No bailout for you.
- Thread starter subigo
- Start date
- Status
the mother of all fuckups ... I guess I can stop looking for my evil empire cd now.
<<<< douchebag of the day
<<<< douchebag of the day
I was completely against the bailout. Until I saw this:
An exclusive conversation with Warren Buffett - Charlie Rose
If Warren Buffett says it a necessary thing, I'll go out on a limb and say that he's probably right. Why? Because I can't think of a time that Warren Buffett has ever been wrong.
An exclusive conversation with Warren Buffett - Charlie Rose
If Warren Buffett says it a necessary thing, I'll go out on a limb and say that he's probably right. Why? Because I can't think of a time that Warren Buffett has ever been wrong.
The bailout was good for Buffett, because he was able to profit by it.
You're going to be paying those profits to Buffett.
This is the desperate moves of a man whose record as brilliant on bull markets comes to an end, as the inflation unwinds and destroys his legacy.
I just got finished watching that entire video, great link by the way. A couple things to note.
1. guerilla is right, Buffett has much more to gain than to lose by this bailout
2. His points are basically for keeping the economy afloat, not fixing it. He is, however, quite optimistic in the American engine, I admire that. This country has been very good to him so he should trust it.
3. A blank check to Paulson ?!?!?!?!?!
4. If this 700 billion goes straight to the purchase of undervalued debts then this indeed will mean great things in our future.
5. There will be no way to gauge how well this bailout worked without having a parallel universe. Guess that's life
6. When speaking about tax rates it's apparent that he is a good man ... I doubt many others in the top 3% share his values. Because of that, I think his views on supporting the democrats are shortsighted. If you tax capital gains more heavily, people stop investing in companies and we have deeper problems. If we were all like Buffett, communism would have been a perfect form of government. As it stands, it sucks ass.
The bailout was good for Buffett, because he was able to profit by it.
You're going to be paying those profits to Buffett.
Sorry Guerilla, I think Warren Buffett may have a better grip on economics than you.
He probably has a better grip on investing. He probably has a better grip on being politically connected so he can take advantage of changes in the market, caused by intervention.
But I don't think he's got a better grip on morality. I don't think it is right to steal from people. He makes excuses for it, and intends to profit by it.
You don't think he has a better grip on morality? So, since he is only giving away 85% of his wealth, you must be giving away 90% of yours? What exactly qualifies you as a moral expert?
OMG..I finally totally agree with you. No one has any right to question him.
The Bill and Melinda foundation are the ones who donated a shit load to planet parent hood. The charity / organisation who was behind the 1 child limit in China.
These are both SOLID ideas for getting our over-population situation under control.
I found it's elitist undertones appalling. The agenda became clear with this idea: "It also could include tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children, he said."
Or in other words http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Or in other words http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
HarveyJ
He is - THE CACTUS!
China simply does not have the infrastructure, or the access to enough resources to create the infrastructure at the required pace, to support a population that grows as rapidly as even the USA's.
As it is, limiting child births would actually be an ideal environmental solution. I'm sure a large number of politicians are aware of this, but the backlash would be so extreme that no one dares suggest it.
It would also help things economically. Fewer people means less resources required to be shared between them = more absolute wealth for those that are there.
Turbo: Eugenics is not a bad thing, per say. It's just that some people use it as a smokescreen for a genocidal agenda.
With genetic technology advancing the way it is, we'll be having eugenic debates shortly anyway, about whether it's right for the rich to selectively breed traits into their children if the poor can't afford it (whilst still ignoring the fact that you can be rich, and have shitty genetic material, and it won't make a lick of difference if two poor people who are superior genetic specimens get it on).
I suppose that these ideas could be considered morally repugnant, but there's often a difference between who's right, and who's left, if you catch my double meaning.
However, we're getting side tracked... Back to the bail out.
There is one thing in the whole situation that I agree with: The rider that any company getting a bailout has to cap it's executive pay, and that there be no golden handshakes.
About fucking time.
It always made me sick to hear about businesses going broke, and the executive that caused it to happen walking away 3-6 months before hand with a nice six to eight figure handshake... Gee, maybe that money could have saved the company, you msug bastard!
Fun with Dick & Jane, anyone?
As it is, limiting child births would actually be an ideal environmental solution. I'm sure a large number of politicians are aware of this, but the backlash would be so extreme that no one dares suggest it.
It would also help things economically. Fewer people means less resources required to be shared between them = more absolute wealth for those that are there.
Turbo: Eugenics is not a bad thing, per say. It's just that some people use it as a smokescreen for a genocidal agenda.
With genetic technology advancing the way it is, we'll be having eugenic debates shortly anyway, about whether it's right for the rich to selectively breed traits into their children if the poor can't afford it (whilst still ignoring the fact that you can be rich, and have shitty genetic material, and it won't make a lick of difference if two poor people who are superior genetic specimens get it on).
I suppose that these ideas could be considered morally repugnant, but there's often a difference between who's right, and who's left, if you catch my double meaning.
However, we're getting side tracked... Back to the bail out.
There is one thing in the whole situation that I agree with: The rider that any company getting a bailout has to cap it's executive pay, and that there be no golden handshakes.
About fucking time.
It always made me sick to hear about businesses going broke, and the executive that caused it to happen walking away 3-6 months before hand with a nice six to eight figure handshake... Gee, maybe that money could have saved the company, you msug bastard!
Fun with Dick & Jane, anyone?
Good video. This truly shows that even Obama will bend to special interest groups. I wonder how much Bush got from this bill. Here is another thought. Those that voted no, did they not get the money they wanted? And one more thing. Those stinking earmarks: Billions in earmarks in Senate's bailout bill
$2 million dollars for wooden arrows? It's funny how these guys will liberally spend money when it is not their own. This stuff has to stop. The only person I like to stop it in the Presidential race is McCain. We do need a spending freeze. We do need to cut back big government.
- Status