You still don’t get it, the bolded part. Small Businesses cannot exist without credit lines from large credit agencies. If the person loaning money to small businesses goes under, the small business will follow suit. I agree that “a business to big to fail is too big to exist”. However, America’s economy is at that point with a few of our businesses. We cannot just let them fail. Maybe now that they are bailed out and stabilized, we can legislate them into forming smaller individual companies or something? It sucks, but it’s the truth.
I graduated 2 years ago, took a year to find a job so I understand graduating and not having a job right away.
After a year of experience, I get phone calls/emails weekly about open positions with no solicitation on my part. My resume is up on monster and career builders. Hell, I have an face-to-face interview tomorrow and a phone interview on Monday. If I am landing interviews with barely trying then what is the issue with people who are trying really hard?
^^^ I have seen no one wants to start over. A lot of people had 15 years in a job and making serious money. They don’t want to go back to a $40k a year job.
They aren’t giving many SBL from what I have been hearing. The big banks took the bailouts and gambled on stocks it would seem. They also have taken easy lax money but not loosened up any of the lending requirements for a valid loan applicant with a viable potential business. It’s our money…let’s call JG Wentworth. LOL
The positions on the market that I get calls about range from 60-90k. Which is not that bad of a salary even 10 years into a career, granted as someone pointed out before it is in engineering. The 150k jobs are going to have all of those old time managers competing against eachother, why not take a little less to get in the door and work your way up to the 150k. If they are worth it they should move quick in the company.
They are definitely being conservative with their lending right now. It is one of the reasons why so many small businesses are struggling right now. IMO, it would be worse for them if we didn’t bailout some of the institutions that we bailed out.
IMO there should be NO bailouts…EVER (personal, corporate or government). Most whine that people are asking for handouts but that’s what our nation has shown and done time and time again. Leadership sets the example and this is the message they have been sending, that if you fuck up there can be no consequence. Every bailout dilutes our currency and costs everyone spending power. The money doesn’t come from a magical wallet but rather is backed by the government committing our future labor as collateral. We’re committed to $15 trillion not counting entitlement programs and interest. It’s just so out of hand as I see it, boggles the mind. The AA rating is generous and reflects what a scam the financial rating companies are.
Out of curiosity, who do you agree with bailing out and why? What do you think about the majority bashing OWS when many of the OWS complaints address what is ailing the majority? People are getting hung up on the “handout” thing which I admit is a retarded demand but there are bigger underlying issues that need fixing. This OWS thing just proves how divided people are and I’m not sure we can ever unite. 8/
-
I agree with bailing out any institution that is the backbone for supporting our small businesses with credit. I do not know which specific institutions that includes. However, I think I would have preferred for some other institution to buy them out, rather than collapse or take a bailout. I’m not sure if that is realistic, though. The truth is though, that this country runs on credit, not cash. If you make credit available, businesses can grow. Without available credit, everyone is crippled.
-
What do I think about bashing OWS? Well, I think bashing is harsh. They are up there saying that they are angry, and it is resonating loud and clear. My problem is that it just seems silly to think that we can legislate our way out of corporate greed. You cannot pass a law that limits CEO income. That is straight up socialism. Some legislation could be useful in cutting down on political corruption, though. I’d like to see more transparency and information about what/why/how companies are funding politicians.
OWS is misguided in some ways, and most of the protesters don’t know dick about economics (not that I do, either), so it’s just hard to take them seriously. They’ve got some valid points, though. You have to give them that.
I think the bailouts had to be done and was in favor of them at the time when the credit markets were frozen, I just think they did them too haphazardly and the terms were too pro-bank. Basically dumped all of this cash into them because they SAID they’d loan it out, without any real enforcement mechanism to make sure they did. I look at it like a parent giving their college student $1000 cash at the beginning of the semester and telling them to spend it on books, not booze, but with no real way of checking up on them. Short of nationalizing lending directly, it was pretty much the only option we had which fit in our system.
The European bank bailouts were on much less favorable terms and that was why they actually were on a need basis. HSBC didn’t want to touch the UK TARP equivalent with a 10 foot pole because of all the terms and conditions associated. But as usual, the US government sold out to the demands of big business, the ones who got them elected.
Well put. My issue with the credit statement though is there is a clear lack of qualified loan applicants and joblessness. So print as you may, giving that money to the banks will not be making it to the pockets of the masses to stimulate the economy. So as Joe said…they kind of HAD TO back-fill for deflation but they did it haphazardly. They gave banks money to further speculate with and IMO it’s proven rather fruitless. They have driven the stock prices up but without any backing economic growth.
The forgiving student debt and capping CEO gains is comical. Live up to your obligation, you signed on the dotted line. CEO’s should be paid as much as the company wants to pay, provided there is no fraud going on. If a CEO leads the way to fundamental gains and they are long term sustainable that is a VERY valuable person and they should be rewarded well.
