lockmat Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 (edited) I got the full amount and used it promptly to pay off 2 credit cards. Guess it wasn't exactly what uncle George wanted, but what the heck.90% of mine went directly to someone in another country. Bet they didn't like that, either. Edited May 30, 2008 by lockmat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 I put mine towards rent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Straight to savings.. Sorry Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 I wasn't expecting one, but apparently I accounted for it being based on the wrong year's AGI, and it showed up last week. In check form, although I used direct deposit the past 5 years. Hmm. They better not want it back, it already got put toward something we had already bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahiki Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Our car needed about $800 worth of work the week the check came. Guess how I spent it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 90% of mine went directly to someone in another country. Bet they didn't like that, either. Funding terrists? Are you in it with Rachel Ray? Started new Rachel Ray topic here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mls1202 Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 My check came in the mail to my US address. I'm going to do the patriotic thing and spend it on vacation in another country! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 After listening to the neo-hippies using the same tired old chants and rhetoric since Al Gore lost the election, finally there's some creative dissent.http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/106242...ewage18.articleI don't care what side you're on -- that's funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 I think it's perfect.A facility that does a filthy but necessary job that disgusts the liberals who played a big part in creating the mess, thereby protecting them in spite of themselves, should absolutely be named after Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted July 19, 2008 Share Posted July 19, 2008 It think it's right on target...Gotta love TheOnion:Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidencyhttp://www.theonion.com/content/video/bush...erica_to_surveyExcellent piece of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webdude Posted July 19, 2008 Share Posted July 19, 2008 (edited) This is a huge insult and very disrespectful.The sewage plant has at least done a good job. What an insult to have this clown's name on a nice sewage plant. After 7 years, we have a much bigger mess than the sewage plant. They should take some of the sewage and dump it on the the moronic conservatives who voted this clown in. Edited July 19, 2008 by webdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted July 19, 2008 Share Posted July 19, 2008 Just keep flushin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted July 19, 2008 Share Posted July 19, 2008 A sewage treatment plant is productive, it cleans up a mess - not appropriate to have it associated with W at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 And to think his father got a major airport named after him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
native_Houstonian Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Chronicle article Thoughts? Discussion? My first reaction is...what happened to personal responsibility in this country? Why do I have to pay via increase taxes to help those out who live in much larger, more expensive houses than I do, because I am fiscally responsible and live within my means and didn't sign my name to a convoluted ARM mortgage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disastro Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Chronicle article Thoughts? Discussion? My first reaction is...what happened to personal responsibility in this country? Why do I have to pay via increase taxes to help those out who live in much larger, more expensive houses than I do, because I am fiscally responsible and live within my means and didn't sign my name to a convoluted ARM mortgage?Yes, very un-Republican...then again, Bush is no conservative.What a disappointment he's been -- especially in his second term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0123 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Yes, very un-Republican...then again, Bush is no conservative.What a disappointment he's been -- especially in his second term.He was a failure even before being re-elected. Anyone that voted for him a second time should never be allowed to vote again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disastro Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 (edited) He was a failure even before being re-elected. Anyone that voted for him a second time should never be allowed to vote again.Oh, you're just a Bush hater.I don't like him because he's not a conservative...he's a sellout and a globalist traitor, IMO. Had he stuck to conservative Republican principles then I would support him. But, he hasn't so I can't support him.I don't think knee-jerk swinging to radical liberalism/Marxism is going to save this country from Bush's mistakes -- quite the contrary in fact. It'll just hasten our country's demise that much quicker. Edited July 30, 2008 by Disastro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahiki Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Oh, you're just a Bush hater.I don't like him because he's not a conservative...he's a sellout and a globalist traitor, IMO. Had he stuck to conservative Republican principles then I would support him. But, he hasn't so I can't support him.I don't think knee-jerk swinging to radical liberalism/Marxism is going to save this country from Bush's mistakes -- quite the contrary in fact. It'll just hasten our country's demise that much quicker.I don't see a bailout of a huge corportation, to save the hides of a bunch of rich