Who is on Blagojevich's side?
posted by dennisn on December 9th, 2008 at 2:40PM
posted by dennisn on December 9th, 2008 at 2:40PM
You neglected to mention that Bank of America itself asked and accepted $15B from the government. That effectively made them a government organization. The government is very proficient at growing it's tentacles of power. It is a professional in this task, and indeed this is it's sole raison d'être.
I fear that listening to Daniel complain all the time, though often times (not always) assuring, warps my view of reality. Does anyone here actually feel that such government intervention is a good thing? Ricky? ;)--who at one point (still?) supported the bailouts. Vina?--the communist-agnostic. Nylorac?--the apolitical. Pasofol|Driusan?--the closet-communists? ManosLocas?--the aspiring-capitalist? Cadia?--who never visits my site, even though she can reach it at blazing fast LAN speeds?
I fear that listening to Daniel complain all the time, though often times (not always) assuring, warps my view of reality. Does anyone here actually feel that such government intervention is a good thing? Ricky? ;)--who at one point (still?) supported the bailouts. Vina?--the communist-agnostic. Nylorac?--the apolitical. Pasofol|Driusan?--the closet-communists? ManosLocas?--the aspiring-capitalist? Cadia?--who never visits my site, even though she can reach it at blazing fast LAN speeds?
Poll: Who is on Blagojevich's side?
Me. (1/3) 33%
Not Me. (2/3) 67%
(The title of your last reply gets polled.)
|
Me.
posted by Vina on December 11th, 2008 at 6:50PM I change my mind. Legally, these employees should be paid. The money can go both ways, in legal terms (so whichever side gets the money, really depends on the lawyers). Since the Bank is filthy rich, just give the money to the employees.
Sorry Dennis. Balance is what brought me to this conclusion. Yet, I'm not on Blagojevich's money laundering side. |
|
Not Me
posted by Vina on December 10th, 2008 at 6:57PM It really sucks for the employees. I would be pissed off if I didn't get paid. However, Bank of America is not to be blamed because the company is not creditworthy...just how general business works.
|
|
posted by dsk on December 9th, 2008 at 4:19PM
>You neglected to mention that Bank of America itself asked and accepted $15B from the government.
There's the rub, no such thing as free money. Either way, I doubt the bailout money was supposed to be used to continue to make high-risk loans to sub-par borrowers. I'm going to repost a pretty good comment on this matter from another site. The comment is a response to the aritlce titled: "Bank of America's Greed Sparked the Eye-Opening Worker's Strike in Chicago. The bank took $25 billion of taxpayers' cash, but wouldn't lend Republic Windows and Doors the money it needed to keep going." Here it is: <i> First, the funds put into the banks were to provide liquidity for credit-worthy borrowers- not just every Tom, Dick and Harry that comes along.I don't know about where you live, but nobody is remodeling houses or building new ones because the market is flooded. If the market is dried up the company is NOT a good credit risk. Good for Bank of America. Second, Bank of America only took funds at the insistence of the Treasury AFTER they saved taxpayers $50 Billion by absorbing the essentially illiquid Merrill Lynch and much more by absorbing Countrywide- up to it's neck in non-performing loans. Bank of America wasn't in the dire straits many others were in like Wachovia, CitiBank and others. The taxpayers are ahead with Bank of America right now. Third. the responsibility to pay out wages and benefits earned is the employer's- not the employer's bank. I could buy GM if Goldman would only loan me a couple of Billion. Does that make Goldman evil or wrong if they turn me down? No. Fourth, in a city the size of Chicago I am sure any number of banks can be found that would gladly lend to a GOOD CREDIT RISK. If the company isn't a good credit risk, any banker would be negligent in their duties to do so. Business is business- not feel good politics. The company can take it's business anywhere it wants to- BofA just said no and that is their right under the law and the credit agreement. Fifth, this is the kind of low information scape-goating that gives progressives/liberals a bad name among the rest of the populace. Bank of America has no legal obligation to make a questionable loan to a poor credit risk in a deepening recession nor does any other well run bank. It's exactly this kind of crap that got the sub-prime mess started in the first place. The Federal program assisting and stabilizing the financial system was not designed as a jobs program, an employment program or a bail out for poorly run or unfortunate businesses. The program was designed to stabilize a rapidly developing worldwide liquidity crisis that could have caused a massive and sharp worldwide depression combines with cascading bank failures that would take good companies down with everyone else. I feel sorry for the workers done unjustly by their employer, but don't attack their creditors for doing their fiduciary responsibility. If Bank of America or any other bank denies credit on anything other than sound business principles they are open to legal recourse. If the company or it's workers think they have a case they are free to hire counsel and go to court. </i>
|
