Why do Americans get so upset when your government tries to save US companies?

Like AIG for example. Yeah it might be their own fault they are in a mess, but it would be much worse for the US economy and American people in the long run;if big companies like that collapsed. Governments have to step in sometimesto save industries. AIG has millions of customers and thousands of employees. Innocent people who would be at stake, if the government did not step in.

because they should have thrown it away on wars

Cause help is for the weak. Apparently. :?

My uncle had a business that went under a few years ago. He isn't happy about seeing his tax dollars being used to save another company, when his own company was allowed to die. There is something inherently wrong with a system that rewards colossal failures and penalizes small failures.

My uncle had a business that went under a few years ago. He isn't happy about seeing his tax dollars being used to save another company, when his own company was allowed to die. There is something inherently wrong with a system that rewards colossal failures and penalizes small failures.

Oleg_Huzwog

My uncle had a business that went under a few years ago. He isn't happy about seeing his tax dollars being used to save another company, when his own company was allowed to die. There is something inherently wrong with a system that rewards colossal failures and penalizes small failures.

Oleg_Huzwog

generally its better to save a company with thousands of jobs than one with a few

yeah the bailouts were needed. if the govt let what about a dozen of these companies go under.. things would be worseswiftkillz0

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

My uncle had a business that went under a few years ago. He isn't happy about seeing his tax dollars being used to save another company, when his own company was allowed to die. There is something inherently wrong with a system that rewards colossal failures and penalizes small failures.

links136

generally its better to save a company with thousands of jobs than one with a few

[QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

My uncle had a business that went under a few years ago. He isn't happy about seeing his tax dollars being used to save another company, when his own company was allowed to die. There is something inherently wrong with a system that rewards colossal failures and penalizes small failures.

thepwninator

generally its better to save a company with thousands of jobs than one with a few

the 30's

[QUOTE="thepwninator"][QUOTE="links136"]

generally its better to save a company with thousands of jobs than one with a few

links136

the 30's

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

My uncle had a business that went under a few years ago. He isn't happy about seeing his tax dollars being used to save another company, when his own company was allowed to die. There is something inherently wrong with a system that rewards colossal failures and penalizes small failures.

links136

generally its better to save a company with thousands of jobs than one with a few

Numerous massive companies going out of business simultaneously, can potentially be a snowball waiting to roll downhill.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

My uncle had a business that went under a few years ago. He isn't happy about seeing his tax dollars being used to save another company, when his own company was allowed to die. There is something inherently wrong with a system that rewards colossal failures and penalizes small failures.

links136

generally its better to save a company with thousands of jobs than one with a few

Save thousands of jobs at a cost of billions. Save dozens of jobs at a cost of thousands. How is the first better?

[QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="thepwninator"] And why is that?thepwninator

the 30's

There are no small companies that supply jobs nationally

[QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

My uncle had a business that went under a few years ago. He isn't happy about seeing his tax dollars being used to save another company, when his own company was allowed to die. There is something inherently wrong with a system that rewards colossal failures and penalizes small failures.

Oleg_Huzwog

generally its better to save a company with thousands of jobs than one with a few

Save thousands of jobs at a cost of billions. Save dozens of jobs at a cost of thousands. How is the first better?

because all the small companies in America can't touch the number of jobs big companies have.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"][QUOTE="links136"]

the 30's

links136

There are no small companies that supply jobs nationally

[QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

My uncle had a business that went under a few years ago. He isn't happy about seeing his tax dollars being used to save another company, when his own company was allowed to die. There is something inherently wrong with a system that rewards colossal failures and penalizes small failures.

Oleg_Huzwog

generally its better to save a company with thousands of jobs than one with a few

Save thousands of jobs at a cost of billions. Save dozens of jobs at a cost of thousands. How is the first better?

because all the small companies in America can't touch the number of jobs big companies have.

[QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="thepwninator"] It is cheaper to save a thousand companies with a few jobs than a few companies with a thousand jobs. In the end, the result is the same, but it's reached far more cheaply.markop2003

There are no small companies that supply jobs nationally

it would take decades to get all those small companies to go out of business. If a big company were to go out of business, everyone would lose their job at once and the results would be catastrophic .

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="links136"]

generally its better to save a company with thousands of jobs than one with a few

links136

Save thousands of jobs at a cost of billions. Save dozens of jobs at a cost of thousands. How is the first better?

because all the small companies in America can't touch the number of jobs big companies have.

[QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Save thousands of jobs at a cost of billions. Save dozens of jobs at a cost of thousands. How is the first better?

thepwninator

because all the small companies in America can't touch the number of jobs big companies have.

those aren't really that small companies. 50 workers is quite alot.

Well the AIG thing is a different story. It wouldn't have been so bad had they not paid out all those bonuses to their executives. I'm not that into economics or the news, but it seemed to me like they were just dividing up the money so they'd each have something to fall back on when their company inevitably crumbles.

