700 BILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT

MMAPlayground.com » Off Topic » Off Topic » 700 BILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT
« Previous Page | Next Page »
POLL: Should the Goverment hand over $700,000,000
Yes it what needs to happen 39% (17)
NO, wellfare for the greedy 61% (27)
Jackelope
10/1/08 1:07:48AM

Posted by 40ouncetofreedom



But isnt ironic that Mccain supported and favered this bailout plan and then his own republican party votes against it..



That kind of voting from McCain is one of the main reasons he's known as a "Maverick" and is largely disliked by hardcore conservative republicans. Ask any hardcore republican and they'll tell you how unhappy with McCain being selected as presidential candidate they are.
Kracker_Jap
10/1/08 1:21:25AM

Posted by cmill21

I' just pissed off because now my dad wants to wait to see how this effects our economy before going into business with me. What I want to know is how the hell does spending more money get you out of debt?



I know how you feel we are spossed to be building a new shop at 950thousand dollars and now we are holding up to see what happens (btw I work for my families business)
iwannabesedated
10/1/08 1:25:37AM

Posted by Jackelope


Posted by 40ouncetofreedom



But isnt ironic that Mccain supported and favered this bailout plan and then his own republican party votes against it..



That kind of voting from McCain is one of the main reasons he's known as a "Maverick" and is largely disliked by hardcore conservative republicans. Ask any hardcore republican and they'll tell you how unhappy with McCain being selected as presidential candidate they are.



Would these happen to be the same conservative republicans that supported Bush??.I thought Bush and Mccain both supported this bailout?? and then their parties cant even go and support it.Wheres the unity in that and i should vote for Mccain who maybe a "maverick" with his own party but being this Maverick seems to me like less unity in the party and that leads to jack shit do not pass go do not collect $100..So why vote for a leader anda party who cant agree on things and get shit done.

Because hes a Christian??
Because Hes Pro life???

Kracker_Jap
10/1/08 1:26:25AM

Posted by 40ouncetofreedom


Posted by Kracker_Jap


Posted by RampageOwnedYou

How about blaming you people who voted Bush, and the rest of the Republicans up to this point, to lead your country. Well at least you thought, right?

Take a look at the Republicans votes from the white house, they all basically want to see you people struggle. Almost 60% of them voted for this to happen. At least the democrates voted a yes, and tried to stop this from continuing. The Republican party does not care, they all got your votes at what time or another. Now they have taken your money, and are leaving you all to fight for yourself, and struggle. So rather than try and point the finger, maybe to YOU PEOPLE who voted for republic. You should blame yourself, for part of this mess.
Dont mean to be a dick, but its the truth!



Sucks to be wrong.....

95 Democrates voted no....... All they needed was twelve votes

Granted more Republicans voted against it....


But if it was good of an idea the dems could have voted it in themselves, but they didn't cuz for once the goverment listened to the people



But isnt ironic that Mccain supported and favered this bailout plan and then his own republican party votes against it..



if you watched the debate both candidates said they were in favor of it

So what weight does your statment have when 95 Dems voted against it??

BTW this is a money a greed thing, and both parties have that problem
iwannabesedated
10/1/08 1:29:28AM

Posted by Kracker_Jap


Posted by 40ouncetofreedom


Posted by Kracker_Jap


Posted by RampageOwnedYou

How about blaming you people who voted Bush, and the rest of the Republicans up to this point, to lead your country. Well at least you thought, right?

Take a look at the Republicans votes from the white house, they all basically want to see you people struggle. Almost 60% of them voted for this to happen. At least the democrates voted a yes, and tried to stop this from continuing. The Republican party does not care, they all got your votes at what time or another. Now they have taken your money, and are leaving you all to fight for yourself, and struggle. So rather than try and point the finger, maybe to YOU PEOPLE who voted for republic. You should blame yourself, for part of this mess.
Dont mean to be a dick, but its the truth!



Sucks to be wrong.....

95 Democrates voted no....... All they needed was twelve votes

Granted more Republicans voted against it....


But if it was good of an idea the dems could have voted it in themselves, but they didn't cuz for once the goverment listened to the people



But isnt ironic that Mccain supported and favered this bailout plan and then his own republican party votes against it..



if you watched the debate both candidates said they were in favor of it

So what weight does your statment have when 95 Dems voted against it??

