chloe
09-26-2011, 12:42 PM
Federal bailouts reward inefficient and corrupt management, rob taxpayers, hurt smaller and more responsible private firms, exacerbate our budget problems, explode national debt, and destroy our US Dollar. Even more importantly, any bailout of private industry is in direct violation of the constitution. It is a transfer of wealth from those who have earned to those who have squandered. The federal government has overstepped its enumerated powers as stipulated in the supreme law of the land. Rand Paul http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/a-g/bailouts/
Corporate welfare-the enormous and myriad subsidies, bailouts, giveaways, tax loopholes, debt revocations, loan guarantees, discounted insurance and other benefits conferred by government on business-is a function of political corruption. Corporate welfare programs siphon funds from appropriate public investments, subsidize companies ripping minerals from federal lands, enable pharmaceutical companies to gouge consumers, perpetuate anti-competitive oligopolistic markets, injure our national security, and weaken our democracy.At a time when the national GDP is soaring, one in five children lives in deep poverty, one might expect that a public effort to curtail welfare would focus on cutting big handouts to rich corporations, not small supports for poor individuals. But somehow the invocations of the need for stand-on-your-own-two-feet responsibility do not apply to large corporations.At a time when even growing federal budget surpluses do not persuade our nation's political leaders to devote public resources to repairing and enhancing the built elements of our commonwealth-such as the nation's schools, bridges, clinics, roads, drinking water systems, courthouses, public transportation systems, and water treatment facilities-one might expect to see calls to divert taxpayer monies from flowing into private corporate hands and instead direct them to crying public needs. But somehow the cramped federal budget-as well as similarly situated state and local budgets-always has room for another corporate welfare program.This is a deeply rooted problem, one which cuts across party lines. Democrats and Republicans are both culpable for the proliferation of corporate welfare spending. Indeed the leading Congressional crusader against corporate welfare has long been outgoing House Budget Committee Chair John Kasich, R-Ohio, and efforts to forge bipartisan coalitions to take on corporate welfare founder more on lack of Democratic support than Republican.Patching the corporate drain on public resources will require an informed and mobilized citizenry that both forces changes in our systems of campaign finance, lobbying and political influence, and demands careful and critical scrutiny by the media, Congressional committees and ultimately the citizens who lose out from government transfers of resources, privileges, and immunities to corporations...
Ralph Nader http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Nader/CutCorpWelfare_Nader.html
U.S. Government Corporate Bailouts
1970 – 2008
In 2008, the United States government got heavily involved in the corporate world as it bailed out several corporations. Government leaders felt drastic measures were necessary in order to avoid another and more severe Great Depression. There were companies that it felt would cause catastrophic harm to the U.S. and global economy if they were allowed to fail. As this graphic illustrates, this was not the first time government leaders have felt inclined to get involved in corporate dealings, but it was an unusually active period.
The Railroad
In 1970, Penn Central Railroad approached the government looking for money to avoid bankruptcy. Within a year, the government came up with a plan to assist the railroad along with five others by combining them and loaning them $676 million. The transaction proved successful for all parties when, in 1987, the government sold the combined companies for $3.1 billion, collecting $579 million in dividends.
Lockheed
In 1971, Lockheed was the first recipient of funds through the Emergency Loan Guarantee Act. The company received loans totaling $1.4 billion. The bailout saved thousands of jobs for Californians and stabilized the defense contractor’s financial state. In addition to steadying the aerospace company, the government was repaid in full in 1977 and received $112 million in fees.
Franklin National Bank
After suffering through drastic losses in the first half of 1974, the government interceded, offering a loan of $1.75 billion. Unfortunately, the government should have investigated the bank before committing funds. It later discovered the bank was corrupt and had ties to the mafia. As a result, the government took ownership of the bank. Over the next five years, it sold off all bank assets for the sum of $5.1 billion.
Chrysler
Back in 1980, Chrysler appeared on the government bailout list for the first time. The government established the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act to rescue the automaker from bankruptcy. Through the Act, the government backed the borrowing of $1.5 billion in loans to the trouble automaker. By 1983, the company had paid back all loans and purchased the warrants for 14.4 million shares of stock back from Uncle Sam for $311 million. While many observers considered the action a success, the fact that Chrysler would appear on the list two more times leaves the matter open for debate.
Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Company
The government’s second foray into the banking industry occurred in 1984. Much like we’ve heard recently in the news, Continental Illinois was considered too big to be allowed to fail. In this case, the FDIC stepped in to rescue the bank, injecting $4.5 billion into the business and taking over 80% of the shares.
Majority ownership in the bank was returned to the public sector in 1991 at a loss of $1.8 billion to the U.S., making the government zero for two in the banking sector. The bank was sold to BankAmerica in 1994.
Savings & Loan
In the largest government intervention to date, $50 billion in taxpayer money was issued to the savings & loan industry through the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989. A plethora of savings & loan institutions had become insolvent and the money was necessary to prevent further collapse in the industry. Many institutions were closed and liquidated and increased restrictions were instituted across the industry to prevent further indiscretions.
Airline Industry
After the attacks on September 11, the entire airline industry was crippled with several airlines in danger of going bankrupt. Congress passed the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, which gave the airlines $15 billion for mandatory grounding of planes, and defense against lawsuits resulting from the attacks.
Although one airline still went bankrupt at a cost of $23 million to the government, the Act was deemed a success. The purchase of airline stock at below-market value provided a profit to taxpayers as a result of the bailout.
http://www.loansandcredit.com/
What's the point of Cororate bailouts? I anm against individual welfare and I am against Corporate welfare, if those Corporations get a balilout from taxpayer money they should be held accountable just like any individual that lives on welfare with taxpayers money.
