J
Jesse M
Guest
I think we simply cannot afford it. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, who headed the hearings on the bailout just admitted on CNN what I already knew -- that in order to do this 700 million dollar bailout, we have to borrow that money, which adds 700 mil to our national debt ( http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ ). Unfortunately, and I don't take this lightly because these companies are in New York City -- this is my city's economy that's going to be hit the hardest -- I don't think we can afford this. I think there companies are going to have to be allowed to fail, and some things are going to have to change in the future.
What do you think?
NUF SAID: It is an effort to save the economy, though the package as the president and his treasury secretary (Paulson) are pushing it, leave CEOs untouched and do not give the U.S. government a share of stock in exchange for the loan. This is what's holding up the decision to go forward with the bailout (primarily). Neither Democrats nor Republicans in Congress like the terms of the deal.
General comment:
I believe that any relief this may provide to the economy is simply more of the same that got us into the debt-laden situation in which we now find ourselves. I believe any positives derived from it will eventually backfire and that it will turn out to have catapulted us toward certain collapse. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but if I'm right, remember when it happens that I said it would.
HARRY K, you're correct. As I posted, I had my mind on a few things at a time and typed "million" in error. It is billion, let that fact stand corrected.
Notwithstanding, I cannot necessarily sign on to your version of the circumstances. Common sense dictates that we would never have borrowed from other countries if we had the money we wanted/needed ourselves. If you were 100,000 in debt and attempted to undertake a purchase that cost another 75,000, would you have the cash or would you need to borrow it? We do not have 700 billion to spend unless we intend to print meaningless, unsupported pieces of paper. I'm sorry, I'm afraid that if you're going to assume this position, you're going to have to post several valid links to support it. If you do so, we can consider the ultimate benefit of this question to be that Harry set us all straight about the realities of the situation.
ATTENTION EVERYONE: I was distracted as I wrote the original details of my post. IT IS 700 BILLION DOLLARS.
And KASHI, that doesn't even get into what CEOs get when they're fired. With that kind of money in screwing up, is it any wonder that there's a dearth of talent running companies.
HARRY K, I'm giving you a thumbs up for answering despite my level of disagreement with the points you made. Also, I found Richard Shelby to be highly refreshing, circumspect and dignified in his demeanor, and in general, very reminiscent (of course, I know nothing else about him besides what I saw in the hearings, so don't take this as an endorsement) of true, old-school conservatives when that used to not mean checking their brains at the door. And bear in mind, I'm a Democrat.
What do you think?
NUF SAID: It is an effort to save the economy, though the package as the president and his treasury secretary (Paulson) are pushing it, leave CEOs untouched and do not give the U.S. government a share of stock in exchange for the loan. This is what's holding up the decision to go forward with the bailout (primarily). Neither Democrats nor Republicans in Congress like the terms of the deal.
General comment:
I believe that any relief this may provide to the economy is simply more of the same that got us into the debt-laden situation in which we now find ourselves. I believe any positives derived from it will eventually backfire and that it will turn out to have catapulted us toward certain collapse. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but if I'm right, remember when it happens that I said it would.
HARRY K, you're correct. As I posted, I had my mind on a few things at a time and typed "million" in error. It is billion, let that fact stand corrected.
Notwithstanding, I cannot necessarily sign on to your version of the circumstances. Common sense dictates that we would never have borrowed from other countries if we had the money we wanted/needed ourselves. If you were 100,000 in debt and attempted to undertake a purchase that cost another 75,000, would you have the cash or would you need to borrow it? We do not have 700 billion to spend unless we intend to print meaningless, unsupported pieces of paper. I'm sorry, I'm afraid that if you're going to assume this position, you're going to have to post several valid links to support it. If you do so, we can consider the ultimate benefit of this question to be that Harry set us all straight about the realities of the situation.
ATTENTION EVERYONE: I was distracted as I wrote the original details of my post. IT IS 700 BILLION DOLLARS.
And KASHI, that doesn't even get into what CEOs get when they're fired. With that kind of money in screwing up, is it any wonder that there's a dearth of talent running companies.
HARRY K, I'm giving you a thumbs up for answering despite my level of disagreement with the points you made. Also, I found Richard Shelby to be highly refreshing, circumspect and dignified in his demeanor, and in general, very reminiscent (of course, I know nothing else about him besides what I saw in the hearings, so don't take this as an endorsement) of true, old-school conservatives when that used to not mean checking their brains at the door. And bear in mind, I'm a Democrat.