How does it make you feel, Republicans, to get bailed out by Socialism?
McCain is Mr. De-Regulation. His financial guru, Phil Graham, is also a champion for de-regulation.
Our largest financial institutions are now crumbling due to this de-regulation.
The Republican version of Capitalism has failed, and now the government takes over, a la Socialism.
Oh, McCain invented the Blackberry too.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
In fact, it was taxpayers that bailed out "businesses/banks"...Republicans were not bailed out.
This fiasco has roots long before McCain...Fannie Mae was created under FDR, as was the entire socialist doctrine of Social Security which has failed utterly. Capitalism and U.S. taxpayers are the only thing that has allowed the government to bail out that sad socialist system for this long.
Also, the idea "to" bail out any business because it fails is not intelligent or responsible. If the business proves itself incapable of making a profit and surviving the grind on it's own merit through competitiveness in the free market then it does not deserve our time and energy, and certainly not a subsidy forced from taxpayers. We simply need to ditch it and start over. This way the same mistakes will not be repeated with the notion that if the going gets rough the government will take money from the people to bail that business out.
It's a horrible precedent to set.
- 1 decade ago
Okay so here's what this ordinary American thinks...is it FAIR that the fed made the loan to AIG? Certainly not..especially when so many Americans are going under financially...but what would you have them do? Stand by and watch our economy completely tank? Let more than 100,000 individuals (with families no less) lose their jobs, their pensions, and their insurance? How about the 75 million customers of AIG that would be without insurance?
If AIG went under, trust me, it would have taken a heck of a lot of the rest of America with it. I don't like it...but I don't see where the fed had any other option.
What I absolutely oppose is the fact that the CEO of AIG that is responsible for this whole mess will be losing his job but walking away with over 8 million dollars in severance..personally I think that should have been one of the conditions of the bailout...the CEO walks without a DIME.
And just for the record (lest you think I'm a McCain apologist) I'm a registered democrat that will be pulling the lever for Obama/Biden in November.
- Arbgre555Lv 51 decade ago
The saddest part is that if they weren't so amped up about de-regulation for the last 70+ years, the government would not be engaged in socialist practices by owning 79% of AIG. Government oversight, such as legislation Obama had introduced over the last few years, would not have government ownership but would have likely quelled the rampant and hyper greed that caused exceedingly bad loans to be issued.
Corporate welfare at its highest under this Bush/McCain administration. Government security blankets for the most well to do. Do you think they would bail out a small businessman in a small town? NO WAY. Only fat-cats on Wall Street for the Republicans.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Let's see. Bill Clinton deregulated banks and other financial institutions. He also "encouraged" these financial institutions to make loans to people who had lower incomes in order to make the "American Dream" come true for them. Congress did approve these measures and last I checked many people in congress were democrats. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and it is the Republicans fault, according to you. The federal reserve has granted a major company a LOAN (capitalism). However, I do not see this as capitalism failing. I see this as capitalism doing what it does. If you make bad financial decisions you must suffer the consequences.
Socialism has failed miserably in every country in which it has been tried. I have hope that the American people will see it for what it is and reject it as they have done in the past.
For an intellectual your last statement shows an extreme lack of intelligence.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- justgoodfolkLv 71 decade ago
They're all for wealth distribution as long as it's from the poor and middle class to the wealthy elite and not the other way around.
Welfare is OK if it's to bailout companies and save the CEO's from losing their obscene wealth but never to save a poor person who's hungry or can't feed their kids, that's the real America.
In the United States, the wealthiest country in the world, 36 million Americans live in poverty - earning less than $20,650 for a family of four in 2007. Another one in six Americans struggle to make ends meet on incomes between 100% and 200% of poverty ( $20,650 to about $40,000 for a family of four). More than 12 million American children grow up in impoverished homes. When compared with 20 other wealthy nations on measures of health, safety and relative poverty, America's children fare amongst the worst.
That's the real American dream, a living nightmare
Still If Hugo Chavez had nationalized two huge Venezuelan corporations without a vote, Bush and the rest of the American corporate politicians would have called him a communist dictator, yet in the US this decision is not even questioned.
