While I wonder at the logic of the bailouts going on, I have no doubts what would happen if something-for-nothing socialists got their way and the goverment gave everyone $20K or $25K. I know I would take a six month vacation and work on my time machine. Others would go on at least a month drunk or be stoned for that long. Did anyone see the movie Bruce Almighty? In that movie Bruce took over as God and totally screwed everything up by giving everyone what they were praying for. Giving everyone what they want is not the answer. That is the whole problem with what OhBummer is peddling. He, like most Democrats, is promising something-for-nothing. The bailout is supposed to be a loan. The government (us) is supposed to get some return on its investment. Giving everyone $25,000 would simply lead to a loaf of bread costing $100. There is a big difference in loaning some money and just giving it away. I know most kids in school today are busy learning about important issues like homosexual marriage instead of history, but what happened in Germany before WWII was rampant inflation -- too many dollars chasing to few goods. (Try to imagine going to Wal Mart and everyone there has pockets filled with money. The shelves would be empty in no time and everyone's garage would be filled with even more junk they do not need.) That is part of what is going on now. Too many people (like Hollywood types, rap stars, and teamsters) are making too much money and producing nothing, producing no goods. So everything already costs too much. Read some history books instead of Carl Marx. This stuff used to be in the history books, but maybe not anymore. Much of our problem today was caused by Democrats and Republicans trying to give people something for nothing, selling people houses they could not afford. And obviously greedy people ran with that and here we are. What do you think would happen if everyone was given something for nothing? The main thing I see wrong with the current bailouts is that the people who caused this problem are not losing everything they own and maybe going to jail for a while. Instead of golden parachutes they should be booted out of the plane naked and screaming. Why are we rewarding their stupidity and greed? Instead of impeaching Bush for trying to protect our country, we should be taking these assholes to court and stripping them of any wealth they may have amassed over the last few years. Giving each citizen X number of dollars would just cause more problems. But restoring each citizen's trust in our government would not cost a thing, if we hold the people that caused this problem accountable. And that includes Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George Bush. Plus, I would go one step further and say that the government has to be held accountable. We should make sure that the bailout money is paid back and not just forget about it as time goes on. If we are going to forget about it, we might as well give everyone X dollars because we will end up in the same place -- bankrupt. Here is a suggestion, make everyone at the businesses being bailed out continue to work there for minimum wage ... EVERYONE from top to bottom (or face jail time) until the debt is paid off. And while we are at it, we should ban the teamsters union, rap stars, and any other nothing-for-something segment of our population. OK, I guess rap stars produce something, but I think it is noise and should be banned anyway. ha ha ha
ALIENated posted on Nov 13, 2008
| views: 239
Comments
-
SeanRenaud said on Nov 13, 2008....
Why are we rewarding their stupidity and greed? Because we are a nation of laws and we require contracts to be honored. Of course if your suggesting that a person (or company) should be allowed out of a contract because it's no longer favorable. . . .sucks don't it.
we should be taking these assholes to court and
stripping them of any wealth they may have amassed over the last
few years.In any case where criminal negligence or fraud can be proven we will.
I was about to chastise you on rap but I won't get on your case for not liking it and you did admit that they produce something.
-
redryder said on Nov 13, 2008....
Alien: As usual, I agree with you in some areas and disagree in others. I think the bailout of the major banks was justified. Like 1932 the government had to restore confidence in the banking system. I would hope the government starts regulating the financial industry more closely. I would also like to see ARM's abolished for the average person seeking a mortgage, along with baloon payment clauses. We made it through the great depression without resorting to socialism and we will make it through this one with capitalism still intact. -
SeanRenaud said on Nov 13, 2008....
We weren't capialist going into the Great Depression. I mean not unless you think that isolationism is capitalist. -
Expendable said on Nov 13, 2008....
Last time I checked, kids were still being taught abrieviated history, remedial math and to mind that dangling participle in English. Nobody wants their kids to have sex period so they're only hearing about abstinance and STDs in Health, leaving them to learn everything in gym and home ec.But Social Studies - hmm. If I wanted to indoctrinate an impressionable, overstimulated horny class of bored teens that's where I'd do it. You just know anything that teaches about the Consitution and American Government just has to be up to something dirty like pushing Homosexual Marriage. -
redryder said on Nov 13, 2008....
