QUINCY, IL (WGEM) — U.S. Congressman Aaron Schock is speaking out against AIG’s current finanical situation.

Schock was in Quincy this morning for a community leaders’ breakfast hosted by state representative Jil Tracy. He lashed out against President Obama’s stimulus package and bailout packages in the banking and automotive industries.

It’s a very dangerous slope we’re going down in this government right now in picking winners and losers,” Schock said. “Picking winners and losers in the banking sector with AIG and Citigroup, saying, Well, they’re too big to fail’.” I think that’s a very dangerous precedent to set.”

AIG, which has received over $173-billion in bailout dollars, plans to hand out $165-million in executive bonuses.

“These banks will recover with small community banks that have been responsible with their lending,” Schock said. “But to continue to bailout big banks like AIG, we’re really taking money from responsible community banks like those here in Quincy and giving it to crooks out on Wall Street.”

Schock said that any economic stimulus needs to be targeted towards small business, where he says over 80-percent of the country is employed, and not towards corporate giants.

“I believe in the profit motive and I believe in free market principles of our economy and that one man’s failure will lead to an opportunity to create jobs,” Schock said.

Schock says the Democrats “ramrodded” the economic stimulus package through Congress and says the AIG situation is an example of why more discussion and scrutiny was needed in Congress.

“I think right now, they’re (Democratic Party) salivating at the power they have. You’ve seen that in the past two months,” Schock said. “The stimulus bill for example, was debated on and voted on in less than 24 hours. There were over 200 amendments to that bill. Over 100 of them were Democratic amendments that she (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) wouldn’t allow members of her own party to try and make the bill better.”

Schock says he recently spoke to President Obama about the need for bipartisan action and not just talk. He said he believes the President is open to bipartisanship, but says the Democratic leaders in Congress have proven to be a roadblock.

…(read more)

LEARN MORE ABOUT: Bank Failures

REVEALED: Best Investment During Inflation

HOW TO INVEST IN GOLD: Gold IRA Investing

HOW TO INVEST IN SILVER: Silver IRA Investing

U.S. Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL) has spoken out against the bank bailouts, calling them “a dangerous precedent” that could have negative long-term effects on the economy. In a recent statement, Schock expressed his concerns about the government’s intervention in the financial industry, saying that it sets a dangerous precedent for future economic crises.

Schock’s opposition to the bank bailouts is rooted in his belief in free market principles and limited government intervention. He argues that the government’s decision to bail out failing banks sends the wrong message to the financial industry, allowing them to take unnecessary risks with the knowledge that the government will come to their rescue if things go south.

In addition to his concerns about the moral hazard created by the bank bailouts, Schock also fears that the government’s intervention in the financial industry could lead to increased government control and regulation of the economy. He believes that the more the government intervenes and bails out failing businesses, the more control it gains over the private sector, ultimately leading to less economic freedom.

Schock also argues that the bank bailouts could have negative long-term effects on the economy, as resources are diverted away from more productive and innovative sectors to prop up failing financial institutions. He believes that this misallocation of resources could stifle economic growth and innovation, ultimately harming the country’s long-term economic prospects.

Despite his opposition to the bank bailouts, Schock is not against all forms of government intervention in the economy. He has suggested alternative measures, such as targeted assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure and increased oversight and regulation of the financial industry to prevent future crises.

Schock’s stance on the bank bailouts has garnered attention from both supporters and critics. While some applaud his commitment to free market principles and limited government intervention, others argue that his position is naive and fails to consider the potential catastrophic effects of allowing big banks to fail.

As the debate over the bank bailouts continues, Schock’s opposition serves as a reminder of the complexities and trade-offs involved in government intervention in the economy. While there may be short-term benefits to bailing out failing banks, the long-term consequences and risks of setting a dangerous precedent cannot be ignored. Whether his position will prevail or not, Aaron Schock’s views on the bank bailouts have sparked important conversations and debates about the role of government in the economy.