Bailout costs every taxpayer $24,000.00. Are Americans just fat sheeple?
wis...@yahoo.com
ample butts while accepting the
theft of their money?
ted
Henry
They accepted the Bush regime's 9-11 fairy tale without thought
or question, so why not the theft and redistribution of their
money to billionaire corporate thieves and criminals?
--
They must find it difficult - those who have taken authority as the
Truth, rather than Truth as the authority. - G. Massey
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org
Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
"The new America, born in sin and arrogance, delusional
in Manifest Destiny, bred in overabundant gluttony,
consumerist and materialist, fathered by George W. Bush,
Dick Cheney and the Cabal of Criminality, a country flocked
by sheeple, ignorant and conditioned, indifferent to a world
growing up around it, living delusions of empire and of
omnipotence, building hatred against it and its policies
throughout the planet, slowly dumbing down its citizens,
losing its edge in the sciences and arts, producing a nation
of acquiescent automatons brainwashed to never question
authority and always faithfully follow the crimes of governance."
- Manuel Valenzuela
twentyd...@yahoo.com
> > ample butts while accepting the
> > theft of their money?
I find it very interesting. Unbelievable, actually.
> They accepted the Bush regime's 9-11 fairy tale without thought
> or question, so why not the theft and redistribution of their
> money to billionaire corporate thieves and criminals?
And Obama and McCain were both right there to cheer on the symphony
while Paulson and Brananke were conducting.
S'mee
> wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Is it not interesting that the masses wander about scratching their
> > ample butts while accepting the
> > theft of their money?
>
> They accepted the Bush regime's 9-11 fairy tale without thought
> or question, so why not the theft and redistribution of their
> money to billionaire corporate thieves and criminals?
>
ROTFLMAO!!! ITYMTS "They eat at McDonalds and drive mini-vans...you
can't get stupider than that"
Because everyone knows it's logisiticly improbable much less possible
to blow up any skyscraper. Not and keep the preparations secret...
--
Keith
catalpa
<wis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:shlli458slmvic2dm...@4ax.com...
I don't have $24,000.00, so they better take an IOU.
Mark B
Actually, It's $2,333.33 if you figure $700B / 300M people.
tomorrowe...@yahoo.com
Except not all 300M are taxpayers. Something like 120M file tax
returns, but of those, only about 80M actually PAY taxes (other than
FICA and Medicare). Still, that only works out to $8,750 per
taxpayer. Of course, it probably won't end at $700 billion, either.
Don't worry, though, the government has printing presses. And they
can, if need be, run them in triple shifts.
dustin
Fed Pledges Top $7.4 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit (Update1)
The money that's been pledged, so far, is equivalent to $24,000 for
every
man,woman and child in the country. It's nine times what the U.S. has
spentso far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional
Budget Office figures. It could pay off more than half the country's
mortgages
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arEE1iClqDrk&refer=home
Ron Peterson
> Fed Pledges Top $7.4 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit (Update1)
> The money that's been pledged, so far, is equivalent to $24,000 for
> every
> man,woman and child in the country. It's nine times what the U.S. has
> spentso far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional
> Budget Office figures. It could pay off more than half the country's
> mortgages
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arEE1iClqDrk&refe...
Who is getting the bailout money? Is it the stockholders, bondholders,
executives, or somebody else?
--
Ron
clams_casino
>On Nov 25, 9:17 am, Mark B <mark_b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Nov 24, 10:33 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Is it not interesting that the masses wander about scratching their
>>>ample butts while accepting the
>>>theft of their money?
>>>
>>>
>>>ted
>>>
>>>
>>Actually, It's $2,333.33 if you figure $700B / 300M people.
>>
>>
>
>Except not all 300M are taxpayers. Something like 120M file tax
>returns, but of those, only about 80M actually PAY taxes (other than
>FICA and Medicare). Still, that only works out to $8,750 per
>taxpayer.
>
Where do all these people who pay no taxes live..... other than
perhaps AK where everyone gets a welfare check?
Other than residents of AK, I 'm not sure anyone, except some on
medicaid in a nursing home pays NO taxes.
dustin
From an auditor's point of view, there is no difference between actual
debt or guaranteeing the debt of others.
an update to the original news item follows:
Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government is prepared to provide more
than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing
$306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting
to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are
intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized
up 15 months ago.
The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $3.18 trillion already
tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response to an economic
emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s, according to data compiled
by Bloomberg. The commitment dwarfs the plan approved by lawmakers, the
Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Federal Reserve lending last week was 1,900 times the weekly average
for the three years before the crisis.
When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for
transparency and oversight. Now, as regulators commit far more money
while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral
they are taking in return, some Congress members are calling for the
Fed to be reined in.
clams_casino
Pro athletes. Essentially every major financial institution getting
bailout money is using it to put their name on a sports stadium so the
players can get their multi million dollar pay checks.
