I’m paraphrasing here, but Warren Buffett said a while back that the rich were waging war on the rest of us, and winning.
The AIG bailout is now up to $153 billion. The financial institutions are getting $700 billion.
But the Republicans are balking at giving the automakers $25 billion.
They are giving the people that caused the mess $853 billion, while turning their back on the working class.
The automakers are victims of the financial mess, just like the rest of us.
The Democrats want to take $25 billion from the $700 billion already approved. The Bush administration doesn’t want the money to come from the $700 billion, but wants Congress to approve an additional $25 billion. Knowing full well his Republican cohorts won’t approve this.
It appears the rich are winning the war.
Ralph
Freak 'em, I say!
With all that money, every man, women, child, and their pets in the US of A could be covered by health insurance.
John Bouck said:I agree. But they have already approved the money for the financial sector. Not sharing with the manufacturing sector (which did not cause the financial meltdown) is to me a prime example of the rich taking care of their own while turning their back on the middle class. I would have no problem with the automakers getting no bailout, IF the same were true for AIG and the financial sector. Ralph
Freak 'em, I say! With all that money, every man, women, child, and their pets in the US of A could be covered by health insurance.
They should put it up for a vote as to where that money goes.
Let the public decide, instead of those rich Senators protecting their own interests!
They gave $25 billion to several banks, including Bank of America, who said they did not need the money.
WTF is up with that ? Withhold it from those that need it, but give it to those that don’t. The perverted Republican version of Robin Hood.
Ralph
Ralph Berg said:Yeah and then one gets to listen to Shrub spouting about the system just needing a little tune-up (I'm paraphrasing). This all in the lead-up to the G20 conference today.John Bouck said:I agree. But they have already approved the money for the financial sector. Not sharing with the manufacturing sector (which did not cause the financial meltdown) is to me a prime example of the rich taking care of their own while turning their back on the middle class. I would have no problem with the automakers getting no bailout, IF the same were true for AIG and the financial sector. Ralph
Freak 'em, I say! With all that money, every man, women, child, and their pets in the US of A could be covered by health insurance.
Let’s see what would I suggest?
-
IMF and WB being supervised by the UN. New branch called FO
(errrr … no it would actually stand for Financial Organization, the other FO would be used to get rid of the vultures who feather their nests!). -
FO instituting strict ground rules including re-intro of a standard similar to the gold standard, all currencies referenced to that standard.
-
Commodities referenced to the new standard.
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
2. FO instituting strict ground rules including re-intro of a standard similar to the gold standard, all currencies referenced to that standard.
- Commodities referenced to the new standard.
There is so much money in circulation it excludes going back to the gold standard. The cost of gold per ounce would be so high anyone with a wedding band would be a millionaire.
So what type of other standard would you propose?
Ralph
Ralph O agree with HJ on this one, gold goes up because of demand not value. I am opposed to all bailouts for the bunch of them. Comgress started the whole mess and now they get to hand out our money to cover their crocked asses! I would let them all go under, maybe the replacements would do better. And AIG bail out is a criminal act on the part of the govenment! They should all join Ted Steven in jail!
Paul
I believe that as long as the Republican party continues to support the BS of trickle down economics they will continue to lose election after election. I am beyond fed up with those clowns taking my hard earned wages and giving them to billionaires so they can throw expensive parties and toast expensive wine to my foolishness. I used to vote Republican most, now I’m embarased by their behavior.
God knows we would not want to assist our heavy manufacturing sector, a group that actually builds a product of tangible value. We’d rather hand it out to the money lenders who give us nothing but forclosures and bankrupcy. Screw 'em.
Citigroup,
Which was one of the nine banks to divy up the first $350 billion, just announced 10,000 employees to be laid off.
We give them billions and they send 10,000 to the unemployment lines.
Ralph
Ralph, and they should lose the $ 350 Million! They DON’T need if they are going to reduce their work force! Let all SINK!
Paul
Oh, and by the way I DON’T beleive in ‘From each accoding to his ability and to each according to his need’ There are way to many who will not work when they get it for free. Yes, there are those who have genuine needs and they should get some help while they learn new skills as needed. But the permanat welfare class need to get a job.
Paul
E. Paul Austin said:
Oh, and by the way I DON'T beleive in 'From each accoding to his ability and to each according to his need' There are way to many who will not work when they get it for free. Yes, there are those who have genuine needs and they should get some help while they learn new skills as needed. But the permanat welfare class need to get a job.Paul
Could not agree more! Woman on the radio the other day calls in to a talk show on welfare with a smokers growl to her voice…says breathing trouble won’t let her work so she’s only got welfare. I frequent a local electronics dealer in town and the guy at the door has extreme CP or something. Hands me an ad with his crippled arm while looking up at me through glass’s thick as Coke bottles. He gimaces with a contorted face from his wheelchair. If he can make it to work every day so can the old smoking casino queen!
I bust my hump and if I get canned after decades of work I get 6 months of unemployment, but lazy clowns who never worked a day get a “free ride”.
I hate corporate welfare, union welfare, and social welfare. They all drain my wallet and I’m tired of it.
Ralph Berg said:Ralph, they forced several banks to take the money so they could force their rules on those banks. This is a gummint takeover of the banking industry.
They gave $25 billion to several banks, including Bank of America, who said they did not need the money. WTF is up with that ? Withhold it from those that need it, but give it to those that don't. The perverted Republican version of Robin Hood. Ralph
Remember when Maxine Waters let it slip that the gummint was going to take over the oil industry? This must be the first step towards nationalizing industry. I’m not sure what you would call it, but I call it socialism. Both parties are involved in this.
No one’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.
Heard on the Communist News Network (CNN) today that the Europeans are screaming foul if we give the Big Three any bailout monies. Seems that is goes against some trade rule we signed with them. Now we have them telling us how we can run our own business. I don’t think they deserve a bailout because they ignored everyone and continued to build gas guzzlers instead of …ah you know the spiel.
Noel
The general idea when you sign international trade agreements is you have to stick to them.
TonyWalsham said:Tony,
The general idea when you sign international trade agreements is you have to stick to them.
Have you ever heard the term “exceptionalism”?
It applies to many of the trade and other arrangements the USA has signed and does a superb job of circumventing, stonewalling and filibustering. Examples that many Canadians remember all too well are NAFTA and the Softwood Lumber Agreement.
Wattsamatta Ralph? Don’t you believe in “Trickle Down” economics?
(http://www.trueblueliberal.com/wp-content/photos/trickle_down.jpg)
-Brian
Brian,
Isn’t that one of the meanings of “pe(e)ons” :lol: 
:lol:
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:TonyWalsham said:Tony,
The general idea when you sign international trade agreements is you have to stick to them.Have you ever heard the term “exceptionalism”?
It applies to many of the trade and other arrangements the USA has signed and does a superb job of circumventing, stonewalling and filibustering. Examples that many Canadians remember all too well are NAFTA and the Softwood Lumber Agreement.
They are building Chevrolets, Pontiacs and Buicks in Canada. What Canadian products are we building in the US, HJ ?
Ralph