I do not anticipate unemployment even if the market does go far down
Quote:I do not anticipate unemployment even if the market does go far down
That's what I thought.
The third degree is because you seem to think this situation is funny and I don't.
Yes, we have to do something about the general lifestyle and daily living habits of the middle 50-75% of the country. We cannot continue to survive as a debtor nation. But the impact on those who are already underemployed or unemployed is nothing to laugh about.
Why just blame Pelosi?
I have no knowledge of your situation, cyclo. You say you are prepared and have been preparing for two years. Good for you to be in a position to do that.
I do think that the idiots we have representing us in Washington will put a bill together that will pass. I also believe that the timing of this vote so close to election day is integral to the reason it failed -- politics. You're a fan of politics whereas I'm most certainly not. The games that pelosi played today were just that - political gamesmanship. She gets to be employed at least until November and will do what she needs to do to see a December paycheck, as will the rest of them. I'm not a fan of the system. Particularly when folks on the edge are trying to figure out how to eat. Show me where that's funny.
Some of us 'lower classes' think that this part is really important.
Then again, what do we know? It's important to keep the money moving, not bring back moral risk amongst the executive class! That couldn't possibly be important. Nope.
And heck, they'll just find a way to lie around it and break the law, so why even try? That'll fix these problems in the long run - no real meaningful attempt at reform of the underlying problems in our economic system, lots of throwing money at things!
Stupid lower classes with our stupid ideas.
I posted 'bout the old guy, One eye.
Both sides are the problem, and if you ain't helpin fix it, then yer just still f*ckin' it for fun.
What are you doing?
And don't forget Afghanistan! Talk of more funds & troops needed there, too
Yaknow, last week, when Grandpa John decided that he was far enough behind in the polls, that he had to go pull a stunt and go to Washington and 'fix things up' - upon which the negotiations crashed down and the bill got pushed back - I didn't see you posting about what an ass he was for doing it.
It's not like passing this bill would have solved anything at all. It would have protected the richest yet again and there would have been no meaningful changes in the way we do business.
But it's just isn't feasible Cyclo. To be retributive it would have to have been retroactive, and there's no legal basis to make it retroactive except to just let the system fail.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Yaknow, last week, when Grandpa John decided that he was far enough behind in the polls, that he had to go pull a stunt and go to Washington and 'fix things up' - upon which the negotiations crashed down and the bill got pushed back - I didn't see you posting about what an ass he was for doing it.
"He did it too" is not in any way relevant to whether Pelosi deserves criticism.
And McCain's stupid stunts didn't cause the negotiations to fail, which you seem to be trying to imply.
Cycloptichorn wrote:It's not like passing this bill would have solved anything at all. It would have protected the richest yet again and there would have been no meaningful changes in the way we do business.
And this is talking out of your ass Cyclo. Get the credit system working again and the people who just got fired (in every business I am involved in there are layoffs right and left) can have their jobs again. That is a very meaningful difference to the way we do business and it hits the small guy the hardest.
This is what I mean with stupid classism. You fixate on the rich and ignore that this impacts the poor the most. They are losing their jobs and houses and small businesses because of the lack of liquidity in the market and you are fixating on a handful of executives and on political gamesmanship.
Well, we cannot create legislation to make it retroactive?
This is optional, after all; if businesses don't want to participate, nobody is forcing them.
How is it 'divisive' to limit executive compensation?
I doubt you would find an issue which polled better in America. Unless you believe it would divide the executives of the financial system from the rest of us? I'm not against that.
It is just scary that I see this and you don't.
(you should ask for a refund on some of your edumacation, I think...)