Without the bailout money, for example, Citibank won't be able to spend
$400M to get their name on the new stadium for the Yankees.
Jason
"clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:OEVWk.161$VX...@newsfe14.iad...
a list of recipients that have been disclosed , so far, is shown at the
following
http://projects.nytimes.com/creditcrisis/recipients/table?scp=4&sq=recipients%20of%20bailout&st=cse
Dozens of banks and a handful of insurers have applied for funds from the
Treasury Department as part of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief
Program. The Treasury has transferred capital to 30 of these companies and
to A.I.G. More are expected to announce their participation in the coming
weeks.
Rob Kleinschmidt
Maybe we can just hit China up for another loan.
Meantime, we should obviously cut taxes in the upper
income brackets again so that still more prosperity will
trickle down on the rest of us.
English-Elephant
Don't worry Bush's $600 rebate cheques will sove everything, oh hold
on?
Thanks
twentyd...@yahoo.com
> Who is getting the bailout money? Is it the stockholders, bondholders,
> executives, or somebody else?
>
> --
> Ron
You guessed correctly and the first two didn't count.
rick++
at $3500 per person. Thats still a damn lot. As much as
the entire Iraq & Afganistan wars over six years.
The $1.1 trillion comes from the increase in national debt
in September and October - a record increase.
Paulson and Bernanke are otherwise vague on what they actually spent.
Henry
> Don't worry, though, the government has printing presses. And they
> can, if need be, run them in triple shifts.
Dumping huge quantities of paper currency is sometimes used
as an act of economic terrorism, but it's generally used against
other governments, rather than self inflicted. Bush's regime is
"special" that way....
--
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
tomorrowe...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Nov 25, 6:51 am, "tomor...@erols.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <tomorrowerolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 9:17 am, Mark B <mark_b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 24, 10:33 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > Is it not interesting that the masses wander about scratching their
> > > > ample butts while accepting the
> > > > theft of their money?
>
> > > > ted
>
> > > Actually, It's $2,333.33 if you figure $700B / 300M people.
>
> > Except not all 300M are taxpayers. Something like 120M file tax
> > returns, but of those, only about 80M actually PAY taxes (other than
> > FICA and Medicare). Still, that only works out to $8,750 per
> > taxpayer. Of course, it probably won't end at $700 billion, either.
>
> > Don't worry, though, the government has printing presses. And they
> > can, if need be, run them in triple shifts.
>
> Maybe we can just hit China up for another loan.
>
> income brackets again so that still more prosperity will
> trickle down on the rest of us.
(fixed that for you)
Nah, we should just increase the taxes on the top 10% of wage earners
so that they are paying 95% of the total tax burden instead of 46% as
they do now. Then 90% of the people would get a 100% tax rebate,
every year! Bet those folks would vote Democrat!
Siobhan Medeiros
They stand to lose a lot more than that.
Siobhan Medeiros
> wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Is it not interesting that the masses wander about scratching their
> > ample butts while accepting the
> > theft of their money?
>
> They accepted the Bush regime's 9-11 fairy tale without thought
> or question, so why not the theft and redistribution of their
> money to billionaire corporate thieves and criminals?
>
Sigh. Here we go again.
> --
>
> They must find it difficult - those who have taken authority as the
> Truth, rather than Truth as the authority. - G. Massey
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net
> http://stj911.org
> http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
> http://www.911truth.org
>
> Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
> to raging infernos for hours on end.
>
> http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
>
Were those buildings 110 stories tall?
> On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
> had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
> at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
> demolition.
Yes, clearly the CIA wanted to get rid of incriminating documents so
badly, they waited patiently for the attacks, snuck in past the scads
of firefighters running around, planted hundreds of pounds of high
explosives, and blew up the building. As opposed to say, striking a
match.
clams_casino
I hope it all goes through. If these pro athletes are forced to take a
cut in pay, there won't be enough money to trickle down into the middle
class. These millionaire athletes will also not likely be able to
create any new jobs if their salaries are cut.
clams_casino
>
>Nah, we should just increase the taxes on the top 10% of wage earners
>so that they are paying 95% of the total tax burden instead of 46% as
>they do now.
>
Were do you get such bogus statistics? Income taxes are only about a
third of the total taxes. Even if you taxed 100% of their income, I
question if the top 10% would be paying 46% of all taxes.
Rod Speed
You fools produced a complete meltdown of the world financial system, you fools get to pay for that.
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arEE1iClqDrk&refer=home
Rob Kleinschmidt
Ya frikkin communistic wealth sharer !!
I sure don't see any need to change any formula that's
worked so well over the last eight years.
clams_casino
>
>I sure don't see any need to change any formula that's
>worked so well over the last eight years.
>
>
Now that's funny. A real comic.
Henry
> On Nov 24, 8:56 am, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>> They accepted the Bush regime's 9-11 fairy tale without thought
>> or question, so why not the theft and redistribution of their
>> money to billionaire corporate thieves and criminals?
