Bailout corruption everywhere?

[VCDefectors]

I was among those who viewed corporate bailouts as an evil necessity. My justification was not about believing any of these companies are worth saving, but simply the huge number of failures going on at the same time and the vast number of people negatively impacted by this would be too much of a shock to our economy.

At any event, I have to say that it is rather disgusting to see the smug arrogance of some of these companies and the way they are abusing these handouts. like this story about Bank of America taking bailout money to go party it up at the superbowl. Or taking bailout money to take over a competing company.

While it would be great to take some right-vs-left angle, I just can't do it here. I am extremely disappointed at the level of corruption in our business and financial system. These companies wanting or getting bailout money simply deserve to fail. And now that the bailouts have proven to be ineffective (and have only accomplished bringing to light the level of corruption in Corporate America), I would rather our government just stop wasting taxpayer money and just get on with the consequences that are now inevitable.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I was among those who viewed corporate bailouts as an evil necessity. My justification was not about believing any of these companies are worth saving, but simply the huge number of failures going on at the same time and the vast number of people negatively impacted by this would be too much of a shock to our economy.

At any event, I have to say that it is rather disgusting to see the smug arrogance of some of these companies and the way they are abusing these handouts. like this story about Bank of America taking bailout money to go party it up at the superbowl. Or taking bailout money to take over a competing company.

While it would be great to take some right-vs-left angle, I just can't do it here. I am extremely disappointed at the level of corruption in our business and financial system. These companies wanting or getting bailout money simply deserve to fail. And now that the bailouts have proven to be ineffective (and have only accomplished bringing to light the level of corruption in Corporate America), I would rather our government just stop wasting taxpayer money and just get on with the consequences that are now inevitable.


Unfortunatly, I think it's too late for that now. The Democrats have the votes to get whatever package they want passed. It's now a matter of how much and to whom.

[Jarv]

How much was designated to go to Acorn ? Was that finally taken out of the bill ?

[theogt]

I was among those who viewed corporate bailouts as an evil necessity. My justification was not about believing any of these companies are worth saving, but simply the huge number of failures going on at the same time and the vast number of people negatively impacted by this would be too much of a shock to our economy.

At any event, I have to say that it is rather disgusting to see the smug arrogance of some of these companies and the way they are abusing these handouts. like this story about Bank of America taking bailout money to go party it up at the superbowl. Or taking bailout money to take over a competing company.

While it would be great to take some right-vs-left angle, I just can't do it here. I am extremely disappointed at the level of corruption in our business and financial system. These companies wanting or getting bailout money simply deserve to fail. And now that the bailouts have proven to be ineffective (and have only accomplished bringing to light the level of corruption in Corporate America), I would rather our government just stop wasting taxpayer money and just get on with the consequences that are now inevitable.How so?

Also, what transaction are you referring to in regards to "tak[ing] over a competing company?"

[VCDefectors]

How so?

Also, what transaction are you referring to in regards to "tak[ing] over a competing company?"

Well, let's see. The economy continues to worsen, so I take that as a sign that the bailouts aren't working.

Second Q: Bank of America used bailout money to purchase Merrill Lynch

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6657916&page=1

[theogt]

Well, let's see. The economy continues to worsen, so I take that as a sign that the bailouts aren't working.You're smarter than this. First, the bailout was never intended to completely prevent the economy from getting worse from the moment it was first implemented, so basing judgment on that alone is silly. Second, who's to say things wouldn't be worse without the bailout? Third, only half the original bailout has been implemented so far. Credit spreads have decreased dramatically, market volatility has literally been cut in half and we haven't seen a major bank failure since the bailout was implemented. Are these not all signs that it has been working?

Second Q: Bank of America used bailout money to purchase Merrill Lynch

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6657916&page=1Why do you see that as a bad thing? Merrill was in need of a buyer because it set to head down the path of Lehman. Would you have rather let Merrill fall like Lehman? Surely not. Anyone with half a brain (or any knowledge of the effects of the Lehman collapse) couldn't possibly argue for that outcome.

[sbark]

Its not even Keynesism........ The Premise of Keyneism is for the govt to borrow, inject it into the economy via the consumer to create demand, and then when cause/effect desire is accomplished.......the govt is to repay the loan.

