***Official Political Discussion Thread***

1678664749389.png
 
Mitt Romney didn't care about the amount of collateral damage that would be caused if automakers went bankrupt

He specifically wanted the bankruptcy to be used so workers could get worse labor deals and pensions

So if he didn't care about the downstream consequences for working-class people, but he has concerned for the depositors here. Which I would guess are way more affluent that people working on assembly lines in Detriot in 2008

That makes sense.

Still, there’s a question of scale. I largely support labo collectivism, but I was also in support of Biden’s action with the rail workers. A collapse on Detroit would be bad, but contagion of bank runs would be far more catastrophic than a rail strike. Backstopping SVB depositors has much more to do with protecting banks than protecting the depositors.
 
That makes sense.

Still, there’s a question of scale. I largely support labo collectivism, but I was also in support of Biden’s action with the rail workers. A collapse on Detroit would be bad, but contagion of bank runs would be far more catastrophic than a rail strike. Backstopping SVB depositors has much more to do with protecting banks than protecting the depositors.
The Fed and Treasury said depositors will be covered

I don't think people like Romney should be able to act like they are principled
 


the commitment of republicans to plutocracy in the face of massive political backlash is admirable.

They really think they can win a fight between
Raise taxes on rich people vs. cut entitlements.


I can't tell if they are delusional or deeply committed to the foundational principle of "low taxes for rich people"
 
Back
Top Bottom