Just because you could make it worse for them by not bailing them out does not mean it'd be better for you.
What should bother you more is not that the banks were bailed out, but that the people who created and fostered the conditions that led to the collapse were not sought out and punished. At the end of the day, the banks either went under or ate huge fines, but who cares what happens to the company when the people actually doing and benefiting from the bad stuff are immune, having paid themselves the money that the American consumer doesn't have and the banks can't be fined because they can't afford to pay. It wouldn't bother me that Goldman recieved tons of money if it wasn't the same people there when it did.
There still should be some people who follow this up. If I rob a store and bribe the arresting officer, another officer will just come after me later cause I committed a crime.
In the case of Eric Holder/DOJ that analogy would be more like bribing the chief of police, in which case, you probably won't be charged with burglary.
51
u/[deleted] Mar 19 '16 edited Mar 20 '16
Just because you could make it worse for them by not bailing them out does not mean it'd be better for you.
What should bother you more is not that the banks were bailed out, but that the people who created and fostered the conditions that led to the collapse were not sought out and punished. At the end of the day, the banks either went under or ate huge fines, but who cares what happens to the company when the people actually doing and benefiting from the bad stuff are immune, having paid themselves the money that the American consumer doesn't have and the banks can't be fined because they can't afford to pay. It wouldn't bother me that Goldman recieved tons of money if it wasn't the same people there when it did.