Higher Taxes or Unemployment (pick one)

[sealybobo]

A single piece of paper may just be one of the most surprising and illuminating documents of the whole banking crisis.

It's a one-page research note from an economist at Deutsche Bank, and it outlines in the clearest terms the kind of solution many bankers are looking for. The basic message: We should forget trying to get a good deal for taxpayers because even trying will hurt.

"Ultimately, the taxpayer will be on the hook one way or another, either through greatly diminished job prospects and/or significantly higher taxes down the line," the document says.

In other words, the paper says, if the government tries to save taxpayers money, many people will los their jobs and the whole economy will suffer.



Taxpayer Beware: Bank Bailout Will Hurt : NPR

 

[driveby]

Neither, cut spending .....

 

[michiganFats]

funny how letting failing businesses fail and looking into criminal prosecution of people who deserve it weren't mentioned as options.

 

[sealybobo]

Neither, cut spending .....

Wrong answer! Can't be solved with spending cuts alone.

If we don't raise taxes, people will lose their jobs. Either that or we go further into debt to avoid 20% unemployment.

I say we raise taxes....on the rich. And by the way, Obama's already doing that.

And don't let the Republicans cry that the worst thing to do is raise taxes during a recession, because those tax breaks don't expire until 2011. We should be out of this recession by then, right?

Remember, we are all in this together.

And maybe next time we won't vote for people who only represent the top 10% wealthiest of us.

Do not forget that in the last 8 years, the rich got richer. This is a new Guilded Age. The Robber Baron's are back.

I say we Nationalize the banks now and then later sell them to people who are responsible and not greedy pricks.

 

[michiganFats]

I say we Nationalize the banks now and then later sell them to people who are responsible and not greedy pricks.

Why wait? Why bother nationalizing any banks? Why not let the healthy banks pick from the remains of the un-healthy banks right now?

 

[driveby]

Neither, cut spending .....

I say we Nationalize the banks now and then later sell them to people who are responsible and not greedy pricks.

Sure, then the politicians steal it instead of the CEO's, allsome !

 

[sealybobo]

funny how letting failing businesses fail and looking into criminal prosecution of people who deserve it weren't mentioned as options.

Letting failing business' fail falls into higher unemployment. Thank you for participating.

And I'm always up for prosecuting criminals that looted us for billions.

PS. On another note MichFats, what about that F22

Lockheed lobbies for F-22 production on job grounds

The Dems want to cut this very expensive and unused plane from the budget. The GOP says the plane is what makes the US bad ass, plus thousands of jobs would be lost if the gov stopped funding this project.

I say those are tax payer funded jobs, so I don't like them. And if the plane hasn't been used since the 80's, scrap it.

But I'm not sure. But I am sure that there are thousands of programs like this that some think are important, and some don't. And we will have to debate each of them as they come along.

I say this F22 thing sounds like a big waste of money. Don't we have a lot of F22's already? We've been building them since the 80's.

And the jobs that will be lost are false jobs. They aren't making a product that the "free market" pays for. This is a product that only the government buys. So companies that rely 100% on the government for their sales need to realize that eventually the well is going to dry up.

Lockheed lobbies for F-22 production on job grounds - Los Angeles Times

 

[sealybobo]

Neither, cut spending .....

I say we Nationalize the banks now and then later sell them to people who are responsible and not greedy pricks.

Sure, then the politicians steal it instead of the CEO's, allsome !

What's the difference?

 

[driveby]

I say we Nationalize the banks now and then later sell them to people who are responsible and not greedy pricks.

Sure, then the politicians steal it instead of the CEO's, allsome !

What's the difference?

The government would do a better job hiding it......

 

[michiganFats]

letting failing business' fail falls into higher unemployment. Thank you for participating.

So? In this case I don't really care if incompetent financial professionals are unemployed. My point is that a bank which actually knows it's stuff will be in charge, and the losers and failures will be out of a job, as it should be. If we bail out failures, why should we believe that they will all of a sudden be responsible? The article in your OP says that people who had nothing to do with our current predicament will be on the hook. I find that to be an unacceptable option. Thanks for playing.

 

[sealybobo]

letting failing business' fail falls into higher unemployment. Thank you for participating.

So? In this case I don't really care if incompetent financial professionals are unemployed. My point is that a bank which actually knows it's stuff will be in charge, and the losers and failures will be out of a job, as it should be. If we bail out failures, why should we believe that they will all of a sudden be responsible? The article in your OP says that people who had nothing to do with our current predicament will be on the hook. I find that to be an unacceptable option. Thanks for playing.

Then we shouldn't bail out homeowners who took out bad loans.

But if we don't, it will affect us.

Same if we don't bail out the bankers. It'll hurt us.

But I'd be willing to do it if it meant doing away with the Federal Reserve.

 

[michiganFats]

Then we shouldn't bail out homeowners who took out bad loans.

But if we don't, it will affect us.

Same if we don't bail out the bankers. It'll hurt us.