> Sigh. Here we go again.
>> They must find it difficult - those who have taken authority as the
>> Truth, rather than Truth as the authority. - G. Massey
>>
>> http://911research.wtc7.net
>> http://stj911.org
>> http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
>> http://www.911truth.org
>>
>> Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
>> to raging infernos for hours on end.
>>
>> http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
> Were those buildings 110 stories tall?
Was WTC7 110 stories tall? Your question is meaningless
and irrelevant.
>> On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
>> had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
>> at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
>> demolition.
> Yes, clearly the CIA wanted to get rid of incriminating documents so
> badly, they waited patiently for the attacks, snuck in past the scads
> of firefighters running around, planted hundreds of pounds of high
> explosives, and blew up the building. As opposed to say, striking a
> match.
WTF? You're babbling incoherently. But I'll address two of your
points. One - there were no firefighters in WTC7. They were
shockingly ordered not to fight WTC7's minor fires early in the
day. Two - obviously, the building was rigged for demo prior to
9-11-01, not while it was burning. Wow....
Hundreds of experts agree that the instant, total, free fall
speed and symmetric failure of a hurricane and earth quake
resistant steel framed skyscraper can not possibly be caused
by the gradual asymmetric failure of some steel supports due
to gradual heating. Here is a small sampling of these experts
and their research.
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
Where, exactly, do you believe these experts are in error?
--
They must find it difficult - those who have taken authority as the
Truth, rather than Truth as the authority. - G. Massey
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
tomorrowe...@yahoo.com
During the last eight years, higher income people have paid more of
their income in taxes and lower income people have paid less. So,
Obama is hoping to extend the Bush economic approach wrt to taxes.
He also plans to put in place another economic stimulus package, like
Bush's, but bigger. He believes that he can raise rates and have a
resulting rise in collections, and he may be right. After all,
cutting rates resulted in a rise in collections, didn't it?
Dennis
Hey, weren't you in the "sky will fall if the bailout doesn't pass!"
camp last month?
Dennis (evil)
--
What government gives, it must first take away.
Larry Sheldon
> Where do you com,e up with such nonsense that the taxpayers will have
> to pay more if they don't give charity to a bunch of non managing
> buffoons?
She got it from the Sayings Of Chairman Mao, which I assume is available
at the GPO now.
clams_casino
>
>
>During the last eight years, higher income people have paid more of
>their income in taxes and lower income people have paid less.
>
Well duh - the CEOs and financial bankers walked off with historic
bonuses while the middle class lost their jobs.
Henry
> During the last eight years, higher income people have paid more of
> their income in taxes
That's just horrible! 15% on capital gains is an insanely high
tax rate! Obviously, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, wall street
investment bankers, and Exxon need further tax breaks, and the
middle class should start paying more....
--
They must find it difficult - those who have taken authority as the
Truth, rather than Truth as the authority. - G. Massey
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org
Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
Nicik Name
"Mark B" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:58d7e12f-214e-4773...@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 10:33 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Is it not interesting that the masses wander about scratching their
> ample butts while accepting the
> theft of their money?
>
> ted
Actually, It's $2,333.33 if you figure $700B / 300M people.
NOPE not a thin dime will it cost the a tax payer
Nicik Name
"Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:61ea51fd-ea4a-4f7e...@j32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 25, 9:33 am, dustin <dustinjo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Fed Pledges Top $7.4 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit (Update1)
> The money that's been pledged, so far, is equivalent to $24,000 for
> every
> man,woman and child in the country. It's nine times what the U.S. has
> spentso far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional
> Budget Office figures. It could pay off more than half the country's
> mortgages
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arEE1iClqDrk&refe...
Who is getting the bailout money? Is it the stockholders, bondholders,
executives, or somebody else?
White collar crime..........
--
Ron
Nicik Name
"clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>Is it not interesting that the masses wander about scratching their
>>>>ample butts while accepting the
>>>>theft of their money?
>>>>
>>>>ted
>>>>
>>>Actually, It's $2,333.33 if you figure $700B / 300M people.
>>>
>>
>>returns, but of those, only about 80M actually PAY taxes (other than
>>FICA and Medicare). Still, that only works out to $8,750 per
>>taxpayer.
>
> AK where everyone gets a welfare check?
>
> Other than residents of AK, I 'm not sure anyone, except some on medicaid
> in a nursing home pays NO taxes.
No such amount exists
Nicik Name
"rick++" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8fe50dea-b2b4-47b3...@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
Dave
"Mark B" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:58d7e12f-214e-4773...@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Is it not interesting that the masses wander about scratching their
> ample butts while accepting the
> theft of their money?
>
> ted
>Actually, It's $2,333.33 if you figure $700B / 300M people.
The original bailout was $820 Billion BORROWED, by the time it passed (and
improperly referred to as the $700 Billion bailout). That's $1.6 TRILLION
or more by the time the loan is paid off. The next round will be another
$800 Billion, or another $1.6 Trillion OR MORE in paid off loan value. So
we're already on the hook for 3.2 TRILLION or more (probably much more).
Future plans call for a total of 8 TRILLION in bailouts (that's the BORROWED
amount). That's $16 TRILLION or more by the time all the loans are paid
off. And there are only about 138,000,000 taxpayers.
Actually, It's $115942.03 if you figure $16T / 138M people.
This is not speculation. It's just simple mathematics. -Dave
Rod Speed
> Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote dustin <dustinjo...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Fed Pledges Top $7.4 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit (Update1)
>> The money that's been pledged, so far, is equivalent to $24,000 for
>> every man,woman and child in the country. It's nine times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and
>> Afghanistan, according to
>> Congressional Budget Office figures. It could pay off more than half
>> the country's mortgages
>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arEE1iClqDrk&refe...
> Who is getting the bailout money?
Those who need credit.
> Is it the stockholders, bondholders, executives,
Nope.
> or somebody else?
Yep.
> White collar crime..........
You wouldnt know what real white collar crime was if it bit you on your lard arse.
Rod Speed
> rick++ <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> The federal government has only spent $1.1 trillion so far
>> at $3500 per person. Thats still a damn lot. As much as
>> the entire Iraq & Afganistan wars over six years.
>> The $1.1 trillion comes from the increase in national debt
>> in September and October - a record increase.
>> Paulson and Bernanke are otherwise vague on what they actually spent.
> They are operating outside of the United States Constitution
Just another of your bare faced pig ignorant lies.
Rod Speed
> Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> wrote
>> §tarkiller© <NoSpamS...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> Siobhan Medeiros <sbm...@shaw.ca> wrote
>>>>> wis...@yahoo.com wrote
>>>>>> Is it not interesting that the masses wander about scratching
>>>>>> their ample butts while accepting the theft of their money?
>>>>> They stand to lose a lot more than that.
>>>> We taxpayers would end up paying even more if the bailout isn't
>>>> done. The problem with Wall Street is that there is too much money
>>>> managed by two few firms. We need to diversify Wall Street and
>>>> Detroit. Our economy should depend so heavily on a few Wall Street
>>>> firms and three automobile manufacturers in Detroit.
>>> Where do you com,e up with such nonsense that the taxpayers will have
>>> to pay more if they don't give charity to a bunch of non managing buffoons?
>> Allowing the big three automakers to go bankrupt would plunge millions
>> into joblessness and cause many suppliers to close. The cost to deal
>> with all the new jobless claims, loss of wage taxes, etc. will easily run
>> more then the cost of lending the automakers a few billion dollars.
> You honestly believe that GM would just simply go broke and padlock their doors?
Nope, but letting those 3 go bust would have real downsides.
> Why all of the sudden do you all think that there is no such thing as a buy out or a merger?
Because the car industry is different. Hardly anyone is stupid enough
to buy something as expensive as a new car if it looks like you may
well not be able to get any warranty faults fixed for free, or be able
to get parts for your car when you need them outside warranty.
> Goldman Sachs was given as one of the primary reasons
> for the financial bailout. They got bought out before the
> bailout got finalized and ended up not needing it.
Even you should have noticed the difference between the car industry and a bank.
> If GM or Ford were to go bankrupt it would not instanlty
> mean all of their employees would be jobless.
Yeah, it would mean that the vast bulk of those working for the dealers etc would be too.
> Large corporations have been in bankruptcy before and managed to reorganize into a profitable business.
Bet you cant list a single one that sells something as
expensive as a car to normal consumers that ever has.
> Seems "kneejerk" is the word for the day as of late.
So is mindless silly stuff from fools like you.
> And since when has the government ever been able to manage any business?
Schools and the courts and the cops and the military do work reasonably well.
> Hell the feds owned a whorehouse and ended up bankrupting it.
The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
> You honestly think that an entity that isn't capable of making a profit from a
> whorehouse has enough sense to run anything else that they have no clue about?
They dont have to run it themselves. Iacocca did make Chrysler reasonably viable with govt bailout money.
> And so they give GM a big fat check and say "you're going to make the kind
> of green vehicles that we tell you to make". And then if those vehicles end
> up not being the big boon to the market and don't sell for shit, then what?
You're left with shit that no one wants to buy.
Hang on...
> You gonna give them more money with more strings attached?
> How long are you willing to prop them up?
Forever when they vote for you, you watch.
>>> You claim that the taxpayers will pay more by not bailing them
>>> out yet fail to think about the fact that this bullshit will end up
>>> setting a standard whereas dumb greedy bastards will continue
>>> to line up at the federal trough every time they place their own
>>> companies in financial jeopardy. Forget nationalized healthcare
>>> placing any burden on the taxpayer. This kind of garbage will
>>> eat up cash faster than a health plan could ever dream of doing.
>> Not at all. We need to tie the bailout with improved regulations that
>> prevent businesses from engaging in the practices that would give
>> rise to such problems again.
> Dream on. As I asked, when has the government ever
> been able to make a profit doing a damned thing?
Have a look at the S&L fiasco sometime.
Have a look at the TVA sometime.
> You're talking about the most wasteful entity in the nation
> possibly the world telling someone how not to go broke.
Nope, you're actually attempting to avoid them going broke.
That did work with Chrysler at one time.
> BTW, you people keep throwing the figure out there that
> "millions" of employees would lose their jobs. Funny, the
> UAW has a total membership of just around 500,000.
There's a hell of a lot more than that working for the dealerships.
> That's all of the big three and then some. And no one has yet explained with any
> kind of logic how a GM bankruptcy, for example, extrapolates to "millions" losing jobs.
You're lying now.
> You people have talked of "fear mongering" for years now and damned
> if ya'll aren't doing the exact same thing with this bullshit propaganda
> aimed at putting the governments fingers more into the auto industry.
Thats what politics is about, stupid.
§tarkiller©
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>§tarkiller© <NoSpamS...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> wrote
>>> §tarkiller© <NoSpamS...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>> Siobhan Medeiros <sbm...@shaw.ca> wrote
>>>>>> wis...@yahoo.com wrote
>
>>>>>>> Is it not interesting that the masses wander about scratching
>>>>>>> their ample butts while accepting the theft of their money?
>
>>>>>> They stand to lose a lot more than that.
>
>>>>> We taxpayers would end up paying even more if the bailout isn't
>>>>> done. The problem with Wall Street is that there is too much money
>>>>> managed by two few firms. We need to diversify Wall Street and
>>>>> Detroit. Our economy should depend so heavily on a few Wall Street
>>>>> firms and three automobile manufacturers in Detroit.
>
>>>> Where do you com,e up with such nonsense that the taxpayers will have
>>>> to pay more if they don't give charity to a bunch of non managing buffoons?
>
>>> Allowing the big three automakers to go bankrupt would plunge millions
>>> into joblessness and cause many suppliers to close. The cost to deal
>>> with all the new jobless claims, loss of wage taxes, etc. will easily run
>>> more then the cost of lending the automakers a few billion dollars.
>
>> You honestly believe that GM would just simply go broke and padlock their doors?
>
>Nope, but letting those 3 go bust would have real downsides.
Such is the nature of business. So why all the sudden NOW?
What about all of these multibillion dollar bankruptcies that have
occurred in recent years with NO bail out money?
http://www.bankruptcydata.com/researchcenter2.htm
Under 2008 one of the companies listed is Quebecor World.
Quebecor is one of my customers. They're still printing and their
plants are all still open. They went bankrupt, they got no federal
aid, yet they are still open for business and have let go of a minimal
number of employees. Go down the lists and you see many with
bankruptcies in the billions. Yet all of the doom and gloom you all
preach has not occurred.
>
>> Why all of the sudden do you all think that there is no such thing as a buy out or a merger?
>
>Because the car industry is different. Hardly anyone is stupid enough
>to buy something as expensive as a new car if it looks like you may
>well not be able to get any warranty faults fixed for free, or be able
>to get parts for your car when you need them outside warranty.
Not talking about cars fool. Talking about a business.
If GM shuts its doors completely tomorrow there will be some
conglomerate willing, even eager, to buy them.
But it isn't likely that they would simply shut down.
Business is business whether talking about a bank or a manufacturer.
The rules are the same regardless. Your argument that the type of
product made somehow means something different is seriously lacking in
logic.
BTW, My particular truck model has been out of production since 98.
I have no problem getting any part I need for it and I rarely use GM
factory replacement parts as I can obtain the same parts from other
manufacturers that aren't owned by GM that are of equal or better
quality at a better price.(one of the reasons they are in financial
hot water). So your claim that we won't be able to get parts anymore
is simply ill informed.
>
>> Goldman Sachs was given as one of the primary reasons
>> for the financial bailout. They got bought out before the
>> bailout got finalized and ended up not needing it.
>
>Even you should have noticed the difference between the car industry and a bank.
When it comes to accounting , profit and loss, and the ability to keep
the doors open there isn't much difference. You seem to be stuck on
what the product is as opposed to business practices.
>
>> If GM or Ford were to go bankrupt it would not instanlty
>> mean all of their employees would be jobless.
>
>Yeah, it would mean that the vast bulk of those working for the dealers etc would be too.
As stated, virtually every big three dealership here also has other
franchises as well. If one brand were to go belly up then there would
be a need for more employees at other franchises whose business would
likely increase in order to fill the hole in the market. The general
public will buy X number of cars in any given year. If one player
gets eliminated the market share for the competition will increase
thus creating a demand for workers in their plants.
>
>> Large corporations have been in bankruptcy before and managed to reorganize into a profitable business.
>
>Bet you cant list a single one that sells something as
>expensive as a car to normal consumers that ever has.
http://www.bankruptcydata.com/Research/Largest_Overall_Non-Financial.pdf
>
>> Seems "kneejerk" is the word for the day as of late.
>
>So is mindless silly stuff from fools like you.
>
>> And since when has the government ever been able to manage any business?
>
>Schools and the courts and the cops and the military do work reasonably well.
None of the above are businesses. If they were then they would be
financial disasters. The courts, police and military NEVER make a
profit.
Instead we have ever increasing budgets for all and at the end of any
given year those entities always say they need more.
If they were looked at as true business they would be financial
failures. The best they can hope for is to break even. But that
never happens because any government employee will be happy to tell
you that if they don't eat up their budget and then some then they
won't get as much money next year. The government is designed to
spend money, not make it.
>
>> Hell the feds owned a whorehouse and ended up bankrupting it.
>
>The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
If you can't manage a lousy 10,000 square foot piece of property with
only around a hundred employees, how can you be expected to know how
to handle a multibillion dollar industry?
>
>> You honestly think that an entity that isn't capable of making a profit from a
>> whorehouse has enough sense to run anything else that they have no clue about?
>
>They dont have to run it themselves. Iacocca did make Chrysler reasonably viable with govt bailout money.
LIE
Iacocca got no bailout money. What he negotiated were LOAN
GAURANTEES. That's a far cry from simply giving money away. While it
is sometimes said that Congress lent Chrysler the money, it, in fact,
only guaranteed the loans. If the government were talking of loan
Guarantees now instead of the loose form of a so called loan as in the
current bailout package then there wouldn't be any argument.
>
>> And so they give GM a big fat check and say "you're going to make the kind
>> of green vehicles that we tell you to make". And then if those vehicles end
>> up not being the big boon to the market and don't sell for shit, then what?
>
>You're left with shit that no one wants to buy.
Then you're once again going broke and have your hand out for another
"bailout".
>
>Hang on...
>
>> You gonna give them more money with more strings attached?
>> How long are you willing to prop them up?
>
>Forever when they vote for you, you watch.
>
>>>> You claim that the taxpayers will pay more by not bailing them
>>>> out yet fail to think about the fact that this bullshit will end up
>>>> setting a standard whereas dumb greedy bastards will continue
>>>> to line up at the federal trough every time they place their own
>>>> companies in financial jeopardy. Forget nationalized healthcare
>>>> placing any burden on the taxpayer. This kind of garbage will
>>>> eat up cash faster than a health plan could ever dream of doing.
>
>>> Not at all. We need to tie the bailout with improved regulations that
>>> prevent businesses from engaging in the practices that would give
>>> rise to such problems again.
>
>> Dream on. As I asked, when has the government ever
>> been able to make a profit doing a damned thing?
>
>Have a look at the S&L fiasco sometime.
>
>Have a look at the TVA sometime.
>
>> You're talking about the most wasteful entity in the nation
>> possibly the world telling someone how not to go broke.
>
>Nope, you're actually attempting to avoid them going broke.
>
>That did work with Chrysler at one time.
Again, Chrysler received no loan from the government.
>
>> BTW, you people keep throwing the figure out there that
>> "millions" of employees would lose their jobs. Funny, the
>> UAW has a total membership of just around 500,000.
>
>There's a hell of a lot more than that working for the dealerships.
Still the figure is nowhere near the "millions" you all keep throwing
out there for shock factor.
And if GM goes completely under a large chunk of those dealers will
simply change brands to one of the others that will gladly step up to
fill the hole left by GM, Ford or Chrysler.
Dealerships are not part of the Automakers. They are independently
owned franchises. The vehicles on their lots belong to them as they
buy them directly from the factory. The automakers do not provide
vehicles to dealers on consignment. One individual here has been a
Ford, GM and Chrysler dealer at one time or another over the years.
The other larger dealerships here typically have two or three brands.
The Gwatney family, for example, owns Chevrolet, GM and Saturn
dealerships. Homer Skelton owns both Ford and Hundai dealerships.
>
>> That's all of the big three and then some. And no one has yet explained with any
>> kind of logic how a GM bankruptcy, for example, extrapolates to "millions" losing jobs.
>
>You're lying now.
No, show us the actual figures instead of the dumbassed guesses ya'll
keep throwing out there.
You all also seem bent on just guaranteeing that a GM bankruptcy would
immediately shutdown every dealership and every auto parts store in
the world and that just simply is not true.
>
>> You people have talked of "fear mongering" for years now and damned
>> if ya'll aren't doing the exact same thing with this bullshit propaganda
>> aimed at putting the governments fingers more into the auto industry.
>
>Thats what politics is about, stupid.
