I see a problem with your thinking here. Now from your attitude and reading your posts it is quite clear you are either a banker or broker or the like and probably benefited directly from the govt bail-outs (no other reason anyone would support them) so are most likely highly biased.
Nope, you missed the mark entirely on your assumption... I'm neither a banker nor a broker, nor have I ever benefited from 'bailout' money or taxpayer funded anything.
Quite the opposite really, I put my after-tax capital on the table and seek to grow it aggressively through ventures in the private sector... The reward that I get for taking that risk is the cat-calls from the entitled that don't like the fact that I succeed in some of these ventures and they (apparently) feel that I owe them even more.
I am against bail-outs 100%. I wouldn't get one if my business went belly-up neither would 99.9% of the other businesses in Canada so why should anyone get them. The banks should have been allowed to fail, the ceos who lied about valuations etc should all be in jail.
I don't disagree with the criminal prosecution part in any way... I'll get to the flaw in your logic on why it would be counter-productive to let the banks fail later.
Now I am sure you will make the standard argument of "too big to fail" and that is BS. What should have happened was not a bail-out but a take-over by the govt with 100% of the shares divided equally among the citizens.
So here is an idea for you. When the govt gives bail-outs it must be in exchange for shares in the company, not to be held in trust by the govt but transferred directly to each & every taxpayer. None of this non-voting stock either, only preferred stock. The bigger the bail-out the more stock the people get and if it winds up that all the stock goes to the public so be it and bye-bye to the execs who ruined the company and bye-bye to their salaries and bonuses.
Fact is/was: the cliche 'Too big to fail' never really touched on the real issue at hand, that being bankruptcy leads to liquidation of the assets (read: residential homes/property). In order to compensate the creditors (a fraction of their money), the assets are liquidated (foreclosed).
Factor in the reality that if those banks close their doors, there will be a exodus of any (near and medium term) capital needed to spur the US economy. The occupants/owners are out in the streets.
In the end, the consequences of allowing them to go bankrupt were far too costly to the US economy and my opinion is that is why they were bailed-out
In terms of the share distribution; in principle, that is a solution; however, the administration would be a friggin nightmare - not to mention require a massive administration and cost a huge amount of money.. You say you're in business; you then know how inefficient and slow gvt bodies are. That said, any real equity that the 'shareholders' would have would be eroded by those costs right along with the economic factors that have to date eroded the value(s)... It would take decades to recoup that initial value and that does no good for the people that need revenues now.
On top of that, both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were/are pseudo gvt bodies and that did not shelter them from the same negative consequences that befell both those groups
Best estimates are about $25 trillion globally in bail-out money....everything is relatively small compared to that rescue.
Estimates of the hard capital, I'd bet... Now add in the tax exemptions over the next many years and that number gets much larger.
Regardless, it is nothing short of bizarre that you would refer to 25 trillion as chump change. That cash would bail-out the entire European and North American debt positions.. There wouldn't be an y global financial crisis at all.
1) I didn't post the selective truth propaganda in the OP, I'm just identifying what it is, in the hope that more people will recognize it as manipulative BS.
Then post the truth... Claiming that it is wrong isn't too compelling with out that info.
Besides, why didn't Obama 'correct' this 'selective truth' when he had the 3 chances... Is it because he can't defend that position?
Something to think about
2) 50% of American lay abouts who don't pay income tax include children, old people, disabled war veterans...
It also includes able bodied individuals as well... Recall the Michigan (or maybe Wisconsin) lady that won a few million in a lottery bought with food stamps and STILL was collecting and using the food stamps?
Voting for Romney won't change this demographic unless he plans to take children out of the school system and turn them into child laborers, cut old people off their pensions and euthanize disabled war veterans.... Believing that making these people's lives more desperate and poverty stricken will make the US a better place is yet another piece of fine propaganda you've swallowed hook line and sinker.
... And the award for best theatrical presentation in the Fantasy Category is... Envelope please....
3) I can understand why the wealthy 1% would vote to cut their taxes and shift more of the tax burden to the lower and middle class. Their choice would be selfish, cruel and harsh, but many of them became part of the 1% by having a me first and screw everyone else attitude. But nearly everyone else who votes for Romney is voting against their best interests. Even middle class Americans with good paying jobs and successful business will have to pay more taxes if the wealthy pay less taxes as the desperately poor have no income to tax... So who do you think is going to pick up the slack when wealthy 1% pay less taxes.... Wake the **** Up!
Spare me the horse sh*t... The 1% you deride pay a huge overall percentage of the federal taxes that is being spent to float the 50% that don't pay a nickle in fed income taxes. Honestly, where do you think the money will come from to keep the social/community services available to that group that pays no taxes?
Do you believe that roads, hospitals, gvt cheques and welfare money just falls out of the sky? Maybe the free money fairy makes deliveries across the nation at night along with the tooth fairy and Santa?
Romney reminds me of Ontario Premiere Mike Harris. I knew a single Mom living on welfare who voted for Harris.
I once read an article about a single Mom in the NE US that won a lottery and still used food stamps despite have a few million in the bank
Food, clothing, shelter and education are basic needs. People who can't meet their basic needs must get support from the rest of us who have well paying careers or own successful businesses.
So, to cut to the chase, you're saying that 50% of Americans are unable to generate any monies such that they can't afford the basic needs.
Gotcha
As the gap between the wealthy and poor increases
... And it seems that you feel it is the solitary fault of 'the wealthy' for this, eh?
Lemme guess, anytime that an individual scrapes some money together and starts a small business; a call is made into "the wealthy' toll free hotline, at which time 'the wealthy' send in goons and stormtroopers to beat him up and burn down the business.
The Arab spring wasn't just about wanting responsible government. The real trigger for the uprisings were when parents could not afford food for their children. Situations like that cause law abiding citizens to become criminals and revolutionaries.
How ironic... You don't even understand that the systems that were being rallied against were in fact the very direction that the Democrats are trying to take America.
