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.
The same goes with the auto industry bailout--millions upon millions of dollars paid to suppliers would have dried up, creating a huge ripple effect in the economy and job market, if we hadn't helped that industry get back on their feet. Whether you like it or not, that bailout had 91 R's voting for it in the House, was proposed by the Bush administration--not the Dems--and had broad bipartisan support.
We HAVE to start targeting tax cuts and spending to areas that help our economy grow--not just paying back the people who scratch our backs. It has to happen on both sides of the isle. I'm sick of the finger pointing.
Bailouts are a flawed strategy. And the party that supported them has no meaning. It's bad strategy to save businesses that should fail regardless of who is in control.
Yes, we should quit bailing out the people who scratch our backs. All bail outs should be stopped. I don't care who supports them, they are wrong and they upset the market place balance.
Maybe you should help your man in office understand. Government is not the solution. It's the problem.
Bailouts are a flawed strategy. And the party that supported them has no meaning. It's bad strategy to save businesses that should fail regardless of who is in control.
Yes, we should quit bailing out the people who scratch our backs. All bail outs should be stopped. I don't care who supports them, they are wrong and they upset the market place balance.
Maybe you should help your man in office understand. Government is not the solution. It's the problem.
Thinking that no government is good, and that government is the problem is just as bad as thinking that the government should solve all your problems--both paths don't work, and functioning government is somewhere in the middle.
I think you're absolutely wrong about the bailouts in situations like the one we were facing in 08. We were in such dire straits that letting the banks fail, or the auto industry (one of our biggest manufacturing industries in the US) would have had a ripple effect that would have devastated the economy and thrown us into a depression. Remember--they were loans. We've got a big chunk of the money back already from the banks with return on investment, and it looks like the auto industry is going to pay us back as well, with a profit. That's an emergency short term business investment--not money down the drain, like pork to industries that don't create jobs in this country.
You're worried that the guy appointed to specifically handle negotiations between unions and businesses has experience handling negotiations between unions and businesses?
You're worried that the guy appointed to specifically handle negotiations between unions and businesses has experience handling negotiations between unions and businesses?
If you READ my opening post, you'd see that I specifically said that there's a conflict of interest in that he worked for the same unions he's now supposed to be unbiased about.
Worse yet is that he's written many opinion pieces proving his bias against business owners.
He couldn't even get confirmed to that post when there was a Democratic majority, so he was appointed during a recess.
The post also was meant to illustrate that within 24 hours, Obama's rhetoric about being pro-business was all just theater.
If you READ my opening post, you'd see that I specifically said that there's a conflict of interest in that he worked for the same unions he's now supposed to be unbiased about.
Worse yet is that he's written many opinion pieces proving his bias against business owners.
He couldn't even get confirmed to that post when there was a Democratic majority, so he was appointed during a recess.
The post also was meant to illustrate that within 24 hours, Obama's rhetoric about being pro-business was all just theater.
I'm not a liberal, but I don't see a problem with a strong labor advocate on the NLRB--it's SUPPOSED to be a balance of viewpoints that are both pro business and pro labor. I think the R's are looking for a molehill to make into a mountain on this one. Of course the R's want to put a wishy washy person in vs. a labor advocate. That doesn't mean it's right. Making it into an example of how the President is somehow backtracking--that he's not doing his job by appointing a pro labor member to what's supposed to be a mixed viewpoint labor board--is really reaching.
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.
