Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 28 to 36 of 86

Thread: Round II?

  1. #28

    Default Re: Round II?

    Sorry Ban, but teacher unions do take tax payer bailouts. Public employee pensions are bankrupting our states. Look at the uproar in Wisconsin when someone tried to make them fiscally responsible. They wanted nothing to do with that. Move on to 401k plans and I have no problem with them. But until then, they are just as bad as any company that takes bailouts. Planned Parenthood takes tax money and kills off babies. Not a real good example of proper use of taxes. And since you mentioned all of these government funded programs, have you forgotten that the government are the people who decided to give the bailouts? It was stupid, I agree on that, but it was the government's decision to do so. Why do you protect the decision makers and chastise those who benefited from the poor decisions?

  2. #29
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,964

    Default Re: Round II?

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    Sorry Ban, but teacher unions do take tax payer bailouts. Public employee pensions are bankrupting our states. Look at the uproar in Wisconsin when someone tried to make them fiscally responsible. They wanted nothing to do with that. Move on to 401k plans and I have no problem with them. But until then, they are just as bad as any company that takes bailouts. Planned Parenthood takes tax money and kills off babies. Not a real good example of proper use of taxes. And since you mentioned all of these government funded programs, have you forgotten that the government are the people who decided to give the bailouts? It was stupid, I agree on that, but it was the government's decision to do so. Why do you protect the decision makers and chastise those who benefited from the poor decisions?
    Thee is a big difference between a bailout and government funded. Paying public employee slary and benefits is hugely different from bailing out a private company.

    however, I do strongly contest that the bailout was a poor decision. The bankers who put their companies and eventually the world-wide financial system in jeopardy where the ones making poor decision. The politicians who made the hugely unpopular decision (unpopular with both the left and the right) to rescue the banking system and prevent catastrophe made a wise decision.

    Face facts, the bailouts of the banks worked and did not ended up costing the taxpayer anything.

  3. #30

    Default Re: Round II?

    Quote Originally Posted by ODH View Post
    Thee is a big difference between a bailout and government funded. Paying public employee slary and benefits is hugely different from bailing out a private company.
    How is this not the same thing?

    Congress Approves Billions for State Workers; GOP Cry 'Bailout' - ABC News

  4. #31

    Default Re: Round II?

    Quote Originally Posted by ODH View Post
    Face facts, the bailouts of the banks worked and did not ended up costing the taxpayer anything.
    According to this article they paid back the government lent money with other government money. Since government only gets money through taxes, wouldn't that mean that they've really just played a slight-of-hand trick?

    Banks Repaid Fed Bailout With Other Fed Money: Government Report

  5. #32

    Default Re: Round II?

    Quote Originally Posted by ban basketball View Post
    Yes, but in post # 18 you said this, "I would hope with that kind of help from the government that things would be looking good for the company...Like I said, if the government gave me a million dollars then my personal balance sheet would look great."

    If car sales are indeed up, which they are Auto Sales - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com, it appears to me that there's a bit more to their balance sheets than just government money, right? It looks to me that the car companies are not failing, but, rather, selling more cars, which is a sign of an improving industry, right?

    Maybe there wasn't too much more to the headline that I posted?
    Car sales can be tied to a number of things - confidence in the economy, employment level, financing rates, quality of cars, etc. I'm not really interested in why cars are selling, my point is that I don't think GM is a success story at all. Taxpayers are on the hook in big way, and I think they could have gotten back to square one if they had been forced to go through bankruptcy rather than via a government takeover of the company.

  6. #33

    Default Re: Round II?

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    Sorry Ban, but teacher unions do take tax payer bailouts. Public employee pensions are bankrupting our states. Look at the uproar in Wisconsin when someone tried to make them fiscally responsible. They wanted nothing to do with that. Move on to 401k plans and I have no problem with them. But until then, they are just as bad as any company that takes bailouts. Planned Parenthood takes tax money and kills off babies. Not a real good example of proper use of taxes. And since you mentioned all of these government funded programs, have you forgotten that the government are the people who decided to give the bailouts? It was stupid, I agree on that, but it was the government's decision to do so. Why do you protect the decision makers and chastise those who benefited from the poor decisions?
    Not all public employees are on state pensions. The folk writing this reply to you is one good case in point.

