@hightor,
Quote:Sure it does...for a while. But eventually society has to pay. We have to pay for the care of people without health insurance, we have to pay the costs of pollution and toxins in our air and water, we have to pay for the negative effects of unwanted pregnancies, we have to pay for the damage caused by increasing the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, we have to provide for the neglected underclass or face riots in the streets. Corporate profits are not the key to creating and maintaining a free and just society.
"It's the economy, stupid" (Bill Clinton)
Yes, we always have to pay for people without health insurance, for CO2 in the atmosphere, and for that and that.
Still, this is a problem that the whole administrations in the past and the current one have faced as "routine".
Under Obama's administrations, the corporate companies made more profit than never ever, just check how much the national debt increased in his administrations. The debt money came because them and will be paid to them as well.
Look at the trick.
Watch the Bush and Obama's administrations.
With President Bush
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26987291/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/bush-signs-billion-financial-bailout-bill/#.Wdlp1Dtry1s
Quote:President Bush signed into law Friday a historic $700 billion bailout of the financial services industry, promising to move swiftly to use his sweeping new authority to unlock frozen credit markets to get the economy moving again.
President Obama enforced that law and 700 billion dollars plus additional billions were given "to help the automobile industry" from bankruptcy.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/22/barack-obama/obama-says-automakers-have-paid-back-all-loans-it-/
Quote:The New York Times wrote Bush had "balked at allowing the automakers to tap into the $700 billion bailout fund, despite warnings ... that General Motors might not survive the year."
A month later, Bush announced a $17.4 billion bailout for Chrysler and GM that provided short-term financial relief through March 2009. He handed off to the incoming Obama administration the decision on how the companies would have to restructure themselves. The investment would grow to about $23 billion in short-term loans by the time Bush left office.
As Politico noted in December 2008, Bush’s move was a "reversal for the White House," adding that, "President-elect Barack Obama and Democrats had long advocated that course, and Bush had resisted it."
The New York Times reported that Obama "embraced the plan," though he did not comment on the details.
Obama swears that these companies returned up to the last cent of the loan.
Quote:"Last month, the rescue of the auto industry officially came to an end," Obama said Jan. 7 in Detroit. "The auto companies have now repaid taxpayers every dime and more of what my administration invested in."
Those words of president Obama weren't the total truth.
Quote:To get to Obama’s claim that the "auto companies have now repaid taxpayers every dime and more of what my administration invested in," the White House is taking credit for all of the money recovered from the auto companies in the last six years.
This is somewhat problematic. Why? Obama is essentially saying ignore the money Bush invested and only look at what my administration spent on the bailout when calculating the "expenses" side of the ledger. But for Obama to make the claim he has recovered everything he invested "and more," he’s including money paid back on loans also given out under Bush.
You might ask, "Why not just look to see which loans were repaid?" It’s a good question. Unfortunately, it’s a lot more complicated than that.
Lets take aside the return of the money for a moment and lets see beyond the loans themselves.
It happens that the US government borrowed the money given for bailout under the condition of paying interest for that money.
This is to say, the hundreds of millions were given back from those companies, but the US government even returning that money to the banks, is now obligated to pay the interest for that loan.
The right way to help those business was to have the US government as "guarantor for those billions of dollars" given directly from the banks to those companies, and after their recovery, the companies return the money and pay the correspondent interest.
This kind of corruption is not happening under president Trump.
Then, what do you complaint about?
_______________________________________
If president Trump have problems with congressmen and others, is not because he is a bad president, but because he is the only president in recent years who is not a servant of big corporations.
President Donald Trump himself stop the contract of a company charging billions of dollars for an Air Force 1. Don't you remember now? Today, the company won't charge but millions only for the construction of such an airplane.
This is why, by being a president who is not a servant of big corporations, many of these big business don't like him.
The best servants of these big corporations have been Democrat presidents, while Republican presidents just negotiated with their "comrades".
President Trump did run for Republicans without being one of them, for this reason even Republican corrupt politicians don't like him because they can't have him under their feet. Lol.