This is simply wealth redistribution.......a few very expensive jobs, money to bankrupt states, companies that will be at the trough again in 8 months, money to Unions, Accorn, STD.gov, ........Its Obamaism economics..payoffs

House GOP had the gravita's to walk away, hope the Senate GOP got the gonads to do the same. Do nothing to let media say "bipartisan"

HW Bush....Dem's patted him on the back when he broke his promise not to raise tax's..........3 yrs later: all you heard @ election---"Can You trust someone who broke his promise" in ads.....

[JBond]

Its not even Keynesism........ The Premise of Keyneism is for the govt to borrow, inject it into the economy via the consumer to create demand, and then when cause/effect desire is accomplished.......the govt is to repay the loan.

This is simply wealth redistribution.......a few very expensive jobs, money to bankrupt states, companies that will be at the trough again in 8 months, money to Unions, Accorn, STD.gov, ........Its Obamaism economics..payoffs

House GOP had the gravita's to walk away, hope the Senate GOP got the gonads to do the same. Do nothing to let media say "bipartisan"

HW Bush....Dem's patted him on the back when he broke his promise not to raise tax's..........3 yrs later: all you heard @ election---"Can You trust someone who broke his promise" in ads.....

Obama's raw deal also removes restrictions on the amount states can take from the federal treasury for welfare obligations. It was limited to a strict percentage of the total budget and under the new raw deal it is unlimited. The result is I will be paying for the liberal welfare policies of California even though I live in Kansas.

Add that to the unlimited national health care for the unemployed and those of us that pay the bills for everyone else are screwed.

[DIAF]

Well, let's see. The economy continues to worsen, so I take that as a sign that the bailouts aren't working.

Second Q: Bank of America used bailout money to purchase Merrill Lynch

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6657916&page=1

To be fair, the acquisition was arranged before TARP.

[CowboyMcCoy]

I was among those who viewed corporate bailouts as an evil necessity. My justification was not about believing any of these companies are worth saving, but simply the huge number of failures going on at the same time and the vast number of people negatively impacted by this would be too much of a shock to our economy.

At any event, I have to say that it is rather disgusting to see the smug arrogance of some of these companies and the way they are abusing these handouts. like this story about Bank of America taking bailout money to go party it up at the superbowl. Or taking bailout money to take over a competing company.

While it would be great to take some right-vs-left angle, I just can't do it here. I am extremely disappointed at the level of corruption in our business and financial system. These companies wanting or getting bailout money simply deserve to fail. And now that the bailouts have proven to be ineffective (and have only accomplished bringing to light the level of corruption in Corporate America), I would rather our government just stop wasting taxpayer money and just get on with the consequences that are now inevitable.

On a national level corporate corruption consists of corporate bail outs; on a local level it consists of domain subsidies.

The bail outs go against the very fundamentals of capitalism. Of course they deserve to fail.

Over 70,000 businesses shut down this year alone. They didn't get a bail out. . . .

[DIAF]

On a national level corporate corruption consists of corporate bail outs; on a local level it consists of domain subsidies.

The bail outs go against the very fundamentals of capitalism. Of course they deserve to fail.

Over 70,000 businesses shut down this year alone. They didn't get a bail out. . . .

I am so sick and tired of seeing that argument. Yeah, lets let all the major banks fail, the rest of america didn't get a bailout! Great plan!

[ABQCOWBOY]

I am so sick and tired of seeing that argument. Yeah, lets let all the major banks fail, the rest of america didn't get a bailout! Great plan!

The flip side of that, and it's not without merrit, is that they are going to fail anyway because they don't run on a good opperational business plans. So, the school of thought here is that we will pour money into these companies until we finally learn that they are not going to get well on there own while we are giving them money. We are acting as an enabler, so to speak. Mean while, our deficit continues to grow and taxes continue to rise.

Those who are the source of your sickness may not be entirely wrong here.

[DIAF]

The flip side of that, and it's not without merrit, is that they are going to fail anyway because they don't run on a good opperational business plans. So, the school of thought here is that we will pour money into these companies until we finally learn that they are not going to get well on there own while we are giving them money. We are acting as an enabler, so to speak. Mean while, our deficit continues to grow and taxes continue to rise.

