The Political Satire/Meme Thread

Sander 001 · Sep 9, 2019

Keef
Why shouldn't he? The government bailed out massive banks with public welfare. If I could apply for a bailout I would.

His party relentlessly preaches about the evils of government handouts but does not hesitate to take millions in handouts for himself.

Keef · Sep 9, 2019

UKMikey
How does a bank with a bunch of public money tied up in it compare to a private farm?

Seems to be the typical British miscommunication of "public" and "private" here.

What do you mean by "public money"? The banks the government bailed out a decade ago were private entities full of private money. They're not government institutions. Bank of America is not a government bank, it's just named Bank of America.

So there is literally no difference between the government giving bailouts to private banks or other private businesses. The point is that if its okay for the government to bail out one private business, shouldn't it be okay for them to bail out another?

UKMikey · Sep 9, 2019

Keef
Seems to be the typical British miscommunication of "public" and "private" here.

What do you mean by "public money"? The banks the government bailed out a decade ago were private entities full of private money. They're not government institutions. Bank of America is not a government bank, it's just named Bank of America.

So there is literally no difference between the government giving bailouts to private banks or other private businesses. The point is that if its okay for the government to bail out one private business, shouldn't it be okay for them to bail out another?

I don't know why you're bringing the British into it. It was your government that thought the banks were "too big to fail". If they had gone under would the investors all have got their money back?

Keef · Sep 9, 2019

UKMikey
why you're bringing the British into it.

In all my discussions over the past several years, a major sticking point has always been the definitions of "public" and "private". For some reason, different uses of those words between the US and UK/Europe can turn a basic discussion into a wild ass goose chase.

As for "getting their money back", no, the investors would've lost their asses. Those banks' largest investors were actually other banks and various corporations. Individual investments are a tiny fraction of bank business.

But what the bailouts did was, instead of banks and corporations and rich people losing their asses, what happened was the currency value was destroyed and everybody not involved in crooked banking practices, i.e. the large middle class and poor people, were the ones who lost their asses while rich people stayed afloat and most never even got in trouble.

The reason they were too big to fail is because all the government's wealthy friends would've been exposed. Can't let that happen. No bailouts for people who need it but plenty for the crooks who cause all the problems.