Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Srexley who wrote (205282)	11/28/2001 5:41:07 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

Looks like the insurance industry investors aren't going to be tremendously impacted anyway... as Congress is slated to pass a massive taxpayer-funded bailout bill anyway. Seems like it would have been a 'cleaner' operation financially if we had just declared war (which everyone from the top on down says it is anyway), and then the insurance industry would be off the hook for what is - in fact - losses due to war. By calling a 'spade a spade' the losses would have been born directly by the affected parties (and then the US and charities could have assisted the needy on a per-case basis), and we would have preserved the financial motivation for companies to maximize their investing in security and disaster recovery products and services. That would have been both prudent and useful for corporations... would have increased our over-all security, and would have had an immediate stimulative impact upon the economy... which could sure use it now. Instead, by not declaring a war, and leaving the insurance companies hanging for the tab, we put the insurance industry bailout costs directly on the backs of the American taxpayers... but without realizing the 'virtuous economic cycle' by incenting security/disaster recovery investments. Another botched job on the economy, another raid on tax revenues, and a sub-optimal solution that leaves the impression that it was mainly crafted to reward campaign contributions. (Just as Price Anderson Act renewal in the administration's energy plan proposals loads potential nuclear disaster expenses directly upon the taxpayer's backs, and the 'airline bailout' rewarded airline bondholders without doing anything to rationalize airline fundamentals... or to guarantee flights or jobs.) Oh well, they passed the $70 billion farm subsidy package so soon after the $40 billion airline gift, maybe the taxpayers won't notice :)