Political Debate discussion

16 views
Washington, DC > Bailouts

Comments Showing 1-23 of 23 (23 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Davis, Staunchly Liberal (someone has to be) (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 401 comments Mod
Who is for them? Who is against them?


message 2: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 3 comments hmm that was one topic i never bothered to worry about. i knew that the democrats would pass it and i guesss i put my trust in Obama for knowing what he's doing.

if i get higher taxes, i wouldnt care as long as i get stuff in return (yeah im into the socialist/universal taxing system)

what i DONT agree with is what they put the money for. I love that they put a significant amount of the money into green businesses, but then they would throw in some good ol' lobbying and other things that just didn't seem urgent or necessary...

((all of a sudden i dont feel like im talking about the right thing))

i'd like to have money go towards a health care system... random, right??

ummm okay bailout. yeah that's the thing i never really looked into very much. i like that they gave them money with restrictions, because honestly we DO need US car businesses

however what might have been better was putting that money towards a new car company (green!! :D) for americans. that way people who lose their jobs get them back... and we're going green... and i think i dont like that they are putting money into a business with people that made it go down the tubes in the first place. it might all turn out to be pointless in the end. so it seems right to me to start new.

but we HAVE to have american businesses for cars, otherwise we'd be all overseas and that really really hurts the economy


message 3: by Kyle (new)

Kyle Borland (kgborland) I am not for them, and its nothing against Obama because I didn't agree with Bush's either, I just don't like them.

But I do have a new respect for FORD because they didn't accept any money either administration because they didn't want to be in the position GM is in :)

Like Jesi said I do not agree either with how they spend the money :P


message 4: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 55 comments Bail outs are needed to keep this economy from falling even further down hill. I just believe that the bailouts shouldn't be this much money. Just enough to keep the businesses time to get back on their feet and fix their own problems.


message 5: by Davis, Staunchly Liberal (someone has to be) (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 401 comments Mod
Every single cent of the Bailout funds were needed or I guarantee the economy would have fallen worse than it did in the 30's.


message 6: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 55 comments They could have cut costs a bit. What the government did was get them back on their feet and let them fall again. What needed to happen was get them on their toes, make them work harder to get to their feet, and then see how it would have played out from there.


message 7: by Kyle (new)

Kyle Borland (kgborland) But bailouts can back fire because sometimes the government won't except payment w/ interest back from the company because they want to retain control: Example A - GM

HOPEFULLY it remains just GM, but who knows what the governments got planned.


message 8: by Davis, Staunchly Liberal (someone has to be) (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 401 comments Mod
Maria wrote: "They could have cut costs a bit. What the government did was get them back on their feet and let them fall again. What needed to happen was get them on their toes, make them work harder to get to t..."

Define how a company as a whole can 'work harder'? Look, I studied all these bailouts, read the equations for the stress tests, went through lines and and lines and lines of policy. They needed every dollar they could get or they were going to collapse.

"who knows what the governments got planned."

You continue to astound me.


message 9: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 55 comments And they did collapse.


message 10: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 55 comments At least, one of them.


message 11: by Davis, Staunchly Liberal (someone has to be) (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 401 comments Mod
Because they didn't get enough money. They couldn't afford to keep lending and had too many toxic assets.


message 12: by Kyle (new)

Kyle Borland (kgborland) I don't understand how what I said astounds you.


message 13: by Davis, Staunchly Liberal (someone has to be) (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 401 comments Mod
Kyle wrote: "I don't understand how what I said astounds you. "

You continually think the government is just some big scheming corporation, when in actuality, the work the hardest they can to serve the American people. It's the republicans who work for the lobbyists and corporations that you need to be afraid of.


message 14: by Kyle (new)

Kyle Borland (kgborland) So your saying that the republicans didn't work for the american people?


message 15: by Davis, Staunchly Liberal (someone has to be) (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 401 comments Mod
Kyle wrote: "So your saying that the republicans didn't work for the american people?"