BTW this is a money a greed thing, and both parties have that problem



Right and obviously here lies the problem.
Kracker_Jap
10/1/08 1:30:29AM

Posted by 40ouncetofreedom


Posted by Jackelope


Posted by 40ouncetofreedom



But isnt ironic that Mccain supported and favered this bailout plan and then his own republican party votes against it..



That kind of voting from McCain is one of the main reasons he's known as a "Maverick" and is largely disliked by hardcore conservative republicans. Ask any hardcore republican and they'll tell you how unhappy with McCain being selected as presidential candidate they are.



Would these happen to be the same conservative republicans that supported Bush??.I thought Bush and Mccain both supported this bailout?? and then their parties cant even go and support it.Wheres the unity in that and i should vote for Mccain who maybe a "maverick" with his own party but being this Maverick seems to me like less unity in the party and that leads to jack shit do not pass go do not collect $100..So why vote for a leader anda party who cant agree on things and get shit done.

Because hes a Christian??
Because Hes Pro life???




Honestly you must be a blind sheep if you think supporting Bush McCain or even Obama means you have to agree with them on every issue
iwannabesedated
10/1/08 1:43:38AM

Posted by Kracker_Jap


Posted by 40ouncetofreedom


Posted by Jackelope


Posted by 40ouncetofreedom



But isnt ironic that Mccain supported and favered this bailout plan and then his own republican party votes against it..



That kind of voting from McCain is one of the main reasons he's known as a "Maverick" and is largely disliked by hardcore conservative republicans. Ask any hardcore republican and they'll tell you how unhappy with McCain being selected as presidential candidate they are.



Would these happen to be the same conservative republicans that supported Bush??.I thought Bush and Mccain both supported this bailout?? and then their parties cant even go and support it.Wheres the unity in that and i should vote for Mccain who maybe a "maverick" with his own party but being this Maverick seems to me like less unity in the party and that leads to jack shit do not pass go do not collect $100..So why vote for a leader anda party who cant agree on things and get shit done.

Because hes a Christian??
Because Hes Pro life???




Honestly you must be a blind sheep if you think supporting Bush McCain or even Obama means you have to agree with them on every issue



True and you should tell that to the christians, the pro lifers and gun nuts who based a large part of their voting on that not me.As well as the hippie liberal douches that vote entierley to the left it goes both ways.But if the republicans and democrats cant seem to agree on things and fix our problems then who will.......William Wallace ?
Rush
10/1/08 8:30:33AM

Posted by cmill21

I' just pissed off because now my dad wants to wait to see how this effects our economy before going into business with me. What I want to know is how the hell does spending more money get you out of debt?




The way I look at it is this, buying out all those assets (with tax money) should stabilize the market. That means, they will not likely go down in value and probably increase in value, meaning the tax dollars will actually appreciate in value.


The nay sayers seem to think this is about multi-million dollar retirement CEO packages and market greed, but it has more to do with mistakes that have been made on all levels of the market from banks to the people that borrowed more money than they could afford.

From what I have heard, the votes against the bailout have a lot of spite (against Bush and others) in them, more so than just voting against the issue.
Jackelope
10/1/08 8:36:25AM

Posted by 40ouncetofreedom


Posted by Jackelope


Posted by 40ouncetofreedom



But isnt ironic that Mccain supported and favered this bailout plan and then his own republican party votes against it..



That kind of voting from McCain is one of the main reasons he's known as a "Maverick" and is largely disliked by hardcore conservative republicans. Ask any hardcore republican and they'll tell you how unhappy with McCain being selected as presidential candidate they are.



Would these happen to be the same conservative republicans that supported Bush??.I thought Bush and Mccain both supported this bailout?? and then their parties cant even go and support it.Wheres the unity in that and i should vote for Mccain who maybe a "maverick" with his own party but being this Maverick seems to me like less unity in the party and that leads to jack shit do not pass go do not collect $100..So why vote for a leader anda party who cant agree on things and get shit done.

Because hes a Christian??
Because Hes Pro life???




LOL chill bro I'm not a republican and I'm not asking you to vote republican.

