We're Not Broke!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by 804brown, Jan 24, 2012.

  1. 804brown

    804brown Well-Known Member

  2. klein

    klein Für Meno :)

    Justb like the Wall Street and Banks bail-out : It's capital (private) gains if they profit.
    And it's socialisum if they lose money.

    Too bad the US government didn't do the right thing, and let the banks go under (freddie and fanny included) and bail out the home owners instead.
    The property value of the homes wouldn't have sunk and the economic recovery would have been full blast by now.
    Foreclosures would be unheard of.

    The government could have settled for belated repayments of housing mortgages directly with homeowners (extend the mortgage years or by other means), but instead bailed out the banks by trillions, and thos esdame banks gave millions towards bonuses to CEO's and higher upper management ! (millions of tax bailed out funds ) ! Is that capitalisum ? Or socialisum to the rich ?
    Socialisum to the poor, for sure not !
  3. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    If you believe the banks should have been left to fail (as I do believe), then why do you cheer the gov't bailing out GM ? ....it's the same thing to me.
  4. klein

    klein Für Meno :)

    No it's not !
    Since over 30 years now, the US hasn't created any manufacturing jobs, they have been in the retreat and shipped overseas !
    Losing over 1 Million manufacturing jobs at once, would have made unemployment everlasting.

    Service sector jobs, like banking, they are dime a dozen ! But they really don't export anything, and with trade deficits, such as the US has, the gap will just get larger without manufacturing jobs ! And therfor even miuch harder to create a balanced budget.

    (You can't buy more then you sell in monutary value, - you go into debt - simple basic household economics) !
  5. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Bank = in business to make money. It messed up.
    G.M. = in business to make money. It messed up.

    Now that's simple and the same to me.
  6. texan

    texan Well-Known Member

    I do not have all the answers, very few to be truthful.
    But our debt of 15 trillion and climbing is not good.
  7. 804brown

    804brown Well-Known Member

    It took 200 yrs to accumulate about $1 trillion in debt. From 1980 til today we have accumulated another $14 trillion!! That is because both parties bought into supplyside economics of cutting taxes and thinking the deficit would go down. Both parties believed in the tooth fairy. It doesnt work. How long do we have to keep doing the same thing over and over (Yes obama bought into it too by agreeing to extend bush's tax cuts). We have plenty of supply and profits BUT NO DEMAND!! Cutting another tax is not going to create any jobs. The corporations are already sitting on trillions (supply). It is that it is not "trickling" down. Never does. I have no problem with saying that if they do not use that money and hire people, then it should be taken whether it be higher taxation or appropriation directly by the people!!
  8. Bad Gas!

    Bad Gas! Active Member

    I have yet to see a poor person give a man a paying job...There will always be rich people and poor people...I'm thankful to be in the middle..I dont hate the rich people..If they take the risk of putting up money for a business and do well, then God Bless em!
  9. 804brown

    804brown Well-Known Member

    I have yet to see anyone create or sell a product that is not DEMANDED by the consumer. Making the rich richer doesnt increase demand for products. People like you and me do!!

    You speak about risk but what was the risk that those greedy bastards took knowing that they would get bailed out. They got their risks socialized while they pocketed the profits themselves. Frankly right now the rich are not using their wealth to create any jobs and the republicans are preventing the govt from helping to create some jobs. Is it no wonder that unemployment is still too high??