>
Thanks for admitting your hypocrisy.
Regards
§tarkiller©
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is
big enough to take away everything you have.'
"You cannot enrich the poor by impoverishing the rich."
Jerry Okamura
"Nicik Name" <orb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:K9WdnR_XYsNSxLPU...@earthlink.com...
the answer?
Jerry Okamura
them, or are they encouraging them to spend the money?
Rod Speed
Because even you would have noticed the world economy is tanking.
> What about all of these multibillion dollar bankruptcies that
> have occurred in recent years with NO bail out money?
> http://www.bankruptcydata.com/researchcenter2.htm
They aint anything like the size of the US car industry.
> Under 2008 one of the companies listed is Quebecor World.
> Quebecor is one of my customers. They're still printing and their
> plants are all still open. They went bankrupt, they got no federal
> aid, yet they are still open for business and have let go of a minimal
> number of employees. Go down the lists and you see many with
> bankruptcies in the billions. Yet all of the doom and gloom you all
> preach has not occurred.
Things are different with car companys, because hardly anyone with a clue is
actually stupid enough to buy a new car from car company that gone bankrupt.
>>> Why all of the sudden do you all think that there is no such thing as a buy out or a merger?
>> Because the car industry is different. Hardly anyone is stupid enough
>> to buy something as expensive as a new car if it looks like you may
>> well not be able to get any warranty faults fixed for free, or be able
>> to get parts for your car when you need them outside warranty.
> Not talking about cars fool.
We clearly were talking about cars before you showed up, fuckwit.
> Talking about a business.
Shawn wasnt.
> If GM shuts its doors completely tomorrow there will
> be some conglomerate willing, even eager, to buy them.
And no one would be stupid enough to buy their cars.
> But it isn't likely that they would simply shut down.
They wont have any choice if no one buys their cars and trucks.
> Business is business whether talking about a bank or
> a manufacturer. The rules are the same regardless.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Your argument that the type of product made somehow means something different is seriously lacking in logic.
You wouldnt know what logic was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.
> BTW, My particular truck model has been out of production since 98.
But the manufacturer had not gone bust when it was new, so can do what warranty
work is required, and has parts available when they are needed after warranty too.
> I have no problem getting any part I need for it and I rarely
> use GM factory replacement parts as I can obtain the same
> parts from other manufacturers that aren't owned by GM
> that are of equal or better quality at a better price.
It aint that easy with major parts like gearboxes etc, child.
> (one of the reasons they are in financial hot water). So your claim
> that we won't be able to get parts anymore is simply ill informed.
You try getting a gearbox from someone else, child.
>>> Goldman Sachs was given as one of the primary reasons
>>> for the financial bailout. They got bought out before the
>>> bailout got finalized and ended up not needing it.
>> Even you should have noticed the difference between the car industry and a bank.
> When it comes to accounting , profit and loss, and the
> ability to keep the doors open there isn't much difference.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that you dont get runs
on car manufacturers, just banks and other deposit taking institutions, child.
> You seem to be stuck on what the product is as opposed to business practices.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>> If GM or Ford were to go bankrupt it would not instanlty
>>> mean all of their employees would be jobless.
>> Yeah, it would mean that the vast bulk of those working for the dealers etc would be too.
> As stated, virtually every big three dealership here also has other franchises as well.
Pity they would still have to sack most of their staff if the big 3 all went
bust and people stopped buying cars in significant quantitys, child.
> If one brand were to go belly up
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that it aint just
one brand thats been in Washington with a begging bowl, child.
> then there would be a need for more employees at other franchises
> whose business would likely increase in order to fill the hole in the market.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> The general public will buy X number of cars in any given year.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> If one player gets eliminated the market share for the competition
> will increase thus creating a demand for workers in their plants.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
So stupid that it hasnt even notice the current massive drop in sales of ALL cars.
>>> Large corporations have been in bankruptcy before and managed to reorganize into a profitable business.
>> Bet you cant list a single one that sells something as
>> expensive as a car to normal consumers that ever has.
> http://www.bankruptcydata.com/Research/Largest_Overall_Non-Financial.pdf
Like I said, you clearly cant.
>>> Seems "kneejerk" is the word for the day as of late.
>> So is mindless silly stuff from fools like you.
>>> And since when has the government ever been able to manage any business?
>> Schools and the courts and the cops and the military do work reasonably well.
> None of the above are businesses.
Schools are, fool.
> If they were then they would be financial disasters.
> The courts, police and military NEVER make a profit.
The feds did out of the S&L fiasco, child.
> Instead we have ever increasing budgets for all and at the end
> of any given year those entities always say they need more.
> If they were looked at as true business they would be financial
> failures. The best they can hope for is to break even.
Have fun explaining the S&L bailout.
> But that never happens because any government employee
> will be happy to tell you that if they don't eat up their budget
> and then some then they won't get as much money next year.
> The government is designed to spend money, not make it.
How odd that some govt operations do make money, child.
>>> Hell the feds owned a whorehouse and ended up bankrupting it.
>> The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
> If you can't manage a lousy 10,000 square foot piece of property
> with only around a hundred employees, how can you be expected
> to know how to handle a multibillion dollar industry?
Have fun explaining the S&L bailout and the TVA.
>>> You honestly think that an entity that isn't capable of making a profit from a
>>> whorehouse has enough sense to run anything else that they have no clue about?
>> They dont have to run it themselves. Iacocca did make
>> Chrysler reasonably viable with govt bailout money.
> LIE
FACT.
> Iacocca got no bailout money. What he negotiated were LOAN GAURANTEES.
Thats just a different way of doing a bailout, child.
> That's a far cry from simply giving money away.
You didnt say anything about giving money away, child. You just said PROFIT, child.
> While it is sometimes said that Congress lent Chrysler
> the money, it, in fact, only guaranteed the loans.
Which means that if Iacocca had fucked up, the govt would have had to put up the money, child.
> If the government were talking of loan Guarantees now instead of the loose form of a
> so called loan as in the current bailout package then there wouldn't be any argument.
Have fun explaining why there was plenty of argument when they did that with Iacocca.
>>> And so they give GM a big fat check and say "you're going to make the kind
>>> of green vehicles that we tell you to make". And then if those vehicles end
>>> up not being the big boon to the market and don't sell for shit, then what?
>> You're left with shit that no one wants to buy.
> Then you're once again going broke and have your hand out for another "bailout".
So stupid it didnt even notice the next bit.
>> Hang on...
>>> You gonna give them more money with more strings attached?
>>> How long are you willing to prop them up?
>> Forever when they vote for you, you watch.
>>>>> You claim that the taxpayers will pay more by not bailing them
>>>>> out yet fail to think about the fact that this bullshit will end
>>>>> up setting a standard whereas dumb greedy bastards will continue
>>>>> to line up at the federal trough every time they place their own
>>>>> companies in financial jeopardy. Forget nationalized healthcare
>>>>> placing any burden on the taxpayer. This kind of garbage will
>>>>> eat up cash faster than a health plan could ever dream of doing.
>>>> Not at all. We need to tie the bailout with improved regulations
>>>> that prevent businesses from engaging in the practices that would
>>>> give rise to such problems again.
>>> Dream on. As I asked, when has the government ever
>>> been able to make a profit doing a damned thing?
>> Have a look at the S&L fiasco sometime.
>> Have a look at the TVA sometime.
>>> You're talking about the most wasteful entity in the nation
>>> possibly the world telling someone how not to go broke.
>> Nope, you're actually attempting to avoid them going broke.
>> That did work with Chrysler at one time.
> Again, Chrysler received no loan from the government.
Never said it did, child.
>>> BTW, you people keep throwing the figure out there that
>>> "millions" of employees would lose their jobs. Funny, the
>>> UAW has a total membership of just around 500,000.
>> There's a hell of a lot more than that working for the dealerships.
> Still the figure is nowhere near the "millions" you all keep throwing out there for shock factor.
I never ever used the word millions, child.
> And if GM goes completely under a large chunk of those dealers
> will simply change brands to one of the others that will gladly step
> up to fill the hole left by GM, Ford or Chrysler. Dealerships are not
> part of the Automakers. They are independently owned franchises.
Irrelevant to whether most of them would go bust if the big 3 are allowed to go bust.
> The vehicles on their lots belong to them as they buy them directly from the
> factory. The automakers do not provide vehicles to dealers on consignment.
Duh.
> One individual here has been a Ford, GM and Chrysler
> dealer at one time or another over the years.
And if all 3 go bust...
> The other larger dealerships here typically have two or three brands.
> The Gwatney family, for example, owns Chevrolet, GM and Saturn
> dealerships. Homer Skelton owns both Ford and Hundai dealerships.
And if the big 3 all go bust, most of the dealers would go bust as well.
>>> That's all of the big three and then some. And no one has yet explained with any
>>> kind of logic how a GM bankruptcy, for example, extrapolates to "millions" losing jobs.
>> You're lying now.
> No,
Yep.
> show us the actual figures instead of the dumbassed guesses ya'll keep throwing out there.
Its completely trivial to see the number employed by car dealerships, child.
> You all also seem bent on just guaranteeing that a GM bankruptcy would
> immediately shutdown every dealership and every auto parts store in the world
You're lying, again.
> and that just simply is not true.
Having fun thrashing that straw man, child ?
>>> You people have talked of "fear mongering" for years now and damned
>>> if ya'll aren't doing the exact same thing with this bullshit propaganda
>>> aimed at putting the governments fingers more into the auto industry.
>> Thats what politics is about, stupid.
> Thanks for admitting your hypocrisy.
You wouldnt know what real hypocrisy was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.