I just hate seeing anyone point out either party as nothing but full of faults and then hold someone else up as infallible. All these guys are 'tards in their own right but it's important to pay attention to the issues, where people stand within their own parties, and where they stand within the grand scheme of things. I see a lot of crap getting posted on the internet and talked about in the media that is nothing but twisted truths. I'd like to be the one who puts his foot down in the face of it, and I'd like america to join me in sifting through the bullshit.

Republicans won't support the bailout because it goes against conservative capitalist views on the economy. Not because the party is divided. The ones who aren't voting for the bailout are doing so because 1) They listened to their people and 2) That's the way they're supposed to vote if they're a conservative capitalist

Many democrats will support the bill because they're for government regulations and controls on large businesses. Many won't because they're against it. Within each party there is the centrists and the far lefts/rights. That's not a party being divided when that happens, it's actually the way it's SUPPOSED to work. For once in the last long, long, long time it did work when they voted the bill down. Jon Kyl of Arizona and John McCain of Arizona both said more calls came into political offices than ever before. (I only use Arizona as an example cuz I'm from there)

People should be paying attention to what's really going on with these bills. The government will have a large controlling interest in banks and insurance companies with this bailout. Is that something you really want? Your government controlling your bank and/or insurance company? If so then that's fine and dandy, if not.. I suggest we look into this issue a lot deeper than people seem to be.
cowcatcher
10/1/08 8:48:57AM
when private business digs itself a hole its really sickening to see the taxpayers have to bail them out(and dont fool yourselves thats what this is). the older i get the more this type of thing really pisses me off, to the point that i want to write a letter to someone or something, but that basically amounts to nothing so bitching on the net is the next best thing. between the airlines, the banks, and the inevitable fall of big oil, which could happen sooner than later even though they seem to be making money hand over fist(but thats a different discussion) it makes me physically ill. the average joe who is having a tough enough time making it lately is footing the bill for these guys that strictly evaluate us before giving us a loan or a mortgage, and we dont seem to have any real say in this. how about i run their credit and check their spending and savings history and decide if i should lend them my money for this bailout because thats what this basically is. both parties suck and will eventually do what they can to help out their drinking buddy lobbyists on capital hill, and those of us that arent ivy league grads with no family members serving in the military(basically most red blooded americans) will once again get the shaft to help out the big guys that scrutinize us thoroughly when we ask for anything. this whole thing pisses me off immensely and i could go on for hours about this, but i need time to focus on whats important at this time.....BREWERS PLAYOFF BASEBALL!!!!!
Rush
10/1/08 9:00:20AM

Posted by Jackelope

People should be paying attention to what's really going on with these bills. The government will have a large controlling interest in banks and insurance companies with this bailout. Is that something you really want? Your government controlling your bank and/or insurance company? If so then that's fine and dandy, if not.. I suggest we look into this issue a lot deeper than people seem to be.




Well, wasn't letting the companies do what they want is what got you/them in this predicament in the first place?
Jackelope
10/1/08 9:33:11AM

Posted by Rush


Posted by Jackelope

People should be paying attention to what's really going on with these bills. The government will have a large controlling interest in banks and insurance companies with this bailout. Is that something you really want? Your government controlling your bank and/or insurance company? If so then that's fine and dandy, if not.. I suggest we look into this issue a lot deeper than people seem to be.




Well, wasn't letting the companies do what they want is what got you/them in this predicament in the first place?



In a way yes, and in a way no.

I don't pretend to know everything that went on, but basically a lot of these companies were pressurized by the gov't into giving out loans they never should have given out.

The way mortgage companies screwed themselevs was by profiteering these loans big time and in an unreasonable manner (ARM loans). So it was a combination of both, but.. if a company chooses to act one way and fail for it then they should fall. Plain and simple. There should be no bailout IMO because why should the taxpayer foot the bill when they're feeling the most pain from the bill? (Just like cowcatcher said)