"The endless invocations of the virtues of private enterprise, individual entrepreneurship and self-reliance, used to demonize socialism and defend a system that exploits the vast majority for the benefit of a financial elite, have been exposed as frauds. When it comes to big capital, losses are socialized. Only profits remain private.
The same forces who year after year have inveighed against “big government” in order to justify the removal of all legal impediments to the accumulation of corporate profits and private fortunes, and carry out the destruction of social safeguards for the working class, have engineered a massive expansion of government power to safeguard the interests of the financial elite.
The bailout has as well exposed the real relations of political power and influence behind the façade of American democracy. The largest government bailout of private companies in world history—whose ultimate cost to taxpayers is likely to reach hundreds of billions—was sanctioned in advance by the Democratic Congress and given instant approval by the leadership of both parties and both of their presidential candidates.
There have been no investigations into the greatest financial scandal in world history. Neither party has any interest in bringing to light the swindling and skullduggery of the Wall Street moguls, because they are both bound hand and foot to those responsible for the financial debacle.
What has been revealed is the existence in the United States, behind the increasingly tattered veneer of democratic institutions, of a plutocracy—the political rule of the rich. When it comes to the basic interests of the financial aristocracy, both parties and all of the official institutions of society snap to attention and do the bidding of their Wall Street masters."
For its part, the Wall Street Journal, the unwavering champion of “free market” capitalism, published an editorial Tuesday entitled “Surviving the Panic.” It argued for a massive government intervention to buy up all of the worthless paper on the books of Wall Street’s finance houses and thereby secure their profits together with the multi-million-dollar incomes of their top executives.
The newspaper warned ominously, “More major bank failures are a certainty, including some very large ones.”
Its solution? The setting up of a new Resolution Trust Corporation, of the type created during the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, which would “provide a buyer for securities for which there is no market.” In other words, the US Treasury’s vaults should be opened up to bail out major Wall Street investors and CEOs who made billions off of a speculative housing bubble that has now burst, precipitating the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s and threatening millions of working people with the loss of their jobs and homes.
Wall Street’s newspaper of record offered no indication of how it would pay for such a bailout for the rich. Undoubtedly, the answer will come after the November election, in the form of a ferocious assault on working class living standards and the dismantling of what remains of America’s tattered social safety net, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
It feels horrible, I have never felt so bad about my government until they started giving money away to corporations (on top of that it is corporations who actively participated in debt selling, which in the end is one method of taking advantage of ignorant poor people).
Our largest financial intituations are crumbling because of greed which led to horrible business practices. Let them go out of business, which will in turn teach future corporations to be responsible. Bailing them out gives them no reason to change their practices in the future.
- 1 decade ago
kind of weird isnt it?
Bush known as a conservative republican being the one to make history in the USA with the biggest socialist measures ever.
and to add to that, lets not forget how Bush has relied on the tyrannical dictatorship in commie china to fund his record budget deficits and keep the USA afloat.
But try getting republicans to admit that its their republican policies that have led to the meltdown.........you won't have any luck there.
(EDIT) janice h. I just read your post. Its a very funny one and very mumble jumbled. come again?
you are blaming the Bush depression on clinton who you say deregulated? oh..I see...and deregulation is not a core ideology of the GOP and Bush? lol and lets see a republican adminstration is taking over and bailout all the large financial institutions after their failed policies and you are claiming democrats are doing the socializing? lol
you republicans are very funny.
Your answer is proof of why I have a name that I like to call you guys.
- T SLv 51 decade ago
I recall that our country was completely out of debt on Bill Clinton's watch. We did not owe China a dime, AND we had a surplus of funds. I guess Republicans do not recall this. They were too busy worrying about(and spending our tax dollars) investigating his sex life.
- whimsyLv 51 decade ago
Nah, this isn't socialism - it's, it's it's... trickle down. Or maybe this is charity - that's right, helping the less fortunate corporations... And not to get religious, but those CEOs don't have Golden Parachutes - those are angel wings!
- thegubmintLv 71 decade ago
Socialism would mean that the government nationalized the corporations. This is government support of the corporations, which is more of the Fascist thing you guys have been bleating about for years.
Wish you'd make up your minds.