Pages: 1

 

2009-03-17 09:10:34
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6844|Texas - Bigger than France
Bailouts are happening.  People are bitching about the fact their money is being used unwisely.

Generally, I agree there should be several requirements if money is given...

...but at what point is the government beginning to meddle with a private organization?

My thought - bailout money should be used to buy voting rights for stock, making the government able to vote their agenda.  Of course, this means that we can have "hostile takeovers" by the government.  I like this better then here's a check...and then waiting for the senate hearings after the fact.
2009-03-17 09:17:06
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6831|Global Command
I like the 90/10 franchise rule.

10% of the gross goes to repay government loans. Said loans are securitized by 90% equity in the companies assets so the greedy bastards can't take the money and fold the business.

That said, these bailouts signal nothing more than the death of the U.S. dollar.

China will have  legitimate case for war with us when our currency goes belly up and we default on the loans.

The fecal matter is going to collide with the rotary oscillator.
2009-03-17 09:32:12
topal63
. . .
+533|7021
They're all wrong every single one--every bailout, so far. It is a matter of form not the supposed function the bailout could have.

There is nothing wrong with government intervention in the case of the money supply. In fact it is necessary; especially if the money supply is purely a public one. There's a form problem though, the majority of the money supply is privatized. The rewards of that privatized supply, interest--a non-value savings drain which negatively impacts both personal economies and the general economy, belongs to the private banks, but the losses now belong to the people. The government is merely acting on behalf of the people; as they are made of people that come from the public; as representatives thereof. But, they are not really acting in the general interests, of the people at large, are they? They are acting on behalf of entrenched money (private financial sector) interests that see the financials as the top-dog in the economy and are selling the idea of status quo--as the only solution or else. It's been a hard sell and an effective lie.

Nationalize the banks, plain and simple they produce nothing (except a money supply) and the math/computer skills involved--a 10-13 year old could perform. Your money should be a public money supply; it would fit the constitution's (and declaration of independence's') intent more closely as well.

PS: Whaz up bf2s!!!

Last edited by topal63 (2009-03-17 09:54:45)

2009-03-17 10:40:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6954|USA
No requirements...Absolutely positively NO govt. bailouts.
2009-03-17 10:46:01
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6998|NJ
As I've heard said some where else, the bailout money needs to be used for job creating.. Basically what we're doing is putting a band aid on a severed limb.. These companies that are getting bailed out, honestly don't need it.. Hey you lost xyz money on these properties cut your CEO's and Higher ups pay checks to put your company in the black again..
2009-03-17 10:47:22
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6998|NJ
And side note, Whose going to bail out our already bankrupt government?
2009-03-17 10:49:07
topal63
. . .
+533|7021
Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley suggested on Monday that AIG executives should take a Japanese approach:
"I suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they ought to be removed," Grassley said. "But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."
2009-03-17 13:38:14
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6748|The Land of Scott Walker
Perhaps some politicians should follow suit ...
2009-03-17 13:39:20
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina
Bailouts should never occur.

Either let the market clear itself or nationalize the company in question.  Going halfway with massive amounts of corporate welfare doesn't help things.
2009-03-18 03:14:53
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

Pug wrote:

...but at what point is the government beginning to meddle with a private organization?
When it bails out a private company.

Pug wrote:

My thought - bailout money should be used to buy voting rights for stock, making the government able to vote their agenda.  Of course, this means that we can have "hostile takeovers" by the government.  I like this better then here's a check...and then waiting for the senate hearings after the fact.
If the company accepts the govt bailout, then it isn't a "hostile takeover". All the bailouts have given the government some stake in the company (ie, stock). In the case of AIG, it's at like 85% now. Just like any stockholder, the government has a say (based on percentage of stock owned) in how things get done via electing the Board.

I'm interested in the percentage rate being charged for these bailouts. How much money is the govt going to make on these "investments"?