Sean: I am afraid you have capitalism and isolationism confused. We were definitely a capitalistic economy before the Great Depression. I think Carnegie, Rockefeller, and other robber barons were heads of companies that held their businesses in private ownership. Capitalism, the means of production are owned and operated by private citizens for a personal profit. During the gilded age, the progressive era we traded with other coutries. During the roaring 20's we also traded with other countries. We were not isolationist by a long shot. During the middlie to late 30's we tried an isolationist foreign policy, congress passed neutrality laws, but those only were aimed at nations fighting each other. Roosevelt managed to bypass them often. -
SeanRenaud said on Nov 13, 2008....
First I would like to apoligize. Your right Red, we had stopped the heavy tarrifs a bit before the depression.
I am well aware however of what capitalism is. That isn't the problem here. The problem is that. . .well your new so I haven't got to catch you being a hypocrit yet. however if: Capitalism, the means of production are owned and operated by private citizens for a personal profit. Is the working definition then you shouldn't have a problem with most current liberal social plans. After all they don't take the means of production. They just (in theory) tax the fuck out of you and spread that wealth around at their whim.
At the moment however I was more pointing out that government intervention is government invervention. But you didn't specifically mention (nor strongly imply) that you meant laisez faire (or however it's spelled) captialism and I shouldn't put words in your mouth.
-
Expendable said on Nov 13, 2008....
I've got a great idea - nationalize the companies that need bailing out, fire the guys who got them into trouble, prosecute the guilty, then sell the company to the highest bidder with a contract that states the buyer must pay back the rest of the bailout within the next ten years. -
SeanRenaud said on Nov 13, 2008....
I like that plan other than one thing. Part of the reason we are in this problem (at least as it is perceived) is that some of these companies have gotten so big that if they fall they take the rest of us with them. That is the basic justification for the bail out. We aren't bailing them out because we feel really bad about them being poor. We're bailing them out because of the perception that if they go we go and we go worse and faster because they simply have more time to fall. Most of us are already near the bottom.
I say perception because we don't KNOW. It's never been tested on this level or with this number of intermediaries. We've all seen or driven through towns were the local whatever went out of business and the city around it died. But we don't and cant' know if this is truly big enough.
Anyway the only people who are going to be able to buy out companies like Ford or AIG are the super rich and then they'll be getting even richer which eventually leads us back to where we are with somebody who provides so much of our lives that if he dies we die.
So on the surface I like your idea but I think the underlying problem is different. Just like I think we should seriously rethink what qualifies as a monopoly but I'm not really sure what to fix.
-
ALIENated said on Nov 13, 2008....
It is one mell of a hess for sure. I heard an economist (I presume) on Hugh Hewitt yesterday, and he was down right depressing about the near future. We have one big mess and the wrong people in power to fix it, and nothing on the horizon that is going to pull it out. Sounds like time for WWIII if you ask me. It is 1935 all over again. I also heard recently that the Great Depression only lasted a couple of years elsewhere in the world, but FDR's interference in our economy caused it to last until we entered WWII here in the U.S. I can see OhBummer doing the same thing since he thinks he knows everything and all his supporters think he is the messiah. We are most likely living in a time, like the Great Depression, that people will be referring to for years to come. Our children will someday be telling their grandchildren that they grew up during the Great [whatever we call what we are experiencing now] and that dufus OhBummer was president and caused a great deal of it. (I am just going on memory here. My time machine has been busted for a while.)
-
redryder said on Nov 14, 2008....
Sean: I am not a believer in laissez-faire economics. The government has to regulate business, business cannot be trusted to do the right thing always. I also believe in many liberal social welfare issues. I happen to think social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps (the proper use of them) and many other government programs are good. Politically I am an independent, I vote for the individual, not the party. -
SeanRenaud said on Nov 14, 2008....
I already apologized for putting words in your mouth. So far I've seen you siding with the ultra-conservatives so I made an assumption. My bust.
Comment on "Naked And Screaming"
Related Posts:
D6fer
posted on Nov 07, 2009
| views: 297
|
Well they did it......despite a majority of Americans that oppose the proposed socialist health care bill.....they passed it.This will clearly set the ball rolling for a massive Republican resurgence in 2010.... read entire post
andycox
posted 13 days ago
| views: 85
|
Communist or socialism refers to a world-wide society in which the means of production would be held in common, where money, wages, and profits would not exist, and in which true democracy and the greatest possible libertry would prevail.... read entire post