|
Post by TJ on Sept 28, 2008 15:02:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Sept 29, 2008 7:15:01 GMT -8
I'm far from an "expert" on this topic (obviously), but let me get this straight. If you are a successful business the government can't have that and will sue you out of existence (Microsoft, AT&T, taxing oil companies profits and giving them to "the people," etc.), but if you suck ass and are a huge failure as a business the government gives you handouts to stay in business? NateDogg pretty much narrowed it down to all that you need to know: the government is privatizing profits and socializing failures. I'm calling B.S. You could also relate this to taxpayer funded sports stadiums, I just haven't figured out how yet. We get scare tactics all the time with sports (just like with this bailout thingy). Either build us a $500 million dollar stadium or we're moving! And then of course the politicians always cave and build a new stadium for a bunch of billionaires. The teams charge us admission even though it's our stadium. The team proceeds to miss the playoffs. The stadium is then used for tractor pulls and monster truck rallies. Then we need a new stadium five years later because the old one isn't good enough. Meh.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Sept 29, 2008 11:11:56 GMT -8
Well there's no bailout yet. It failed in the house. I hope it never passes.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Bat on Sept 29, 2008 11:36:25 GMT -8
Well there's no bailout yet. It failed in the house. I hope it never passes. Are you nuts? Are you seeing what is happening right now and whats going to happen because Republicans are being like children? Joe
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Sept 29, 2008 12:11:53 GMT -8
I hope you're joking. The fact is the democrats own both the senate and house and could easily have passed the bailout without much republican help, but of course almost 100 democrats voted against it. This is 100% in the democrats hands.
I just heard congresswoman Michelle Bachman say that during the research for this bailout bill the republicans only heard testimony from the fed chairman, etc. and the democrats only heard testimony from former Clinton economists, etc. This entire thing just sounds like election season BS to me.
Where was the armageddon we were promised?
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Bat on Sept 29, 2008 12:31:47 GMT -8
The majority of Democrats voted for it, muckle. More Democrats voted for than Republicans. The majority of Republicans voted against, even with their own president and potential president pleading for them to vote for. The Republican vote was more than 2-1 against the bill. So I don't know what you are talking about with it being 100 percent in Democrats hands. Not only is that a ridiculous statement, it is just plain stupid. The idea is to do this in a cooperative manner, which apparently Republicans have no understanding of.
Apparently many Republicans changed at the last minute because of a comment made by a Democrat house speaker that some felt was offensive. Good to know feelings are put forward before the state of a whole country.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Sept 29, 2008 12:47:00 GMT -8
I've stated nothing but facts.
Democratic 140 95 Republican 65 133 TOTALS 205 228
I don't know if you just need a majority with this bill instead of 2/3, but if you just need a majority only 12 of the 95 democrats that voted against it needed to vote for it to pass. The republicans didn't even need to show up. Democrats could've passed it without them.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Bat on Sept 29, 2008 12:48:17 GMT -8
You've stated only your blinded feelings. Wow, you just don't understand, muckle. That isn't the point. It is just amazing to me that you would dare to say more Democrats should have voted for when Republicans voted 2-1 against the bill. Just amazing.
Forget it, no point in talking to you about it.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by franzridesagain on Sept 29, 2008 12:52:06 GMT -8
I'm amazed this thing didn't scrape through. I admire a stand on principle, but a lot of those 'against' votes probably have more to do with a blend of ignorance of the financial landscape and a fear of losing the seats beneath them if the electorate gets vengeful. A great approach to governance.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Sept 29, 2008 12:53:52 GMT -8
Republicans voted against it because they felt the need for everyone to believe the lie that they're still conservatives. A few tweaks on the legislation are made, they tell their base that made a huge difference, and they vote for it. Long story short, they need to express outrage to not alienate their voters. Then they can be hypocrites.
In my opinion, some kind of bailout seems necessary, but here's the crazy (my crazy) talking: If you bail them out, the market is never going to learn from its mistakes. It doesn't matter how many oversight committees are formed, how many new laws are passed, how many reviews congress does and suggestions are made, they won't make a difference. I know it's going to be bad, lots and lots of people will suffer (the entire world as a matter of fact), but I think the responsible thing to do is let the markets crash. Suffer the consequences. I know I will. My income depends on how stable the American market is. If it implodes, it's safe to say no more film scores for me.
In recent interviews, Bill Clinton remarked that instead of investing in energy efficiency and creating thousands of jobs that would help the U.S. become the front-runner in the energy industry, the market decided it was better to sell houses. I personally blame the eco-green idiots and the idiots who are against the eco-green idiots.
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on Sept 29, 2008 13:13:21 GMT -8
I didn't think Congress was gonna have the balls to vote against the bailout. I was wrong, and it's one of the few great signs I've seen from them in a long time. Sorry if I don't want to pay out of my own pocket in order to reward companies that have acted idiotically and unethically for their entire existence. And I'm sorry if I don't want to see the value of the dollar plummet. And I'm sorry if I don't want to see the next president assume an extra trillion dollars in debt that will make it impossible for them to do anything else.
Let's hope Hook is wrong (doubtful) and the GOP remains strong in their opposition.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Bat on Sept 29, 2008 13:19:02 GMT -8
There are pros and cons to the bailout. Even the one's behind it have stated that. But something has to be done and the majority of commom ground is it is better to go with the bailout than not. If you've been watching today, if nothing is done, the worst is yet to come and make no false delusions - it will come. I think a lot of people due to simple lack of understanding of what is going on don't really understand what no action would do.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Sept 29, 2008 13:29:06 GMT -8
There are pros and cons to the bailout. Even the one's behind it have stated that. But something has to be done and the majority of commom ground is it is better to go with the bailout than not. If you've been watching today, if nothing is done, the worst is yet to come and make no false delusions - it will come. I think a lot of people due to simple lack of understand of what is going on don't really understand what no action would do. Joe You might want to stop assuming that those of us against the bailout are simply ignorant. I realize that in the immediate future, it's going to be financially worse if the bailout doesn't happen, but like Hook said, nothing is going to be learned from this mistakes, and it's going to pave the way for even worse economic troubles in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Bat on Sept 29, 2008 13:31:06 GMT -8
IMHO, I don't think so. Is the point to teach a lession (which you have already said people don't learn anyway) or begin the repair process. I would hope the point would be to repair.
And Chris, I wasn't saying you personally had no understanding, but let's face it, there are a lot of people out there who are clueless right now.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Sept 29, 2008 13:38:30 GMT -8
IMHO, I don't think so. Is the point to teach a lession (which you have already said people don't learn anyway) or begin the repair process. I would hope the point would be to repair. And Chris, I wasn't saying you personally had no understanding, but let's face it, there are a lot of people out there who are clueless right now. Joe I don't consider inventing 700 billion dollars out of thin air, bailing out people and lenders who made bad decisions regarding the housing market, and drastically lowering the value of the US dollar, which in turn lowers all US citizens' worth, a "repair process."
|
|