A corporation should be obligated to create jobs in america or not recieve any help from taxpayers, that way when they make the excuse that they can't afford to do business here they can go try everything in another country without any taxayer money.
Corporate welfare-the enormous and myriad subsidies, bailouts, giveaways, tax loopholes, debt revocations, loan guarantees, discounted insurance and other benefits conferred by government on business-is a function of political corruption. Corporate welfare programs siphon funds from appropriate public investments, subsidize companies ripping minerals from federal lands, enable pharmaceutical companies to gouge consumers, perpetuate anti-competitive oligopolistic markets, injure our national security, and weaken our democracy.At a time when the national GDP is soaring, one in five children lives in deep poverty, one might expect that a public effort to curtail welfare would focus on cutting big handouts to rich corporations, not small supports for poor individuals. But somehow the invocations of the need for stand-on-your-own-two-feet responsibility do not apply to large corporations.At a time when even growing federal budget surpluses do not persuade our nation's political leaders to devote public resources to repairing and enhancing the built elements of our commonwealth-such as the nation's schools, bridges, clinics, roads, drinking water systems, courthouses, public transportation systems, and water treatment facilities-one might expect to see calls to divert taxpayer monies from flowing into private corporate hands and instead direct them to crying public needs. But somehow the cramped federal budget-as well as similarly situated state and local budgets-always has room for another corporate welfare program.This is a deeply rooted problem, one which cuts across party lines. Democrats and Republicans are both culpable for the proliferation of corporate welfare spending. Indeed the leading Congressional crusader against corporate welfare has long been outgoing House Budget Committee Chair John Kasich, R-Ohio, and efforts to forge bipartisan coalitions to take on corporate welfare founder more on lack of Democratic support than Republican.Patching the corporate drain on public resources will require an informed and mobilized citizenry that both forces changes in our systems of campaign finance, lobbying and political influence, and demands careful and critical scrutiny by the media, Congressional committees and ultimately the citizens who lose out from government transfers of resources, privileges, and immunities to corporations...
Ralph Nader http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Nader/CutCorpWelfare_Nader.html
U.S. Government Corporate Bailouts
1970 – 2008
In 2008, the United States government got heavily involved in the corporate world as it bailed out several corporations. Government leaders felt drastic measures were necessary in order to avoid another and more severe Great Depression. There were companies that it felt would cause catastrophic harm to the U.S. and global economy if they were allowed to fail. As this graphic illustrates, this was not the first time government leaders have felt inclined to get involved in corporate dealings, but it was an unusually active period.
The Railroad
In 1970, Penn Central Railroad approached the government looking for money to avoid bankruptcy. Within a year, the government came up with a plan to assist the railroad along with five others by combining them and loaning them $676 million. The transaction proved successful for all parties when, in 1987, the government sold the combined companies for $3.1 billion, collecting $579 million in dividends.
Lockheed
In 1971, Lockheed was the first recipient of funds through the Emergency Loan Guarantee Act. The company received loans totaling $1.4 billion. The bailout saved thousands of jobs for Californians and stabilized the defense contractor’s financial state. In addition to steadying the aerospace company, the government was repaid in full in 1977 and received $112 million in fees.
Franklin National Bank
After suffering through drastic losses in the first half of 1974, the government interceded, offering a loan of $1.75 billion. Unfortunately, the government should have investigated the bank before committing funds. It later discovered the bank was corrupt and had ties to the mafia. As a result, the government took ownership of the bank. Over the next five years, it sold off all bank assets for the sum of $5.1 billion.
Chrysler
Back in 1980, Chrysler appeared on the government bailout list for the first time. The government established the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act to rescue the automaker from bankruptcy. Through the Act, the government backed the borrowing of $1.5 billion in loans to the trouble automaker. By 1983, the company had paid back all loans and purchased the warrants for 14.4 million shares of stock back from Uncle Sam for $311 million. While many observers considered the action a success, the fact that Chrysler would appear on the list two more times leaves the matter open for debate.
Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Company
The government’s second foray into the banking industry occurred in 1984. Much like we’ve heard recently in the news, Continental Illinois was considered too big to be allowed to fail. In this case, the FDIC stepped in to rescue the bank, injecting $4.5 billion into the business and taking over 80% of the shares.
Majority ownership in the bank was returned to the public sector in 1991 at a loss of $1.8 billion to the U.S., making the government zero for two in the banking sector. The bank was sold to BankAmerica in 1994.
Savings & Loan
In the largest government intervention to date, $50 billion in taxpayer money was issued to the savings & loan industry through the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989. A plethora of savings & loan institutions had become insolvent and the money was necessary to prevent further collapse in the industry. Many institutions were closed and liquidated and increased restrictions were instituted across the industry to prevent further indiscretions.
Airline Industry
After the attacks on September 11, the entire airline industry was crippled with several airlines in danger of going bankrupt. Congress passed the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, which gave the airlines $15 billion for mandatory grounding of planes, and defense against lawsuits resulting from the attacks.
Although one airline still went bankrupt at a cost of $23 million to the government, the Act was deemed a success. The purchase of airline stock at below-market value provided a profit to taxpayers as a result of the bailout.
http://www.loansandcredit.com/
What's the point of Cororate bailouts? I anm against individual welfare and I am against Corporate welfare, if those Corporations get a balilout from taxpayer money they should be held accountable just like any individual that lives on welfare with taxpayers money.
A corporation should be obligated to create jobs in america or not recieve any help from taxpayers, that way when they make the excuse that they can't afford to do business here they can go try everything in another country without any taxayer money.