I duno, I'm no economist but I'm firmly against it. Despite knowing the effect it will have on the credit market. We need a reset button and I'm ready to put my shovel in the dirt to dig our way out of it the hard way. No bailout plan is going to fix this shit, it's just going to make it worse and delay the crumble. (not to mention devalue the dollar in the process)
DCRage
10/1/08 10:01:27AM
They're gonna try again, I read the Senate is going to vote on a tweaked plan tonight. The main difference this time around is that it would increase FDIC insurance for individual deposits/bank accounts from $100,000 to $250,000. They also added some tax breaks rejected before, which could kill this one in the House again. If it passes the Senate, the House could vote as early as tomorrow (they're out today). The only new thing I'd really support this time is they included patching/fixing the AMT to protect an estimated 26 million taxpayers from taking a roughly $2000 hit as a result. Otherwise, I'm pessimistic about its chances and not really leaning towards one side or the other. I don't really follow the markets that closely.
Kracker_Jap
10/1/08 11:20:02AM
IMO the more time they spend on this bill the better everyone will be....all in all it still sucks but, I do think we are a long ways away from the blank check Idea or 20% going to shady groups.......
DCRage
10/1/08 1:25:57PM
Just read that the vote likely will not be before 7:30 PM ET. Obama and McCain say they will return to Washington for the vote. At least it's late enough that I should be able to watch it on TV (C-SPAN2 carries Senate coverage) while I listen to baseball on radio.
Rush
10/1/08 2:03:16PM

Posted by Jackelope

but.. if a company chooses to act one way and fail for it then they should fall. Plain and simple. There should be no bailout IMO because why should the taxpayer foot the bill when they're feeling the most pain from the bill? (Just like cowcatcher said)




Well, first of all, bailout is the totally wrong word to describe it and if the US administration coined that phrase then they shot themselves in the foot with respect to winning over the approval of the taxpayer.

As I mentioned, as far as I know tax dollars are not being given to the companies to bail them out. The government will buy shares (at a reduced price because the market is low) to stabilize the market. The problem is, in the market, when a portion of the market is in decline, it has an effect with investors/investments all over the place. i.e. people start bailing and selling, which lowers the share price because a chain reaction of selling starts.

Now, when the market rebounds, the shares (as far as I know) will have to be bought back from the government. Therefore, they shouldn't be worth any less than what they paid for them, if not more. So if the government is honest and would like to win approval of the taxpayer, then they should propose what they would do with that extra money. i.e. give it back to the taxpayer. The US administration (from my perspective) have done a horrible job with PR on this subject and it wasn't until I watched The Agenda last night ( a Canadian show) , had any idea of what any of this meant.

As far as letting companies go down for their mistakes, I agree to a point. There is a bit of a capitalist circular argument that I'll explain.

So the capitalist idea is to let a successful company grown ad expand as much as they can. Likewise, if they go down, it's their own fault. Now, there comes a time where companies get so big, their success has a great impact on the market as a whole (i.e. other companies and ultimately the taxpayer). So at the point the domestic/global economy is affected as whole, I think government intervention needs to happen because more is at stake than just the success of a single (or couple) companie(s).
pv3Hpv3p
10/1/08 2:19:42PM
I am nothing near an economist, nor do I pertend to understand economics... Hell, I don't even spell very well...

But to me this stinks to high hell... There is such a great deficit in this country that there is absolutely no way that I'd trust the government to simply give back the money and repay the debt garnered from the "bailout"... There's too much to pay for and with an amount of money like that the taxpayer is the last thing on the governments/politicians' minds...

To me it seems like the rich get to stay rich... While the homeowner, mortgage payer who not only has to pay their mortgage to these companies now has to bail them out with their own tax dollars...

So the taxpayer, the regular joe sixpack gets to pay for their mortgage twice... And the haughty taughty rich guy gets to go home and cry in a big pile of money...

F U C K that... I think it was Churchill that said "Democracy is the worst form of government... Except for the rest of them"

In times like these it makes you think if capitalism and what it has become can apply to this statement... I really never thought I'd hear myself say that
cowcatcher
10/1/08 2:35:28PM

Posted by Rush

As I mentioned, as far as I know tax dollars are not being given to the companies to bail them out. The government will buy shares (at a reduced price because the market is low) to stabilize the market.



when the governement buys anything where do you think the money comes from? unless the us government picked up a second job moonlighting at a gas station, its the taxpayers man, theres no rocket science involved here.
Rush
10/1/08 3:14:18PM

Posted by cowcatcher


Posted by Rush

As I mentioned, as far as I know tax dollars are not being given to the companies to bail them out. The government will buy shares (at a reduced price because the market is low) to stabilize the market.



when the governement buys anything where do you think the money comes from? unless the us government picked up a second job moonlighting at a gas station, its the taxpayers man, theres no rocket science involved here.




