Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you for answering the question. Finally. It seemed fairly simply, but so is pulling teeth, I'm told.
I don't think it's necessary to provide you with a link.
I'm not certain why "even if they did, that does not mean they should do it" is a good strategy for the taxpayers, if they will benefit - perhaps you can explain your line of thinking on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
Perhaps you're smarter than all of the economists. Have you told them you've been saying this since day one?
So all of your circus postings was.
You read something I said, then you asked me if I said it, only to confirm that I said what I said..
Obviously I have no need to tell the economists that they agree with me, since I'm assuming they also have known this since day one because the also know how to read a plan, its a shame that others that think Obama a "genius" dont..
My line of thinking needs to be explained? Buying up McDonalds franchises would also benefit the taxpayers, after all, they are profitable. Maybe we should have the the government buy up Microsoft, after all, who can deny that company is profitable? oh heck, why not have the government buy up every single profitable company in the nation and then we wont need to pay taxes.
My line of thinking needs to be explained? Surely your joking..
If one engages in a discussion, in order to continue the discussion, at times any or all parties may ask for further insight into another's line of thinking on the present subject matter. Elaboration if you will.
If one engages in a discussion, in order to continue the discussion, at times any or all parties may ask for further insight into another's line of thinking on the present subject matter. Elaboration if you will.
I thought I did,
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Buying up McDonalds franchises would also benefit the taxpayers, after all, they are profitable. Maybe we should have the the government buy up Microsoft, after all, who can deny that company is profitable? oh heck, why not have the government buy up every single profitable company in the nation and then we wont need to pay taxes.
So where does it end? The government has bought up 542 banks (figure might be slighly off but its up there somewhere) with TARP money, car manufacturing companies, insurance companies, tell me why the government just shouldnt continue to buyup profitable like Microsoft and McDonalds which would benefit the taxpayers by lowering the tax burden...
So where does it end? The government has bought up 542 banks (figure might be slighly off but its up there somewhere) with TARP money, car manufacturing companies, insurance companies, tell me why the government just shouldnt continue to buyup profitable like Microsoft and McDonalds which would benefit the taxpayers by lowering the tax burden...
Microsoft isn't failing/hasn't failed whereas those corporations are/have. Not that I agree with TARP or anything but that argument is pretty lame dude.
Microsoft isn't failing/hasn't failed whereas those corporations are/have. Not that I agree with TARP or anything but that argument is pretty lame dude.
Actually you just emphasised my point.
If the argument to bankrupt the nation is because it might be "good for the taxpayers" or "the taxpayers might benefit" then tell me why they are not buying out Micorosft? That also would benefit the taxpayers because if we bought out all of the profitable companies in the nation we would have $0 taxes. Why there might even be a surplus. The reason why liberals here seem to be for this plan is "it might benefit" then surely buying out Microsoft must be looked at for the same reason.
Yes, there is a world of difference between buying up companies loosing money and buying up ones making money, but since the ultimate goal (to the liberals) is to "benefit taxpayers" then I propose we're buying up the wrong companies..
Yes, there is a world of difference between buying up companies loosing money and buying up ones making money, but since the ultimate goal (to the liberals) is to "benefit taxpayers" then I propose we're buying up the wrong companies..
You don't have clue as to what the "ultimate goal" (of the liberals) is - so you should probably quit trying to tell them what their goal is.
You don't have clue as to what the "ultimate goal" (of the liberals) is - so you should probably quit trying to tell them what their goal is.
Ken
Odd, per threads all over this forum liberals proclaim Obama a "genius" for reasons like.. Its MIGHT be posible to profit from this. I thought profit was bad.. now its good.. You liberals are so confusing you cant even tell when your being a hyprocite..
Odd, per threads all over this forum liberals proclaim Obama a "genius" for reasons like.. Its MIGHT be posible to profit from this. I thought profit was bad.. now its good.. You liberals are so confusing you cant even tell when your being a hyprocite..
LOL
More proof you have no clue what you are talking about.
The fact that it "MIGHT be possible to profit" doesn't NOT equate to that being the "goal" of Liberals. Take a logic class dude.
The possibility of profit to the government is a potential side benefit.
The "goal" is to keep the loss of jobs to a minimum and to prevent a further deterioration of the economy.
As to "profit being bad" - again just more proof that you've no clue what Liberals think. "Profit" is not bad. It's ill-gotten and excessive profit (at the unfair expense of others) that's bad.
Yes, there is a world of difference between buying up companies loosing money and buying up ones making money, but since the ultimate goal (to the liberals) is to "benefit taxpayers" then I propose we're buying up the wrong companies..
No the ultimate goal is to keep people's investments from exploding and their 401ks from going to zero. Buying Microsoft or some other corporation that isn't failing/has worthless stock and dissolving their shares wouldn't have that effect.
The "it might benefit" argument exists because in all other cases the tax payer is going to take a loss. The tax payer will take a loss in this scenario (in my opinion) but that's pretty much unavoidable no matter what.
LOL
More proof you have no clue what you are talking about.
The fact that it "MIGHT be possible to profit" doesn't NOT equate to that being the "goal" of Liberals. Take a logic class dude.
You might want to inform the liberals here on the forum that thinks this is a good idea because profit "might be possible" because its a direct quote from one of them, not me.. I simply stated to them that it was a stupid rationalization for justification to buy out private companies... You however seemed to have putting liberal words into my mouth, and then thought to respond. You liberals need to get your story together before responding. Either bankrupting the country by bailing out rich bankers is good (like Obama is planning) or is bad, (like Bush planned). Either way, its the same action and you cant have it both ways.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
