Posted on 09/22/2008 9:20:26 PM PDT by Glorious Liberty
No taxpayer money should be spent on bailing out financial institutions, period.
What will taxpayers get for their money? Absolutely nothing.
The money goes to pay other folks debts. Why in the world should we do that? They aren’t our debts.
The money goes to the lenders that made bad loans. Why should we bail out lenders who made bad loans? We didn’t make bad loans. Are we supposed to reward bad judgment?
The worry is that credit will dry up, damaging the economy. If that’s the problem, perhaps we need a temporary “loan insurance” program. For a fraction of the bailout cost, loans meeting clear credit standards could be guaranteed, thus encouraging the extension of credit. This serves a productive forward-looking purpose. It has the virtue of actually addressing the problem at hand. And it rewards the banks that are still solvent, the ones with good judgment.
Let the bankrupt financial institutions fail. Let the market sort out the value of their assets. Don’t prop them up with taxpayer money.
(Excerpt) Read more at ravallicountynews.com ...
That's not the $700,000,000,000.000 blank check bailout.
Socialist and liar.
You're salivating.
Superb idea, thus a non-starter in Washington.
It's NOT socialism by any stretch of the imagination; except to those who haven't a clue what socialism is.
Socialism is stuff like the farm subsidies posted above, paying farmers to sit around and NOT farm, which the government still does and I've always been opposed to.
But then people like you would probably cry if a loaf of bread actually reflected the real cost of growing the grain to make the flower.
You want the government to step in and destroy the free market.
WTF are you halucinating about?
You just don't have a clue what's going on, do you?
Do you really think this is just "America's problem"?
Here, here's a start to help you figure it out. Then again, it probably won't do you any good. Beyond your grasp.
It was given away to irresponsible people at the insistence of Democrat politicians.
When you insist that a minority earning 21K a year be given loans totaling over a million dollars, it starts adding up.
Rape American taxpayers at the demand of "World Banks". Dah, Comrade!
A stream of future cashflows from people who are paying their mortgages.
Some of them will default, but most won't. So the paper we are buying is going to be worth something down the road. That;s why the 700 billion Paulson is asking for should be viewed as an investment. The question, however, is whether it's a good investment, and that all depends on the price the government pays for it. I'm inclined to think Paulson is going to overpay, which is why I oppose it.
I doubt it. Technology and social safety net is much stronger now. Plus, Americans like a good challenge. Look what happens every time a major hurricane hits the US. Government drops the ball and the people pick up and get on with their lives.
When a major hurricane hits, the government usually drops the ball and then the people pick themselves up and get on with their lives.
Nobody in the media is asking for details. Just secret meetings with Congress and wide eyes. Tell us how bad the crash will be and let us decide whether to ride it our or bail it out.
Fair enough. Rather than nothing for our money, we get mortgage payments from those who make their payments. Of course, in many cases, the mortgage is for far more than the property is worth. And it now appears that bad auto loans and bad student loans and bad credit card debt and who knows what else will be eligible for the bailout.
Taxpayers have no assurance of getting anything of value for their money. Everything is left to the discretion of an unelected official, who has said he would pay above market prices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.