What I am saying is that the tax dollars are not being given away. They are being invested in the market, to stabilize the market.
Rush
10/1/08 3:22:08PM

Posted by pv3Hpv3p


So the taxpayer, the regular joe sixpack gets to pay for their mortgage twice... And the haughty taughty rich guy gets to go home and cry in a big pile of money...




The poor market is one of the reasons why people have a mortgage that has not changed and yet their asset (property) has depreciated. So I don't understand how letting the economy/markets get worse will help those people out.

So you suggest letting the US market fall even more into recession to teach a few rich people a "lesson". Like I said, when the market rebounds, the shares that are bought by the government will be worth more. i.e. the people that originally owned the shares will have to pay more than they got to sell them in order to buy them back.

The so called "rich people" will have to buy those shares for more than they sold them (in most cases). So I don't understand how the rich are technically staying rich. If the US economy dips more into a recession, it's the working class that will feel it the most.
cowcatcher
10/1/08 3:22:21PM

Posted by Rush

What I am saying is that the tax dollars are not being given away. They are being invested in the market, to stabilize the market.



sure theyre being given away, theyre being put into private business for the sake of big money private business to be ok. if im a dumbass and i go broke who is going to bail me out? the same person that should bail the banks out.....no one.
Rush
10/1/08 3:43:17PM

Posted by cowcatcher


Posted by Rush

What I am saying is that the tax dollars are not being given away. They are being invested in the market, to stabilize the market.



sure theyre being given away, theyre being put into private business for the sake of big money private business to be ok. if im a dumbass and i go broke who is going to bail me out? the same person that should bail the banks out.....no one.




And all the US tax payers that got mortgages they couldn't afford or hold are not responsible?

Like I said, I find it funny that people are pointing the finger at the big companies only. The housing crisis is a big reason why this is happening and it takes two to tango in that department.

I find that people are focusing on these big CEO retirement packages, etc. I agree that it is simply retarded to give someone that much money when they retire, but in the end, I think that is really only a small reason why the economy/market is in its current state.

In general, I don't understand how so many Americans praise capitalism, but when it comes to a point where companies are so big and their shortcomings affect the whole economy, they still want them to go down with the ship. Even despite the fact that it will be worse off for John Q working class taxpayer in the end.
Jackelope
10/1/08 7:34:49PM

Posted by Rush


Posted by cowcatcher


Posted by Rush

What I am saying is that the tax dollars are not being given away. They are being invested in the market, to stabilize the market.



sure theyre being given away, theyre being put into private business for the sake of big money private business to be ok. if im a dumbass and i go broke who is going to bail me out? the same person that should bail the banks out.....no one.




And all the US tax payers that got mortgages they couldn't afford or hold are not responsible?

Like I said, I find it funny that people are pointing the finger at the big companies only. The housing crisis is a big reason why this is happening and it takes two to tango in that department.

I find that people are focusing on these big CEO retirement packages, etc. I agree that it is simply retarded to give someone that much money when they retire, but in the end, I think that is really only a small reason why the economy/market is in its current state.

In general, I don't understand how so many Americans praise capitalism, but when it comes to a point where companies are so big and their shortcomings affect the whole economy, they still want them to go down with the ship. Even despite the fact that it will be worse off for John Q working class taxpayer in the end.



It's a capitalist economy but it's a mixed capitalist economy. The government is supposed to oversee the economy and stop companies from getting so big to the point that they can have this kind of affect on the economy when they go tits up. You know, monopolies and such. Lobbying has gotten out of hand and these idiot politicians from both sides have gotten out of hand.

I place blame directly on the people who bought into mortgages they couldn't afford, I place even more blame on the banks and companies who allowed these people who obviously couldn't afford the housing to take out loans, I place even more and more blame on the people who created ARM loans, then I place even more and more and more blame on the lawyers and politicians who lobbied for equal housing rights so that banks had to create these loans, and then I place the MOST blame on our idiots in government who allowed this shit to happen right under their noses. That's the blame chain. If you know anything about blame you should know that it's supposed to go up, not down.

Americans elect politicians to make decisions for them because we're too stupid to read the fine print and if we had it our way we'd mostly all be in houses we can't afford. That's why the system is in place- checks and balances. That's the way the shit is supposed to work but the system is broken.

