Sometimes stupid loses

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-03-30 16:30:06 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-03-30 15:38:04 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

Peter N wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:15:43 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
wrote:
It's about our freedom to choose which the president would
eliminate if he could. If he could've shoved universal health
care down our throats he would have but he was willing to admit
that it wouldn't fly. But many will admit that this health care
bill is a start and that they want to "teak" it as time goes by
with the ultimate goal being universal halth care. It's the same
old argument, there are those that believe that government should
"take care if us" and then there are those of us who want to take
care of ourselves. Because there are some who can't take care of
themselves (and many are in that camp due to their own choices),
those of us who can can't be allowed to either.

Think of it as a governmental mandate of our moral obligation to
take care of our fellow human beings. Certainly you don't object
to that.

I surely don't object to paying for the keep, (health and
othe3rwise) of those who were born defective in some way, either
physicalluy or mentally, so they can't care for themselves. It's
the other ones I object to. /the ones who, having the same
physical abilities and mental abilities that I was born with,
chose to blow every cent they made on fast cars and women and
booze, and are now begging at the door asking for Obama's help (My
tax payers help).........

Oh! So you are talking about the banks and Wall Street brokerages?

They didn't even have to ask....Obama rushed to give them my
money.....

Actually the give away started with the Bush administration.

Perhaps, but it was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, et al, and not George W.
Bush....... But, in reality, they are all a bunch of liberals, so it doesn't
matter to me. I would get rid of all of them if I could.

John A. wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:55:35 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-03-30 16:30:06 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-03-30 15:38:04 -0700, "Bill Graham"
said:

Peter N wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:15:43 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
wrote:
It's about our freedom to choose which the president would
eliminate if he could. If he could've shoved universal health
care down our throats he would have but he was willing to admit
that it wouldn't fly. But many will admit that this health
care bill is a start and that they want to "teak" it as time
goes by with the ultimate goal being universal halth care.
It's the same old argument, there are those that believe that
government should "take care if us" and then there are those
of us who want to take care of ourselves. Because there are
some who can't take care of themselves (and many are in that
camp due to their own choices), those of us who can can't be
allowed to either.

Think of it as a governmental mandate of our moral obligation to
take care of our fellow human beings. Certainly you don't object
to that.

I surely don't object to paying for the keep, (health and
othe3rwise) of those who were born defective in some way, either
physicalluy or mentally, so they can't care for themselves. It's
the other ones I object to. /the ones who, having the same
physical abilities and mental abilities that I was born with,
chose to blow every cent they made on fast cars and women and
booze, and are now begging at the door asking for Obama's help
(My tax payers help).........

Oh! So you are talking about the banks and Wall Street brokerages?

They didn't even have to ask....Obama rushed to give them my
money.....

Actually the give away started with the Bush administration.

Perhaps, but it was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, et al, and not
George W. Bush....... But, in reality, they are all a bunch of
liberals, so it doesn't matter to me. I would get rid of all of them
if I could.

IIRC, and I do not recall all the details, the bailout funds were
originally meant specifically to be used purchase the "toxic assets"
so as to take that weight off the banks and allow them to resume
lending thus relieving the credit crisis and starting us quickly on
our way out of the recession. Discretion was given to the
administration, however, to change the plan if the situation changed -
something that would normally be considered a wise move since
situations do have a way of changing and if nothing else we would want
to halt the program if it turned out less money was needed than was
budgeted. The administration, however, changed the plan immediately
and simply pumped the money into the banks, with little or no strings
attached in regards to what the banks should do with it (the market
knows best, after all), and the banks immediately sat on it. (Or had
parties with it, or big bonuses, etc.) Oops.

Well, as I understand it, most of tha allocated funds haven't been spent
yet. Perhaps there is a good chance that they will never be spent, and we
will recover in spite of them. This might be true if they don't start taxing
the hell our of the small businesses that carry this country.