If we the taxpayers and of course the future generation of taxpayers are gonna bail out the financial markets, why shoud we not be entitled to representaion on the boards of companies helped/saved? Why should we not be allowed some areas in which decisions can be vetoed? On the one hand do we not have socialism, and on the other do we not have the rape of the taxpayer to the advantage of the already wealthy? And yes I know it is to the benefit of the economy and therefore all of us not to have more recession/depression. But which "class" benefits more? And who does the middle class really have to represent their interests?
A suggestion that only makes sense if you have money to invest. Taxation without representation, indeed.
I am not disputing his or your point. My point is simply this. We pay for all kinds of things that our government decides is in our best interest to spend money on. Happens every year. That is what they do. Congress represents us on everything they vote for, so in theory it was with his approval. That is why they are called representatives. I don't like paying into SSN nor do I support the government adminstering and providing national healthcare. But guess what? I get to or will pay for it. Some people might argue that the bail-out was not in our best interest and others will say it was. Just like some people contend SSN is a great thing and some people think that national healthcare is wonderful. So now you and I own a bunch of low-priced mortgages. Maybe people will learn a lesson from this in that you don't have the right to buy a house and that having a requirement to put 20% down is not the works of the evil banking empire. So what are you or I going to do about it? Go vote and enjoy your sub-prime mortgages.
By the way, did anyone forget to mention that the problems will take a while to correct, and in the meantime the financial markets are gonna have to find a lot lower level. Not to mention that when banks get the funds they will probably park them and not free up credit like we supposed?
I'm thinking we should put convicted rapists on the boards so we won't be surprised later. Who to put on the boards if that were the case, indeed? Yet with this new level of mistrust, remember we were giving them our money both in taxes and investments all along...... makes you think.
Zen- I am curious as to which companies you are referring to when you discuss this bailout? Who exactly do you think is getting relief? Is it Bear Stearns (gone), Lehman Bros (gone), CountryWide (gone), Wash Mutual (gone), MerrilLynch (gone), IndyMac (gone), Wachovia (gone) and on and on. If executed correctly, all the govt will be doing is buying distressed assets that, due to accounting regulations, have been severely undervalued. This is an opportunity for the govt and the tax payers.
Seriously, if and when these opportunities pay off do you not think they will grist for increased spending by the government? Is it not more likely that any profits recovered will be used to further grease the political wheels of the prevailing party?
Wow, I know that video was edited, but if half of it is true, then JMC should be putting out a commercial along the same lines in all 50 states..
