T.A.R.P.

self ^ | Oct.6, 2016 | HarleyLady27

[Wolfie]

Use whatever adjective you like, doesn’t have to be big or small. But if a bank failure could collapse the economy unless we bail it out, then the bank has got to go.

[Toddsterpatriot]

But if a bank failure could collapse the economy unless we bail it out, then the bank has got to go.

There is no bank failure that could collapse the economy.

The idea that 5 $20 billion banks failing is less dangerous than 1 $100 billion bank failing is just silly.

[Wolfie]

Which is why we’ll keep bailing then out.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup, every time the banking system looks like it’s going to collapse, we should bail it out.

[dfwgator]

Every bank that was bailed out, should have been broken up.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why?

[djstex]

Thanks for the ping and info.

[Wolfie]

Yup, every time the banking system looks like it’s going to collapse, we should bail it out.

Well, in that case, we should be nationalizing the banks and socializing the profits and not just the risks.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, in that case, we should be nationalizing the banks

Because we have to occasionally support the banking system, the government should just take over?

Sorry, I can't see the logic in your position.

socializing the profits and not just the risks.

The government gets giant profits from a functioning banking system, over and above the huge tax revenues it gets from them every year.

[Wolfie]

So what you’re saying is Government has a role in supporting private institutions for the public good?

[Toddsterpatriot]

What I'm saying is allowing the banking system to fail is never good. And a government owned banking system is a bad idea.