Obama said, "In particular," explains Obama, "a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout."
Mmmm... none of the bailouts are actually justified, but putting that aside ...
What does Obama think, and what do we the people actually think is gonna happen when you start handing bailouts out right and left?
Of course people are not gonna take a deal or take what might be a justified and over-due fall into bankruptcy if they think a bailout might be coming. IF that's what this "group of investment firms etc" did, they only did it in response to what the Obama administration is teaching them to do. Wait for the handout ... er .. the bailout.
And when someone or some group holds out for, or in future possibly demands a government bailout ... instead of taking them to task for their holdout, the admin should praise them for a lesson well learned --- the administration should just take it in stride as what it is; just what they asked for when they got into the bailout business.
That's one of the reasons the government shouldn't be in the business of bailouts in the first place. +sigh+
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 9
Those bondholders, too, may choose to hold out for government assistance, risking loss to themselves and to millions of poor and middle class people, active and retirees and our families.
If these firms hold out, the next government spending bill is going to be for mass quantities of homeless shelters.
Amen. There are bankrupcy laws in place for a reason.
Marilyn M., May 5, 2009, 1:06pm EDT
I agree. Very crude. But from a certain segment .. it's just fine and dandy what he is doing. In fact, he's a knight in shining armor for it.
I absolutely agree. I think it was crude of Obama to even mention that they "held out" for more money..
Pat V., May 5, 2009, 4:31pm EDT
Holding out makes sense on several levels.
Without the bailouts in a normal economy, it's expected for them to 'hold out' ... it's their job according to their legally signed and agreed upon contracts to try to get the best deal for their groups. That's where private business negotiating comes in. Some win, some lose. Nature of life and consequences of personal decisions.
Since gov *does* offer bailouts and the offers do seem to be kindof willy nilly ... why not hold out, "just in case?"
But, even without these huge bailouts being given by the gov, in a specifically "redistributive economy" .... why not hold out for some "redistribution" since government has become a redistributive entity. Doesn't matter whether or not 'we' fit any rather amorphous rules for being a recipient of a redistributive allotment ... those can change and maybe they'll change 'for me' if I hold out long enough.
Like I said above [with one edit], "instead of taking them to task for their holdout, the admin should praise them for a lesson well learned --- the administration should just take it in stride as what it is; just what they asked for when they got into the redistributive and bailout business".
This was a business proposition and it would make sense to hold out for the most money they could, all bailout questions aside. It would be applauded under different circumstances.
Pat V., May 5, 2009, 4:31pm EDT
TARP was the beginning of welfare on a grand scale and the nationalization of several parts of our marketplace. Socialism here we come. Can't you hear the marching of the boots now?
Andrea (Ms. Conservative) L., May 7, 2009, 11:18pm EDT