Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Bailout Wednesday

Why is bailing out the rich good and necessary, while helping the working poor always bad economic policy?

Where are the rigorous, manly proponents of social Darwinism when it is their turn to have the note called, the loan refused, and the mortgage foreclosed?

Is there a way to blame all of this on illegal immigrants?


Blogger The Weaver of Grass said...

Hi sonnets at 4am! Like your cartoon. This stock market "crash" situation gives food for thought wherever one lives. It seems to me that if you have no money you are a lot less worried at the moment. Sadly money has become the building blocks of everything. Bring back the stone age and barter I say!!

11:06 AM  
Blogger Happyflower said...

I was wondering the same thing lately. If they made their the bed, they need to sleep it it is what I think. Kinda reminds me of parenting, if you bail your children out of all the messes they create, they come to expect it, and the bad behavior continues and doesn't teach them anything.
Where do you get your pictures for you blog, they are so good.

1:47 PM  
Blogger Nin Andrews said...

Ah, but they left Lehman Brothers out in the cold. So maybe they weren't smoking the right dope? But then -- there's Goldman Sachs sitting pretty- the one that managed to profit from the subprime mortgage crisis by selling them short ---betting on the collapse . . . What a strange world it all is . . . Interestingly, Wall Street is favoring Obama for president. But there may be more than business reasons for that . . .

2:55 PM  
Blogger Talia said...

To answer your question "why is bailing out the rich good and necessary?" I don't think anyone would agree that it's good. I think most would agree that it's awful and let's let them suffer and all of that...but unfortunately that plan only ends up hurting everyone else down the pyramid.

We could go the Chineese route and do the capitalism within the confines of facism. Perhaps that would work.

5:41 PM  
Blogger greg rappleye said...

If we are going to have socialism for the rich, why not socialized medicine?

7:55 PM  
Blogger maeve63 said...

Not that I enjoy paying the price through tax payer dollars but...I do know why they decided to go for the bail out. It's like this...our economy (which drives the world economy)is in the worst condition it's been in since the great depression. That said, AIG is one of, if not the, world's largest investers in Money Market Funds. These funds, until now, have been considered the stable "safe" way to go. Basically, people tend to think of them as untouchable. The truth of the matter is this...if AIG collapsed it would have taken out the money market funds of over 3 million money market investors in the US alone. Knowing that, the government was trying to prevent a "run" on the money maket funds that would have followed. People are seriously panicy here folks, and read your history, that's what caused the crash of Wall Street before, panic. The government is fighting to keep people calm. If they think their money is not safe people WILL take it back and that's how the run starts. Seriously, you know the world's economic integrity is totally messed up when you here top financial advisors saying things like, "Don't panic, this is not the end of capitalism." Sorry for the extremely long feed, just trying to give some perspective.

10:21 PM  
Blogger Talia said...

That's a great point, Greg. But socialism for the rich isn't really socialism, is it? The rich usually are the ones paying all the taxes (really, almost all of them). I'm not saying because of that they deserve any bailouts--heavens no!--but really, think about it, we need big business bad. We need to find ways to have government oversight without infringing. Where is the check and balance for the greedy exploiters of capitalism?

10:38 PM  
Blogger Hannah said...

Because poor people are lazy, the rich are hardworking, and socialized programs and resources like tap water and public education are nothing but Communist propaganda. Jeez, Dad. Don't you know anything?

12:15 AM  
Blogger greg rappleye said...


As a percentage of actual income, it simply is not true that the rich are paying most of the taxes. Under socialism, the rich would pay most of the taxes.

As it is now, what is left of the middle class in America subsidizes the rich--tax-wise.

7:17 AM  
Blogger Talia said...

And I think the definitions of middle class and rich are necessary at some point. There are lots of lines that need to be defined as afar as what percentages are "fair" and at what amounts of money those percentages fall into place.

Last time I checked, my husband paid in over $18,000.00 a year in taxes. That's taxes that are withheld from his paycheck. Of course there are more, like property, sales, excise, etc, that greatly increases that number. And then there are the taxes that I pay from my paycheck. Some, many, would say that he should pay more. I'm quite certain tha my Obamam thinks my husband should pay more than that, based on his annual income. And we are clearly, unarguably, middle class.

7:46 AM  
Blogger Talia said...

Please forgive my typos.

7:47 AM  
Blogger greg rappleye said...

The art work, by the way, is an old recruiting poster for the International Workers of the World (the "Wobblies").

1:32 PM  
Blogger Dominic Rivron said...

The Wobblies! I read about them a long time ago - you've got me thinking of looking into it all again. I love the poster. The structure looks like it might be pretty wobbly in more ways than one.

10:24 AM  
Blogger Dominic Rivron said...

An afterthought. I can't remember where these words come from (the Threepenny Opera?), but I was reminded of:

"Its the same, the whole world over, isnt it a crying shame?,
its the rich what gets the pleasure, its the poor what get the blame"

10:33 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home