Ah. I thought you said you personally had a history of millions of loans. I don't think other people's mortgages really do much to back up your position here. Relevance? The bailouts weren't municipal bonds. But not in this thread, or about this subject. barfo
Well that's why I voted for Obama . . . I trust his judgement. And this is no time for gridlock. Rushed might make some feel uncomfortable, not me.
Why is it no time for gridlock? Its not a matter of feeling uncomfortable, there is no rush to pass a bad "stimulus" bill that has very little "stimulus" to it. No questioning the provisions and spending for this program whatsoever, just trust Obama (who's judgement has been shown to be less than stellar in his recent apointees) and don't question the Messiah?
You can think that, but you're wrong. There are legal rules which loans have to comply with. It doesn't matter if they are my loans or millions of other peoples. Municipal bonds are an example of a loan between the government and another entity. It is an example of the government not being able to just change terms when they see fit. I could easily categorize these loans as "emergency" loans to the government. Can I change the T's and C's since it was an "emergency" loan? If Obama doesn't feel that the government needs to comply with the terms and conditions of a loan, he isn't doing much to uphold his talking point of government accountability and transparency.
The legislation is rushed for sure, but the distribution of funds isn't rushed at all, as I have previously posted.
I completely see the need to rush $50million to the National Endowment for the Arts. You're right. Let's make sure we don't gridlock that pork spending.
I don't want gridlock and party biases getting int he way of fixing this country. No reason to not pass a good stimulus bill fast . . . I know it is contrary to US politics, but I don't care, I want to something done . . . and yes I do have confidence Obama will make the right call for the country.
If the bill is so good, why won't the Democrats vote on it and pass it? They don't need a single GOP vote to do so.
I'm glad you see the need for it . . . personally I don't know, but 50 million iseems like a drop in the bucket and I hope it doesn't take months of new bills becauase of that. Finally someone agrees we don't need gridlock right now.
I'm playing your game. Who says it is a bad stimulus bill that has very little to do with stimulus. You throw out someone position like it is fact . . . I can do that too.
And the best part is that there are lots more pieces of pork in there just like it. If $50million is just a drop in the bucket, don't worry, we'll get all the other pork push through with it. Lots of drops eventually adds up to the entire bucket. I sincerely am baffled the blind following of Obama without any questioning. Especially from somebody that several months ago wasn't sure he would vote for Obama.
I wish I could find my post where all of the endowments and such are listed. Much of this monstrosity is simply a supplemental budget bill wrapped in a "Stimulus" package.
Is anybody going to answer my question. Why, if this bill is such a sure-fire success, don't the Democrats just pass the thing and put it on Obama's desk?
Sure. That's easy. The people who are paying for the stimulus bill don't support it. Only 37% of people do. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...kage/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37 Look, the republicans are fighting to add more tax incentives to the bill and to make it less about spending the money on Obama's government program and actually try to use the stimulus bill to stimulate the economy. there was a link on here that showed how much of the program was being used for programs that would be considered "stimulus"
If you get federal student financial aid, it comes with strings. A person must attend an accredited college, take a certain number of units, maintain a given GPA. It's not free money and if you don't live up to the requirements you have to pay the money back to the government (my nephew got himself into exactly this situation and was facing jail time). Once you graduate, of course, you are no longer receiving the federal money so can take whatever job you want at whatever salary you can get. If you get federal housing assistance there are also requirements you must meet. If you don't meet them you lose the aid. If a company is doing great and wants to pay its top execs millions, that is their business, although CEO pay has gone from 7 times worker pay in 1980 to 344 times today and I don't think CEOs are 344 times better. But if a company is doing badly and wants federal (OUR) money, just like a student getting college paid for, just like a family getting their home subsidized, they need to play by the rules. A big problem with the bailout was no rules and no accountability so companies could take OUR money and use it to pay million dollar bonuses, pay for jaunts for top execs, pay for anti-union campaigns. It's about time they played on the same field as everyone else getting OUR money.
No I don't, because one is regulations put in place to protect the people. Are you saying that you are not in favor of putting this legislation in place to cap the salary of executives that their companies are taking government assistance? So that some jack ass and his board of directors can legally just give all the assistance money to themselves without legal ramification? I can understand being opposed to the bail out, but the reality is it is being passed. To object to this, is just being stubborn.
Perfect, and those conditions are known and available to you when you accept the money. The terms don't change after that other than perhaps interest on a student loan. So if the "rules" are so important at the time of the agreement, isn't it a bit unethical for the lender to then put additional restrictions on you, seemingly on a whim?
