically fascism and socialism are quite close. Both are based on a nationalized property.
Yes, I remember it was Bush who bailed out the banks. I don't think he would have gone as far as taking over General Motors and giving the democrats free reign over the stimulus program that put us into the whole for trillions of dollars. I don't think McCain would have gone that way either. He is still enough of a Republican not to want big government.
I have always had the feeling Bush was trying to Create a Big Super Bank to dump the Tarp Funds in, and have it consolidate all the failed banks, buy them up, then sell it back, pieces of it, to the Surviving Super banks that did not fall. shure up the Big guys first, let the smaller lesser ones fall. The buy up the mess. Di it through the treasury bank, acting as the Super bank
Then Have the Goverment Super bank make the loans to the economy sectors; Auto, Mining, Small Business, Export Business etc, Stock Funds, Housig; those needing the help, shure them up and then after a period of time, as the Loans began to pay back, then sell the Gov. paper off to the Big Private Banks that survived. Split it up between them. Let them loan to New lesser banks to create a new banking system.
I think thats why he held off, only partial not total bail outs. Made it look like he was not doing anything. I think He was calculating a time to put that in place? and Ran out of time. IMO, that is
I am not up-holding Bush now, not sure how that would have gone actualy.
Obama I think changed it, made it into a Stimulus Program with direct awards, thus control of the Companies Directly. Gov Ownership of the Industries it bailed out. Not Control of the Banking Industry. I think Bush wanted stronger more absolute control through the Banks that way.
Yes, I think that's what Bush had in mind. He probably felt that by giving the banks money that they would turn around and release it and ease credit crunch. But that wasn't the case, I think it was too far gone and if they had a couple more months they probably would have tried to ease the plunge down.
But Obama thought it was a great opportunity to turn the country socialist.
You can't say that for sure....he will dam near agree to anything with anyone.....
Yes, and People who even believe America is a great ATM machine, just insert your magic lobby card, and there you are!
Did you think Robin Hood was not real? OH MY!....lol
we can argue over this all night long without any result - it is all if and would. Yet i do think that the main political problem of your society is you let politicians divide you. Difference between dems and reps is immaterial nowadays IMO...
You are correct Misha. Many who complain about the present situation voted for Bush and seem to forget what a mess he made of things. Keeping Dems and Reps at cross purposes benefits the big money guys who actually run things in america.
Not arguing just discussing. What you say interests me. And it's okay if you think differently.
Actually, the division was always there, but there were always people from both parties who were willing to compromise and come to the middle. That is not the case now so yes I agree with you Misha.
Obama has given the world hope for peace at least, by not threatening and crippling other countries economies.
Americas behaviour towards other countries had not made it a lot of friends during the last admin., and America is a long way from being socialist.
Socialism is Communism is Fascism. From now on, the phrase "too big to fail" has to be banished from public discourse.
Capitalism is one of those systems that preaches self sufficiency until it sees an opportunity to get a handout from the government it preaches against.
by ixwa 8 years ago
When was it that the American People have been so Angry at a President as they do President Obama?
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
One of President Bush's arguments for invading Iraq was the strong Hussain-al Qaeda connection. The anti-Iraq invasion group said there was only very skimpy evidence of that and much stronger evidence that such an arrangement couldn't exist;. After several extensive post-war...
by Audrey Selig 4 years ago
How can PRES get away with doubling down his bypasses of Congress and making own decisions?Are these actions impeachable?
by Alternative Prime 2 years ago
Opening his mouth doesn’t appear to be a strong suit for poor ole’ backwards Jeb - Every time he yaps his trap his big “Special” brother George W looks like the intelligent sibling ~ How much trouble is that?If this numbskull wasn't so dangerous to the majority of Americans his involuntary...
by lady_love158 8 years ago
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Banks-rep … 62554.htmlForeclosures topped 1 million in 2010 and the pace is expected to pick up in this quarter pushing home prices down an additional 5% and putting more borrowers under water.Yes Obama and the Democrats are doing a bang up job on the recovery!...
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Who has done better in economic growth, Bush II or Obama? Think carefully before answering.Using 4th Q 2009 through 1st Q 2012 GDP figures, after things stabilized somewhat from the debacle of the 2008 recessions, as a baseline for Obama, and comparing to the 6 similarly long periods from...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|