Lots of CEO’s suck ass though and get paid just as much, then get golden parachutes to go away after they ruin things bad enough. Student debt is quickly becoming a problem because it’s set at 6.8% fixed at a time when pretty much any loan is below that at market rate, plus the kids likely enrolled in college and took out those loans when it looked like they had jobs waiting for them at graduation, unless they were philosophy majors or some shit. The longer they defer them, the more the problem compounds.
“CEO Pay” is grossly high in this country, but who am I to try and dictate what a CEO should make?
If the workers are that upset about it, then they can go on strike or quit their jobs or something. Unfortunately, if they do that, they’ll likely just be replaced by cheaper workers who are desperate for the job. Supply and Demand strikes again.
People are greedy, but when baby boomers retire the US workforce will shrink rapidly, then we’ll get the last laugh.
I think the significant complaint on ceo/executive compensation has to do with companies that received TARP money.
It’s otherwise a moot point, imo.
Maybe. Alot of the jobs they “perform” are just bloat, limited in fundamental value and are likely to go away IMO. Then there’s that pesky issue of the stock market being drawn on by the retired boomers. Oh and many of these boomers are on state/federal lines with rather large pension payouts. I view it as more a ticking time bomb than an opportunity knocking. JMHO
I’m with the last poster on the CEO issue. It’s not an issue of jealousy, it’s an issue of certain CEO’s defrauding a nation, (hell even the global economy) then being rewarded. How on earth is it ok to give someone that just had a major hand in crashing the economy severance and rewarding them to go away? It’s not a matter of being “unfair” or “not paying their fair share”. It’s a matter of FRAUD, fraud that we as a working class will be paying for. It blows me away the number of people WELL under the $250k a year level fighting these movements, as if they stand to gain anything by opposing reasonable change. The “why don’t the dirty hippies just get a job” thing is frustrating because that’s not even the real point. People are deflecting, getting sidetracked and preventing changes that could be good for the majority because of a few loons.
Isn’t it true that most of the TARP money has been paid back with interest at this point, though? I thought I read a random comment on reddit that bailout money was still being fed to companies, but didn’t see any proof to back that up.
If anyone has any links they can share that talks about the current state of TARP money lent out, I’d love to see it and read it. A lot of my opinions are based on “facts” that I’ve heard from 3rd and 4th parties I suspect.
It’s not a simple money lent, money paid situation. In a lot of cases the tarp money was used to purchase stock in the company which paid a dividend and was ultimately sold (sometimes at a profit)
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list/refunds
They also have a very detailed breakdown of the disbursements and receipts with program descriptions
Here’s the start page, if you really just want to read more about it.
The banks took the bailout cash and invested it. They made siqqq gains because that influx of capital is enough to MOVE THE MARKET. They did exactly that and have been flipping out of some of the positions and pocketing big profits. The did NOT invest in small business from what I can tell. The didn’t create jobs from what I can tell.
Ok, now onto the “paid back with interest” thing. Even if they did pay the TARP funds back (and maybe they really did), that money wasn’t destroyed as far as I can tell. So it wasn’t a short term currency dilution…that money still exists in a fractional reserve lending system no less. That’s likely a sleeping time bomb…TICK TICK TICK
THESE are my main issues with bailouts…that and how we are so far in deficit, the amount of money they fabricated was unrealistic to commit to.
Always JMHO. 
very good points…I definitely don’t disagree with them
---------- Post added at 12:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 PM ----------
Good resource, thanks
http://blip.tv/hdnet-news-and-documentaries/dan-rather-reports-excerpt-from-the-un-banked-5675736
I really like the bank PR guy 45 seconds in reminding us all that banks “are not a utility” and that banks exist to “make money”. I have 2 issues with his statement. If banks are not a utility then what are they doing taking government bailout money? If they are “making money” then why did they need to pilfer from the nations spending power? “Newsflash”, you ARE a utility in reality. A banks core purpose is to act as a steward of responsible capitalism. They are lending the NATIONS currency not their own, they have it twisted!
I guess banking is no different than the medical insurance debacle. They are not “utilities” yet they hold a ton of responsibility and their abuse is affecting the well being of the nation. I feel profit & greed have no business sticking their ugly face in the managing of a national currency. I feel profit & greed cause conflict of interest when decisions come down to either profit or a human beings health & quality of life.
THESE are the specific things that OWS or anyone with half a brain should be screaming about. Bailouts kill our spending power and health insurance keeps raping more & more of our income. If money is a well, through fraud they are limiting water to the majority. Just as water is a human need, in our society so is money. They are running the well dry on the working class. NO, we won’t forgive your student debt or nationalize any other bad choice you made. Be responsible and realistic! FUCK SOCIALISM!
Dan Rather does an excellent job for HDnet IMO. He never would have been able to cover topics like these on mainstream media. Worth a watch I say. 8)