The Lounge Off Topic PG-13.
Warning: The Lounge may contain irrelevant and off topic discussions that may not be related to anything HHR. If you are not interested in these kinds of discussions, do not read or respond to these threads.
View Poll Results: 3 choices what is yours?
For the bailout
15
17.65%
against the bailout
62
72.94%
don't understand the bailout
8
9.41%
Voters: 85. You may not vote on this poll

Bailout for or against?

Old Sep 30, 2008 | 10:56 AM
  #1  
ChevyMgr's Avatar
Thread Starter
Founding Member
 
Joined: 11-23-2007
Posts: 8,210
From: Texas
Bailout for or against?

Congress voted against the $700,000,000,000 bailout. What are your thoughts. I am against it. I think one Texas Congressman stated my thoughts pretty closely.

Ted Poe, R-Humble, said "New York City fat cats expect Joe Sixpack to suck it up and foot the bill for their excesses. I think not"
Old Sep 30, 2008 | 11:27 AM
  #2  
Goose's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-31-2007
Posts: 2,479
From: New Hampsha
Joe Sixpack is going to be paying for it either way....I think that Congressman made that comment for a great soundbite but that's about it

Good luck to anyone trying to get a loan in the near future unless you have STERLING credit......my wife used to give me grief about being obsessive about having excellent credit....I'm not about to tell her I told you so but......

Goose
Old Sep 30, 2008 | 11:31 AM
  #3  
Desert Coyote's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-26-2006
Posts: 903
From: Soon to be Longview, Texas
There should be an option in this poll for "unsure what to think about the bailout." My wife is torn between the half of her that's an Arizonan (very independent: if you can't do it yourself, get out of the way before you're trampled by the people who can. This side says to let Wall Street collapse because government has no business becoming a Socialist entity) and the half of her that's an economist (nurtured by a father with an economics degree who taught it on the high school level. This side says that the banks that are failing are the ones so completely intertwined with all aspects of the economy that allowing them to collapse would destroy the whole thing). Quite frankly, I feel the same way about it.
Old Sep 30, 2008 | 12:05 PM
  #4  
afs9's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 09-14-2007
Posts: 3,365
From: SoCAL & Louisville, KY
I'm a moderate-Democrat, but feeling conservative on this and like Desert Coyote, unsure about all this--no black and white answer here.

As a single person, I get over a 1/3rd of my paycheck taken out every month in some kind of tax or another and live in one of the most expensive areas in the nation. Working at a public university I have a decent 403b (non-profit) and (paid) health insurance. I also try really hard to live within my means--like waiting over two years to buy my HHR until I was able to afford a payment and waiting to go back to graduate school for my doctorate.

I don't think *I* should pay for someone else living beyond their means and buying a home they KNOW they can't afford or a bank just trying to make a buck.

Some accountability for those who are getting bailed out should be laid out so that I don't feel I (and everyone else!) am getting reamed on this...

@
Old Sep 30, 2008 | 12:15 PM
  #5  
oneton's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-13-2006
Posts: 1,567
From: Geneva, FL.
Nobody will bail me out if I live beyond my means. So why should I help them. What did they do with all the $$$? Put it there own pockets thats what. Let them pay for there F--- up just like I would half to.
Old Sep 30, 2008 | 12:23 PM
  #6  
ChevyMgr's Avatar
Thread Starter
Founding Member
 
Joined: 11-23-2007
Posts: 8,210
From: Texas
Originally Posted by Goose
Good luck to anyone trying to get a loan in the near future unless you have STERLING credit.....
Goose
I believe this is how it should be if that is what it takes. If you play the game by the rules and PAY for what you buy, then you should not have to help people that got in over their head and the executives that profitted from those loans.

I don't know if you heard this but the CEO who worked 17 days for Washington Mutual will be paid $20,000,000 for those 17 days. Now the failure isn't his fault, but the board/people that agreed to those employment terms should be hung out to dry.
Old Sep 30, 2008 | 12:27 PM
  #7  
HHR4JK's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 03-27-2008
Posts: 471
From: Blue Springs Missouri
Originally Posted by ChevyMgr
I believe this is how it should be if that is what it takes. If you play the game by the rules and PAY for what you buy, then you should not have to help people that got in over their head and the executives that profitted from those loans.

I don't know if you heard this but the CEO who worked 17 days for Washington Mutual will be paid $20,000,000 for those 17 days. Now the failure isn't his fault, but the board/people that agreed to those employment terms should be hung out to dry.

well said.....what makes 17 days worth $20,000,000 ???? ..... take those who were STUPID enough to give this to him....and put them at the end of the unemployment line....... with no firing pkg.......... take everything from them.........How can anyone think this is good business........
Old Sep 30, 2008 | 12:39 PM
  #8  
Ratracer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 08-18-2008
Posts: 508
From: Moved to Camaro 5 forum
Sheesh....

CEO who worked 17 days for Washington Mutual will be paid $20,000,000
I wish I could find a job that paid $147,059.00/hr.
Old Sep 30, 2008 | 12:52 PM
  #9  
Goose's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-31-2007
Posts: 2,479
From: New Hampsha
Originally Posted by Ratracer
I wish I could find a job that paid $147,059.00/hr.
You can, just become the 3rd baseman for the Yankees


Goose
Old Sep 30, 2008 | 01:28 PM
  #10  
tireman1554's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 12-30-2006
Posts: 1,141
From: Lake Conroe, Texas
Let the pro atheletes bail them out. They can afford it. Truly the only American workforce that is WAY overpaid.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:25 AM.