Those who are the source of your sickness may not be entirely wrong here.

Or, they can fix their **** so this doesn't happen again. That's another school of thought, not without its own merits. I'll take the less painful option, please. And any of you that say otherwise are lying.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Or, they can fix their **** so this doesn't happen again. That's another school of thought, not without its own merits. I'll take the less painful option, please. And any of you that say otherwise are lying.


Maybe they can DIAF, but they haven't and I have seen nothing that says they are even making progress. The Big 3 were supposed to have furnished Congress with plans on how they intended to improve their Business Models a couple weeks ago and I saw a story that said they have submitted nothing.

I mean, at some point, you gotta say enough is enough. I'm not huge on pain myself but I'd rather endure the pain the slowely allow myself to bleed out and die.

[CowboyMcCoy]

I am so sick and tired of seeing that argument. Yeah, lets let all the major banks fail, the rest of america didn't get a bailout! Great plan!

SOCIALIST!!!!

[JBond]

Merrill was in need of a buyer because it set to head down the path of Lehman. Would you have rather let Merrill fall like Lehman? Surely not. Anyone with half a brain (or any knowledge of the effects of the Lehman collapse) couldn't possibly argue for that outcome.

Why do you favor pissing away good money on failures? When are the handouts to failures going to end? Why do you want to reward failure and punish success?

Were the bankers that helped cause these problems just stupid or corrupt? It's got to be one or the other.

[DFWJC]

You're smarter than this. First, the bailout was never intended to completely prevent the economy from getting worse from the moment it was first implemented, so basing judgment on that alone is silly. Second, who's to say things wouldn't be worse without the bailout? Third, only half the original bailout has been implemented so far. Credit spreads have decreased dramatically, market volatility has literally been cut in half and we haven't seen a major bank failure since the bailout was implemented. .

That part, imo, is true.

However, I think it's far too early to judge the success of this unprecedented spending....but by Q4'09 we should be getting a better true read.

Assuming some sort of bailout was a given, my issues are:

1) Why are regular government spending increases (some almost certainly permanant) allowed to be attached to a bailout plan?

2) I would have preferred more oversight on how the original bank bailout funds were spent. VCD has a point.

3) It should not have been so easy to get bailout funds initially...it almost reminded me of the Katrina debacle and how the government threw a billion or so basically down the drain. As you know, just throwing money at a problem without a real plan is wasteful, irresponsbile, and, seeing that is our money being spent, borderline criminal.

[theogt]

Why do you favor pissing away good money on failures?It's not "pissing away good money" if it's working.

When are the handouts to failures going to end?They aren't "handouts." They have significant penalties, by way of regulation and interest payments that go along with them, which is why many many healthy banks are now refusing TARP funds.

Why do you want to reward failure and punish success?I'm not for rewarding failure or punishing success. There's no success here to punish. All major banks took part in TARP. I'm not for rewarding failure either, but when the harm to innocent people far outweighs the moral hazard problem, you have to do what you have to do.

Were the bankers that helped cause these problems just stupid or corrupt? It's got to be one or the other.Most were neither stupid, nor corrupt. They just acted in their own self interest, like the free market allows them to.

That part, imo, is true.

However, I think it's far too early to judge the success of this unprecedented spending....but by Q4'09 we should be getting a better true read.

Assuming some sort of bailout was a given, my issues are:

1) Why are regular government spending increases (some almost certainly permanant) allowed to be attached to a bailout plan?It's unfortunate, but it's the grease that makes the political wheel turn.

2) I would have preferred more oversight on how the original bank bailout funds were spent. VCD has a point.That's fine. More oversight likely wouldn't be more helpful, though.

3) It should not have been so easy to get bailout funds initially...it almost reminded me of the Katrina debacle and how the government threw a billion or so basically down the drain. As you know, just throwing money at a problem without a real plan is wasteful, irresponsbile, and, seeing that is our money being spent, borderline criminal.It was too easy? In what way? How should it have been harder? Who shouldn't have received TARP funds?