Overstepping their authority, again

catocom said:
I agree mostly.
The problem is The current bill didn't address those things, as much as the pet projects/pork.
Click to expand...

What percentage of the current plan do you actually think is pork? I think you're going to be surprised.

Gonz said:
Damned straight. Oh, by the way, you don't need more than $3.82/hour.
Click to expand...

I think the cap is actually $500 thousand a year. You're just a little bit off. Also that would only apply if Random was asking for bailout money so it probably doesn't apply at all.
 
so far looks like about 50% atleast, and another 25% of good programs, but
that need other legislation, and not in this bill, because of complexity.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw_zN6PB8Pg

THE PRESIDENT: Then there's the argument, well, this is full of pet projects. When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one. (Applause.)

So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? (Laughter and applause.) That's the whole point. No, seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point. (Applause.)
Click to expand...


Translation:

"There's nothing in this bill that will stimulate the economy. It is a spending spree that is being rammed through the government to repay all the special interest groups that donated to my campaign to help get me elected."
 
Gonz said:
With that attitude, you're right....
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that has to be about one of the single most short sighted, self deluded, and moronic statements I have ever heard! Technology, over population, and the emerging global community make reverting back to the policies of 100 years ago unthinkable! Times they are a changin', DEAL WITH IT. There is a place still for thoughtful yet progressive thinking conservatives. It is necessary to balance out the lunatic fringe on the left. People who want to roll back the calender politically are necessarily, and thankfully a dying breed!

I've heard you speak of the "unContitutionality" of Roosevelt's "New Deals". The man most likely single handedly, (at least in as much as the powers of his office allowed) not only probably rescued America as a nation from total ruin, but was also key in saving the entire planet from domination by two evil empires! He left office with something like and 80% approval rating, and the supreme court ruled his reform to be, in fact, constitutional! More than anything that our Constitution holds dear aside from freedom, is that we be governed by the will of the people. The notion of setting back such progress is ludicrous. Reform, maybe, repeal, HELL NO! I also know that the vast majority of the people are with me on this. I'm sorry but you are just plain wrong, totally and completely in this area.

Roosevelt was a bona fide hero and legend of a man! No he wasn't perfect, he did not walk on water, but he was just what this nation needed in it's darkest hour. Personally I believe that in much the same way, yet neither quite as urgently, both Reagan and Clinton were such men. I have cautious optimism that Mr. Obama could be as well.

As for your $3.82 /hr, I'm assuming you mean minimum wage? Well, if all things in the economy were set right, it could probably be reduced, but at this point, I think that idea is positively loony!
 
Deal speaks out against stimulus
UNDATED - The push continues in the U.S. Senate for passage of an economic stimulus bill. It's a package that is now over $ 900 billion.

Republican Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal said he voted against the House version.

"The long-term danger of this bill is that it provides large sums of money into programs that have continuing life spans," said Deal.

The northeast Georgia congressman pointed to food stamps as an example of such a program.

"So next year when you come around and say we don't need that $20 billion stimulus for food stamps, everyone's going to say you want to cut food stamps by $20 billion,"he said.

Deal spoke about the stimulus on WDUN's Bill and Joel Morning Show.
Click to expand...
http://www.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=217512
 
Goldman Sachs wants to pay back the bailout money it got from the government last year. But that may be easier said than done...and a bad idea


"What it really comes down to is Goldman Sachs does not have control of its own destiny," said James Ellman, head of San Francisco-based Seacliff Capital, a hedge fund specializing in financial services. "The President of the United States does and the President of the United States will tell us in 3 to 4 days what Goldman Sachs' options are."
Click to expand...
 
oh the horrible, horrible oppression those wall street fuckers must endure!

waaaaaaaa! waaaaaaaaaa!

crying-baby.jpg


boneheads.
 
randomJACKASS said:
progressive thinking conservatives.
Click to expand...

Oxymoron.

randomJACKASS said:
I've heard you speak of the "unContitutionality" of Roosevelt's "New Deals". The man most likely single handedly, (at least in as much as the powers of his office allowed) not only probably rescued America as a nation from total ruin,
Click to expand...

:lol:

He caused it to last at least 6 years longer than it needed to last. By the same methods we're using today. Spending, for spending sake, does not lift an economy. It creates overburdening governmental power & deficits.

randomJACKASS said:
As for your $3.82 /hr, I'm assuming you mean minimum wage? Well, if all things in the economy were set right, it could probably be reduced, but at this point, I think that idea is positively loony!
Click to expand...

No, I mean if you're willing to allow government to limit someone elses income, I think I should be allowed to limit yours.
 
Speaking of the sky falling.....Did anybody see how Zero said "We're all gonna die."??

Boo hoo. Can't get your freaking bill passed? The people know it's bad.

A heaping order of pork with a side of malaise, please? Is there a misery index yet?
 
Exactly Spike! That was the point. If they get bailout money then they have to keep their salary withing reason and not pay themselves craploads of bonuses, and if they don't get bailout money then they can make however much they want. It seems to me that all this bailout (the first one) did was make the guys at the top financially secure, and fund their "golden parachute" severance plans, so that when (not if) the company does go down, well all is peachy for them right? I mean after all they are rich and elite, and better than you and me aren't they? The employees at the bottom of the food chain can always get another job, say at Walmart or McDonalds, but these guys at the top would die if you pulled the silver spoon out of their mouths! Reducing their standard of living ought to be criminal! I think I feel tears coming on!
 
What you're saying then, is, it's okay to give bailouts but only if the government gains authority over private enterprise?

Any reason whatsoever to allow their foot in the door & it'll remain there, forever.

randomJACKASS said:
The employees at the bottom of the food chain can always get another job, say at Walmart or McDonalds, but these guys at the top would die if you pulled the silver spoon out of their mouths! Reducing their standard of living ought to be criminal! I think I feel tears coming on!
Click to expand...

Your class envy is showing.
 
Gonz said:
What you're saying then, is, it's okay to give bailouts but only if the government gains authority over private enterprise?
Click to expand...

hell yes, it would be idiotic to bail out companies with no strings attached. Executives that failed and want government money have their salaries limited until the taxpayers are paid back their money.

Makes perfect sense. You haven't come up with any legitimate reason why their salaries shouldn't be limited until the taxpayers get their money back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top