As for what strings should be attached: CEO/executive pay & benefits follows US govt scales. Executives have to apply to leave the company (just like in govt). Executives are given free reign (to a point) in the operation of the company...but the strictures are in place until the company pays back the bailout money. Gives the execs incentive to fix the problems sooner rather than later, imo.

But overall, I agree with Turq. Bailouts shouldn't happen. If they have to happen, they should happen my way.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-03-18 06:39:46
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6844|Texas - Bigger than France
I guess my question is: companies have the ability to raise capital on their own, why couldn't they go thru these sources?  I'm not sure if the gov't is going to require them to pay it back if it's a loan.
2009-03-18 06:49:12
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7038|Salt Lake City

Pug wrote:

I guess my question is: companies have the ability to raise capital on their own, why couldn't they go thru these sources?  I'm not sure if the gov't is going to require them to pay it back if it's a loan.
The the credit markets drying up is one of the reasons for this mess, and the reason they gave them the money in a bailout package.
2009-03-18 08:00:34
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6844|Texas - Bigger than France

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Pug wrote:

I guess my question is: companies have the ability to raise capital on their own, why couldn't they go thru these sources?  I'm not sure if the gov't is going to require them to pay it back if it's a loan.
The the credit markets drying up is one of the reasons for this mess, and the reason they gave them the money in a bailout package.
Yes, but indirectly, if they aren't able to raise capital...then why should the gov't flit the bill?

I know why, but that's what I'm getting at.
2009-03-18 08:07:01
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7038|Salt Lake City

Pug wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Pug wrote:

I guess my question is: companies have the ability to raise capital on their own, why couldn't they go thru these sources?  I'm not sure if the gov't is going to require them to pay it back if it's a loan.
The the credit markets drying up is one of the reasons for this mess, and the reason they gave them the money in a bailout package.
Yes, but indirectly, if they aren't able to raise capital...then why should the gov't flit the bill?

I know why, but that's what I'm getting at.
TBTF (Too Big To Fail) would be my guess.  I'm guessing that they thought that it would take too long to get the money flowing from private lending sources, and AIG's balance sheets were in such a mess that no one would have loaned to them anyway.  Besides, we saw what the banks did.  They kept the money to bolster their balance sheets against bad debts, instead of getting the credit flowing again, as was its original intent.

I'm not saying I advocate what they did, this is just my guess as to why.
2009-03-18 11:00:27
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6844|Texas - Bigger than France

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

TBTF (Too Big To Fail) would be my guess.  I'm guessing that they thought that it would take too long to get the money flowing from private lending sources, and AIG's balance sheets were in such a mess that no one would have loaned to them anyway.  Besides, we saw what the banks did.  They kept the money to bolster their balance sheets against bad debts, instead of getting the credit flowing again, as was its original intent.

I'm not saying I advocate what they did, this is just my guess as to why.
Perhaps if "too big to fail", the problem has to do with some sort of monopoly that wasn't broken up
2009-03-18 16:45:41
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina

Pug wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

TBTF (Too Big To Fail) would be my guess.  I'm guessing that they thought that it would take too long to get the money flowing from private lending sources, and AIG's balance sheets were in such a mess that no one would have loaned to them anyway.  Besides, we saw what the banks did.  They kept the money to bolster their balance sheets against bad debts, instead of getting the credit flowing again, as was its original intent.

I'm not saying I advocate what they did, this is just my guess as to why.
Perhaps if "too big to fail", the problem has to do with some sort of monopoly that wasn't broken up
Yep, we need to revise antitrust laws to reflect this.

If a company ever becomes too big to fail, it should be forced to split up.  The only other option is to nationalize it.
2009-03-18 19:02:38
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7064

we need to bail out teleprompters first



here is what i propose.  cheaper also

2009-03-18 19:51:03
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|7008

ATG wrote:

China will have  legitimate case for war with us when our currency goes belly up and we default on the loans.
Hardly.  China has been manipulating their currency even more than we have for the past 20 years.

The bailout money should be going straight into needed infrastructure such as roads, renewable energy, and BORDER SECURITY.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard