rushmc 23
Recommended Posts
quade 4
QuoteQuoteLet me be more specific then.
Do you think what Congress has done so far in dealing with the auto industry falls outside its authority? THAT is the basis for this entire thread.
YES!!!!!!!!
Well, clearly YOU do.
I was asking people that might know what they're talking about.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
TomAiello 26
QuoteQuoteQuoteLet me be more specific then.
Do you think what Congress has done so far in dealing with the auto industry falls outside its authority? THAT is the basis for this entire thread.
YES!!!!!!!!
Well, clearly YOU do.
I was asking people that might know what they're talking about.
I think Congress has overstepped it's Constitutional authority. Not just in the bailouts, but in a lot of things.
If I disagree with you, does that mean that I'm just one of those people who doesn't know what I'm talking about?
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLet me be more specific then.
Do you think what Congress has done so far in dealing with the auto industry falls outside its authority? THAT is the basis for this entire thread.
YES!!!!!!!!
Well, clearly YOU do.
I was asking people that might know what they're talking about.
I think Congress has overstepped it's Constitutional authority. Not just in the bailouts, but in a lot of things.
If I disagree with you, does that mean that I'm just one of those people who doesn't know what I'm talking about?
QuoteSo far anyone that doesn't follow the new "KINGS" ideas and treat them as the word from god doesn't know what they are talking about.
I own a busines and I have always run in the black. I know that I can't get loans for things I can't pay for. I also know that getting a loan will cost me more when paying back. I know I don't have the right to tell other people how to run their business, but I can offer sugestions.
Obama has never run any business, he doesn't even have a clue how to run a business. the government is a business and therefore needs to follow some guidelines that would make it viable business. The spending by the government is out of control and they have no way to pay off the loans they are getting. this is what got several companies in trouble and caused the mess we have today. some day the loans will need to be repaid and how do they intend to do that? What will happen to the economy when the creditors call in the loan?
Being fiscally responsible is a hard thing to do because you have to say no to things that may be nice to have. Being responsible means that the most important things get done first and those less important have to wait. Obama isn't responsible enough to let those things wait until they can be paid for. Obama, like alot of people in the US don't have the responsibility or the courage to stand up and say no. I guess leading by example is not part of Obama's character.
The government doesn't have the right to tell a company who to hire and how much to pay them. thay can make sugestions but not order what they want.
The government is supposed to work for our best interest not theirs.
quade 4
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLet me be more specific then.
Do you think what Congress has done so far in dealing with the auto industry falls outside its authority? THAT is the basis for this entire thread.
YES!!!!!!!!
Well, clearly YOU do.
I was asking people that might know what they're talking about.
I think Congress has overstepped it's Constitutional authority. Not just in the bailouts, but in a lot of things.
If I disagree with you, does that mean that I'm just one of those people who doesn't know what I'm talking about?
No. You seem to be taking a viewpoint based on some research. Others seem to be simply obstructionist just for the sake of it.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
quade 4
QuoteThe government is supposed to work for our best interest not theirs.
The "government" is supposed to work for ALL of our best interests and not special interest groups (this includes business owners).
The VAST majority of Americans are not business owners and the recovery can't only work toward the benefit of business owners.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
billvon 2,998
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>So far anyone that doesn't follow the new "KINGS" ideas . . .
Hello!!! The official cute right winger term for Obama's status is "messiah" not "king."
>Obama has never run any business, he doesn't even have a clue how to run
>a business. the government is a business . . . .
Really? Well, if you do run a business, you know that the goal of a business is to make money and to grow. So a dramatic tax increase, followed by a rapid expansion of government would be to your liking, because it would be "good business" for the government?
I don't think so. Government is not a business. They are not there to make money. They are there to serve US.
So it's a very good thing that Obama isn't going to try to turn the US into a business. I'd rather have a well-run government than a big moneymaking business in Washington.
>The government doesn't have the right to tell a company who to hire and
>how much to pay them.
If I (a taxpayer) support them, damn right I (through the government) can tell them what to do. If they don't like it they don't have to take the money.
Do you have the right to tell your employees what to do? If so, aren't you just as bad as Obama?
Hello!!! The official cute right winger term for Obama's status is "messiah" not "king."
>Obama has never run any business, he doesn't even have a clue how to run
>a business. the government is a business . . . .
Really? Well, if you do run a business, you know that the goal of a business is to make money and to grow. So a dramatic tax increase, followed by a rapid expansion of government would be to your liking, because it would be "good business" for the government?
I don't think so. Government is not a business. They are not there to make money. They are there to serve US.
So it's a very good thing that Obama isn't going to try to turn the US into a business. I'd rather have a well-run government than a big moneymaking business in Washington.
