by Jim G.
Member since:
July 13, 2009

Corporate Welfare

June 14, 2012 06:04 AM UTC (Updated: June 14, 2012 06:07 AM UTC)
views: 0 | 6 people recommend this | comments: 49

But it wasn't right for Obama to bail out the auto industry?

"Sen. Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News
Intro: "More than $4 trillion in near zero-interest Federal Reserve loans and other financial assistance went to the banks and businesses of at least 18 current and former Federal Reserve regional bank directors in the aftermath of the 2008 financial collapse, according to Government Accountability Office records made public for the first time today by Sen. Bernie Sanders."
READ MORE

Comments: 49

The Fed is not my favorite entity in the first place, but this just pisses me off. People going bankrupt, banks getting fed loans at almost no interest and at actual no interest. Try to get a loan today if you aren't a giant bank. Meh!
Jim G. Jun 14, 2012, 7:25am UTC
The Fed should be abolished. Who regulates them?
Winston Smith Jun 14, 2012, 8:27am UTC
Jim, you becoming a Ron Paul believer? Kinda sounding like one!
Peter Joseph Swanson Jun 14, 2012, 10:15am UTC
Without the Fed we'd all be trading in potatoes and chickens right now (the lucky ones who have them around).

Money isn't magic. Banks aren't magic. Our one and only system really did totally crash and only the Fed could prop it up.
And help cause it, Peter.
Peter Joseph Swanson Jun 15, 2012, 3:13pm UTC
>And help cause it

The Feds? The Feds didn't "cause", but they did "allow". They need to cut the Greenspan/Ayn Rand IT WILL JUST TAKE CARE OF ITSELF disastrous crap and keep an eye on bubbles. I think they are now, but that one is way too late, and still not enough.
No Peter, the Fed was one of the instruments Bush used to cause this mess. The FED, itself, disenfranchised all the many state banking regulators that if not made powerless over fed banks and their subsidiaries and affiliates early in the BA, would never have allowed the predatory lending that caused this. They are not the good guys, they are some of the bad, and not only for their part in this fiasco. Many other things, Look at their record every time we have had a tight labor market, and near full employment. yep, they're the guys that jack up interest rates till the economy slows down, and unemployment reaches acceptable levels, to them, I mean. They are bankers, they favor bankers, and not the common man.
Larry M. Jun 14, 2012, 7:29am UTC
Big money interests have always dominated government. Therefore, most welfare handouts go to big money interests. It's always been that way. (Don't forget that the laws that regulate the market place are also designed to support big money interests. That's a huge win for big money.)
Jim G. Jun 14, 2012, 7:39am UTC
It hasn't always been that way, Larry. Many laws that once regulated the banking industry have been abolished.
Larry M. Jun 14, 2012, 10:00am UTC
Jim,

