Skip to main content

View Diary: Bill Clinton: I Shouldn't Have Listened to Summers and Rubin [Substantive Update] (341 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  bailouts that have been paid back with interest (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew

    upsets you?  You'd rather that the entire financial system collapse?  Why, for spite?

    •  Oh don't be ridiculous. Of course it is good (8+ / 0-)

      that the bailouts are being paid back (not "have been"), but "the bailouts" - direct payments - are not the sum total of Taxpayer Aid to the banks/investment houses which are now allowed to blend together under Federal Reserve protection.

      Under Bush, it has been estimated that over $3 Trillion in benefits was provided to the investment houses, including the $800 Billion voted for by Congress. In other words, the Federal Reserve has done their part as well, pretty much without any oversight by Congress.  In plain terms, the Fed has been "printing money" through credits and other support that has been provided.  That's the whole reason Goldman-Sachs was allowed to declare itself a "bank" -- to receive direct Fed support.

      My anger is directed specifically at this:  The management of those banks continue to collect large bonuses for their malfeasance instead of being immediately fired (without golden parachutes) for their direct roles in the near-destruction of the global financial markets.

      The fact that these criminal bozos are still working in the same banks/investment firms that perpetrated this fraud upon the world is the most egregious form of insult.  Why?  Why are these corrupt and morally destitute individuals still allowed to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense?

      Simply paying back the "bailouts" is only part of the issue.  There's the "invisible support" provided by the Fed.  There's the corruption issue. There's a lot more to it.

      And finally, there's the worst aspect of all:  low income retired folks have their earnings on CDs and other small savings reduced to a fraction of One Percent as part of the effort to keep this hulking dinosaurs of finance afloat.  It is obscene.  The poor are always on the hook for the rich.

      The very same loudmouths for "free markets" immediately ran for government support the very second they saw their phony paper schemes falling apart.  

      At the risk of being redundant, the whole scenario is highly offensive.

    •  "The entire financial system" didn't have to (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, greeseyparrot, jimreyn, blueoasis, DawnN

      collapse if Goldman Sachs were allowed to fail.

      Instead, all the TRILLIONS poured into supporting them and a few other "too big to fail firms" should have been poured into direct assistance to the banking system -- not the investment houses who were allowed to call themselves 'banks', but the banking system -- particularly state and local banks.

      They would have money to lend, commerce would continue.  Instead, we've seen these rapacious giants hold onto the money and lend precious little of it.

      Hell, the money would have been better spent if it had been handed directly to the citizens of the country:  The $3 TRILLION in support from the Bush administration alone would have amounted to about $9000 for every man, woman and child in America.

      Think that would have "stimulated" the economy? Hell yes it would have.

      And the trillions more under Obama, plus the starvation diet low interest rates hurting seniors, plus the lack of any penalties or prosecution for the outright fraud (one civil case by the SEC is too little too late).....  

      This mess needs cleaned up.  And that means "the big boys" have to go. Break up the "too big to fails".... or as one senior adviser said: (paraphrased) "I prefer strong, effective regulation, but barring that, plenty of blood and teeth on the floor."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site