>The government doesn't have the right to tell a company who to hire and
>how much to pay them.
If I (a taxpayer) support them, damn right I (through the government) can tell them what to do. If they don't like it they don't have to take the money.
Do you have the right to tell your employees what to do? If so, aren't you just as bad as Obama?
QuoteQuoteThe government is supposed to work for our best interest not theirs.
The "government" is supposed to work for ALL of our best interests and not special interest groups (this includes business owners).
The VAST majority of Americans are not business owners and the recovery can't only work toward the benefit of business owners.
Quote
the government needs to consider businesses and people. Any tax increase on a business WILL be paid for by the people. Every dime increase in taxes and fees to my business is passed on to the people.
Therefore raising taxes and fees to the business is paid for by the people. Just because you lower taxes to the people doesn't mean they pay less. They only pay less if they don't raise it some other place. Also because of higher taxes and fees some places choose to lay off workers instead of raising prices. Again the people pay.
Unless the government reduces spending, people will continue to pay. Helping businesses prosper is the key to a better economy, not shifting the tax burden from the people to the business. Controlling coruption in business is what the government's job should be and that is what is lacking. Taking people's fortune when they bankrupt a company and throwing them in jail if they did something illegal is the key to setting things straight. being fiscally responsible is the government's responsibility. Telling people that some projects can't happen because the money is tight is being responsible.
Obama said that irresponsible, out of control spending By the Bush administration is what caused this problem. If that is true, how is spending 2-3 times the amount going to make it better? Obama needs to get some backbone and do what he preaches or he will become one of the biggest failures as a president and send our children into poverty conditions like we have seen in Russia, China, and other countries.
Obama has been preaching fiscal responsibility and taking care of family, maybe he should listen to his own speeches start to set a example for others to follow.
quade 4
QuoteObama said that irresponsible, out of control spending By the Bush administration is what caused this problem. If that is true, how is spending 2-3 times the amount going to make it better?
Presumably by not being irresponsible about how the money is spent.
Let's say you have a chunk of money for your personal use, say $100,000.
Now, you have two options, you can, if you want, buy a shit load of guns and ammo, go to the range and shoot them off or . . . you can pay for your kid's college education.
Both are spending and puts money in a variety of people's hands which further circulates and grows the economy.
Which is the irresponsible choice?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Really? Well, if you do run a business, you know that the goal of a business is to make money and to grow. So a dramatic tax increase, followed by a rapid expansion of government would be to your liking, because it would be "good business" for the government?
I don't think so. Government is not a business. They are not there to make money. They are there to serve US.
So it's a very good thing that Obama isn't going to try to turn the US into a business. I'd rather have a well-run government than a big moneymaking business in Washington.
>The government doesn't have the right to tell a company who to hire and
>how much to pay them.
If I (a taxpayer) support them, damn right I (through the government) can tell them what to do. If they don't like it they don't have to take the money.
Do you have the right to tell your employees what to do? If so, aren't you just as bad as Obama?
I don't think so. Government is not a business. They are not there to make money. They are there to serve US.
So it's a very good thing that Obama isn't going to try to turn the US into a business. I'd rather have a well-run government than a big moneymaking business in Washington.
>The government doesn't have the right to tell a company who to hire and
>how much to pay them.
If I (a taxpayer) support them, damn right I (through the government) can tell them what to do. If they don't like it they don't have to take the money.
QuoteNo you don't have the right, nor does the government to tell them how to run their business. the government should not give them money either. they should prosper or fail on their own merits.
Do you have the right to tell your employees what to do? If so, aren't you just as bad as Obama?
QuoteWe don't work for Obama, he works for us. The American people are Obama's boss. Obama is NOT our boss. So yes I do tell my employees what to do during the time that I am paying them.
billvon 2,998
>No you don't have the right . . .
I do indeed have the right to tell the government what I want done with my tax money.
>We don't work for Obama, he works for us.
I asked you if you have the right to tell your employees what to do. Do you?
I do indeed have the right to tell the government what I want done with my tax money.
>We don't work for Obama, he works for us.
I asked you if you have the right to tell your employees what to do. Do you?
QuoteQuoteObama said that irresponsible, out of control spending By the Bush administration is what caused this problem. If that is true, how is spending 2-3 times the amount going to make it better?
Presumably by not being irresponsible about how the money is spent.
Let's say you have a chunk of money for your personal use, say $100,000.
Now, you have two options, you can, if you want, buy a shit load of guns and ammo, go to the range and shoot them off or . . . you can pay for your kid's college education.
Both are spending and puts money in a variety of people's hands which further circulates and grows the economy.
Which is the irresponsible choice?
Quotestudies on pig smell, sending money overseas for oil that we can produce here(and use those profits to build clean energy), and other stupid things like that are acting responsible? spending us into the next 2-3 generations is being responsible? Raising taxes to businesses and making the move to another country look more profitable is being responsible? I guess my websters dictionary has the wrong meaning under the word resposible. Maybe I need to get a copy of Obama's so I can get with the new program.
billvon 2,998
>sending money overseas for oil that we can produce here . . .
The government doesn't "send money overseas" for oil. Try again!
>spending us into the next 2-3 generations is being responsible?
No, it's not. We should raise taxes to match expenses.
>Raising taxes to businesses and making the move to another country
>look more profitable is being responsible?
Yes, it is. It's called "paying your bills." Republicans prefer that someone else's children do it, but that doesn't make it a good solution.
The government doesn't "send money overseas" for oil. Try again!
>spending us into the next 2-3 generations is being responsible?
No, it's not. We should raise taxes to match expenses.
>Raising taxes to businesses and making the move to another country
>look more profitable is being responsible?
Yes, it is. It's called "paying your bills." Republicans prefer that someone else's children do it, but that doesn't make it a good solution.
Quote>No you don't have the right . . .
I do indeed have the right to tell the government what I want done with my tax money.
>We don't work for Obama, he works for us.
I asked you if you have the right to tell your employees what to do. Do you?
Quoteyour tax money should not be in the hands of those companies to begin with. they should have been let to fail. But the bonus's were paid according to what the stipulations that Dodd and Giethner put in the bill for those that took the money and now they are going back and restructuring the deal. Sorry to late. If those companies went bankrupt this wouldn't be a situation that it has become.
and to your 2nd question, yes I do have the right to tell them what to do when they are punched in, but not after they leave work.
Quote>sending money overseas for oil that we can produce here . . .
The government doesn't "send money overseas" for oil. Try again!Quotebut we do because we can't drill for our own oil and that is because of the governments restrictions
>spending us into the next 2-3 generations is being responsible?
No, it's not. We should raise taxes to match expenses.Quotehow can you raise taxes when the people are almost broke? Maybe they need to reduce spending. no why would they do that? being responsible isn't what the government is about no is it?
>Raising taxes to businesses and making the move to another country
>look more profitable is being responsible?
Yes, it is. It's called "paying your bills." Republicans prefer that someone else's children do it, but that doesn't make it a good solution.
QuoteWhy should a business pay bills that they don't have to? I know I wouldn't. the compitition is to great and they will fail if they don't make reductions in costs. I guess what the Auto industry is going through hasn't tought many people much, has it?
billvon 2,998
>your tax money should not be in the hands of those companies to begin with.
I agree. It's the worst of several bad options.
>yes I do have the right to tell them what to do when they are punched in . ..
Exactly - because when you PAY someone, you have the right to tell them what to do. That's true whether they are a janitor or GM.
I agree. It's the worst of several bad options.
>yes I do have the right to tell them what to do when they are punched in . ..
Exactly - because when you PAY someone, you have the right to tell them what to do. That's true whether they are a janitor or GM.
rehmwa 2
Quotebut we do because we can't drill for our own oil and that is because of the governments restrictions
Maybe they need to reduce spending. no why would they do that?
Why should a business pay bills that they don't have to?
those were really way too easy and way too obvious. be careful - BV must have some master plan to just give you such and easy hand to play
you also missed the whole "Republicans prefer that someone else's children do it" while under a Dem hyper-spending admin, but 3 of 4 isn't bad
today's dems are just last year's reps - on steroids
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
rehmwa 2
Quote>your tax money should not be in the hands of those companies to begin with.
I agree. It's the worst of several bad options.
How can it be bad? the reps started it and the dems doubled down on it and more - if it's "bipartisan" spending then that must be perfect.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
billvon 2,998
>but we do because we can't drill for our own oil and that is because
>of the governments restrictions . . .
?? Dude, there are thousands of acres of oil-rich land out there in the US open to drilling that we just can't be bothered to drill because foreign oil is cheaper. Do you want to pass a law that says you can't buy cheap oil?
>Why should a business pay bills that they don't have to?
Because if a business doesn't pay what it owes because no one is forcing them to, they are cheats and frauds and belong in bankruptcy court.
>of the governments restrictions . . .
?? Dude, there are thousands of acres of oil-rich land out there in the US open to drilling that we just can't be bothered to drill because foreign oil is cheaper. Do you want to pass a law that says you can't buy cheap oil?
>Why should a business pay bills that they don't have to?
Because if a business doesn't pay what it owes because no one is forcing them to, they are cheats and frauds and belong in bankruptcy court.