Most of the laws that regulate the banking industry are there to prevent the small banks from bothering the large banks. At one time, almost anyone could start a bank and issue bank notes, for example.
I love how regressives think there is some scandal in this.
Susan G. Jun 14, 2012, 8:53am UTC
Perhaps the wingers would like to refresh my memory of how food stamps, social security, medicare, and aid to poor people caused our financial crisis but millions, billions, and trillions handed out to mega banks and other corporations did not contribute to the crash. Guess the two unfunded wars didn't hurt us either. Musta been those public sector unions.
Jim G. Jun 14, 2012, 10:11am UTC
Ah, satire! My favorite form of communication.
Chuck Larlham Jun 18, 2012, 1:23pm UTC
That's not satire; that's pure sarcasm... and I love it.
Dan E. Jun 22, 2012, 11:28am UTC
Perhaps you BDLs could point out where your supported party has come out against this practice?
Char H. Jun 14, 2012, 10:05am UTC
I agree with the article that letting the Regulators serve on the bds of the receiving banks is the appearance of impropriety. However, it does seem if they were the ones the worldwide financial system depended on, they maybe didn't have any choice. The banks will pay it back, if not the interest on the debt. Other entitlements spend it. I am not arguing that many of the programs should go away, just stating a fact.
Susan G. Jun 14, 2012, 12:29pm UTC
Ah, but spending by consumers is what we need. It gets the money circulating, creating demand which creates jobs. The banks are just using the Fed as their private honey pot. There is no guarantee that the money will be either spent or repaid. They may well be using it in trading which does nothing for our economy or job creation. Even if they do repay the money, they will simply use that as a tax deduction/business expense. That is our tax money they are dipping into.
Char H. Jun 14, 2012, 5:30pm UTC
I am sorry Susan, but to me the spending is good only to meet the needs of the people. As so much spending has been done, as the stimulus bill showed, A LOT of money was used for raises, for mostly lots of money with what is believed to be a payoff for campaign supporters, as a large percentage of the grants and loans went to Obama bundlers and supporters. In addition, there is evidence that the deficit further scares consumers, so they don't expand their hiring and spending, slowing the economy. Much, probably most of the money from the subsidized spending is spent on products creating more jobs in China than here. Not only do we pay them to work, but we borrow the money from them AT INTEREST, so we can subsidize THEIR manufacturing! I can't believe so many people eat that bologna up. The money is borrowed and consumed, goi g OUT of the country. We need spend only as much as we have to to help the people, an economic support it is NOT, IMHO.
Ajatasutra Bharaputra Jun 14, 2012, 11:10pm UTC
All of the stimulus doesn't come close to what we're spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. We have to restructure those programs if we really want fiscal responsibility.

Cutting everything else in the budget including food stamps and unemployment insurance benefits and welfare (gasp) wouldn't come even close to touching the deficit. The deficit is 40% of the budget. 80% of the budget is SS/M/M/and the military. So if you cut everything (including Depts of Ed, EPA, DEA, FBI, NSA, CIA, DNI, etc etc etc) you'll still have to cut SS/M/M/and the mil by 25% each to get rid of the deficit.
Char H. Jun 14, 2012, 11:13pm UTC
OR make more money!
Ajatasutra Bharaputra Jun 15, 2012, 4:52am UTC
Do you mean create money or earn more money? If you mean decrease tax rates while broadening the base, that's been proposed by Democrats over the last three years and rejected by Republicans as a way to 'raise taxes' (so called because it increases revenue). If you mean quantitative easing, we're still doing more of that, much to the chagrin of those who distrust the Fed most fervently (folks like Ron Paul and his adherents).
Char H. Jun 15, 2012, 10:06am UTC
It is obvious by the market (Dow, S&P) that they are still pouring money in, while claiming they are not. We have to audit the fed. But, to answer your question, we have talked enough for you to know I detest printing money, as it punishes the poor by watering down their already destroyed buying power.

Broadening the base has never been proposed by Dems that I know of, except by funding programs, which seem to mostly go to bonuses, giving away money. Yes, what I meant is broadening the base and growing jobs, so a larger percentage are employed, increasing revenues. There are still a lot of ways to decrease spending by eliminating fraud and waste or streamlining costs through efficiency.
Peter Joseph Swanson Jun 14, 2012, 10:19am UTC
The Fed has never been more open but I'm all for it being even more open. There's no point in it having any secrets at all!

>of at least 18 current and former

I thought they were ALL getting bailed out. They were all in a total crash/mess...

