Murph Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I say no. I've never asked for a handout. If you snooze, you loose. I'm sick of it. Murph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 NO! Taxpayer funded bailouts are un-American!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 At what point, does Thomas Jefferson make sense. Just sayin'........ Murph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myspace.com/jessenoah Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 i say no, but think of this We give a bailout-fatcats get richer we dont give a bailout-people loose their jobs what do you think? elaborate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 i say no' date=' but think of thisWe give a bailout-fatcats get richer we dont give a bailout-people loose their jobs what do you think? elaborate[/quote'] They find new jobs with Companies that know how to make money.... Or..... They find a niche, and create a job...... What a concept....... Murph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveinspain Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 No, we can't afford it, nor the next generation, nor the next one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrosurfer1959 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Were giving billions of dollars to the same people, companies and unions that wasted the money in the first place, and this makes since how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I say yes to handjobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Were giving billions of dollars to the same people' date=' companies and unions that wasted the money in the first place, and this makes since how?[/quote'] Unions didn't get any money. The corporations did. In fact the vast majority of the money has gone to financial institutions that used it to buy other financial institutions and then laid off tens of thousands of workers. That BTW was not under the current administration. The new provisions are supposed to have oversight considerations. And Murph: I think the way you framed the question was slanted. These are loans, stock purchases and other forms of transactions that (in theory) will actually make money for the government. I know it probably wont, if your going to ask the question then at least try to frame it in a fair way, otherwise all your going to get is the response you wanted and not necessarily an accurate one. Just saying. Not trying to be my usual ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 If the question had been neutral I would have said. Depends. To properly answer the question you will need to know the details of the financial transactions and the oversight. Honestly I don't think I could answer yes or no. I think some of the provisions in the bill will do nothing to spark the economy. Anything that does not directly lead to job creation/retention, freeing the credit market, and or keeping people in their homes should not be a part of this bill. For example, I think freeing money in the form of grants and loans to college students is a fantastic idea and I support it, but it should be a separate bill not part of the stimulus bill. I say the same for STD prevention, financial assistance for health care, and so on etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChanMan Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 From a "pure economics" stand point, we should let them fail. They were fat and poorly run. What will rise is newer, more efficient businesses to take their place. The newer businesses will recoup some of the jobs lost. The others will find alternate employment either within the same field, or a new one if they are so inclined. Just my .02. I'd bet that money would come a lot closer to doing what they need if they gave it back to the folks who paid it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 From a "pure economics" stand point' date=' we should let them fail. They were fat and poorly run. What will rise is newer, more efficient businesses to take their place. The newer businesses will recoup some of the jobs lost. The others will find alternate employment either within the same field, or a new one if they are so inclined. Just my .02. I'd bet that money would come a lot closer to doing what they need if they gave it back to the folks who paid it in.[/quote'] You want to give it back to the Chinese Government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notes_Norton Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 They made some very bad business decisions, let them deal with it. I am a self-employed businessman (musician and style writer for Band-in-a-Box and Microsoft Songsmith). I've made some bad business decisions, and had to figure out how to survive myself. I called it a learning process and the government didn't bail me out nor with they even consider it. My condition for a bailout would be that no management is allowed to make a dime more than the factory worker and not allowed to leave the company PLUS every US taxpayer would get stock in the company(s) that they bailed out. Notes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myspace.com/jessenoah Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 i like that share idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basshole Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I think the money should go to the people. If we took all the money from the bailout, each american (Citizen, over 18) would get about 2,700 US dollars. That money could be used to payoff bank loans (the banks would get there money back) and it could be used to buy things to start up the economy. Its the trickle up method Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myspace.com/jessenoah Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I think the money should go to the people. If we took all the money from the bailout' date=' each american (Citizen, over 18) would get about 2,700 US dollars. That money could be used to payoff bank loans (the banks would get there money back) and it could be used to buy things to start up the economy. Its the trickle up method[/quote'] I like that idea. I would add that by the time they get finished the total will be a couple of trillion dollars. That's enough to pay off everyone's mortgage in the whole country. Think how great the economy would be if that happened. The banks would no longer have high risk loans and would free up all sorts of money. The people would spend that extra monthly money and spark all sorts of economic positive solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Here's my vote for biggest ******-bag in the U.S. Senate. Quote: "I have great empathy for the CEO's..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 big news right now is the bankers and people on Wall Street have found a loop hole and are using that money to give bonuses to their execs. They partied in Tx a few days after receiving the funds on my dime' date=' must be nice. As a small business owner I have also made bad decisions (only once per decision), I would love free money also. This is a sore subject with me because a few people here are union and some are anti union and we went through this a few weeks ago. I personally feel unions served their purpose years ago and now they are just another excuse to add additional cost to products I buy. When people had to work in coal mine without safe working conditions or the other many excuses for unions it was a great idea, now days no excuse for unions. I was a member of a union at Cingular when I worked there and when I did need the assistance of the union; hell I paid my dues they were useless. But this is not and should not be a union thread again, they are part of America and they are also part of whats wrong with America IMO. I also see that if those companies fold it would cause more harm than good, millions would be hurt and not only in the US. So while I say no on the bailouts, I am glad I am not the one who has to weight the advantages / disadvantages if the bailout is given or not.....[/quote'] Make a decision. Or give your advice for a change in the bill. Not trying to be a pain in the ***, but you really didn't say anything up there. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I said anything either. Oh well. BTW this has nothing to do with Unions all of us are in trouble. Toyota (non-union) has shown it's first quarterly loss in the history of the company. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homz Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californiaman Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 No Way, Never! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flight959 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I say yes to handjobs. LMFAO Voted NO! Flight959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grampa Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I want a bailout. I'm too big and important to let fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynadude Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 The amount of money they are talking with all the different bailouts is about a trillion dollars. To put that number in perspective, one trillion seconds, is almost 32 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 A little research provides some insight into why libs don't mind tax payer bailouts... 4 of Obama's picks for top executive posts don't pay their taxes like the rest of us...Treasury, Labor, HHS and his pick for chief compliance officer. The following are the 10 wealthiest US Senators (all are multi-millionaires), since they already have their money they are largely unaffected by income tax. 40 of the 100 current US Senators are millionaires. 1 John Kerry (D-Mass) 2 Mark Warner (D-Va) 3 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) 4 Edward M. Kennedy 5 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) 6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) 7 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) 8 James E. Risch (R-Idaho) 7 Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore) 9 Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) 10 Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) These are the wealthiest US House members (all are multi-millionaires) and are largely unaffected by income taxes: 1 Jane Harman (D-Calif) 2 Darrell Issa (R-Calif) Voted against bailouts and tax hikes 3 Jared Polis (D-Colo) 3 Robin Hayes (R-NC) Voted against bailouts and tax hikes 4 Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla) Voted against bailouts and tax hikes 5 Michael McCaul (R-Texas) Voted against bailouts and tax hikes 6 Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) 7 Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) 8 Cynthia Marie Lummis (R-Wyo) Voted against bailouts and tax hikes 9 Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) Voted for bailouts and against tax hikes 10 Alan Mark Grayson (D-Fla) Honorable mention goes to Charlie Rangel (D-NY) who has failed to pay over $239,000 dollars in taxes because he said that he didn't understand the rules that he helped to write. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.