Glen Beck is awesome... comrade obama..
-
Trafik Jamz;259024 wrote:
Too late for that...now how about we come up with a set of standards that they must adhere to if they want to use the money that is being made available to them.Why doesn't the government simply take over the company and begin running it in that case? I mean come on, lets call a spade a spade.
Trafik Jamz;259024 wrote:
We can both bitch/whine all day about how we shouldn't do it, but the fact is we have/will continue to do so. My opinion is if you want to benefit from public money, you have to play by a set of rules.We do NOT have to continue to bail out private companies using public money (or debt as the case may be).
-
Have to bail out...no, but I can assure you it won't stop in my lifetime or yours...regardless of which party has political power.
The idea behind the bailouts (initially) was a loan from the US gov't to be paid back in a preset amount of time...much like Chrysler during their first bailout which turned out profitable for the gov't and Chrysler (though Chrysler has obviously again faltered).
Are we saying that no business/entity/individual/industry should receive loans from the US Government? How about after they mandate things like emissions/no child left behind/etc...?
I have no problem with the fed lending money to industries and whatnot...if they didn't, there would be ZERO banks in existence since all money in circulation is effectively lent from the gov't to begin with. Now if you are saying we should just go to a bartering system, where I trade a service/another good for a service/good from you...that is about the only way you can get the gov't out of the lending money business.
-
Trafik Jamz;259049 wrote:
Have to bail out...no, but I can assure you it won't stop in my lifetime or yours...regardless of which party has political power.The idea behind the bailouts (initially) was a loan from the US gov't to be paid back in a preset amount of time...much like Chrysler during their first bailout which turned out profitable for the gov't and Chrysler (though Chrysler has obviously again faltered).
Are we saying that no business/entity/individual/industry should receive loans from the US Government? How about after they mandate things like emissions/no child left behind/etc...?
I have no problem with the fed lending money to industries and whatnot...if they didn't, there would be ZERO banks in existence since all money in circulation is effectively lent from the gov't to begin with. Now if you are saying we should just go to a bartering system, where I trade a service/another good for a service/good from you...that is about the only way you can get the gov't out of the lending money business.
The US Government should not be giving out loans to companies that are not credit worthy or are obviously failing (ie the bailouts). Nobody in their right mind would give money to somebody that you know doesn't pay their bills or someone that you are not sure you are going to get paid back. It is not the government's job to make sure that businesses get loans if these business have not planned ahead for rough times or made stupid decisions. Remember this thing called a free market? One where the government keeps its dirty dick beaters out of things.
I also have no problem with a bank loaning money to other banks or entities (businesses, people, etc) but what I do have a problem with is using taxpayer dollars (that we don't have) to make those loans to companies which stepped on their dicks and otherwise should have failed. Also, when a bank makes a loan to a company they do not dictate how much money the executives can make or what kind of toilet paper they can buy. Why should the government be allowed to do so? This bailout mania needs to come to an end. What happened to accountability? If your business was not profitable then you restructured or you closed the doors. What is the end game for these bailouts?
-
DelSlow;259058 wrote:
I didn't ask you if you had and federal student aid. I asked you what your thoughts on it was.I am not a huge fan of them. In essence they are devaluing a college education as it becomes just a me too thing. It used to be that those who could afford an education or worked hard enough for it could get one. Anymore people view post secondary education as somewhat of a right.
-
MisterCMK;259094 wrote:
The US Government should not be giving out loans to companies that are not credit worthy or are obviously failing (ie the bailouts). Nobody in their right mind would give money to somebody that you know doesn't pay their bills or someone that you are not sure you are going to get paid back. It is not the government's job to make sure that businesses get loans if these business have not planned ahead for rough times or made stupid decisions. Remember this thing called a free market? One where the government keeps its dirty dick beaters out of things.I also have no problem with a bank loaning money to other banks or entities (businesses, people, etc) but what I do have a problem with is using taxpayer dollars (that we don't have) to make those loans to companies which stepped on their dicks and otherwise should have failed. Also, when a bank makes a loan to a company they do not dictate how much money the executives can make or what kind of toilet paper they can buy. Why should the government be allowed to do so? This bailout mania needs to come to an end. What happened to accountability? If your business was not profitable then you restructured or you closed the doors. What is the end game for these bailouts?
totally agree with this post, well other than the stepping on dicks part.
-
Holy crap, I think I agree with you on just about everything CMK!!!
Seriously though, when you try to think about this idea, revert back to the video...One points to capitalists for the whole problem yet true capitalists would have never supported any of these ideas from the begining.
P.S. I've been talking about Glenn Beck for the past 2 years...At his peak at CNN he was just under 400,000 viewers...His debut on Fox yeilded around 2,100,000 viewers and the highest in its time-slot among cable news, by a long shot. Crazy eh?
P.S.P.S. Keith Olbermann, you suck.
-
MisterCMK;259097 wrote:
I am not a huge fan of them. In essence they are devaluing a college education as it becomes just a me too thing. It used to be that those who could afford an education or worked hard enough for it could get one. Anymore people view post secondary education as somewhat of a right.wow. thats exactly what this country needs, people whos highest aspirations are a mcjob.
-
Hey! It's another long-ass message from thrash!
There are a ton of people we all know with college degrees that still have McJobs anyway.
Those people can have a McJob, or they can have a McJob + a shit ton of debt. In the latter case, they have made college more expensive for the people that actually had some business going to college to begin with, since increased demand for a a given supply means increased prices for everyone.
People who want to go to college should absolutely be able to do so --- As long as I don't have to pay for it.
They'll go because they (or their family, friends, or other interested investors) think it is worth the money it will cost them.
All of you who've been to college know a few kids that have no business being there right now. Some of them might get their act together in a few years, and should go back. Some of them may never be "ready" and have no business going ever. Such people can spend their money however they like.
Those people shouldn't be wasting tax payer money.
The world does NOT need more people with degrees in women's cultural struggles in post WW1 africa -- and 50k of debt -- who can only find jobs at blockbuster. People that want to persue that degree are welcome to do so, but society absolutely shouldn't be paying for it via coercion (i.e. taxes)
As an aside -- MIT has a policy that anyone who can be admitted to MIT will be able to go, irrespective of financial conditions. I beleive MIT self-finances that program from its large endowment. In the MIT case, though, I'd actually support some public money involvement, since much of the finest most productive research work in the world happens there. The contributions to our military and our modern way of life from the work of MIT undergrads are almost innumerable.
Here's a litmus test to consider. Suppose that in order to pay for college, you took out a loan from "investors" -- businesses, friends, people you knew, etc. The condition was that they'd give you the money for college, and you'd give them n percent of your gross income for y years after getting a "real" post college job.
Would you be willing to pay for college that way? Do you think you (not anyone specifically here) and your chosen degree program would attract any investors?
If the answer to either quesiton is "no", why should tax payers be helping you foot the bill?
-
24valvenotak;259275 wrote:
wow. thats exactly what this country needs, people whos highest aspirations are a mcjob.That's promoted by the welfare system, which is primarily supported by democrats. I didn't realize that one needed government money in order to have high aspirations...I always just thought that was a hard work ethic and the willingness to better oneself.
-
torbs;259317 wrote:
That's promoted by the welfare system, which is primarily supported by democrats. I didn't realize that one needed government money in order to have high aspirations...I always just thought that was a hard work ethic and the willingness to better oneself.AKA parents money?...
-
pracs isnt work ethic, either.
-
thrash;259277 wrote:
Hey! It's another long-ass message from thrash!Good, I missed having a debate with someone whose sole source of information is NOT glen beck.
There are a ton of people we all know with college degrees that still have McJobs anyway.
I agree
Those people can have a McJob, or they can have a McJob + a shit ton of debt. In the latter case, they have made college more expensive for the people that actually had some business going to college to begin with, since increased demand for a a given supply means increased prices for everyone.
If they have a shit ton of debt, that is a choice they made for themselves. As long as they don't default on their student loans, it's their choice to accumulate such debt.
People who want to go to college should absolutely be able to do so --- As long as I don't have to pay for it.
I'd agree with this to a point. I have some relatives whose parents struggled financially and were unable to assist their children in the post-secondary education, however they made too much for all the kids to get grants (they had a lot of kids...like 9 or so). The eldest kids went to school on grants/loans/military...they turned out ok, have great jobs, travel the world, etc... The middle kids were at that magic point where grants were not available and student loans were the only option. These kids graduated, have average jobs at best (they had to pay back their student loans somehow...slightly better than McJobs, but not much). The younger kids, who had GPA's higher than any of their older siblings, saw the debt accumulated by their siblings and said screw college...the debt isn't worth it, the exception is the youngest one who had some hearing difficulties and was eligible for more grants. He has gone on to Rochester Institute of Technology because he could afford it with grants (and a couple scholarships) he graduated in the top 5% of his class and is doing exceptionally well.
The point in this long winded post is that sometimes grants can help those who are in financial need go to school.
They'll go because they (or their family, friends, or other interested investors) think it is worth the money it will cost them.
They don't always have friends/family that can pony up the costs.
All of you who've been to college know a few kids that have no business being there right now. Some of them might get their act together in a few years, and should go back. Some of them may never be "ready" and have no business going ever. Such people can spend their money however they like.
I was one of them. I knew it when I went. Hated every second of college. Paid back every penny of my student loan. Didn't cost the taxpayer a cent.
Those people shouldn't be wasting tax payer money.
See above.
The world does NOT need more people with degrees in women's cultural struggles in post WW1 africa -- and 50k of debt -- who can only find jobs at blockbuster. People that want to persue that degree are welcome to do so, but society absolutely shouldn't be paying for it via coercion (i.e. taxes)
Come on! It's free market! These people shouldn't be told they can't have a degree in this/that! That's not how America works! If there is a demand, and the product is not illegal, who the hell are you to tell them not to buy it?
As an aside -- MIT has a policy that anyone who can be admitted to MIT will be able to go, irrespective of financial conditions. I beleive MIT self-finances that program from its large endowment. In the MIT case, though, I'd actually support some public money involvement, since much of the finest most productive research work in the world happens there. The contributions to our military and our modern way of life from the work of MIT undergrads are almost innumerable.
Ahh...so if it can help the gov't/country it should be free...gotcha
Here's a litmus test to consider. Suppose that in order to pay for college, you took out a loan from "investors" -- businesses, friends, people you knew, etc. The condition was that they'd give you the money for college, and you'd give them n percent of your gross income for y years after getting a "real" post college job.
Would you be willing to pay for college that way? Do you think you (not anyone specifically here) and your chosen degree program would attract any investors?
If the answer to either quesiton is "no", why should tax payers be helping you foot the bill?
They do have this litmus test to a degree. For the most part you don't just "get money" to go to school. You have to take a loan. With the loan comes terms & interest. Then there is the scholarship avenue that companies pay for you to go to school so long as you work for them for x amount of years after completion of degree.
I think you are referring to grants. I've made my case for them above. Yes, some get abused, but a lot don't. I don't think EVERYONE who is poor should get a grant, but I do think that those who attain a certain GPA, show promise, etc.. should have a shot at college and the education it provides.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login