angela_the golo editor: blog 
golo editor's blog
should we let the financial institutions fail?
Published Sep 24, 2008Views: 702
I've been following this economic bruhaha to the best of my ability: reading various perspectives, watching political pundits and various experts on television and reading individual blogs and websites.
One interesting take I read today essentially says that we should "let the financial institutions fail."
In regards to the huge bailout sum of $700 billion, one particular blogger writes:
"it's your money anyway, and having it used to reward stupidity and recklessness is a surefire way to waste it. There is no averting this economic crisis, it's here to stay and it will be a while before it goes away. Deal with it, and move on, because all of this bailout talk is nothing but a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Just do nothing, and let the market correct itself. Trust me, you will be better off, in the long run, that way!"
What do you think GOLO? Would it be best to do nothing?
Filed under: Politics
close85 Comments
![[no avatar]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/presentation/v1/images/golo/noavatar.gif){kind=avatar}
(24 votes) palin dines with rev. billy graham
(15 votes) funeral held for slain fayetteville girl
(13 votes) 4 us service members die in afghan attacks
Welcome to GOLO, where WRAL.com visitors can comment on stories and create profile pages, blogs and photo galleries.
You must be a registered WRAL.com user to use these tools. Click here to register or log in.
Hate to break into an interesting private conversation, but I've been away from my computer for a while.
IMO, it's simplistic to say that government regulation has led to outsourcing of jobs. There are a lot of reasons why companies outsource, but first and foremost, it is because the countries that are getting the jobs have a workforce that is willing to work for much less than Americans are.
You would do away with minimum wage laws. How many Americans that you know would work in a factory for $1 an hour? And if they did, how much could they buy with their earnings? How many local businesses would close their doors because their (former) customers no longer had any money to buy their products with?
Truly free markets work exactly as they are doing now - jobs go to where labor is cheap. You can't pin this on regulation.
GOLO member since January 25, 2008
September 24, 2008 4:02 p.m.
Bingo! It's the taxes and the regulations and the paperwork that's caused company CEO's to make this grave financial decision. Now though, the results are obvious. But there's hope. And that hope lies in your wallets and the products you buy when you go shopping. Sure, we'll pay more initially compared to "Made In China" products, but in the end we will be saving our own azzes. It's never too late. It's never to late It's never to late. IT'S NEVER TO LATE...TO BUY AMERICAN-MADE PRODUCTS.
GOLO member since September 11, 2007
September 24, 2008 6:26 p.m.
GOLO member since October 17, 2007
September 24, 2008 6:58 p.m.
GOLO member since October 18, 2007
September 24, 2008 8:00 p.m.
means
people can't pay their bills
means
ARM loans "encouraged" upon home-buyers by the banks a few years ago
means
foreclosures and more foreclosures
means
banks lose
means
recession
means
STOP giving what money we have left to China and other manufacturers that are destroying our once-great nation.
means
BUY AMERICAN-MADE PRODUCTS ONLY FOR NOW ON WHEN POSSIBLE
MEANS
MORE jobs here
means
slowly recover from our past mistakes.
GOLO member since September 11, 2007
September 24, 2008 8:25 p.m.
GOLO member since November 7, 2007
September 24, 2008 10:50 p.m.
He is absolutely correct...our economy is in danger. And the danger comes from his $700 billion corperate giftcard he wants taxpayers to purchase.
GOLO member since October 17, 2007
September 24, 2008 11:54 p.m.
You have got to be kidding me. It's the $1 a hour they pay to employees that they don't have to provide benefits for that's caused them to make this decision.
Get rid of every single tax and regulation that you are so up in arms about and it will STILL be cheaper for said company to make their products in Malaysia or wherever else they choose to relocate. They will still do it because it's still better for their corporate bottom line, which is all that matters to them. Yours doesn't.
GOLO member since June 10, 2008
September 25, 2008 9:02 a.m.
GOLO member since October 17, 2007
September 25, 2008 9:38 a.m.
September 25, 2008 12:06 p.m.
GOLO member since April 21, 2008
September 25, 2008 1:44 p.m.
September 25, 2008 1:45 p.m.
September 25, 2008 2:18 p.m.
GOLO member since September 8, 2008
September 25, 2008 5:51 p.m.
Our population is about 301 million counting every man, woman and child. So, 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. Now, divide 200 million, 18+ adults into $85 billion - that equals $425,000.00 each! Yes, my plan is to give that $425,000 to every adult as a 'We Deserve It dividend. Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So, let's assume a tax rate of 30%. Everyone would pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25.5 billion right back to Uncle Sam! It also means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife would have $595,000.00!
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00?
* Pay off your mortgage – housing crisis solved. * Repay college loans – what a great boost to new grads. * Put away money for colle
September 25, 2008 8:07 p.m.
September 26, 2008 11:54 a.m.
GOLO member since July 3, 2007
September 26, 2008 4:11 p.m.
September 27, 2008 6:05 p.m.
Who was watching the store here? People in DC need to be fired!!
GOLO member since May 4, 2008
September 28, 2008 12:50 a.m.
September 28, 2008 10:14 a.m.
GOLO member since October 26, 2007
September 28, 2008 2:34 p.m.
GOLO member since May 23, 2009
September 29, 2008 7:49 p.m.
GOLO member since May 23, 2009
September 29, 2008 7:50 p.m.
Who wants to run for president on that one?
GOLO member since May 23, 2009
September 29, 2008 7:52 p.m.
The actual initial legislation proposed that IF the government happend to actually EVENTUALLY make a profit out of the assets that Wall Street and everyone is calling 'toxic,' approximately 14% (if I merember right) of these profits would go to a fund to help low income people buy houses - ACORN or a similar group.
BUT, --that part was removed from the final bill-- before the vote according to USA Today, page 2 article Sep 29.
So, none of the $700 was ever "earmarked for ACORN," and any similar housing assistance 'earmark' never made it to the final bill congess voted against.
GOLO member since April 10, 2008
September 30, 2008 2:36 a.m.
Please log in to add comment.