Let them sink.
When a business fails, it goes under. That is the threat that drives competition and good business models. Start throwing rescue plans and bailouts around, and not only do we waste money - but we do so to our own demise. Competition disappears, and companies who should have long gone under remain. Such a rescue plan has zero long-term implications; it does nothing to foster competition. It only ensures that poor businesses continue running, and can do so while abandoning all fear of failing. How good is a product going to be if its maker does not have to fear competitors? This has to do not only with the quality of the product, but the efficiency of their entire system, to the Unions, health care, and other bonuses.
Additionally, we can not be so short-sided as to ignore the recent months: bailouts don't work. Especially with the lessons learned from AIG. That kind of thing is despicable, and we need not cater to systems which allow that sort of behavior to thrive.
We've got multi-millionaire CEOs riding first-class in jets asking for billions of dollars. These CEOs aren't alone - they've got men and women right next to them and not far below them making the same kind of cash - more in one year than most of us will make in a life time. How much of the money they're asking for will go to those salaries?
The moment we have the federal government in bed with private corporations, using tax dollars to keep failed businesses afloat, you might as well forget everything you know about capitalism.
When businesses fail, they fail.
No one was making a stand when hundreds of thousands were losing their homes; you don't see the governement knocking on your door with a rescue plan if you make poor decisions and a failed mortgage results.
Business decisions have consequences, and to assert that a business can do as they please, then get federal money when things go south, is absurd.
Accountability should be demanded, and responsibilty must be owned.
Let 'em sink - but at the expense of the directors, CEOs, and chairmen/women. Use their ridiculous salaries to help the standard employees make it. Divy up those billions of dollars to support the regular workers, their pensions, and the aid they need when they lose their jobs and pensions. Those are the people that need rescuing, not the sinking businesses.
The purposal that the rich get off scot-free (with bonuses) while the responsibility of their mistakes is put on the rest of us to shoulder and burden is so outrageous that it is without definition.
These companies should go under, and the only rescuing being considered should be for the working and pension-earning men and women who would lose their income, and the dollars required for that should come from the billions held by the CEOs and managers. Sell the jets, the company cars, and support the workers - not the greed.
When a business fails, it goes under. That is the threat that drives competition and good business models. Start throwing rescue plans and bailouts around, and not only do we waste money - but we do so to our own demise. Competition disappears, and companies who should have long gone under remain. Such a rescue plan has zero long-term implications; it does nothing to foster competition. It only ensures that poor businesses continue running, and can do so while abandoning all fear of failing. How good is a product going to be if its maker does not have to fear competitors? This has to do not only with the quality of the product, but the efficiency of their entire system, to the Unions, health care, and other bonuses.
Additionally, we can not be so short-sided as to ignore the recent months: bailouts don't work. Especially with the lessons learned from AIG. That kind of thing is despicable, and we need not cater to systems which allow that sort of behavior to thrive.
We've got multi-millionaire CEOs riding first-class in jets asking for billions of dollars. These CEOs aren't alone - they've got men and women right next to them and not far below them making the same kind of cash - more in one year than most of us will make in a life time. How much of the money they're asking for will go to those salaries?
The moment we have the federal government in bed with private corporations, using tax dollars to keep failed businesses afloat, you might as well forget everything you know about capitalism.
When businesses fail, they fail.
No one was making a stand when hundreds of thousands were losing their homes; you don't see the governement knocking on your door with a rescue plan if you make poor decisions and a failed mortgage results.
Business decisions have consequences, and to assert that a business can do as they please, then get federal money when things go south, is absurd.
Accountability should be demanded, and responsibilty must be owned.
Let 'em sink - but at the expense of the directors, CEOs, and chairmen/women. Use their ridiculous salaries to help the standard employees make it. Divy up those billions of dollars to support the regular workers, their pensions, and the aid they need when they lose their jobs and pensions. Those are the people that need rescuing, not the sinking businesses.
The purposal that the rich get off scot-free (with bonuses) while the responsibility of their mistakes is put on the rest of us to shoulder and burden is so outrageous that it is without definition.
These companies should go under, and the only rescuing being considered should be for the working and pension-earning men and women who would lose their income, and the dollars required for that should come from the billions held by the CEOs and managers. Sell the jets, the company cars, and support the workers - not the greed.