Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: $7,700,000,000,000.00 -- Will You Taxpayers Be Paying With Cash, or Check?

  1. #1

    $7,700,000,000,000.00 -- Will You Taxpayers Be Paying With Cash, or Check?

    $7.7 Trillion is now the estimated cost of the various Bush/Obama/Democrat Congress Bailouts.

    So far.

    Have a Nice Day!:D

  2. #2
    I only need 1/1,000,000,000th of a bailout and I am fine...Living the life of luxury.

  3. #3
    How about Visa dont leave home without it! I have one question Obama you trashed Bush for what he did and you are about to compund the problem!

  4. #4
    It's an easy thing to complain about, but what do you suggest we do?

    What's Warfish's position on these various initiatives?

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2879898]It's an easy thing to complain about, but what do you suggest we do?

    What's Warfish's position on these various initiatives?[/QUOTE]

    It IS as easy thing to complain, and yes, it's much harder to provide answers.

    Thankfully, we have the Obama Administration and the Democrat Dominated Legislature, I am sure THEY have the answers.

    But if your really curious, my answer is a flat "no bailouts". I simply do not agree that all these various companies are "so big we cannot let them fail".

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    *gulp*

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2879898]It's an easy thing to complain about, but what do you suggest we do?

    What's Warfish's position on these various initiatives?[/QUOTE]

    I really don;t know too much about economics, but I didthink that maybe the solution is to let the companies suffer and give the money directly to the taxpayer. So advantages, maybe:)

    1) It would make Obama seem true to his word. He would be redistributing the wealth from the rich corporations to the less fortunate.

    2) Give only enough to get up to speed with his or her home payments and combine with any outstanding credit card debt. The taxpayer can then have an additional amount withheld each paycheck until the debt is paid ....... it can be returned to a fund specifically designed to pay down that assumed debt.

    3) Put the debt on a much shorter plan...... say 5 years. If the house is sold in the meantime, make a contingency wherein the loanee must take a hit equal to the amount still owed on the loan.

    It seems to me that everyone's issues all around get solved - at least compared to the corporations. And, I'll bet the total debt is far, far less.

    To me, it seems somewhat more equitable..... and in the spirit of equity .... is it possible that those who cooked the books in order to get huge bonuses are forced to return the bonus money with interest as the first payments collected to get the money lent back?

    Just thinking off the top o' me head:)

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2879898]It's an easy thing to complain about, but what do you suggest we do?

    What's Warfish's position on these various initiatives?[/QUOTE]

    Not bail them out? Governments don't bail industries out, tax payers do.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2879898]It's an easy thing to complain about, but what do you suggest we do?

    What's Warfish's position on these various initiatives?[/QUOTE]

    Cut Taxes and let the market fix itself. The more government intervenes the more they screw it up. You cannot spend what you dont have!

  10. #10
    "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
    --Richard N. Cheney


    So what're you you so worried about?

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2880360]"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
    --Richard N. Cheney


    So what're you you so worried about?[/QUOTE]

    Ya, because we're all Reagan fans

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2880364]Ya, because we're all Reagan fans[/QUOTE]

    Well, the conversation had drifted a little rightward -- it needed a splash of cold water.

    A. Calling this the Bush-Obama-Democrat bailout doesn't change the fact that this lies at the feet at the deregulate everything / always cut taxes crowd. Plus the reason we've been bathed in red ink the last few years is 1) the war 2) Bushes/Republicans insistence that taxes for the rich be cut despite the war. It might have been nice to have a surplus to fall back now wouldn't it?

    B. Support for a massive bailout for Wall street is hardly my idea of preferred policy as a liberal. But I think this crisis shows dangerous it is to apply your own personal ideology to a crisis -- the fact that I would like to see speculators and corrupt businessmen punished wouldn't help the economy one bit.

    C. No bailouts ever=Herbert Hoover. Is the cure not worse than the disease?

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2880390]Well, the conversation had drifted a little rightward -- it needed a splash of cold water.

    A. Calling this the Bush-Obama-Democrat bailout doesn't change the fact that this lies at the feet at the deregulate everything / always cut taxes crowd. Plus the reason we've been bathed in red ink the last few years is 1) the war 2) Bushes/Republicans insistence that taxes for the rich be cut despite the war. It might have been nice to have a surplus to fall back now wouldn't it?

    B. Support for a massive bailout for Wall street is hardly my idea of preferred policy as a liberal. But I think this crisis shows dangerous it is to apply your own personal ideology to a crisis -- the fact that I would like to see speculators and corrupt businessmen punished wouldn't help the economy one bit.

    C. No bailouts ever=Herbert Hoover. Is the cure not worse than the disease?[/QUOTE]

    Tax cuts are fine. Spending is the problem.

    Bailouts are a bipartisan failure. Neither one gets the lion share of the blame because both parties have their heads so far up their collective *sses, their breath smells like farts.

    I love this misconception that Hoover didn't try to bail out the economy with interventionist policies. Of course he did.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2880360]"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
    --Richard N. Cheney

    So what're you you so worried about?[/QUOTE]

    Mr. Dick Cheney does not speak for me.

    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2880390]A. Calling this the Bush-Obama-Democrat bailout doesn't change the fact that this lies at the feet at the deregulate everything / always cut taxes crowd.[/quote]

    No, it doesn't. It lays at the feet of both parties, and the individual public and private companies involved. But when you answer like this, you're not looking for dialog, you're looking for partisanship. The inabillity to see yourown parties failures and contribution to the problem IS part of the problem.

    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2880390]2) Bushes/Republicans insistence that taxes for the rich be cut despite the war. It might have been nice to have a surplus to fall back now wouldn't it?[/quote]

    You mean the Tax Cuts that Obama and the Democrats now appear to not wish to cut (according to an article in the Times recently)?

    We'll see soon enough if those tax cuts get repealed by Obama on Day 1....or not.

    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2880390]Support for a massive bailout for Wall street is hardly my idea of preferred policy as a liberal. But I think this crisis shows dangerous it is to apply your own personal ideology to a crisis -- the fact that I would like to see speculators and corrupt businessmen punished wouldn't help the economy one bit.[/quote]

    Neither has anything done in these bailouts yet.

    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2880390]C. No bailouts ever=Herbert Hoover. Is the cure not worse than the disease?[/QUOTE]

    Fiscal Responsabillity, regardless of party, reardless of company, regardless of the individual in question is always the right choice.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    6,969
    Thanks, W.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    I assume that $7,700,000,000,000.00 figure doesn't include the $800,000,000,000.00 from today?


    [url]http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/25/news/economy/paulson_consumer/index.htm?postversion=2008112505[/url]



    :throwup:

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,417
    Change?

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Piper;2880946]Change?[/QUOTE]

    Yes, the current dimwit in the White House has/would spend the same amount of money and get nothing for it.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=Tanginius;2880882]I assume that $7,700,000,000,000.00 figure doesn't include the $800,000,000,000.00 from today?


    [url]http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/25/news/economy/paulson_consumer/index.htm?postversion=2008112505[/url]



    :throwup:[/QUOTE]



    yikes... it gets even worse! HuffPost is reporting that there were TWO new bailouts today, the 800 BILLION one I mentioned above, and an additional $600,000,000,000.00 one:


    [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/economic-bailout-roundup_n_146370.html[/url]

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,417
    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2881280]Yes, the current dimwit in the White House has/would spend the same amount of money and get nothing for it.[/QUOTE]

    And yet the dimwit-elect is following similar policies.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us