As long as there is a free market there will always be those there to loan others money.....when one business fails...another emerges.....what screws it up is Govt tinkering with the system and artificailly propping up companies.......

As long as there is a free market there will always be those there to loan others money.....when one business fails...another emerges.....what screws it up is Govt tinkering with the system and artificailly propping up companies.......

Omni-Slash

its more to stop investments from disappearing and unemployment from skyrocketing.

its more to stop investments from disappearing and unemployment from skyrocketing.

[QUOTE="links136"]

its more to stop investments from disappearing and unemployment from skyrocketing.

Omni-Slash

the last thing you want during a recession is for unemployment to skyrocket = 30's. If the economy was really strong the bailouts would likely be different

the last thing you want during a recession is for unemployment to skyrocket = 30's. If the economy was really strong the bailouts would likely be differentlinks136

[QUOTE="links136"]the last thing you want during a recession is for unemployment to skyrocket = 30's. If the economy was really strong the bailouts would likely be differentOmni-Slash

so letting unemployemnt rise is the way to go? \

so letting unemployemnt rise is the way to go? \

links136

Bailing out a failure of a company doesn't prevent that from happening; it only delays it.

so letting unemployemnt rise is the way to go? links136

[QUOTE="links136"]so letting unemployemnt rise is the way to go? Omni-Slash

I don't think you realize how much unemployment rising has an affect on the economy, being it in a recession and all. If there were no bailouts, unemployment would rise at least 20% immediately. Those 20% then either have to go on welfare, find another job or go on the streets. Those 20% aren't going to be spending any money either, and if thsoe 20% arn't spending anything, that means alot less income for other businesses, then those businesses have to cut back because profits are falling, so more jobs are lost, and thus unemployment rises. Then those that have jobs are going to start saving everything they have instead of spending incase they lose their jobs too because so many people have already, and then theres less people spending money and thus companies have to cut back even more cutting more jobs until it gets to the point of the 30's.

With the bailouts, the companies keep all those jobs and everyone can still spend money and keep the economy going until it gains strength again.

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="links136"]so letting unemployemnt rise is the way to go? links136

I don't think you realize how much unemployment rising has an affect on the economy, being it in a recession and all. If there were no bailouts, unemployment would rise at least 20% immediately. Those 20% then either have to go on welfare, find another job or go on the streets. Those 20% aren't going to be spending any money either, and if thsoe 20% arn't spending anything, that means alot less income for other businesses, then those businesses have to cut back because profits are falling, so more jobs are lost, and thus unemployment rises. Then those that have jobs are going to start saving everything they have instead of spending incase they lose their jobs too because so many people have already, and then theres less people spending money and thus companies have to cut back even more cutting more jobs until it gets to the point of the 30's.

With the bailouts, the companies keep all those jobs and everyone can still spend money and keep the economy going until it gains strength again.

[QUOTE="links136"]the last thing you want during a recession is for unemployment to skyrocket = 30's. If the economy was really strong the bailouts would likely be differentOmni-Slash

[QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"] for now?...yes....in the long run this will do much more damage to our economy....companies that "can't fail" ....can't succeed........Omni-Slash

I don't think you realize how much unemployment rising has an affect on the economy, being it in a recession and all. If there were no bailouts, unemployment would rise at least 20% immediately. Those 20% then either have to go on welfare, find another job or go on the streets. Those 20% aren't going to be spending any money either, and if thsoe 20% arn't spending anything, that means alot less income for other businesses, then those businesses have to cut back because profits are falling, so more jobs are lost, and thus unemployment rises. Then those that have jobs are going to start saving everything they have instead of spending incase they lose their jobs too because so many people have already, and then theres less people spending money and thus companies have to cut back even more cutting more jobs until it gets to the point of the 30's.

With the bailouts, the companies keep all those jobs and everyone can still spend money and keep the economy going until it gains strength again.

how is keeping jobs going to have unemployment rise to 50 when I explained how doing nothing will do just that?

And depends on what you mean by spending. The government has been spending for 60 years money it doesn't have yet it was spending that got out of the great depression.

and spending money we don't have got us into this mess....how is it going to get us out of it?..... Omni-Slash

how is keeping jobs going to have unemployment rise to 50 when I explained how doing nothing will do just that?

And depends on what you mean by spending. The government has been spending for 60 years money it doesn't have yet it was spending that got out of the great depression.

links136

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]and spending money we don't have got us into this mess....how is it going to get us out of it?..... warbmxjohn

[QUOTE="links136"]

how is keeping jobs going to have unemployment rise to 50 when I explained how doing nothing will do just that?

And depends on what you mean by spending. The government has been spending for 60 years money it doesn't have yet it was spending that got out of the great depression.

Omni-Slash

then what got us out of the great depression? And if you were take all the jobs from companies that are getting bailouts, that would equal to somewhere around 20% +/- 10%. Still a significant number. And how does the governemnt putting money into the economy not help it?