Can you imagine Obama voters opting against a bail out?
...the people who seek entitlements, freebies, handouts, running to the government for help................NOT IN AGREEMENT?
Is there HOPE for America? Dare we dream?
Is there HOPE for America? Dare we dream?
18 comments:
"Can you imagine Obama voters opting against a bail out?"
Yeah right, good point
Well basically I think it's because Bush came up with it, everyone automatically disagrees with anything GWB does anymore.
What bailout plan? They haven't passed one.
Are you saying that Americans are in favor of doing nothing.
If so I want to know how you expect to get the credit markets stabilized and lending again. Without them we have no economy.
Beth makes a great point, but it works both ways.
It's a quagmire! Washington is more and more about doing nothing productive or beneficial.
Tell 'em geeeeeeZ...WE NEED TERM LIMITS IN CONGRESS!
Bad behavior should not be rewarded and the innocent shouldn't have to pay for the guilty. That said, an influx of money has to happen because we must grow ourselves out of this mess and not slow down economic growth.
Are we paying anything, cube? This 700 billion number gets thrown around as if it means something.
Seems to me that the Treasury is accepting risk where the "free market" (LMAO) is unable or unwilling to do so (bad news, no risk, no market) and in return part of the payout from the mortgage securities goes to the Treasury.
All this does is allow the American people through the Treasury to participate, take risk and profit in the market.
Problems with that?
The kicker is going to come with the part that has us profiting from our risk. McCheese wants the money going to the Randoid chickens who bailed out.
Ducky, Cube is right.
I'm thinking you might just want details and facts before you go off like this..thanks.
Love the picture, Z. LOL!
Actually, Beth, President Bush didn't come up with it. His advisor, Paulson came up with it. Bush got some very bad advice!
Z, you're asking Ducky to give you details and facts? LOL! I know you aren't smoking any funny stuff, gal. But Ducky is a liberal. They don't bother with details and facts, hon. They operate on their feelings, remember? :)
For what it may be worth I called both my senators and my representative in Washington at their officers earlier today, and told them in no uncertain terms NOT to support ANY government "bailout," because it would do no good, merely prolong and augment the agony, while adding intolerable burdens to US Taxpayers.
As has oft been said, "No nation has EVER been able to TAX itself into prosperity," and BELIEVE me, friends, this "Bailout" farce is NOTHING BUT a HUGE TAX INCREASE.
As Jonah Goldberg would not hesitate to say in print, "IT SUCKS!"
~ FreeThinke
PS: Doing NOTHING is vastly preferable to doing the WRONG thing --- ALWAYS.
FT
Actually z, cube is incorrect. In the laissez-faire world poor conduct can lead to such colossal grotesque greed that the misconduct threatens many people's prosperity. Even people that did not participate in the greed.
They are unwillingly dragged into it so the unrestrained market act can be considered violence of a sort. Something the Randoids would never sanction.
Better to regulate sane ethical behavior from the start, no? You can preserve market functionality and greatly lesson the probablility of one of these greed head melt downs.
Let me know where I'm wrong.
Ducky, of course it's better to regulate from the start in SOME manner .... not to go back to partisanship because I think this topic should be above it since it's so serious and so universal...but this is exactly something Clinton's people should have figured out before they started encouraging loans to illegals and the poor, people who had such a high chance of financial difficulty.
I'm NO financial whizkid to say the VERY VERY least, and I could have told them it wasn't a good idea. What were the banks THINKing to have done this in the first place, Ducky?
They were thinking "would't it be luverly?" NO! Not EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE or even wants their own home, Ducky..Nobody lives in Utopia or Maoist China, all wearing little matching gray jackets. We are all different..some have more luck than others and always will. Even Jesus said there will always "be poor amongst you". Some will be poor, some will be rich. Rich is in one's heart, anyway.....and, sometimes, the poorer, the richer. I've seen very very rich people up close and personal and not all are proportionately more happy than their household staffs, I assure you.
So, yes, we should have had sane, ethical behavior...maybe then we wouldn't have HAD to have regulated it? But, I'm not QUITE as free market as many Conservatives are...I totally believe in it, but I believe capitalism only works if people are kind and good and believe and support the human spirit which wants to succeed on its OWN, to do a hard day's work for a good wage...and people like that are dying off, in my humble opinion. They've been ruined by socialist liberals who destroyed families with welfare (encouraging fathers to leave families so the family can collect, etc. etc etc)...A Black girlfriend you might remember from FPM, Granketha, told me once that her grandmother said "things were better for Blacks before integration!" Granketha realized later that her grandmother was mistaking INTEGRATION for WELFARE...integration was followed closely by welfare and that's when so many Black families disintegrated...welfare dependency hoisted on them by the Democrats.
This is why I believe American younger generations do NOT have what it takes, as CJ has wishfully suggested, .......do not have what it takes to start over, to struggle and suffer and build again if we don't bail ourselves out of this.
Let me know where I’m wrong.
You may have answered your own question, Ducky. Regulating sane ethical behavior excludes the entire congress. I’d sooner hire a convicted serial killer as a ship’s entertainment director than trust Congress with devising ethical behavior. And speaking of ethical behavior, what do you have to say about prominent democrats, who accepted large campaign donations from the companies they were tasked to oversee?
And should we bother to note these are the same idiots who as part of the “bail out” bill are attempting to provide federal money to ACORN, a partisan “community activist” organization formerly represented by none other than Barack Obama?
Real oversight of congress comes from us ... so I suppose if truth be told, "We the People" are not in the best position to criticize.
Thanks for your last post, Mustang. just GREAT!
FreeThinke
My closest liberal friend and I agree that the bail out is a bad idea, Z.
Pinky, I just think something has to be done and fast. People I trust feel that way. Even people who loath the concept.
It's guns or butter time.
I LOVE the kitty!
FT
Post a Comment