It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sos37
It's true, if no one spends money then even the rich can't profit, but at least they can still afford to keep on some staff while they keep businesses running as long as they can.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Those rich folks that everyone love to hate are the ones that invest their money which in turn creates business which in turn creates jobs.
Atlas shrugged is fiction, but it's very accurate when it comes to cause and effects on the economy. Read up everyone.
As you know, Section 1607(a) of the economic recovery legislation provides that the Governor of each state must certify a request for stimulus funds before any money can flow. No language in this provision, however, permits the governor to selectively adopt some components of the bill while rejecting others. To allow such picking and choosing would, in effect, empower the governors with a line-item veto authority that President Obama himself did not possess at the time he signed the legislation. It would also undermine the overall success of the bill, as the components most singled out for criticism by these governors are among the most productive measures in terms of stimulating the economy.
For instance, at least two governors have proposed rejecting a program to expand unemployment insurance for laid-off workers. Economists consistently rank unemployment insurance among the most efficient and cost-effective fiscal stimulus measures; by one frequently cited estimate, it provides an economic return of as high as $1.73 for every dollar invested. Thus, by denying this provision for their residents, these governors are not just depriving some of the neediest Americans of relief in a dire economy; they are undermining the overall stimulative impact of the package.
No one would dispute that these governors should be given the choice as to whether to accept the funds or not. But it should not be multiple choice. The composition of the package was rightly dictated by economic considerations; we should not let the implementation of the package be dictated by political considerations.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I keep thinking that these bankers are partially responsible for this mess we're in because they loaned money to people, knowing they couldn't pay it back,
I keep forgetting the wealthy are the good guys and we should be thankful to them...
Originally posted by maybereal11
Giving more money to the rich does not create jobs.
What does create jobs...hard work and innovation, new technology and euntrepenurial risk taking, education. Real growth.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Banks do not want to give loans to people that they know won't pay it back. It's against their nature.
If you want to know who is to blame for this economic mess, take a long hard look at Obama,
To want to destroy the financial status of the top wealth earners in this country just because of jealousy or just because you wish to impose your own sense of morality on everyone else .. that will just bankrupt the country.
We have no business telling someone else if we think they have made too much money or what they should do with their profits. It's THEIR money.
Originally posted by Injustice for All
BH, you are the lip service for this administration. If there was a mascot for Obama, you would be it.
I'm trying to come by as polite as I can, because I just can't take anything your saying serious.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Originally posted by maybereal11
Giving more money to the rich does not create jobs.
Rich industrialists aren't 'given' money. They have earned it.
Also - those who inherit money have a right to it.
Jealousy is not an excuse to take money away from those who have it.
Imposing our own morals upon those with money is just that - imposing our own morals.
(and no ... I'm not one of those who 'have it' )
We have no business telling someone else if we think they have made too much money or what they should do with their profits. It's THEIR money.
If we don't like what they have or what they are doing, then we stop doing business with them and their profits suffer. That's what a free market is supposed to be about.
Originally posted by Injustice for All
The fact is we live in the Era of Double Standards. The government is spawning more and more brainless, lazy Yes we can chanting morons.
Originally posted by Injustice for All
BH, you are the lip service for this administration. If there was a mascot for Obama, you would be it.
Originally posted by Injustice for All
Can you please tell us something intelligent about Obama without looking at CNN, what someone else said, or that chanting Obamanaut voice in your head?
Originally posted by Injustice for All
I'm trying to come by as polite as I can, because I just can't take anything your saying serious.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Fremd
I suppose you could stretch the definition of "threat" to include economic collapse but when the bulk of those troubles were caused by government you would have set the fed upon the task of dismantling itself as the threat.
Originally posted by Injustice for All
The fact is we live in the Era of Double Standards. The government is spawning more and more brainless, lazy Yes we can chanting morons.
As long as Obama can victimize people, he will stay in office as the nation gets poor and those bags in DC get richer.
Demands were made on lenders to supply bad loans under "equal housing" measures. When there was an initial protest by the lenders the system by which bad loans could be packaged and sold off was instated and then insured with psuedo governmental agencies like Freddie and Fannie.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Fremd
[more
Obama has yet to apologize for his class-action suit forcing a bank to hand out bad loans. Until he apologizes I wont believe government has learned its lesson.
- source from link above.
The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations