Bailing out Wall Street and the Big Banks is a Republican policy.

Democrats would insist for much more from these banks and criminals than they are presently being asked.

Democrats would break up these monopolies. They would nationalize the banks that are "zombies". They would not hand out hundreds of billions of dollars to these folks that have traditionally put the screws to the Democratic constituency.

Democrats would not believe everything that Wall Street said and would ask for proof. Democrats would not approve multi-million dollar bonuses for these arrogant criminals. Democrats would insist on oversight and regulations before any concessions.

I do not recognize the present Democratic Party.

describing.

Obviously there are isolated members of the Democratic party that have acted that way, but for more than a decade they just rollover

policy.

Unfortunately, I do recognize this version of the Party. I've been watching it since I was a child in the 50's.

Not as disgustingly corporate as the pukes, but not liberal or "centrist" by any rational measure.

n/t

They've gotta be, or we're just in the same old mess again. Broken up *and* regulated.

Nationaizing simple banks not a problem, but these mega-intertwined enterprises different.

With threats the entire criminal enterprise will collapse. I'm willing to put all the chips on the table and bet that they will survive. At least, some of them.

But then again, I don't fall for populist poutrage either.

Do you really think that the U.S. government is prepared to run a majority of the world's largest financial sector on a whim? If the government is going to take over 60%+ of our financial sector, you can pretty much bet that it would take more than 60 days to prepare for it. Obviously, the administration would have to keep us in the dark about this until it actually happens, to avert a run on bank shares and bank debt.

In the mean time, in order to keep the financial sector afloat, they need to hand out hundreds of billions of dollars to "these folks that have traditionally put the screws" blah blah blah. Any purported Democrat who disagrees with the concept of saving the financial sector from a meltdown is simply ignorant of what a financial collapse would mean for main street.

And Democrats did not need to approve the bonuses; they were promised by contract well before Democrats had any say in the matter. The only decision the Democrats made was to pay out what was already promised by contract, instead of waiting until a court ordered them to do it (along with other costs fighting the lawsuits).

It might take some background reading, but the Democratic party is pretty easily recognizable to me.

It seems to me that we have given them a trillion dollars on a whim? They said we would collapse and you believed them. Why? Could there be some other motive for asking for the money?

I wonder what history will say about this? Was it necessary or was it just a continuation of the "fear politics" from the Bush Administration? I have no doubt that some of these big investment firms would have gone under. However, I am not convinced that the entire system would have collapsed because of that.

And I do not buy the line about the contract obligations, either. When someone breaks the bank and is asking for a handout, there is no contract obligation.

If a company is about to collapse whose collapse would ruin the system, then any responsible government needs to give them enough money to survive, on a whim. As in, if the company would have to go backrupt by 5PM, we give them money before 5PM. As fast as possible.

On the other hand, it is not possible to actually nationalize a company like Citi on a whim. They do business all over the world in many different areas, and it would take a long time to prepare for taking it over (if that's what Obama is doing).

So, in other words, yes, we need to give them money on a whim, but we can't nationalize on a whim (that takes longer).

And it's not like we "took their word for it" that the financial system would collapse. Almost anyone educated about the world's financial system knows that there would be a massive collapse if AIG failed (or if Citi failed), regardless of what AIG or Citi said. Even if AIG or Citi said that a bankruptcy wouldn't endanger the system, no one would believe them. Their motives for asking for the money are irrelevant; it is our motive to prevent collapse that matters.

And honestly, you should do a little bit of basic research before you make blanket false statements. When someone breaks the bank and is asking for a handout, and we give them the handout to keep them viable, contracts are still valid. That is the WHOLE POINT of giving them money; if they default on their contracts and go into bankruptcy court (which could then invalidate certain contracts), that will cause massive systemic damage. A business is either in bankruptcy or it isn't (under the current law). A business not in bankruptcy cannot just choose to ignore any obligations it wants. This is not a matter of my opinion or your opinion; it is the actual objective law of the land as it is written today.

If not, why not? And can we assume that you agree with Geithner on the bonuses and the bailouts? If not, why not, O Wise One?

when discussing this situation.

What else do we have? :shrug:

It's worked so many times in the past.

in the Human Breast. I dont' believe any of us would be here on this site (excepting Freeps & Trolls) if we didn't always have HOPE that sustains us. And...yes...there's a lot about our background that would lead some of us through history to still have that "hope"...is what I think...

Bethlehem...