rushmc 23 #1 September 22, 2008 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425861,00.html Time to control wages. Instead of sending Senate crooks to jail"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #2 September 22, 2008 Quote http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425861,00.html Time to control wages. Instead of sending Senate crooks to jail The CEO's compensation is frequently determined by the shareholders and their board of directors. You and I and most of the other folks here are about to become major shareholders in these companies...are you saying you DON'T want your representatives to limit your expenditures? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alw 0 #3 September 22, 2008 I believe that the liberals in congress see this as a way to achieve their objectives through the back door. What they suggest is nothing more than nationalizing the banking industry and owning property in excess of what anyone could believe is realistic in a free society. They are relying very heavily on re-election and playing a very high stakes game. If they lose, they lose congress and turn it over to the conservatives who may reap the be benefits of their misadventure. With this largess they too would undoubtaedly abuse the situation. Before anyone gets to passionate about one party or the other they need to take a good hard look at human nature and the nature of the political animal. We may be witnessing a very pivotal point in history all in the hands of an egomaniacal oligarchy. As Betty said, fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride. --------------------------------------------- Every day is a bonus - every night is an adventure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #4 September 23, 2008 QuoteI believe that the liberals in congress see this as a way to achieve their objectives through the back door. What they suggest is nothing more than nationalizing the banking industry and owning property in excess of what anyone could believe is realistic in a free society. They are relying very heavily on re-election and playing a very high stakes game. If they lose, they lose congress and turn it over to the conservatives who may reap the be benefits of their misadventure. With this largess they too would undoubtaedly abuse the situation. Before anyone gets to passionate about one party or the other they need to take a good hard look at human nature and the nature of the political animal. We may be witnessing a very pivotal point in history all in the hands of an egomaniacal oligarchy. As Betty said, fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride. Very well stated."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #5 September 23, 2008 Quote Quote http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425861,00.html Time to control wages. Instead of sending Senate crooks to jail The CEO's compensation is frequently determined by the shareholders and their board of directors. You and I and most of the other folks here are about to become major shareholders in these companies...are you saying you DON'T want your representatives to limit your expenditures? Blues, Dave you are in the trap. Care to give more control to gov just cause your pissed? If so, how is that different from freedoms taken under the pretense of security? I think you have agrued that point. Question is, which way do you go to be consistant?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #6 September 23, 2008 If we, the taxpayers, do bail out these corporations (which I think is a bad idea) hell yes - we get to tell them what to do with our money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #7 September 23, 2008 Quote Quote Quote http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425861,00.html Time to control wages. Instead of sending Senate crooks to jail The CEO's compensation is frequently determined by the shareholders and their board of directors. You and I and most of the other folks here are about to become major shareholders in these companies...are you saying you DON'T want your representatives to limit your expenditures? Blues, Dave you are in the trap. Care to give more control to gov just cause your pissed? If so, how is that different from freedoms taken under the pretense of security? I think you have agrued that point. Question is, which way do you go to be consistant? Accounting for the expenditure of dollars is simply good sense. Would you prefer to hand out 700 billion dollars with nothing more than a "Have fun, and don't spend it all in once place"? Why should there be less oversight on the spending of these companies than we give people in the middle of a bankruptcy repayment plan? There is no reasonable parallel between expecting accountability in exchange for a massive bailout and expecting innocent citizens to give up their rights for nothing. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #8 September 23, 2008 QuoteIf we, the taxpayers, do bail out these corporations (which I think is a bad idea) hell yes - we get to tell them what to do with our money. And if you think it will stop there I got something to sell you. Very revealing the change in thought process when it comes to what reasons who would give up what freedoms and why"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #9 September 23, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425861,00.html Time to control wages. Instead of sending Senate crooks to jail The CEO's compensation is frequently determined by the shareholders and their board of directors. You and I and most of the other folks here are about to become major shareholders in these companies...are you saying you DON'T want your representatives to limit your expenditures? Blues, Dave you are in the trap. Care to give more control to gov just cause your pissed? If so, how is that different from freedoms taken under the pretense of security? I think you have agrued that point. Question is, which way do you go to be consistant? Accounting for the expenditure of dollars is simply good sense. Would you prefer to hand out 700 billion dollars with nothing more than a "Have fun, and don't spend it all in once place"? Why should there be less oversight on the spending of these companies than we give people in the middle of a bankruptcy repayment plan? There is no reasonable parallel between expecting accountability in exchange for a massive bailout and expecting innocent citizens to give up their rights for nothing. Blues, Dave Oversite untl we get our money back is one thing. You are talking about wage controls. Big difference."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #10 September 23, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425861,00.html Time to control wages. Instead of sending Senate crooks to jail The CEO's compensation is frequently determined by the shareholders and their board of directors. You and I and most of the other folks here are about to become major shareholders in these companies...are you saying you DON'T want your representatives to limit your expenditures? Blues, Dave you are in the trap. Care to give more control to gov just cause your pissed? If so, how is that different from freedoms taken under the pretense of security? I think you have agrued that point. Question is, which way do you go to be consistant? Accounting for the expenditure of dollars is simply good sense. Would you prefer to hand out 700 billion dollars with nothing more than a "Have fun, and don't spend it all in once place"? Why should there be less oversight on the spending of these companies than we give people in the middle of a bankruptcy repayment plan? There is no reasonable parallel between expecting accountability in exchange for a massive bailout and expecting innocent citizens to give up their rights for nothing. Blues, Dave Oversite untl we get our money back is one thing. You are talking about wage controls. Big difference. Actually, no, that's not what *I* am talking about. I'm talking about being able to control how our dollars are spent. In the article you linked, I saw stuff about excluding "golden parachutes" and excessive compensation for the executives who got the companies into the position of needing our help. I didn't see anything about what limitations might exist if and when these companies return to a free market state. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #11 September 23, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425861,00.html Time to control wages. Instead of sending Senate crooks to jail The CEO's compensation is frequently determined by the shareholders and their board of directors. You and I and most of the other folks here are about to become major shareholders in these companies...are you saying you DON'T want your representatives to limit your expenditures? Blues, Dave you are in the trap. Care to give more control to gov just cause your pissed? If so, how is that different from freedoms taken under the pretense of security? I think you have agrued that point. Question is, which way do you go to be consistant? Accounting for the expenditure of dollars is simply good sense. Would you prefer to hand out 700 billion dollars with nothing more than a "Have fun, and don't spend it all in once place"? Why should there be less oversight on the spending of these companies than we give people in the middle of a bankruptcy repayment plan? There is no reasonable parallel between expecting accountability in exchange for a massive bailout and expecting innocent citizens to give up their rights for nothing. Blues, Dave Oversite untl we get our money back is one thing. You are talking about wage controls. Big difference. Actually, no, that's not what *I* am talking about. I'm talking about being able to control how our dollars are spent. In the article you linked, I saw stuff about excluding "golden parachutes" and excessive compensation for the executives who got the companies into the position of needing our help. I didn't see anything about what limitations might exist if and when these companies return to a free market state. Blues, Dave Maybe that is more to my point. Will they EVER get back to the free state if we go there."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #12 September 23, 2008 Oh ok.. so you support the crooks that have gotten away with so much.. great to know Mark.....Too bad you didnt get in on the action huh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #13 September 23, 2008 >And if you think it will stop there I got something to sell you. Oooohh! oooohhh! Do you have a bridge to nowhere? I always wanted one of those. It's really pretty simple. You want our money, you do X. If you don't want our money, then do whatever you want. We do it for government contractors and welfare recipients already, and I have no problem with that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #14 September 23, 2008 Nationalization is exactly what this seems to be - and I don't fucking like it. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #15 September 23, 2008 Quote Nationalization is exactly what this seems to be - and I don't fucking like it. Can't agree more, there is no way I want my future tax dollars committed to this. I think that we can agree to this even though we are on opposite sides of the house (and when are you coming back to the bay area, did you know marco bough the DZ?) Why the hell should we bail out wall street, they gambled and lost, it is welfare for the (formerly) rich. My partisan view also tells me that this is bailing out Bush's buddies, the rich guys that line the GOP coffers, they have fucked us with high gas prices and now they want to rape the treasury. NO NO NO... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #16 September 23, 2008 Quote Quote Nationalization is exactly what this seems to be - and I don't fucking like it. Can't agree more, there is no way I want my future tax dollars committed to this. I think that we can agree to this even though we are on opposite sides of the house (and when are you coming back to the bay area, did you know marco bough the DZ?) Why the hell should we bail out wall street, they gambled and lost, it is welfare for the (formerly) rich. My partisan view also tells me that this is bailing out Bush's buddies, the rich guys that line the GOP coffers, they have fucked us with high gas prices and now they want to rape the treasury. NO NO NO... GOPSad you are blinding yourself to the true cause.........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #17 September 23, 2008 QuoteI believe that the liberals in congress see this as a way to achieve their objectives through the back door. What they suggest is nothing more than nationalizing the banking industry and owning property in excess of what anyone could believe is realistic in a free society. They are relying very heavily on re-election and playing a very high stakes game. If they lose, they lose congress and turn it over to the conservatives who may reap the be benefits of their misadventure. With this largess they too would undoubtaedly abuse the situation. Before anyone gets to passionate about one party or the other they need to take a good hard look at human nature and the nature of the political animal. We may be witnessing a very pivotal point in history all in the hands of an egomaniacal oligarchy. As Betty said, fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride. This is basically the big sucking sound of the end of a system. Neo-cons hate it, but it's time to the massive Capitalistic onslought. If it doesn't end here, it will end in a few years, CAPITALISM DOESN'T WORK. Quasi-Capitalism does work, but unregulated Capitalism is a bust, just as most versions of Communism. If teh bigs can't collude responsibly, they can't collude at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #18 September 23, 2008 Quote Quote Quote http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425861,00.html Time to control wages. Instead of sending Senate crooks to jail The CEO's compensation is frequently determined by the shareholders and their board of directors. You and I and most of the other folks here are about to become major shareholders in these companies...are you saying you DON'T want your representatives to limit your expenditures? Blues, Dave you are in the trap. Care to give more control to gov just cause your pissed? If so, how is that different from freedoms taken under the pretense of security? I think you have agrued that point. Question is, which way do you go to be consistant? Yet you agree with Reagan/Bush and his many times to tell labor unions that if they strike, he will void their union contracts..... 1 way street, I see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #19 September 23, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425861,00.html Time to control wages. Instead of sending Senate crooks to jail The CEO's compensation is frequently determined by the shareholders and their board of directors. You and I and most of the other folks here are about to become major shareholders in these companies...are you saying you DON'T want your representatives to limit your expenditures? Blues, Dave you are in the trap. Care to give more control to gov just cause your pissed? If so, how is that different from freedoms taken under the pretense of security? I think you have agrued that point. Question is, which way do you go to be consistant? Accounting for the expenditure of dollars is simply good sense. Would you prefer to hand out 700 billion dollars with nothing more than a "Have fun, and don't spend it all in once place"? Why should there be less oversight on the spending of these companies than we give people in the middle of a bankruptcy repayment plan? There is no reasonable parallel between expecting accountability in exchange for a massive bailout and expecting innocent citizens to give up their rights for nothing. Blues, Dave Oversite untl we get our money back is one thing. You are talking about wage controls. Big difference. American airlines, after 911, had their executives getting their multi-billion $ bonuses they took, then had to give back after all the media attention. Meanwhile thousands of employees lost their jobs or had to take a lot of time off......I'm guiessing you think the CEO's should ahve been able to keep those bonises. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #20 September 23, 2008 Free state, that's what got us here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #21 September 23, 2008 Quote>And if you think it will stop there I got something to sell you. Oooohh! oooohhh! Do you have a bridge to nowhere? I always wanted one of those. It's really pretty simple. You want our money, you do X. If you don't want our money, then do whatever you want. We do it for government contractors and welfare recipients already, and I have no problem with that. Right, the same people pissed about the control that goes with the 700B+ gift are the ones screaming about workfare controls. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #22 September 23, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Nationalization is exactly what this seems to be - and I don't fucking like it. Can't agree more, there is no way I want my future tax dollars committed to this. I think that we can agree to this even though we are on opposite sides of the house (and when are you coming back to the bay area, did you know marco bough the DZ?) Why the hell should we bail out wall street, they gambled and lost, it is welfare for the (formerly) rich. My partisan view also tells me that this is bailing out Bush's buddies, the rich guys that line the GOP coffers, they have fucked us with high gas prices and now they want to rape the treasury. NO NO NO... GOPSad you are blinding yourself to the true cause.......... Sad you are so partisan that you are in denial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #23 September 23, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425861,00.html Time to control wages. Instead of sending Senate crooks to jail The CEO's compensation is frequently determined by the shareholders and their board of directors. You and I and most of the other folks here are about to become major shareholders in these companies...are you saying you DON'T want your representatives to limit your expenditures? Blues, Dave you are in the trap. Care to give more control to gov just cause your pissed? If so, how is that different from freedoms taken under the pretense of security? I think you have agrued that point. Question is, which way do you go to be consistant? Yet you agree with Reagan/Bush and his many times to tell labor unions that if they strike, he will void their union contracts..... 1 way street, I see. That was their contract but WTF has that got to do with this?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #24 September 23, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425861,00.html Time to control wages. Instead of sending Senate crooks to jail The CEO's compensation is frequently determined by the shareholders and their board of directors. You and I and most of the other folks here are about to become major shareholders in these companies...are you saying you DON'T want your representatives to limit your expenditures? Blues, Dave you are in the trap. Care to give more control to gov just cause your pissed? If so, how is that different from freedoms taken under the pretense of security? I think you have agrued that point. Question is, which way do you go to be consistant? Accounting for the expenditure of dollars is simply good sense. Would you prefer to hand out 700 billion dollars with nothing more than a "Have fun, and don't spend it all in once place"? Why should there be less oversight on the spending of these companies than we give people in the middle of a bankruptcy repayment plan? There is no reasonable parallel between expecting accountability in exchange for a massive bailout and expecting innocent citizens to give up their rights for nothing. Blues, Dave Oversite untl we get our money back is one thing. You are talking about wage controls. Big difference. American airlines, after 911, had their executives getting their multi-billion $ bonuses they took, then had to give back after all the media attention. Meanwhile thousands of employees lost their jobs or had to take a lot of time off......I'm guiessing you think the CEO's should ahve been able to keep those bonises. If they gave them back because of media attention I have no problem with that. Why the hell you want to turn this into something its not??? You want wage controls because of evil corp and evil CEO's..Get the fuck over it. There will always be somebody who is getting more than you! Wwwwwwaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #25 September 23, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Nationalization is exactly what this seems to be - and I don't fucking like it. Can't agree more, there is no way I want my future tax dollars committed to this. I think that we can agree to this even though we are on opposite sides of the house (and when are you coming back to the bay area, did you know marco bough the DZ?) Why the hell should we bail out wall street, they gambled and lost, it is welfare for the (formerly) rich. My partisan view also tells me that this is bailing out Bush's buddies, the rich guys that line the GOP coffers, they have fucked us with high gas prices and now they want to rape the treasury. NO NO NO... GOPSad you are blinding yourself to the true cause.......... Sad you are so partisan that you are in denial. Ya, like the facts back this shit up"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
