Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Mar 20, 2009.
At a loss for words here.
Bernanke's statement that perhaps we need to investigate having a system in which bad banks are allowed to fail more routinely and the system instead focuses on shielding the market and consumers from the failure of a bank rather than bailing the bank out... is starting to sound like a really good idea. Don't know exactly how that would work, but I'm willing to hear more about it.
Well, I guess now would be a good time to enforce our 80% ownership of the company. Or just take it over completely. This is a company that looks like it will never learn, therefore we should stop trying to teach it. I still think it would be a bad idea to let it completely fail, but screw the nationalization nay-sayers and take it over, get it back on track to where it is not a threat to the global economy and then sell it off piece by piece..
At least their lawyers are doing their jobs and looking for and finding all the loose change they left in the couch.
Of course the lawyers tend not to sync with the PR department, creating problems for the make-up department running out of concealer for all the black eyes.
So much for "we understand the outrage" from AIG.
This is just amazing honestly.
Can't wait to hear the Limbaugh take on this one. Oh wait, I know- "SOCIALISM"!
Without getting into the merits of any aspect of the AIG/bonus/lawsuit/taxes mess, I'll just throw out there that it is not uncommon for a company that fraudently reported income and paid taxes on that income to get the paid taxes back when it is later learned that it never actually made the income. An example is HealthSouth here in Birmingham. It fabricated profits, paid taxes on the profits, and then the new leadership got the taxes back.
Not saying I agree, just throwing that out there.
My thoughts exactly.
Most people think they are scum already so I guess no harm in trying to save a few bucks in the process.
Although it is noted that this lawsuit began before all of the outrage of the bonuses...
The far right seem to think that traditional capitalism is just to the left of Trotsky, so that wouldn't surprise me.
His take has been that Congress's attacking the workers for receiving a legal and contracted bonus is criminal if not bordering on frightening.
However, if you want to get really mad...
It probably deserves a thread of its own ...
Sorry, I know you are trying real hard but I am not going to get mad over what the Rolling Stone Magazine has to say unless they are dishing on a music group that I like..
Should I assume that he had a similar "take" when congress was mandating that the auto workers re-negotiate their contracts to receive a smaller salary?
The difference is that those conditions were required before the companies could take the money. Still I would rather see GM and Chrysler go through bankruptcy instead of getting a dime of my money.
Throwing money down that money pit is no different than tossing it at AIG
If that 80% is voting stock, I'd love to sit in on the next shareholders' meeting.