View Single Post
Old 03-30-2009, 12:55 AM   #4341
wendybeth
Nevermind
 
wendybeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,847
wendybeth is the epitome of coolwendybeth is the epitome of coolwendybeth is the epitome of coolwendybeth is the epitome of coolwendybeth is the epitome of coolwendybeth is the epitome of coolwendybeth is the epitome of coolwendybeth is the epitome of coolwendybeth is the epitome of coolwendybeth is the epitome of coolwendybeth is the epitome of cool
Send a message via Yahoo to wendybeth
Well, looks like GM is gonna have to go it alone: Obama denies bailout to automakers.


Had a few interesting conversations this week- one was with someone who was up in arms over the possibility of regulating the SEC and other entities. They thought it tragically socialistic, but at the same time blamed Clinton and Carter for the mess we're in right now. I asked how they were responsible, and of course they weren't entirely sure but knew (coughRushcough) that they were at fault. When I explained that their fault lay in their role in dismantling regulatory rules from bygone eras, the person was so confused I actually felt sorry for her. It's really hard to blame C&C for deregulation and cheerlead for the same. Another conversation arose when a co-worker was reading the paper and saw that certain banks might be partially nationalised....."Socialism! Rush was right!"...(sigh). I pointed out that just last week she was decrying AIG for it's actions with bailout money, and that this was merely a way to let the taxpayers become shareholders, with the option of paying off the taxpayers whenever the companies were doing better. Not only that, but the 'shareholders' could actually put stipulations on those funds, whereas before no real directives were applied or enforcable. She admitted that maybe that wasn't such a horrible thing.
__________________









wendybeth is offline   Submit to Quotes Reply With Quote