People like myself and cowcatcher want to see the CEO's and the companies go down and go down hard even if it means we're going to be sucking, too. Why? Because America needs a fricken wake up like we've never needed one before. Any idiot can look around and see that we don't make shit anymore. The country imports more than it exports and lives on debt and fake money being passed around. As I said- any idiot can look at the facts and realize we're headed down a bad road. Any idiot should have realized that 20 years ago. It's time to fall flat on our faces like a drug addict needs to in order to get our shit straight. It starts now with this "bailout" getting squashed and all the fucktards in office getting thrown out on their asses. Working class americans need to step up and start producing and we need to stop letting slimy lawyers and CEOs run our country. We need real politicians to get behind us and beef up our infrastructure.

We don't need a recovery bill because all that's going to do is prolong the inevitable. Who here REALLY believes the government making 700 BILLION dollars of FAKE MONEY to buy into a company that may or may not make a good recovery is a good idea? People talk about how the stocks will recover, but honestly- would you invest in a company that went tits up just a couple years ago? Especially when said company's main form of income relies on housing values going up? News flash- housing values aren't going up any time soon! The only thing that is going up if this bill gets passed is

1- Taxes
2- Government debt

Especially since the dollar is getting weaker and weaker, more people are losing their jobs than ever, and the whole idea of housing going up in value depends on people moving in the first place. (Guess what... moving requires money!) Aint nobody selling their house and moving when the value is in the shitter which means nobody has any equity to sell which means nobody has any extra cash laying around!


As I've maintained since the beginning- Put on the devil horns and ride this bitch to the ground. Screw democrats, screw republicans, screw weasel lawyers and screw borrowing your way through life. Wake the F up America. It's time for the people to take back the power. We do that by

1- Owning what you have (That means not getting into loans you can't afford)
2- Increasing production (This requires the government to step up and do the right thing as far as trade skills, farming, and exporting goes)
3- Quit crying and looking for handouts. Instead go out and get you some with hard work
4- Quit electing "career politicians" who are so deep in the back pockets of lobbyists that it'd take a lighter and some kerosene to get the smell of shit from their noses

Along with many other things I could list. It's time for a wakeup call and I see no better time than now. I'm willing to do my part by grabbing a shovel and digging my way out of this mess- aren't you guys?
iwannabesedated
10/1/08 8:02:23PM
So correct me if im wrong..But with the government stepping in and owning or regulating these large companies is it along the lines of socialism and one step closer to communism and the gov't controlling everything and america being an equal country.Cause that would suck.Or im completly off and making an ass out of myself ??
Kracker_Jap
10/1/08 8:33:31PM

Posted by 40ouncetofreedom

So correct me if im wrong..But with the government stepping in and owning or regulating these large companies is it along the lines of socialism and one step closer to communism and the gov't controlling everything and america being an equal country.Cause that would suck.Or im completly off and making an ass out of myself ??



In a way you are not wrong..... This is one of the big reasons why so many americans are against this, it goes way further than just tax payers money because it does bring closer to Socialism
Jackelope
10/1/08 9:19:46PM

Posted by 40ouncetofreedom

So correct me if im wrong..But with the government stepping in and owning or regulating these large companies is it along the lines of socialism and one step closer to communism and the gov't controlling everything and america being an equal country.Cause that would suck.Or im completly off and making an ass out of myself ??



You're pretty much right on with that. Just like Kracker_Jap said it goes a lot deeper, but this is the underlying fear a lot of people have.

Some people are fans of socialism, though.. so those are among the people that like where it could lead.

Rush
10/1/08 10:16:22PM

Posted by Jackelope

It's a capitalist economy but it's a mixed capitalist economy. The government is supposed to oversee the economy and stop companies from getting so big to the point that they can have this kind of affect on the economy when they go tits up. You know, monopolies and such.



But to what point does the government intervene before the US citizens start freaking out thinking their country has gone communist. I mean seriously, there is a new professor in our dept. who is from the US. This guy is more conservative that many of the conservatives up here and calls a bunch of people in the department communists. To me it almost seems like if it isn't like the wild West, Americans think the red flag is being raised.



