[ss7pro]

Problem with the banks (and many other huger corporations in US ie: airlines) is that during prosperity all the profits are going to narrow set of people (board and investors) but during the crisis there's always bailout using taxpayers money to save them. It essentially means that profits stay with the wealthy while losses are being spread across the poor. This is no longer capitalism but communism where they ruling party (boards and investors) are getting richer without the risk.

[volak]

The best analogy I use for logical errors such as this is -

If you have a dependent - ie a child - whom you are a primary source of care. Should you qualify for a bigger helping hand than say, the 25 year old with no children?

If you agree - then now imagine you have 500 dependents. Or in the case of some corps 500,000.

You have half a million dependents who rely on you every other week for a paycheck.

Do you qualify for a larger helping hand than the 25 year old who lives alone?

[ss7pro]

I'm not saying bailout is wrong, but taxpayers should be handsomely rewarded for those bailouts (at least 20% APR) as those bailout companies were making a lot of money on taxpayers and never shared any profits with them (they even avoid paying taxes though various financial means).

[viklove]

It's not a "logical error," it's an "ideological error," at least from your perspective. Banks are not parents, and small businesses are not "dependent children," so I'd say you're making a bigger logical fallacy called a false equivalence.

> Do you qualify for a larger helping hand than the 25 year old who lives alone?

No, because the "helping hand" you're getting is not helping the "children" eat in this situation. None of this $10B is going to small businesses, is it? It's literally just a payday for the bank. If you give a parent $400 extra a month, that is going towards daycare, food, etc. for their child. Your metaphor misses the mark completely.