What bugs me is that now that we saved the financial system, the people who got saved in it aren't acting grateful at all. Taxing them a lot more would solve that.
Jim G. Jun 14, 2012, 10:33am UTC
It's still business as usual for the bailed-out banks. No further restrictions have been placed on them. Not only are they too big to fail, they're too big to jail.....
George Shaw Jun 14, 2012, 12:48pm UTC
Most of the wing-nuts overlook the fact that much of what the large financial institutions did was illegal, because that would mean that they should go to jail, and that would mean that business in the U.S. isn't "free enterprise." There are all kinds of subsidies and "legal" nooks and crannies for big business, but there is rugged individualism for the poor.
Jim G. Jun 14, 2012, 6:15pm UTC
I'm beginning to wonder about Eric Holder as AG. Last I saw, the Justice Dep't. said it was "Too complicated" to prosecute these crooks.
George Shaw Jun 14, 2012, 6:19pm UTC
Jim, I remind you about the "Tea Pot Dome" scandal during the Harding presidency. Albert Fall, the Secretary of the Interior, was convicted of having received bribes, but the two businessmen who gave the bribes were found to be innocent by a jury.
Jim G. Jun 14, 2012, 6:41pm UTC
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?
George Shaw Jun 14, 2012, 6:44pm UTC
You want sense also? Boy, you aren't the pessimist that you claim to be. LOL
Jim G. Jun 14, 2012, 7:49pm UTC
There goes my image. I gotta be more careful.
George Shaw Jun 14, 2012, 6:22pm UTC
Actually, the graphs which show that spending has decreased under President Obama have been printed and posted many times, so the only ones who believe that spending has been worse under President Obama than it was under Bush are people who don't want to recognize the truth, or who wish to be uninformed.
Jim G. Jun 14, 2012, 6:44pm UTC
I've heard that stated many times, but it doesn't stop the GOP from continuing to push their lies about Obama spending us into poverty. Tell a lie often enough, & people start to believe it.....
Char H. Jun 14, 2012, 6:47pm UTC
George, However you want to view spending, the fact is we are still not growing jobs even enough to keep up with the number of people new to the job market, much less alleviate the unemployment situation. This in addition to the underemployed and part timers.
George Shaw Jun 14, 2012, 7:08pm UTC
Yes, Char, but again, unless you want to be uninformed, you know that the Republican controlled House and the Republican use of the filibuster has stopped all legislation that would begin to move the economy forward again. The stimulus bill that was passed, when the Democrats controlled the House and had the ability to end the filibuster in the Senate, has run out. It perked the economy up, but more was needed.
Char H. Jun 14, 2012, 9:28pm UTC
If that had been used more wisely the people would not be so outraged. The stimulus could have been issued directly to the people to better use than it had.
George Shaw Jun 15, 2012, 3:22am UTC
I believe you are talking about the bank bail-outs, and that was done under Bush. It started in 2008 before the election. The stimulus was mainly spent on infrastructure and state and local projects.
Char H. Jun 15, 2012, 10:26am UTC
George, That is what they said it was spent on, but it really was a sham. Did you follow the online reporting, back when the appearance of transparency was still being made? The Washington Examiner showed how much was actually used to create jobs, and it was pitiful! I will see if that info is still up. I did quick calculations and what a joke! When I looked, each job cost a couple hundred thousand dollars, and in the investigation they found that many of the reported jobs were exaggerated or non existent. That was the biggest sham on earth! The grants were not used wisely. I know Bush set it up, but Obama was the one who executed it, and killed the standing of bond holders in the car companies, illegally avoiding bankruptcy rules to the extent that even those who had driven the companies into the dirt were rewarded, while the people paid for their ineptness. Instead of paying the people who had invested in them, the they just got pushed to the side.
George Shaw Jun 16, 2012, 12:38am UTC
Char, you are mixing the stimulus bill, the bank bailout, and the auto bailout all together. The bank bailout was don in 2008, and Obama didn't become president until Jan. 2009. The Auto bailout allowed the auto companies to file bankruptcy, and then loaned them the money needed to get going again. Most of that money has been repaid, and all of it will be repaid.
There was some cobbling of the stimulus in some of the Republican led states. Some used the money to reduce their deficit instead of keeping their employees, but most of it made significant improvements in the economy. That and the auto bailouts were the only things that caused any recovery. It was interesting, but expected, that many of the Republicans who opposed the stimulus then got pictures of themselves handing out the stimulus checks at the various bridge and highway projects.

Join the Conversation
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Already a member? Sign in
top
 
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Version 18247, "Zach"; Copyright © 2013 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.