QuoteQuotebut we do because we can't drill for our own oil and that is because of the governments restrictions
Maybe they need to reduce spending. no why would they do that?
Why should a business pay bills that they don't have to?
those were really way too easy and way too obvious. be careful - BV must have some master plan to just give you such and easy hand to playQuotesometimes the easy answer is the hard one to find.
you also missed the whole "Republicans prefer that someone else's children do it" while under a Dem hyper-spending admin, but 3 of 4 isn't badQuoteI consider the last year of Bush to be more of a dem fuck up since they are the ones to pass the bills, Bush only signed them. I still hold Bush responsible for signing the bills passed by congress, but if the dem's wouldn't have sent them to Bush they couldn't have been signed by Bush.
today's dems are just last year's dems - on steroids
fixed it for you
Quote>but we do because we can't drill for our own oil and that is because
>of the governments restrictions . . .
?? Dude, there are thousands of acres of oil-rich land out there in the US open to drilling that we just can't be bothered to drill because foreign oil is cheaper. Do you want to pass a law that says you can't buy cheap oil?Quoteit is only cheaper overseas because the land that is open to drilling is some of the most expensive to drill because if location and amount in that area. the largest(and cheapest to extract) deposits are off limits to drilling
>Why should a business pay bills that they don't have to?
Because if a business doesn't pay what it owes because no one is forcing them to, they are cheats and frauds and belong in bankruptcy court.
Quoteok I will pay the higher taxes, but since the foreign compitition doesn't have to pay the same taxes they will sell the product cheaper and I will go out of business. Or i can reduce employee benifits and pay to offset the cost in order to sell my product at the same price as my overseas compitition. or i can skimp on quality of the product and down the road loose business because I make an inferior product. What one do you pick Bill?
billvon 2,998
>it is only cheaper overseas because the land that is open to
>drilling is some of the most expensive to drill because if location and
>amount in that area.
Agreed. We are not out of oil here in the US; we are just out of really cheap oil. Which is a good thing. If we ever ran out of oil altogether our military would stop dead, and we would be picked off by one of the many enemies we've made over the years.
>the largest(and cheapest to extract) deposits are off limits to drilling
Another very good thing. If, God forbid, someday that oil is all that is keeping our military running, I want it to be there for us - not sucked dry as rapidly as possible so we can buy Ford Behemoths without caring about where the oil comes from.
>Or i can reduce employee benifits and pay to offset the cost in order
>to sell my product at the same price as my overseas compitition. or i can
>skimp on quality of the product and down the road loose business
>because I make an inferior product. What one do you pick Bill?
I choose to make a product that no one has made before and thus there is no competition for. Once China starts copying them I'll make another one. That's my solution.
But in any case, your underlying issue is that you don't like taxes. Fine. Cut spending FIRST, THEN cut taxes. Cut military spending. Cut VA hospital funding. Cut road construction and maintenance. Cut Star Wars projects.
What? You like all those projects? Then fine; pay your taxes to support them.
>drilling is some of the most expensive to drill because if location and
>amount in that area.
Agreed. We are not out of oil here in the US; we are just out of really cheap oil. Which is a good thing. If we ever ran out of oil altogether our military would stop dead, and we would be picked off by one of the many enemies we've made over the years.
>the largest(and cheapest to extract) deposits are off limits to drilling
Another very good thing. If, God forbid, someday that oil is all that is keeping our military running, I want it to be there for us - not sucked dry as rapidly as possible so we can buy Ford Behemoths without caring about where the oil comes from.
>Or i can reduce employee benifits and pay to offset the cost in order
>to sell my product at the same price as my overseas compitition. or i can
>skimp on quality of the product and down the road loose business
>because I make an inferior product. What one do you pick Bill?
I choose to make a product that no one has made before and thus there is no competition for. Once China starts copying them I'll make another one. That's my solution.
But in any case, your underlying issue is that you don't like taxes. Fine. Cut spending FIRST, THEN cut taxes. Cut military spending. Cut VA hospital funding. Cut road construction and maintenance. Cut Star Wars projects.
What? You like all those projects? Then fine; pay your taxes to support them.
I don't recall much outrage from you when Bush was spending far more than the govt was receiving in revenues.
I don't recall your having any problem with a government run by a guy (GWB) who HAD run businesses, several of them, and run them into the ground like he did the country.
You seem to have forgotten that we are in "The Bush Recession" right now.
I don't recall your having any problem with a government run by a guy (GWB) who HAD run businesses, several of them, and run them into the ground like he did the country.
You seem to have forgotten that we are in "The Bush Recession" right now.
YES!!!!!!!!
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites