If the bailouts were for the rich, then why

[soccerballtux]

And why the republicans against it?
Only 94 democrats against?

Liberal thought process fails once again.

The current illiquidity in the market is largely thanks to the possibility of the bailout-- nobody is going to sell for 20% what they think they government will buy from them for 30%/50%/70%.

 

[CPA]

hmmmmmm......Dave would you care to respond?

 

[Specop 007]

Well, considering almost half of the Democrats were against it I dont know if this claim holds all that much water.....In fact, it holds about half.

Whether its half full or half empty is up tot he reader to decide.

 

[sandorski]

...it wasn't

 

[OrByte]

oy vey

 

[badkarma1399]

Because both the Democratic and Republican parties represent the rich.

 

[Xellos2099]

Maybe it is because it is a BAD plan.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
And why the republicans against it?
Only 94 democrats against?

Liberal thought process fails once again.

The current illiquidity in the market is largely thanks to the possibility of the bailout-- nobody is going to sell for 20% what they think they government will buy from them for 30%/50%/70%.

Blatant plagiarism FTW!

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
And why the republicans against it?
Only 94 democrats against?

Liberal thought process fails once again.

The current illiquidity in the market is largely thanks to the possibility of the bailout-- nobody is going to sell for 20% what they think they government will buy from them for 30%/50%/70%.

Nobody is going to sell at 20% when they think that the market will eventually get better and they can get 30%+.

Would you sell your house when you think it'll be worth more than the current illiquid market price?

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
And why the republicans against it?
Only 94 democrats against?

Liberal thought process fails once again.

The current illiquidity in the market is largely thanks to the possibility of the bailout-- nobody is going to sell for 20% what they think they government will buy from them for 30%/50%/70%.

Blatant plagiarism FTW!

haha yes! Actually he said "20 cents on the dollar when the government will pay 30 cents....". I said percent, he said cent.

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: badkarma1399
Because both the Democratic and Republican parties represent the rich.

that would make too much sense

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: mooseracing

Originally posted by: badkarma1399
Because both the Democratic and Republican parties represent the rich.

that would make too much sense

QFT


The Dems had the votes but they didn't want the liability, they also knew that if this bill didn't pass they could point the finger at the Republicans.

 

[blackangst1]

I guess the Dems are on Bush's side afterall

 

[sactoking]

It's quite simple, really.

All of the Dems who voted 'yes' either had some special interest tacked onto the bill or were promised some perks. All of the Dems who voted 'no' had nothing to gain.
All of the GOP who voted 'yes' either had some special interest tacked onto the bill or were promised some perks. All of the GOP who voted 'no' had nothing to gain.

NOBODY voted in the interest of the people. Nobody ever does. The Repubs pointing fingers are blowhards, they voted 'no' not because of some perceived verbal jab but because they weren't offered enough to vote yes. The Dems pointing fingers are blowhards, they voted 'yes' not because they're our beneficient saviors but they're pissed because the perks they were promised won't come about now.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
Well, considering almost half of the Democrats were against it I dont know if this claim holds all that much water.....In fact, it holds about half.

Whether its half full or half empty is up tot he reader to decide.

Actually the accurate number is 33%

 

[waggy]

not to mention many have said they voted how they did because its voting time. they don't want to get voted out.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: sactoking
It's quite simple, really.

All of the Dems who voted 'yes' either had some special interest tacked onto the bill or were promised some perks. All of the Dems who voted 'no' had nothing to gain.
All of the GOP who voted 'yes' either had some special interest tacked onto the bill or were promised some perks. All of the GOP who voted 'no' had nothing to gain.

NOBODY voted in the interest of the people. Nobody ever does. The Repubs pointing fingers are blowhards, they voted 'no' not because of some perceived verbal jab but because they weren't offered enough to vote yes. The Dems pointing fingers are blowhards, they voted 'yes' not because they're our beneficient saviors but they're pissed because the perks they were promised won't come about now.

^ This.

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: sactoking
It's quite simple, really.

All of the Dems who voted 'yes' either had some special interest tacked onto the bill or were promised some perks. All of the Dems who voted 'no' had nothing to gain.
All of the GOP who voted 'yes' either had some special interest tacked onto the bill or were promised some perks. All of the GOP who voted 'no' had nothing to gain.

NOBODY voted in the interest of the people. Nobody ever does. The Repubs pointing fingers are blowhards, they voted 'no' not because of some perceived verbal jab but because they weren't offered enough to vote yes. The Dems pointing fingers are blowhards, they voted 'yes' not because they're our beneficient saviors but they're pissed because the perks they were promised won't come about now.

^ This.

Well its a good thing not enough people were given incentive to vote yes.