http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/wall-street-socialism

Some results of this kind of policy thinking:

http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html#more

You know I don't get this. We've got the "free market" types, always crying about regulation. So, they work hard with the Republicans to give themselves more rope, then expect us to pay for their losses, while they continue to earn their keep.

Another thing, say we've got a corporation that banked a lot of profit. We then find, a significant share of that came from failure to perform due dilligence with regard to the core elements of their business.

Let's call this necessary costs. Could be maintenance, could be simple risk management, and other core things.

They then run up some pretty huge losses. Why are they not required to surrender some of that profit to recover, rebuild, compensate, etc... just like ordinary people would have to do?

If I, for example, increased my monthly liquid income by failing to maintain my car, then had it break, I would have to buy another car. I put this "extra" income in the bank, hoping risk does not require me to pay the piper.

Could do credit, but that's a loan that comes with a longer term cost. Could also take that "extra" income and deal with that car too.

Each one costs, it's just about how that cost is distributed.

If we have rules that corporations are people too, how come we don't hold them to the same standards then?

It's almost as if you can just get through a quarter, no matter how, then that money is "made" and cannot be touched, leaving public dollars and resources to pull from, should problems occur.

Now, there is also a case for things like welfare socalizing "losses" right? But, to get these kinds of things, you first need to have drained your reserves and not have assets to be leveraged, not be working, and other such things.

That's it, just a rant.