Query by Irascible Interlocutor: What is your solution for the monetary crisis?
Is the bailout the very best way to go?
Perhaps we should just let the banks fail?
Ought to the government get up toxic assets or banking stocks? Ought to Wall Street be bailed out or the homeowner who is facing foreclosure?
Sen. Chuck Schumer of N.Y. who is on the banking committee, and a single of the 1st officials to push for a bailout mentioned that New York ought to get their fair share of the bailout income the Government is disbursing.
I consider that New York financial center and Senator Schumer (NY) are responsible for the monetary crisis in the very first spot and that New York must Pay far more than it really is fair share, NOT receive its fair share.
Who do you feel need to pay?
The link is a really good write-up about Sen. Schumer and his involvement in the financial crisis.
http://iht.com/articles/2008/12/13/enterprise/14schumer.php
Musicman, I don’t understand your answer. You begin by saying the banks cannot fail, and finish by saying no bailout for banks.
???
Very best answer:
Answer by Musicman812
You can’t let the banks fail. Everyone’s screaming about the government carrying out everything for wall st. and absolutely nothing for primary st.. I beg to differ, if the banks fail, so do consumers’ accounts — whoops, did we all fail to make that connection?
Loans/savings/CD’s/MMA’s/and so on. etc….gone in a flash.
you said:
“I think that New York monetary center and Senator Schumer (NY) are accountable for the financial crisis in the very first place and that New York should Spend more than it’s fair share, NOT get its fair share.”
You are only partially right. Without government mandated policies which permitted for securitization of these toxic loans, it wouldn’t have considerably of a difficulty. You see, the government opened a market to the totally free-market place banks to take toxic loans off of their books in an effort to get them to make much more loans — The Community Reinvestment Act.
With out that market place to sell these loans, free-marketplace banks would’ve kept those loans on the books — and used a small much more discretion when creating loans.
Who’s to blame? (Crappy) Government policy — greed in the free-industry banking industry — greed in shoppers who wanted it but could not afford it. A lot to go around.
As for state’s obtaining Federal funds — if Obama had a spine he’s look them all in the eye and inform them to reduce spending…and use discretionary funds. If they can’t make it — as well f*cking undesirable…lessons discovered the difficult approaches are those that stick around.
No bailout, no bailout, no bailout.
Cease throwing part of my cash at the wall!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Edit: No bailout — “stimulus” package. Obama is advertising and marketing it as the only way we’ll accelerate growth in the economy. He’s going to bailout the U.S. citizen by taking care of the economy. The issue is not plugging the hole any longer…money or not, individuals are going to save — they won’t commit. The problem we need to address is providing citizens the self-confidence to devote again. With no that, we’ll prolong the problem…because the “stimulus” only performs until the income runs out. After the 1 trillion is gone, if you do not have buyers to step up to the plate to devote, we’ll spiral proper back into a ten+% unemployment price. A waste of money if you ask me.
And banks as big as BofA and Citi can’t fail…their financing ripples all through the economy (not to mention the citizenry) — but the government can surely bail them out w/ far more efficiency. Watching BofA acquire Merrill Lynch w/ taxpayer funds only to deepen their debt and ask for far more taxpayer money (and get it!) doesn’t sit properly with me. Very good operate Frank/Dodd/Paulson! Bang up job.
Sorry for the confusion. )
Give your answer to this question below!