But I'd be willing to do it if it meant doing away with the Federal Reserve.

If the homeowners took out loans under terms that could be considered to be usury or unrealistic in anyway, then they don't need to be bailed out. The terms of the contract need to be changed.

Homeless people effect us.

Bailing out the bankers is the same as bailing out homeowners? Funny, coming from a guy who has taken the time on other threads to post the words of Thomas Jefferson. Something to the effect of corporations not being patriotic and needing constant watching?

Doing away with the Federal Reserve? I have to tell you, from what I'm seeing today, that does seem to be the goal.

 

[editec]

Johnson thinks that if the U.S. is going to spend taxpayer money anyway, it's ridiculous to use it to save the same bankers who caused the current crisis. He likes a different approach: where the government directly takes over banks and then sells them to new owners. Maybe for a profit, maybe for a loss.

That essantially what I've been saying all along.

We're MORE than buying these banks if we take over their TOXIC assets, folks.


The following is, I think mostly right on the money, too.

We have over-borrowed, Beim says: "We've been living very high on the hog. Our living standard has been rising dramatically in the last 25 years. And we have been borrowing much of the money to make that prosperity happen."

In other words, the problem the banks are facing is the problem we, as a society, are facing: We all have too much debt. And getting rid of it is going to be painful.

If you want a solution in which those who bear the most guilt for the financial crisis pay the most to fix it, while the innocent don't have to pay anything, that's not going to happen.

American are in debt both as a nation AND as individuals.

Anyone want to venture a guess why this happened?

 

[michiganFats]

Anyone want to venture a guess why this happened?

I don't need to guess. Banks were allowed to finance transactions that they knew would end up as "toxic". And then, after they repossessed homes, they were allowed to sell them again, and again. And now we are supposed to feel sorry for the banks that engaged in this behavior. What people forget is that this isn't the first time in recent history that we've had a foreclosure crisis. Anyone remember 2000/01? Same thing was going on then. How many times do people need to be robbed before they wise up?

 

[editec]

I say we Nationalize the banks now and then later sell them to people who are responsible and not greedy pricks.

Why wait? Why bother nationalizing any banks? Why not let the healthy banks pick from the remains of the un-healthy banks right now?

Because they won't, that's why.

They know, far better than any of us exactly how insolvent those banks really are.

 

[editec]

Neither, cut spending .....

I say we Nationalize the banks now and then later sell them to people who are responsible and not greedy pricks.

Sure, then the politicians steal it instead of the CEO's, allsome !

Definitely a possibility.

Bad government is bad without doubt.

 

[Andrew2382]

fine Sealy...I see you like the ultamitums of Higher taxes or lost jobs

What about this one?

Union compromises in pay cuts or lose your job?

 

[editec]

letting failing business' fail falls into higher unemployment. Thank you for participating.

So? In this case I don't really care if incompetent financial professionals are unemployed. My point is that a bank which actually knows it's stuff will be in charge, and the losers and failures will be out of a job, as it should be. If we bail out failures, why should we believe that they will all of a sudden be responsible? The article in your OP says that people who had nothing to do with our current predicament will be on the hook. I find that to be an unacceptable option. Thanks for playing.

I SUSPECT that the reason that the government is in the process of assuming all the toxic debts of the bankrupted banks is because if they do not then all the other banks will ALSO go down.

Remember that just a month ago CITIBANKS claimed to be solvent, right?

Mich, I doubt ANY bank in America is really solvent right now.

I'm beginning to think there isn't a a solvent bank in the world to be honest.

Swiss banks are going belly up now for Mammon's sakes!

 

[editec]

letting failing business' fail falls into higher unemployment. Thank you for participating.

So? In this case I don't really care if incompetent financial professionals are unemployed. My point is that a bank which actually knows it's stuff will be in charge, and the losers and failures will be out of a job, as it should be. If we bail out failures, why should we believe that they will all of a sudden be responsible? The article in your OP says that people who had nothing to do with our current predicament will be on the hook. I find that to be an unacceptable option. Thanks for playing.

Then we shouldn't bail out homeowners who took out bad loans.

But if we don't, it will affect us.

Same if we don't bail out the bankers. It'll hurt us.

But I'd be willing to do it if it meant doing away with the Federal Reserve.

I'll join you and a whole lot of Ustrian Econ freaks, and a whole lot of extrmist lefties, and a whole lotta extrmeist rightes who are of the same mind on THAT issue.

 

[michiganFats]

Mich, I doubt ANY bank in America is really solvent right now.

I'm beginning to think there isn't a a solvent bank in the world to be honest.

Swiss banks are going belly up now for Mammon's sakes!

I disagree. In fact, I submit that what we are seeing here is a justification of the MOTU(forgive me for stealing your acronym) taking our money and justifying criminal behavior. I say let the big boys fall and the regional players who think they're up to it can expand. Of course, none of this will matter if we can't get a handle on the infestation inside the Beltway right now.