Anybody think it was STILL a good idea to save the banks?

[Ken Burch]

Given how much they've "repayed" the rest of us?

Anybody think any president from this party should ever defer to corporate power like that again?

[valerief]

1. Banks are like Coca Cola. They add no value to life, only fat. nt

[dkf]

4. Well I"m glad you had that several hundred thousand stashed

in your mattress so you could buy a house.

[Ken Burch]

10. It didn't have to come to that.

We never had to save the arrogant and the selfish to save the country. Why don't you free your mind?

We can run the country ourselves, and we can run the economy ourselves. We are not dependent on economics of, by, and for the bastards.

[dkf]

11. I'm saying if you don't like the banks don't use the banks.

That really is the best revenge. And most of the banks paid off their loans. Only the true deadbeats still owe.

[Ken Burch]

14. I'm in a credit union, so I DON'T actually use a bank.

n/t.

[dkf]

Me too. See how nice that feels?

But I'm just saying that Banking as function is a necessary evil.

[babylonsister]

2. Beddy bye for you, Ken. I hope. nt

[Ken Burch]

3. Corporations are the enemy of "Hope"

This week should've taught you that.

[Cleita]

5. I never thought it was a good idea.

Socialist that I am, I thought they should be nationalized and restructured. But if they had put a bunch of Goldman Sachs alumni in charge maybe it wouldn't have worked out so well anyway.

[OhioBlue]

6. Which political party are you referencing? n/t

[sandnsea]

7. Nah. I'd much rather be in a tent out in a blizzard

You sound more like a Republican every day. Do you listen to yourself?

[Ken Burch]

8. It was never a question of saving banks or living in tents

We should have taken the banks and run them for the good of the people. Instead, we rewarded the rich for being arrogant and ensured that they'll get to go on being bastards forever, when nothing they do out of short-term self-interest and greed is ever to the good of the rest of us.

We could have reshaped the country. Instead, we just locked in the status quo for decades. Is there a REASON you prefer economic royalism?

[sandnsea]

18. Yes, it was

First of all - they LOST trillions of dollars. Poof. Gone. Bye Bye. Get it?

Second, since all the banks knew all the other banks LOST all the money - they sure as hell weren't going to trust them to do normal business with. If you knew everybody in your neighborhood was completely broke, no job, no money, nothing to sell, and in debt on top of it; would you be the community banker?

Third, if the country had really gotten a real handle on what had happened, how long do you think it would have taken for riots to break out?

And if you don't see 3/4 of the country living in tents as a result, well it's because you've got the curse of the Republican, no foresight and no imagination.

[Ken Burch]

21. Even if they HAD to be saved, you'd have to concede that it was wrong

not to use the process to force them to change. Even if they had to be saved, the process of saving them didn't have to include on signing off on preserving the financial status quo.

The banks SHOULD have been treated by the administration like the IMF treats debtor nations. Instead, they were treated like the last administration treated Texas oilmen. Doesn't that bother you at all?

What did we ever have to lose by using the moment to humble the bastards?

[tabatha]

9. Do you remember when people were taking cash ouf of the banks

just in case.

I knew one person who was so worried - that a bunch of cash was taken out of the bank.

Is anybody thinking of that now?

[HughMoran]

12. I was hoping for a depression too

Me and you - praying for the worst - we failed :(

[Ken Burch]

13. Again, that wasn't the only alternative

The sensible and positive choice would've been taking over the banks and restructuring them to be run democratically and on humane social values.

It was never "save the silk suits or we die".

[HughMoran]

15. The government take over of the banks wasn't a good idea either

I personally would have liked that option, but the mechanics of doing that and coordinating ARRA & other necessary measures would have overwhelmed Obama the rookie. As it is, his learning curve hasn't exactly been "fast learner".

[tranche]

16. Any president from any party that wouldn't defer wouldn't be president.

[PBS Poll-435]

17. Yep

nt

[grantcart]

26. But bank runs are so much fun!

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. It was necessary

[avaistheone1]

23. Why?

Because they held a gun to Congress' head?

[Ken Burch]

24. Because too many people are afraid to stand up to corporate power

What was lost can't be regained. The criminals were rewarded. All the bankers are laughing at us and none will change their ways.
It could have been different.

[TheKentuckian]

20. Yeah, but they should have been put on a leash on the spot.

and probably nationalized but fuck it remains the wrong answer.

[Garam_Masala]

22. Never a good idea to bail out greed and stupid management eom

[andym]

25. Saving them no problem, but in return they should have been subjected to serious rules

and regulations to control their greed-driven behavor, during and after the crisis. For example, driving up credit card rates (in many cases irrespective of consumer credit ratings) to help their businesses is not good for the economy, nor for Americans.