How would you have voted for TARP (by party)?

[Oakvale]

Yes (normal). A lot of very courageous decisions in this thread. Bedstuy is obviously correct - to vote in favour doesn't mean that TARP was perfect, particularly since it ended up being an equity support scheme rather than actual toxic asset relief. Still crucial - it's not like recapitalisation is a bad thing.

Voting no on this is an insane troll position, as far as I'm concerned.

If the banking system collapses there would be a revolution

No (R). If we all are going to eat s[INKS]t in another great depression, the banksters should be eating it with us.

So your logic is "we should have let the banking system collapse and caused a second Depression so that the bankers would suffer"?

[Oakvale]

No (R). If we all are going to eat s[INKS]t in another great depression, the banksters should be eating it with us.

So your logic is "we should have let the banking system collapse and caused a second Depression so that the bankers would suffer"?

If we're going to suffer either way (which the middle class certainly did), then yes, we might as well all go down together.

Do you understand how bonkers this is?

Let me use an analogy. Someone burns your house down, so you suffer. A better alternative by your logic is that you instead set off an atomic bomb and end all life on earth because it's only fair that he suffer too.

[Oakvale]

No (R). If we all are going to eat s[INKS]t in another great depression, the banksters should be eating it with us.

So your logic is "we should have let the banking system collapse and caused a second Depression so that the bankers would suffer"?

If we're going to suffer either way (which the middle class certainly did), then yes, we might as well all go down together.

Do you understand how bonkers this is?

Let me use an analogy. Someone burns your house down, so you suffer. A better alternative by your logic is that you instead set off an atomic bomb and end all life on earth because it's only fair that he suffer too.

The analogy is false. Setting off an atomic bomb would destroy the property of others, after all. Now, if the arsonist burnt down every other home in the area, then sure, blow the whole thing apart and rebuild from the ground up.

YES AND LETTING THE BANKING SYSTEM COLLAPSE WOULD AFFECT EVERYONE FAR, FAR WORSE THAN THE ACTUAL RECESSION DID. Why is this is a difficult point to understand? Is your solution seriously to plunge the global economy into ruin so that we can "rebuild from the ground up"? Is this some kind of primitivist thing?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd argue that not having a second Great Depression helped the working class out quite a lot, actually.