Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, but only in extreme circumstances

    There should be a time when banks get bailed out, but the time we just went through was not one of them. If banks get into investments that go horribly wrong due to circumstances that are really beyond what anyone could have expected and the consequences will disproportionately hurt people's ability to maintain a minimum quality of life, then it would be in the public interest to head off the problem by helping the bank rather than trying to clean up after the fall out.

  • Banks Should Not Be Bailed out with public funds

    If a bank is on the verge of failure, it has already proven that it is not capable of sustaining itself. It is the responsibility of the banks to function properly. If they just do their job the system works well but they still have to mess things up. The government will suffer whether they bail the banks out or not. It is unfair to the people.

  • Fool Me Once, Fool Me Twice

    The banks shouldn't be "too big to fail" anymore. Republicans allegedly believe in a free market economy. If that were true, all of the banks who went bust due to bad mortgages should be out of business right now. Yes, the unemployment situation would have gotten worse. The auto industry would have failed and there could be huge lines at soup kitchens like during the Great Depression. Next time, banks should have to declare bankruptcy just like ordinary citizens if they do things to make themselves unprofitable.

  • After the last banking collapse and bailouts, banks should no longer receive bailout funding

    I believe that the banks which received substantial bailout funds from the public after the economic collapse of 2008 were extremely fortunate to be bailed out of their self-made financial holes. I feel that if banks continue to practice the same risky (and often unethical) means of operation and fail, that they should no longer receive bailouts with public money.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.