I'm saying they aren't very good at it and have the wrong groups in interest.


message 16: by Kyle (new)

Kyle Borland (kgborland) Well actually the way we look at it, you directly take care of the rich and the rich take of the poor. It works just as well. And that pisses Libs off.


message 17: by Davis, Staunchly Liberal (someone has to be) (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 401 comments Mod
Kyle wrote: "Well actually the way we look at it, you directly take care of the rich and the rich take of the poor. It works just as well. And that pisses Libs off."

But the rich don't take care of the poor, that's the problem.


message 18: by Kyle (new)

Kyle Borland (kgborland) They did, until they were told they we're being taxed for being rich. I wouldn't help out the government either.

Its funny though, that even though the Republicans are the "rich mans party" a VAST majority of rich people are liberals.


message 19: by Davis, Staunchly Liberal (someone has to be) (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 401 comments Mod
That's because the Republicans have done a great job tricking the American people. They have convinced the 'average joe', the factory worker, the farmer, that they help them out; when in fact the opposite is true. The dem's are the party of labor unions, subsides, and aid. The Republicans are for Big Business, weather it be Oil, Pharma, etc.

"They did, until they were told they we're being taxed for being rich."

NO THEY DIDN'T!! THE RICH HAVE NEVER EVER TAKEN CARE OF THE POOR TO THE EXTENT THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS!

"I wouldn't help out the government either."

Your not helping out the government, your helping out American People.



Seriously man, get with the program.


message 20: by Kyle (new)

Kyle Borland (kgborland) "NO THEY DIDN'T!! THE RICH HAVE NEVER EVER TAKEN CARE OF THE POOR TO THE EXTENT THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS!"

MAYBE THATS BECAUSE ITS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS FUCKING JOB!!! NOT THE RICH PEOPLES!!!

"Your not helping out the government, your helping out American People."

And that would be fine, if they taxed me the same PERCENTAGE you taxes everyone else.



message 21: by Davis, Staunchly Liberal (someone has to be) (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 401 comments Mod
"MAYBE THATS BECAUSE ITS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS FUCKING JOB!!! NOT THE RICH PEOPLES!!!"

But you JUST SAID that it's NOT the job of the federal government. What do you expect them do with out taxpayer money? Make money appear out of thin air?

"And that would be fine, if they taxed me the same PERCENTAGE you taxes everyone else."

OH MY GOD! Your in favor of a FLAT TAX? Hahahahahahhahahahahahaha I seriously just laughed out loud dude.


message 22: by Kyle (new)

Kyle Borland (kgborland) "But you JUST SAID that it's NOT the job of the federal government. What do you expect them do with out taxpayer money? Make money appear out of thin air?"

Where the did I say that? The governments dug itself a hole so it has too attack one group of people to help another? Yes that is so fair.

"OH MY GOD! Your in favor of a FLAT TAX? Hahahahahahhahahahahahaha I seriously just laughed out loud dude."

Not LITERALLY a flat tax because well..thats just as bad but something to where I won't get ATRONOMICALLY higher taxes just because I was born in to a rich family, that ridiculous and well prejudice against rich people for being rich. But thats not a problem...prejudices only count towards the minorities not towards the majorities.

You know whites can be prejudice of black but if a black person is prejudice against a white its normal? But if you're prejudice towards the poor OH LORD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL here comes the liberals!!!! But if you're prejudice against the rich for JUST being rich..."its not prejudice its just normal."

Sorry I don't like being targeted for being rich, damn me and my dislike for being prejudized(sp? or if this word even exists :P) against.



message 23: by Davis, Staunchly Liberal (someone has to be) (new)

Davis (davismattek) | 401 comments Mod
It's not a prejudice against the rich at all. It's asking them to help our society. Their way of life is not at all threatened by taxes, not even in the fucking slightest.


back to top