Extortion used to be a crime. These days it's another mark on the "To Do" list appearing after lunch and just before cocktails in the busy daily calendar of many corporations. Of course they don't use the word extortion. They like to call it Lobbying. Private jets, luxury cars, mansions and personal chefs cost money, and who better to foot the bill than the government (taxpayers). We wouldn't dream of expecting the wealthy to suddenly live without the necessities in life.
Banks need money because people can't pay on their loans. Car manufacturers need money because people aren't purchasing cars. Credit card companies need money, and the list goes on. What seems to be ignored in all these instances is the fact that these corporations should only exist as long as the American public can afford them to.
Is it really the corporations that need billions of dollars? Of course not. Homeowners, drivers, shopping fanatics, the general public...these are the people that need the bailout.
Rosa Brooks, an op-ed columnist for the Los Angeles Times and author of "We need a bailout too.", estimates that each household in America would receive nearly $80,000 if the 8.7 trillion dollars that's being given to the corporations, was instead given to the public. Give a person thousands of dollars and what are they going to do with it? Choices are relatively few when it comes to what a person will do with their money. They'll either spend, save or invest.
Spending means an investment back into our economy. Perhaps people can afford to pay on their loans, purchase a car or pay down their credit card debt. Any and all of these activities directly aide the public, the corporations and the economy.
There are those that will be more cautious with their money. Saving instead of spending still leads to the use of a bank in most cases. Give me $80,000 and I'll show you a bank account that just got $70,000 richer and car note that was paid in full. Voila, the bank gets some money and my car lender closes an account as paid.
Investing doesn't seem to be a big pay off now, but there are always those that will buy low now in the hopes of selling high later. Again, the money still benefits the people that need it the most while also providing a trickle up effect for corporations.
As a frequent guest and panelist of MSNBC, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center and member of several political and economic boards, Rosa has been exposed to the ugly truth when it comes to policy and politics. After doing some digging, I was disappointed to see that Rosa's figures were fairly accurate. Clearly appealing to the general public, Rosa couldn't have said it better than when she noted, "...don't think Congress is going to hand out huge wads of cash to the hungry or newly homeless. In America, we only bailout banks and big corporations.".
I agree with you. I like how you pointed out how much money could have gone to each American household if it were given to the taxpayers instead of corporations. I think it’s funny how rich people complain about redistribution of wealth to the needy. The government just redistributed our money to the rich. In 2007, the median annual household income was $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau. That means that most Americans don’t make $80,000.00 in a year. If people lost their jobs because these corporations closed they would have $80,000.00 to live on until they found another income. New companies with more responsible people could have taken the place of the failed corporations. People could have used the money to help keep their homes.
ReplyDelete