- This topic has 160 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
Arraya.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 12, 2009 at 3:01 PM #345885February 12, 2009 at 3:02 PM #345333
DWCAP
ParticipantDont worry, if it is actually true, when released it will be revieled to be a totally abstract and very unpopular plan, something akin to all the other bailout plans that have initally seemed so promising only to be discovered to be a fraud or just unworkable.
There will be income requirments, interest rate requirments, payback requirments, and funding limits that will make this more government pork that does little else than stink up the place.I keep wondering when/if the powers that be will realize that this is just as harmful as helpful.
February 12, 2009 at 3:02 PM #345658ParticipantDont worry, if it is actually true, when released it will be revieled to be a totally abstract and very unpopular plan, something akin to all the other bailout plans that have initally seemed so promising only to be discovered to be a fraud or just unworkable.
There will be income requirments, interest rate requirments, payback requirments, and funding limits that will make this more government pork that does little else than stink up the place.I keep wondering when/if the powers that be will realize that this is just as harmful as helpful.
February 12, 2009 at 3:02 PM #345764ParticipantDont worry, if it is actually true, when released it will be revieled to be a totally abstract and very unpopular plan, something akin to all the other bailout plans that have initally seemed so promising only to be discovered to be a fraud or just unworkable.
There will be income requirments, interest rate requirments, payback requirments, and funding limits that will make this more government pork that does little else than stink up the place.I keep wondering when/if the powers that be will realize that this is just as harmful as helpful.
February 12, 2009 at 3:02 PM #345798ParticipantDont worry, if it is actually true, when released it will be revieled to be a totally abstract and very unpopular plan, something akin to all the other bailout plans that have initally seemed so promising only to be discovered to be a fraud or just unworkable.
There will be income requirments, interest rate requirments, payback requirments, and funding limits that will make this more government pork that does little else than stink up the place.I keep wondering when/if the powers that be will realize that this is just as harmful as helpful.
February 12, 2009 at 3:02 PM #345895ParticipantDont worry, if it is actually true, when released it will be revieled to be a totally abstract and very unpopular plan, something akin to all the other bailout plans that have initally seemed so promising only to be discovered to be a fraud or just unworkable.
There will be income requirments, interest rate requirments, payback requirments, and funding limits that will make this more government pork that does little else than stink up the place.I keep wondering when/if the powers that be will realize that this is just as harmful as helpful.
February 12, 2009 at 6:24 PM #345383Lyra
Participant[quote=ibjames]another example of where they will have a limited amount of money, do you help 500 households in detroit or other hard hit areas on the rust belt that maybe be behind but not by much.. or do you help out 50 households in CA?[/quote]
Your missing a zero. More like 5000 houses in the Detroit vs. 50 houses in coastal CA. Lots of $10,000 houses in the Motor City.
February 12, 2009 at 6:24 PM #345708Participant[quote=ibjames]another example of where they will have a limited amount of money, do you help 500 households in detroit or other hard hit areas on the rust belt that maybe be behind but not by much.. or do you help out 50 households in CA?[/quote]
Your missing a zero. More like 5000 houses in the Detroit vs. 50 houses in coastal CA. Lots of $10,000 houses in the Motor City.
February 12, 2009 at 6:24 PM #345815Participant[quote=ibjames]another example of where they will have a limited amount of money, do you help 500 households in detroit or other hard hit areas on the rust belt that maybe be behind but not by much.. or do you help out 50 households in CA?[/quote]
Your missing a zero. More like 5000 houses in the Detroit vs. 50 houses in coastal CA. Lots of $10,000 houses in the Motor City.
February 12, 2009 at 6:24 PM #345847Participant[quote=ibjames]another example of where they will have a limited amount of money, do you help 500 households in detroit or other hard hit areas on the rust belt that maybe be behind but not by much.. or do you help out 50 households in CA?[/quote]
Your missing a zero. More like 5000 houses in the Detroit vs. 50 houses in coastal CA. Lots of $10,000 houses in the Motor City.
February 12, 2009 at 6:24 PM #345945Participant[quote=ibjames]another example of where they will have a limited amount of money, do you help 500 households in detroit or other hard hit areas on the rust belt that maybe be behind but not by much.. or do you help out 50 households in CA?[/quote]
Your missing a zero. More like 5000 houses in the Detroit vs. 50 houses in coastal CA. Lots of $10,000 houses in the Motor City.
February 12, 2009 at 6:59 PM #345404TheBreeze
Participant[quote=AN]flu, you took the words right out of my mouth. Breezie, where are you?[/quote]
LMAO! You faux fiscal conservatives are at it again. You jump all over a relatively measly $50 billion to the common man while totally ignoring the trillions in bailout money going to the super-rich banker class–can’t let the super-rich fall behind on their Maserati payments. Heaven forbid!
Let a hard-working common man who helped build this country get a half-a-food-stamp from the gubmint in order that he might not starve and you guys scream bloody murder. Meanwhile, the same rich a-holes who looted from all of us use the trillions in taxpayer bailout money to pay themselves hundreds of billions in bonuses and you guys look the other way. Pathetic.
I do have to say thought that I’m disappointed that Obama is not raising taxes on the super-rich. He’s looking more and more like a member of the good ol’ boys’ club all the time. It’s time for a change. Ralph Nader in ’12! If not Nader, we need an honest-to-goodness Marxist in charge. It’s better than this fascist, socialist BS we got going on now.
February 12, 2009 at 6:59 PM #345728Participant[quote=AN]flu, you took the words right out of my mouth. Breezie, where are you?[/quote]
LMAO! You faux fiscal conservatives are at it again. You jump all over a relatively measly $50 billion to the common man while totally ignoring the trillions in bailout money going to the super-rich banker class–can’t let the super-rich fall behind on their Maserati payments. Heaven forbid!
Let a hard-working common man who helped build this country get a half-a-food-stamp from the gubmint in order that he might not starve and you guys scream bloody murder. Meanwhile, the same rich a-holes who looted from all of us use the trillions in taxpayer bailout money to pay themselves hundreds of billions in bonuses and you guys look the other way. Pathetic.
I do have to say thought that I’m disappointed that Obama is not raising taxes on the super-rich. He’s looking more and more like a member of the good ol’ boys’ club all the time. It’s time for a change. Ralph Nader in ’12! If not Nader, we need an honest-to-goodness Marxist in charge. It’s better than this fascist, socialist BS we got going on now.
February 12, 2009 at 6:59 PM #345834Participant[quote=AN]flu, you took the words right out of my mouth. Breezie, where are you?[/quote]
LMAO! You faux fiscal conservatives are at it again. You jump all over a relatively measly $50 billion to the common man while totally ignoring the trillions in bailout money going to the super-rich banker class–can’t let the super-rich fall behind on their Maserati payments. Heaven forbid!
Let a hard-working common man who helped build this country get a half-a-food-stamp from the gubmint in order that he might not starve and you guys scream bloody murder. Meanwhile, the same rich a-holes who looted from all of us use the trillions in taxpayer bailout money to pay themselves hundreds of billions in bonuses and you guys look the other way. Pathetic.
I do have to say thought that I’m disappointed that Obama is not raising taxes on the super-rich. He’s looking more and more like a member of the good ol’ boys’ club all the time. It’s time for a change. Ralph Nader in ’12! If not Nader, we need an honest-to-goodness Marxist in charge. It’s better than this fascist, socialist BS we got going on now.
February 12, 2009 at 6:59 PM #345867Participant[quote=AN]flu, you took the words right out of my mouth. Breezie, where are you?[/quote]
LMAO! You faux fiscal conservatives are at it again. You jump all over a relatively measly $50 billion to the common man while totally ignoring the trillions in bailout money going to the super-rich banker class–can’t let the super-rich fall behind on their Maserati payments. Heaven forbid!
Let a hard-working common man who helped build this country get a half-a-food-stamp from the gubmint in order that he might not starve and you guys scream bloody murder. Meanwhile, the same rich a-holes who looted from all of us use the trillions in taxpayer bailout money to pay themselves hundreds of billions in bonuses and you guys look the other way. Pathetic.
I do have to say thought that I’m disappointed that Obama is not raising taxes on the super-rich. He’s looking more and more like a member of the good ol’ boys’ club all the time. It’s time for a change. Ralph Nader in ’12! If not Nader, we need an honest-to-goodness Marxist in charge. It’s better than this fascist, socialist BS we got going on now.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.