What do you think about government bailouts now?
What do you think about government bailouts now?
__________________________
U.S. Declares Bank and Auto Bailouts Over, and Profitable
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/business/us-signals-end-of-bailouts-of-automakers-and-wall-street.html?_r=0 - By JONATHAN WEISMAN - DEC. 19, 2014
the bailouts were assumed to be enormous drains on the federal Treasury. Yet in the end, the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the Detroit bailout yielded $15.35 billion in profit, Treasury officials said Friday.
...
“The American auto industry is on track for its strongest year since 2005,” Mr. Obama said. “And we’ve created about half a million new jobs in the auto industry alone.”
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Well, looks like little interest remains in any debating this, so I'll try a hand at responding...
Monika Bharti > politician will rescue the big fishes....
This happens to be close to my observation on tsunami relief - hurry, scurry to rebuild fancy hotels with added perks for politicians wanting to pay visit for photo-op on how much they care about (raising funds) ...
US has also failed to complete promised restorations for numerous internal flood reliefs, while paying well for funerals etc. of big-daddies who died prior to flood.
tliotta > Many, many elderly, for example, survive through investments in retirement accounts
I'd rather disagree on that, where in general, the bankers/Wall St hurt them badly with all those mismanagement shenanigans. I cannot disagree however concerning 'Detroit' (label for US made vehicles, affecting many states), having met many who were provided deep 'employee discounts' for certain company models, and discouraged from driving alternative to work.
While unrestrained Detroit would provide employees > 3 months off per year, and dump on public vehicles they did not want, they themselves cleaned up a lot fearing not only public reaction but government intrusion.
> A solid failure of any major Fortune 100 class of corporation
Sorry, but Wall St remains a nest of gamblers, such that for every winner there be a loser, - and for every loser there be a winner. See also the previous bailout of S&L debacle.
> Other socio-economic interconnections exist,
er, like the 'forgiving' of loans, including certain nations...
> consequences for corporate executives that could be deemed professionally at fault
If I read that right, I can agree, rather than sending lawbreakers to prison, they were rewarded with humonguous multi-million dollar bonuses for meeting corporate goals.
> IMO, economic collapse is more of a national security issue than terrorist attacks. As such, governmental action is more appropriate for it. To me, "national security"
While I am tempted to agree, one must remember results of so many foreclosures anyway, including of people who could have held on but for the confusing paperwork.
Most of the panic (re:Wall St) was generated by Bush in his last few days of providing rewards, sounding drums of fear.
For every loser there is a winner - the winners should not have to yield their winnings to the bunglers who lost to them. Nor should the poor have to reward the rich who have failed. If you let them fail, it is the less qualified executives that are excised, the better executives who retain/gain position.
> I'm fine with using military elements for 'police work'
I'd be tempted to agree, but for the vastness of abuse, and the police using funerals to protest spending on video cameras.
> That leads off-topic
Well, I'll revert to own personal disappointment in accounting for benefits derived from bailouts, getting as suspicious about those details as the details embedded in budget to restore to Bankers their desired form of non-regulation.
In summation - I'm taking a time-out to rethink, where I am not sure about having a conclusion here for closure. Other than my:
Those who choose to go 'insured' should not be required to be treated as the insurance provider of those who prefer to risk being uninsured to have opportunity for greater personal gain.
Those who lose, should pay the price, and not expect to be saved out of pity. Nowadays the bigshots get to not only keep their private planes, they get to upgrade them when caught abusing others.
Monika Bharti > politician will rescue the big fishes....
This happens to be close to my observation on tsunami relief - hurry, scurry to rebuild fancy hotels with added perks for politicians wanting to pay visit for photo-op on how much they care about (raising funds) ...
US has also failed to complete promised restorations for numerous internal flood reliefs, while paying well for funerals etc. of big-daddies who died prior to flood.
tliotta > Many, many elderly, for example, survive through investments in retirement accounts
I'd rather disagree on that, where in general, the bankers/Wall St hurt them badly with all those mismanagement shenanigans. I cannot disagree however concerning 'Detroit' (label for US made vehicles, affecting many states), having met many who were provided deep 'employee discounts' for certain company models, and discouraged from driving alternative to work.
