Stimulous Package

User Forum Topic
Submitted by lostcat92120 on November 6, 2008 - 8:47am

What is more socialist:

Bailing out banks or investing money into Americas infrastructure to get the economy rolling again?

‹ Easy money on next leg down, second Fool's Rally progressing as expected Anybody can be a senior Fed official ›
As long as I get mine, I dont
Submitted by peterb on November 6, 2008 - 9:08am.

As long as I get mine, I dont care what it's called. Govt intervention is an evil that sometimes is needed. The Fed got us here, so I guess they need to help get us out.

both, but the better choice,
Submitted by flu on November 6, 2008 - 9:11am.

both, but the better choice, would be the latter.
Unfortunately, Pelosi's proposal for a second stimulas package is earmarked for consumers to spend...Most of which will end up in the hands of businesses overseas...

On the other hand, Pelosi is working on increasing the bailout package for GM and Ford. I don't know why we're doing this. GM and Ford need to buy cars people want. They made a bet on SUV's and Trucks...That was a bad bet...Now they are in the situation they are in. Not mention they pissed away GMAC, which is now majority own by Ceberus (yes, same people that own Chrysler...And they financing policy of only financing people with credit scores 700+ is definitely hitting GM).

I don't see why when a business makes a bad decision why they should be bailed out, bank or auto manufacturer. There's plenty of things they can do.... GM and Ford can cut down on the number of brands, they can cut down production of all the trucks and suvs. I can't count how many GM/Ford vehicles are just badge engineering, where a Ford is a Lincoln is a Mercury, or a Chevy is a Pontiac is a Buick is a Caddy...
Unfortunately, they can't cut down on union workers due to contracts, but do what Toyota is doing, send those people off to get retooled/retrained and make it mandatory, or make those people go spend hours in some community service, mandatory.

I really hope us taxpayers don't end up owning GM or Ford. At least they could invest in some other auto maker I'd buy from, like audi,bmw, or hyundai...Or some of these alternatives like Tesla.

Imperial wars and keeping
Submitted by Arraya on November 6, 2008 - 9:11am.

Imperial wars and keeping billionaires rich is much more important than our infrastructure and jobs. Silly peasant....

fat_lazy_union_worker
Submitted by DWCAP on November 6, 2008 - 2:36pm.

fat_lazy_union_worker wrote:

I don't see why when a business makes a bad decision why they should be bailed out, bank or auto manufacturer.

JOBS. Union auto workers cost the company something like $70/hr, plus they have perks like an awsome pension (in todays world) and things like 2 years of 90% pay after being fired. This is a huge cash cow for the Democrats, you dont let a cash cow die when you are in power.

And the OP needs to be alittle more fair with their wording. It should be
Which is more socialist: investing in banks or in infrastructure; to get our economy moving again. And the answer IMO is both are socialist. If banks were allowed to fail inmass, it wouldnt matter how much money the Gov spent on infrastructure, we'd still be screwed.