Posted on 02/07/2009 12:46:16 AM PST by Tempest
Eat, drink, and be merry -- someone will bail you out.
After the humiliation of haggling over bailouts, there comes the post-bailout party. Staff of supposedly ailing companies are living it up on more than a prayer.
See where and how they celebrated government money and keeping their jobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at businesssheet.alleyinsider.com ...
So, I really have to say this. It strikes me as odd that if a welfare recipient were to take their food stamps and blow it booze and cigarettes. I think that the vast majority of people here would scream, take that losers benefits away from them! Prosecute them, blah, blah, blah. And justifiably so, I would say.
BUT! When someone on corporate welfare gorges themself on waste and opulence. Many people on these boards defend it, justify it, and take offense to others whom think such behaviour is injust and obscene.
If we regulate welfare and limit welfare for normal citizens. Why then is it wrong to regulate welfare and limit welfare for corporations?
I guess the question I asked must be too tough to answer...
I agree with you 100%.
I glad to see signs of human life.
Since Jan 1, 2009, 104 of the 600+ employees at the facility where I work have been "excessed". If they can't find another postal job within 500 miles, they will be laid off. Most will lose their jobs. That's part of an effort to cut 40,000 jobs this year, with more to follow next. They've already cut 150,000 jobs in the past 10 years, mostly through attrition. Hey, I just realized that there are two things business could learn from the PO.
What are you a Socialist. Free Market principals clearly state that the largest losers are clearly entitled to massive amounts of socialized welfare.
“I think that the vast majority of people here would scream, take that losers benefits away from them! Prosecute them, blah, blah, blah. And justifiably so, I would say”
B.S. Our call would be to eliminate benefits, or at least restrict them. Welfare doesn’t make people honest and productive. Neither do bail-outs. Mostly because such things are handed out to people simply because they’ve demonstrated dysfunction. Government money does not magically make people productive. If anything, it subsidizes what people are already doing.
I meant B.S. on the prosecution part, by the way. We can’t prosecute welfare recipients for buying booze. We can prosecute them for cheating, that is committing fraud, but that’s another matter.
You must be referring to how we feebly attempt to restrict what they can buy, say, to things that will keep their children alive. Of course, giving them milk for free liberates them to use the money they otherwise would have used on milk to buy beer. That’s the way currency works. The more you have of it, the greater variety of things there are to consume.
Our attempts to control the lives of welfare recipients once we give them money is futile. Likewise bankers, etc.
But of course. I am sorry comrade. I had forgotten the words of our “Dear Leader”, Tsar Zero. I will reeducate myself in a manner that would make Mao proud, but without waterboarding.
It’s the government that we all have voted into power shoveling money to the banks and corporations. Never in our founder’s wildest dreams would they have imagined our government shoveling money to banks and businesses.
Populists make me puke. Obama is a populist and way too many poster on FR.
Loved the slideshow. Thank you.
I’ve been to the Ritz-Carlton in Half Moon Bay and it is really georgeous. You can drive around and have lunch in their restaurant by the golf course and pretend you are staying there.
Why should the gummint tell corps how to spend their cash and generate revenue? The last people I want running the marketing departments of businesses is the gummint morons like Barney and Stabacow.
I know it's not popular but these events are a necessity if you want to generate business and keep the whales and rainmakers happy. If they don't do it, someone else will and their chances for survival with such a competitive disadvantage are worsened by it. Who loses then? Unemployed rich people pay no income taxes, they don't go to restaurants, don't buy cars, don't buy houses, don't buy gas, don't buy clothes. Revenues go down for everyone which means more layoffs..
It does nobody any good if these companies lose business because for fat moron in congress is jealous that she isn't getting the perks herself because she's not talented enough to make it on the outside.
Giving someone free gubmint money for breathing and making babies is one thing, giving a corporation money to save jobs and keep taxes coming in (income, payroll, bonuses, sales, business, capital gains) is another. One continues to suck from society where the other continues to contribute.
In 1990, when Congress imposed a luxury tax on yachts, private airplanes and expensive automobiles, Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell crowed publicly about how the rich would finally be paying their fair share of taxes. But yacht retailers reported a 77 percent drop in sales, and boat builders laid off an estimated 25,000 workers. What happened? Kennedy and Mitchell simply assumed that the rich would behave the same way after the imposition of the luxury tax as they did before and the only difference would be more money in the government’s coffers. They had a zero-elasticity vision of the world, namely that people do not respond to price changes. People always respond, and the only debatable issue is how much and over what period.
Walter Williams
Confused so-called capitalist that can’t idnetify when governemnt is actually enacting a transfer of wealth as opposed to social welfare make me puke.
Then the same hypocrites started calling for pay caps on people that made their money not from taxpayer income. E.G. - professional athletes, actors, etc.
It was a sad meltdown of intellectual consistency.
We shouldn't concern ourselves with what courses public school teachers want to teach our children in their classrooms.
Police and firemen should feel free to spend their funding on weekend junkets as opposed to upgrading and maintaining the tools that are required to do their job?
I'm mean after all we can't control what free people do with public funds. Only take them away. Otherwise it's socialist...
Don’t call me comrade, I’m a rugged individual that is ready to sell you out to the 1st foreign government that’s willing to pay for my Bently.
First of all, civil servants don’t work on Wall Street. Civil servants are bureaucrats. Second, the call for caps on salaries for all recipients of federal funds is only turn about is fair play. I’d love to see caps on salaries at Universities and colleges that receive federal funds.
The truth be told, conservatives are not all that unhappy with the caps on the banking salaries. It’s just too bad that it took government intervention to do it. The share holders should have demanded that bonuses and salaries be tied to performance, a long time ago. -— and I don’t mean how much money they gave away.
Dear God, I hope you were being sarcastic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.