$35 billion to improve the healthcare of American children or $810 billion to reward corporate malfeasance?Easy choice.
Piece. Of. Cake.
.
$35 billion to improve the healthcare of American children or $810 billion to reward corporate malfeasance?
9 comments:
You know sometimes I really can't figure the real objections of some Republican leaders, is it out of just pure greed, like "pay me, f' yall"...or, do they have some kind of sad interest in seeing the continuation of something I feel is really unfortunate, like millions of children without health care...Same folks who claim "pro-life", and don't give a damn about these same children once they're born...
Well said, Rick.
Today, BoingBoing had a post titled "Bailout costs more than Marshall Plan, Louisiana Purchase, moonshot, S&L bailout, Korean War, New Deal, Iraq war, Vietnam war, and NASA's lifetime budget -- *combined*!"
Is there an acceptable solution that addresses the healthcare issue and keeps our financial infrastructure in some kind of shape, you know, the folks that provide the credit to loan the money to create the inventory to sell the products that make the payroll to pay the poor overworked exploited union member, so he can bitch about being exploited and underpaid, rather than bitching about not having a job?
I am repulsed by the whole "ride-the-private-jet-to-ask-for-a handout" thing. I am. And I think the bailout strategy screams for some real austere management conditions. I do.
But to claim the bailout, or better yet the intent of the bailout, as some kind of reward for corporate malfeasance, reminds me of why grandma stuck to her, ahem, knitting.Unless, of course, grandma knew something about the market. And not the farmer's market.
In short, I mildly disagree.
NM,
Discussing the "bailout" in its broadest sense seems to be the biggest problem.
Getting to the details is critical. So, looking at the Citi situation, "Sending such a giant pile of money over to Citigroup without removing the management, without clawing back the fortunes the management earned creating the mess, without adequately diluting the ownership stake of the bailed-out shareholders, and without taking any control on the board of directors is ridiculous."
(h/t myglesias)
-g
Gus, I have no problem with the gov't naming its price, so to speak. Keeping in mind that the greatest business skill government has should be a conviction to stay out of business wherever possible. No one in this mess should ever get off scott-free.
Having said that, my objection is to any opposition to such government intervention as some kind of reward for fat-cats. Because it uses a shorthand wholly ignorant (whether intentional or not) of the very real reasons why the conversation is being had in the first place.
To disagree with government intervention on free-market bases, or on the details of the plan, or even its execution is one thing. To oppose it on what sounds like more trumped up class warfare is quite another.
I'm with Nonee here. I'd be wary to advocate a complete takeover by the government, with board control, etc; as the fix. It sounds nice to the Kos audience but it isn't realistic. A big part of why the financial institutions are in the mess they are is shareholder and market pressure, is opening the door to widespread political pressure the best way to fix them? Shouting points and easy reactions aside -"three private jets!"- let's not just substitute a culture of excess and recklesness for another.
But Nonee, you'll agree that the principle of Rick's post is aligned with yours. The opposition to any kind of healthcare initiative that sounds "socialistic" comes often from an oportunistic ideological stance -e.g: "no adults on SCHIP!"- and not from careful analysis of the details.
Nonee: The U.S. Govt. certainly doesn't intend to have this bailout act as a reward, but that's the message it sends to large corporations.
Do not plan for the future, lend unwisely, be greedy...and expect the G to be there to help you out when it all falls apart so you can continue to get your big paycheck and live in your big house and fly in your big private jets.
The bailout rewards and reinforces corporate malfeasance because there is virtually no penalty for acting irresponsibly.
.
Then change the message, Rick. But remember, there's a baby in the bathwater.
Alex, you'll see that I only mildly disagreed with Rick. Yes, I believe that ideological shorthand is a comfy couch upon which potatoes of all kinds rest their massive haunches. It beats actually thinking for a living...
Perhaps it's time for some type of corporate forfeiture statute, to get the CEO's skin back in the game. Can't imagine how it would trump a contract though, or how anyone other than the board itself could avail itself of it. You know, so it doesn't look all socialistic.
Intended or not, it's still a reward. I think the message in the original post remains spot on.
.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.