    If public employee numbers are down (total number of employees) compared to what they were in their heydey, why didn't these public employees "bankrupt" states years prior? In fact, Iowa is one of only four states (I believe) that has been operating with a surplus for many years. Why haven't the public employees bankrupted Iowa?

    As for Planned Parenthood, government money is NOT used to perform abortions, and abortions account for less than 5% of their services. That is irresponsible "journalism" on the part of AM radio and Wiretap News to report that, and used to already inflame an already angry and uninformed fan base. Once again, I'll lay money on that claim. You in for $1,000?

    Why do I protect the government? I'm not sure that I am, but government is the one who does not greatly regulate these dangerous financial games that these weasels play, and government is the one who is comprised of Wall Street. If that is "protecting government," then I'd like to see what someone does who REALLY protects government! LOL!
    UNI Panthers...Because it's just right.

  7. #34

    Default Re: Round II?

    Quote Originally Posted by ban basketball View Post
    Not all public employees are on state pensions. The folk writing this reply to you is one good case in point.

    If public employee numbers are down (total number of employees) compared to what they were in their heydey, why didn't these public employees "bankrupt" states years prior? In fact, Iowa is one of only four states (I believe) that has been operating with a surplus for many years. Why haven't the public employees bankrupted Iowa?
    Obviously I was talking about those that do bankrupt states. Much like when I say auto companies taking a bailout, I don't mean Ford. It's good to hear Iowa is operating at a surplus. As far as to numbers being down and not being bankrupted before, it's because of legacy costs. When you are paying just as many people to do nothing (retired) as you are paying those actually working, then you have a problem. That's one of the things that finally caught up with the auto industry. Take out the ponzi scheme they call pensions, and things will run pretty good.

    As for Planned Parenthood, government money is NOT used to perform abortions, and abortions account for less than 5% of their services. That is irresponsible "journalism" on the part of AM radio and Wiretap News to report that, and used to already inflame an already angry and uninformed fan base. Once again, I'll lay money on that claim. You in for $1,000?
    I can not bet you on this because I don't think you can prove anything you're saying. How do you know that they take the tax dollars and specifically re-route it away from abortions? I'm guessing all the money is thrown into the account and distributed where it's needed. Can you verify how much money they take in each year from tax payers and what their total expenses are? Are they receiving marked bills from the government to guarantee that no doctor receives a single dollar from a tax payer?

    Why do I protect the government? I'm not sure that I am, but government is the one who does not greatly regulate these dangerous financial games that these weasels play, and government is the one who is comprised of Wall Street. If that is "protecting government," then I'd like to see what someone does who REALLY protects government! LOL!
    That "Pass it On" post you put on here was basically saying that all things ran by the government were great and private business wasn't. I proved that public employees did take bailouts, so that wasn't true. NPR and PBS should have stopped receiving tax dollars decades ago. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of radio and tv stations doing just fine without tax dollars. At this point, supporting those two are a waste of tax money. Planned Parenthood was started for the sole reason of Eugenics. If you support that, then you donate to them. I do not, so I don't think they should garnish my wages. You can see my confusion in saying you seem to always support anything government ran.

  8. #35

    Default Re: Round II?

    When you are paying just as many people to do nothing (retired) as you are paying those actually working, then you have a problem.
    Quinn, I don't have a problem with your opinion on the subject but you could at least temper the rhetoric by acknowledging that retirees have been paying into the system prior to getting this 'handout', in some cases 9+% per check.

  9. #36

    Default Re: Round II?

    I was surpised to learn (from Maureen Dowd's column this morning) that President Obama has, in the past, defended the compensation packages for Jamie Dimon, while, at the same time, railing against excessive pay for corporate execs. That was an eyebrow raiser. That sent me searching to verify the facts. What I found was a bunch of tap-dancing around the fact that Dimon served time in the president's home town and did business with Daley. The president's verdict: Dimon is the king of the financial industry and deserves every penny he gets. Then I understood.

    In the meantime, in this search, I found someone who mirrored my thoughts very well. Here's the link:
    Peter S. Goodman: Jamie Dimon Derivatives Fiasco Highlights Obama Failure



    I would have liked Mr. Goodman's article better if he wasn't so sure that Morgan's latest "problem" was going to lead to disasters, as a direct result. I'm not sure that that is the case given Morgan's high level of profitability. But the rest is on the button.
    Last edited by LkwdSteve; 05-18-2012 at 08:37 AM.
    DSCH: a Soviet artist's reply to unjust criticism.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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