3 ms·

Its not about blame. Its about taking risks and suffering the consequences. When you pick a vendor, a bank or insurance company, there's a chance that entity

Its not about blame. Its about taking risks and suffering the consequences. When you pick a vendor, a bank or insurance company, there's a chance that entity will fail. You're the one who has to judge that. It's not the government's job to protect you from failing to do that, especially when others took the time to assess the vendor and decided to use a more stable, smarter company. And its certainly not the job of government to take the consequences from those that misjudged their bank or insurance company and assign those consequences to others that had nothing to do with the decision. I am not "damning the consequences". The consequences are unavoidable. Its just a question of who should pay for them. Do we leave the consequences with those making the decisions that led to them? Or do we dump them off on everybody else?

ericd 17y ago
With regard to "I am not "damning the consequences". The consequences are unavoidable." This is not a zero-sum game within the US. Some courses of action have much larger consequences overall than others, and the one you are advocating seems likely to have had a relatively high overall cost to the system of the economy compared to the one the govt. chose, at least in the short term. The government has been trying to keep the ship sailing as smoothly as possible, as is their general responsibility, despite the unsavory nature of bailing out some of those responsible. I believe that was viewed as a necessary evil.