Re: U.S. Lawmakers Clash Over Nationalizing Banks to Stem ...

[Guest guest]

I agree.

However, I will add that it would also help is some of these banking people who made out with hundreds of millions of dollars, like Obama's Chicago friend who ruined Merril Lynch (the one who walked away with $100 million), were at the front of the forced labor line. Take away all of their ill gotten gains to pay down on the debts of those who did rightly. Since most of the people who did right would be the kind to keep an eye on what the banks and such are doing would see this as an incentive to keep an even closer eye on the CEO's and such, since catching them being bad again would mean they would get the money those CEO's were trying to steal. Not well explained here, sorry.

Those at the top need to be punished as well as those at the bottom. Country club prisons with billions in hidden accounts waiting for them when they get out in a couple of years is no deterrent at all. Ruination and a lifetime of picking vegetables would be far more intimidating.

The market is jittery because they don't know what the government is going to do regarding regulation, nationalization and taxation. The best thing Obama could do would be to cut corporate and capital gains taxes to world average and lock them there for at least his entire term. If he also cracked down on unions and told businesses no more bailouts, its bankruptcy for you, the economy would shake itself out in a year or two at the most. Granted there would be some hard knocks, but recovery would be much more certain.

In a message dated 2/21/2009 2:25:44 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

My comments in RED. Need a job? Find an employment agency near you.

[Guest guest]

" Those at the top need to be punished as well as those at the bottom. "

Where there were crimes committed, yes. But one needs to understand

that TECHNICALLY SPEAKING no crimes were committed it many of these

cases.

The reason investment execs can look like war profiteers in these

troubled times is because they get a cut of the commissions whether

their clients buy or sell.

If their client wants to invest in an investment that is going to

cause them to lose all their money, it's their job to sell those

shares.

If their client wants to sell shares in stock which is about to spike

upward in value, it's their job to sell those shares.

If folks at, say AIG invested in bad investments, it's because their

competition was doing it in an attempt to run them out of business,

and the reason they or their competition could make those bad

investments is because they are legal investments and the government

was pushing them to do it to keep the " continuing economic growth "

illusion intact.

What happened with many of these firms is that they had their claws

into so many different organizations that if they died, then it would

be a huge crash across the board, and so the government propped them

up.

The government is at faul for deregulating the banking industry and

for permitting investment firms to make investments prohibited in

other countries. In my opinion, the CEOS are entitled to their

massive salaries, and this opinion comes from someone who has lost a

little money in the market recently.

If the firms were doing something illegal, then of course the CEOs

ought to nailed for it.

Administrator