Posted by Jackelope

People talk about how the stocks will recover, but honestly- would you invest in a company that went tits up just a couple years ago? Especially when said company's main form of income relies on housing values going up? News flash- housing values aren't going up any time soon! The only thing that is going up if this bill gets passed is

1- Taxes
2- Government debt




Well, if that is indeed the case, you better start lining up at the soup kitchen because it'll be like the 30's. From what I hear, the real reason that people don't like this is because there is little to no mention in the plan about what will happen once the "bailout" is in effect. i.e. if stocks do go up, which they will, where does the money go?

Companies will invest back into the market because they want to stay in business and continue to make money.



Posted by Jackelope

1- Owning what you have (That means not getting into loans you can't afford)
2- Increasing production (This requires the government to step up and do the right thing as far as trade skills, farming, and exporting goes)
3- Quit crying and looking for handouts. Instead go out and get you some with hard work




One of the main problems is that living and working standards in the US (as well as Europe and Canada) are such that a those countries cannot compete as far as exports go, with places like China, India, etc. And even producing for domestic sales, again, do you think Americans will want to pay 20$ for a T-shirt made in the US or 5$ for a shirt made in China. I know this is oversimplifying, but it is an example of how things are not that easy to fix.

I agree that people in North America think they need more than they really do and that needs to change and I agree that people should not look for handouts, but it's hard to get a job and make a living in a country in a recession.

It's obvious we have different outlooks on government and the economy. It will be interesting to see how this whole thing pans out.
Rush
10/1/08 10:20:37PM

Posted by 40ouncetofreedom

So correct me if im wrong..But with the government stepping in and owning or regulating these large companies is it along the lines of socialism and one step closer to communism and the gov't controlling everything and america being an equal country.Cause that would suck.Or im completly off and making an ass out of myself ??




I guarantee you that companies in the US will not allow the government to buy them and that you are not going communist.

Honestly, is this some sort of residual fear from the cold war or something?
Jackelope
10/1/08 11:03:08PM

Posted by Rush

But to what point does the government intervene before the US citizens start freaking out thinking their country has gone communist. I mean seriously, there is a new professor in our dept. who is from the US. This guy is more conservative that many of the conservatives up here and calls a bunch of people in the department communists. To me it almost seems like if it isn't like the wild West, Americans think the red flag is being raised.



Well, if that is indeed the case, you better start lining up at the soup kitchen because it'll be like the 30's. From what I hear, the real reason that people don't like this is because there is little to no mention in the plan about what will happen once the "bailout" is in effect. i.e. if stocks do go up, which they will, where does the money go?

Companies will invest back into the market because they want to stay in business and continue to make money.


One of the main problems is that living and working standards in the US (as well as Europe and Canada) are such that a those countries cannot compete as far as exports go, with places like China, India, etc. And even producing for domestic sales, again, do you think Americans will want to pay 20$ for a T-shirt made in the US or 5$ for a shirt made in China. I know this is oversimplifying, but it is an example of how things are not that easy to fix.

I agree that people in North America think they need more than they really do and that needs to change and I agree that people should not look for handouts, but it's hard to get a job and make a living in a country in a recession.

It's obvious we have different outlooks on government and the economy. It will be interesting to see how this whole thing pans out.



Well we might be as far off on our outlooks as you may think.

I agree with a lot of what you said and I also see the unrealistic point of view one could imagine when considering what I posted. Above all things I'm a realist... however, I would suggest to you that as unrealistic as some of these views are (and hence the reason why they didn't change long ago) they are becoming closer and closer to reality. Americans are tired and pissed off. Some Americans are ready to make drastic enough changes to make some of those seemingly unrealistic things become reality. They are very real issues we're staring down the barrel of and that's what is so scary about this whole situation.

What you said about pricing and American production is not oversimplifying at all- it's pretty much the truth down to a T. Therein lies the problem, and therein we need to find a solution.

One last thing- as for your professor and the wild west it sounds like he is a straight up hardcore conservative. There are definitely those in the U.S. that have those beliefs, but I would assume it's the minority. Just like the incredibly liberal people who believe in near socialist views. Like I always say... the best policy lies somewhere in between and the checks and balances of our country should place us there. SHOULD.
DCRage
10/2/08 7:50:17AM
It passed the Senate last night. Vote was 74-25 for, it needed 60 to pass. House votes next, that's expected tomorrow. Still not sure when it'll pass, but an article I just read says the bailout amount works out to $2300 per American. Geez, that's more than I make every month (take-home).
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Related Topics