While unrestrained Detroit would provide employees > 3 months off per year, and dump on public vehicles they did not want, they themselves cleaned up a lot fearing not only public reaction but government intrusion.
> A solid failure of any major Fortune 100 class of corporation
Sorry, but Wall St remains a nest of gamblers, such that for every winner there be a loser, - and for every loser there be a winner. See also the previous bailout of S&L debacle.
> Other socio-economic interconnections exist,
er, like the 'forgiving' of loans, including certain nations...
> consequences for corporate executives that could be deemed professionally at fault
If I read that right, I can agree, rather than sending lawbreakers to prison, they were rewarded with humonguous multi-million dollar bonuses for meeting corporate goals.
> IMO, economic collapse is more of a national security issue than terrorist attacks. As such, governmental action is more appropriate for it. To me, "national security"
While I am tempted to agree, one must remember results of so many foreclosures anyway, including of people who could have held on but for the confusing paperwork.
Most of the panic (re:Wall St) was generated by Bush in his last few days of providing rewards, sounding drums of fear.
For every loser there is a winner - the winners should not have to yield their winnings to the bunglers who lost to them. Nor should the poor have to reward the rich who have failed. If you let them fail, it is the less qualified executives that are excised, the better executives who retain/gain position.
> I'm fine with using military elements for 'police work'
I'd be tempted to agree, but for the vastness of abuse, and the police using funerals to protest spending on video cameras.
> That leads off-topic
Well, I'll revert to own personal disappointment in accounting for benefits derived from bailouts, getting as suspicious about those details as the details embedded in budget to restore to Bankers their desired form of non-regulation.
In summation - I'm taking a time-out to rethink, where I am not sure about having a conclusion here for closure. Other than my:
Those who choose to go 'insured' should not be required to be treated as the insurance provider of those who prefer to risk being uninsured to have opportunity for greater personal gain.
Those who lose, should pay the price, and not expect to be saved out of pity. Nowadays the bigshots get to not only keep their private planes, they get to upgrade them when caught abusing others.
ASKER
Conclusion:
The people need a government that can act to provide for the national interest. How well that is done, or not done, remains for the people to evaluate themselves.
As for original question, the (two) experts appear to have left this as either a tie or as something in nature of having to live with, liked or not.
There does not seem to be much of a change in personal opinion over time.
=======
In closing ... experts showing about equal value, concerning target, seems appropriate to award the word-count as 'best', with few pts (~5) for that. That's, <um> 27,23.
Done.
The people need a government that can act to provide for the national interest. How well that is done, or not done, remains for the people to evaluate themselves.
As for original question, the (two) experts appear to have left this as either a tie or as something in nature of having to live with, liked or not.
There does not seem to be much of a change in personal opinion over time.
=======
In closing ... experts showing about equal value, concerning target, seems appropriate to award the word-count as 'best', with few pts (~5) for that. That's, <um> 27,23.
Done.
ASKER
+++ Noticed +++
Monika Bharti
Member Since: 2015-01-13
Points: 14,248
Points This Month: 4,092
__________________________
¤ Hi Monika, a hearty welcome to the Politics (& 'other') TA
This should place you in top ten for the TA YTD
Do feel free to contribute, and contribute often.
[does that sound like some political quotation?]
=» and a belated welcome to Experts-Exchange,
you appear to already be doing well already on points, in less than a month being on a roll to sustaining free membership (balancing tech TAs)
*** Good Fortune ***
Monika Bharti
Member Since: 2015-01-13
Points: 14,248
Points This Month: 4,092
__________________________
¤ Hi Monika, a hearty welcome to the Politics (& 'other') TA
This should place you in top ten for the TA YTD
Do feel free to contribute, and contribute often.
[does that sound like some political quotation?]
=» and a belated welcome to Experts-Exchange,
you appear to already be doing well already on points, in less than a month being on a roll to sustaining free membership (balancing tech TAs)
*** Good Fortune ***
ASKER