@brainbomb, the GM bailout is estimated to have returned net $39 billion to the US treasury. GM repaid the loans, plus there are the taxes paid from GM and employees, and lower outpays for unemployment etc had GM gone under. I'm not usually a fan of corporate welfare, but that one may have actually worked well.

Additionally most business startups can qualify for govt loans free of interest. (Also taxpayer funded)

@brainbomb

alright, beyond just being biased altogether, politifact is out of their depth on economics. they used his HIGHEST tariff proposals, which congress wouldn't let him do, whereas moderate tariffs may not cross a threshold for change in ∑Demand for our intake.

i'm 100% free trade in established markets, but if they have tariffs on us: it's hard to blame people to want to balance that out, and it by no means necessitates a recession

Wow, the government doesn't pay off the debtor in this country, they just administer the remaining assets of the bankrupt party and distribute them fairly.

@orthaic:

because the taxpayers end up picking up the tab for unfunded liabilities. It depends on the company, but pensions, health care costs and environmental clean up all get transfered to the public. This is why companies really ought to be required to post bonds when they do stuff that could harm the public, especially on the environmental front. It is just way to easy for corporations to wiggle out of their responsibilities. That creates a moral hazard for corporations and investors.

US bankruptcy must be very different from UK bankruptcy law then. If I am an investor and I loan capital to a business in the UK, and it then goes bust, I'm not automatically entitled to be repaid by the government. Why would I be?

ND is probably right. the Bush years still had some benefit from Clinton before Bush destroyed the economy. God knows Bush did everything he could to destroy the US and it damned near worked.

How was quality of life higher under GW Bush, you saw the systemic collapse of everything from housing, banking, infrestructure, family dynamics, ect

@"Everyone always gets what is owed"

What happened when Argentina went bankrupt in 2001? Vulture funds bought up the debt at a fraction of the cost, Argentina insisted that they only pay back a fraction of their debts (maybe 10-25%) Vulture funds fought to be paid back 100% (even though they had bought the debt for less than they are now claiming back, cause you know, they want to profit on this deal)

So no, anyone who accepted less than 100% is not getting paid back.

Divorce rates hit highest levels ever in the Bush years. The deficit swelled, our debt owed to foreign countries reached its worst levels in american history

As an aside, I am loving all this whining from the Trump campaign about how their poll "watchers" are being tossed out and "harassed." Got to say Chaqa, the fact that you've never experienced long lines tells me you aren't black. This stuff is totally standard, but having it touch white voters in some small way is new and people are losing their shit at having to deal with a tiny taste of what African Americans have to deal with every single election. Ironic as hell.

(In reality, everyone should have 15 minute lines across the board.)

Suicide rates went up among investment owners and shareholders. Not to mention the domestic surveillance and spying. And shanty towns formed.

One wonders whether the upset about undocumented immigrants stretches to the Irish and Brits and Aussies who make up a good chunk of the undocumented immigrants. Now that it's been established Melania was also undocumented, will Trump have her deported too?

What Jamie said.

I knew US bankruptcy laws were different - they encourage businesses to take risks and thus innovate in order to grow the economy. Much more so than the UK or Ireland (where me and Jamie are coming from) BUT national bankrupcies are a whole other kettle of fish.

The state is not bound by national laws, instead we're talking international agreements - and WTO rules. Which are largely written and enforced by the US. Basically to protect US investments over-seas.

If the US ever decided 'fuck-it' we don't need no stinkin' WTO rules, there is nothing anyone could really do about it.

Isolationist Trump would get his way.

@brainbomb. The crash happened in the last two months of Bush's reign, so a lot of that happened during the Obama presidency. Totally Bush's fault, but still given the timing the consequences came home to roost after Bush left office.

Trump was only able to survive in business off of taxpayer paid bankruptcy. He would never get rid of bankruptcy laws.

Ogion the final two months of his presidency was the legacy he left us. He did nothing but war monger and spy on americans for 8 years.

@Bb internaional law and national law are different things.

He destroyed the core of human decency and robbed us of our liberty. Obama restored the American dream and saved us from the evil Republican way.

Your bankruptcy laws are stupid. You want capitalism but you bail out shit businesses that fail. Hah.

Riddle me this folks: What are the most realistic best and worse-case scenarios you can think of for either candidate's first four years in office. Let's try to put away party bias and honestly think of what either candidate can realistically harm or accomplish with their term.

@ Brainbomb are you saying that Barry Obama MADE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN?

Hillary gets us free college and ends US involvement in all military conflict. She raises national minimum wage and GDP swells to 9%

Best case scenario. Thats modest too

Obama restored my faith in America as being a decent place to live and work. I was overjoyed to have a good guy who was fun and smart as my Prez

I'm pretty sure she never said anything about making college free unfortunately

"Ends US involvement in all military conflict"????

Is that a real Hilary policy??? She loves wars!

He asked best case scenario jamie lol

@ Brain he also said "realistic". Hilary Clinton is a warmongering interventionist.