bankers, as particularly liberal or Marxist. I see it as cronyism and desperation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KatieDidIt Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 (edited) I don't think the government should be bailing out people who had no business taking out the loans they did.But then we are becoming more and more a nanny state nation everyday. Edited July 30, 2008 by KatieDidIt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I guess the government will be paying off everybody's credit card debt next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 (edited) I would ask 'what about public fiscal responsilibity.' Or corporate? Or just plain old illegal lending practices that became the institutionalized norm over the past few years (a'la Indy Mac and Countrywide)? There's a pretty damn long list of handouts and bailouts that trump this:http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/12/12...ts/index_01.htm[Note that it needs to be updated to include Bear Stearns, Fannie/Freddie, and all the lending institutions on the Fed's special lending program teat.]But, private citizens should be allowed to fail, because they're just lazy ignorant slobs (with no means of raising capital through creative accounting) who get what they deserve? Even Bush understands the political suicide of continuing to subsidize banks on the backs of citizens during a not-recession. I find it amazing that people want to zero in on 400,000 individuals getting a chance to re-finance, as opposed to "The Treasury Department gains unlimited power, until the end of 2009, to lend money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or buy their stock should they need it. The Federal Reserve takes on a new "consultative" role overseeing the companies". Edited July 30, 2008 by crunchtastic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 He was a failure even before being re-elected. Anyone that voted for him a second time should never be allowed to vote again.That is a bit harsh, you seem almost....I can't think of the word, but I'm sure someone will help me with that later...I didn't vote for him (Bush) in his first term, but I voted for him on the 2nd term for several reasons, but I was NEVER a bush Fan.As far as this bill goes; being the independent that I am, have several things I like and dislike about it.I'm not fond of the bail out, but I see the necessity of it. But in full disclosure, I haven't read the bill, nor have I any more knowledge of it than what I have heard on the news about it.The thing that kinda' concerns me is what kind of backdoor concessions were made for Bush to withdraw his threat of a Veto of this bill to the point he was almost embracing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disastro Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I don't see a bailout of a huge corportation, to save the hides of a bunch of rich bankers, as particularly liberal or Marxist. I see it as cronyism and desperation.My point was the more the government "bails out" the closer we come to a Socialist state. That's undeniable.The more power the citizen gives to the government, the more power the government will expect...and this includes intrusion into your personal liberties and freedoms.Anyway, I also have a problem with this bailout because these banks should never have made these loans (although they were under pressure to do so). It's not surprising that people who live beyond their means cannot afford to pay their mortgages.Also, I view this bailout as a slap in the face to those of us who live within our means and pay our bills.I guess this bailout means we can all not pay and expect Uncle Sam to bail us out, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 My point was the more the government "bails out" the closer we come to a Socialist state. That's undeniable.The more power the citizen gives to the government, the more power the government will expect...and this includes intrusion into your personal liberties and freedoms.Anyway, I also have a problem with this bailout because these banks should never have made these loans (although they were under pressure to do so). It's not surprising that people who live beyond their means cannot afford to pay their mortgages.Also, I view this bailout as a slap in the face to those of us who live within our means and pay our bills.I guess this bailout means we can all not pay and expect Uncle Sam to bail us out, right?I agree with you wholeheartedly, my only issue with the whole banking fiasco is ARM lending to those who were enticed by the low rates, but were ignorant of the potential increase in rates in the future. The only "bailout" that I would find agreeable to is to freeze the rates to those that have purchased a home to a "reasonable" rate, let the buyers continue to pay and then call it a day. I guess I lost my conservative street cred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahiki Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 My point was the more the government "bails out" the closer we come to a Socialist state. That's undeniable.The more power the citizen gives to the government, the more power the government will expect...and this includes intrusion into your personal liberties and freedoms.Anyway, I also have a problem with this bailout because these banks should never have made these loans (although they were under pressure to do so). It's not surprising that people who live beyond their means cannot afford to pay their mortgages.Also, I view this bailout as a slap in the face to those of us who live within our means and pay our bills.I guess this bailout means we can all not pay and expect Uncle Sam to bail us out, right?I'm in total agreement that this bill is wrong in many, many ways. But I still won't accept that it represents a move any closer to a Socialist state. The only power we're giving the government is the power to waste our money. They are not providing any service to us at all. What we have is a state that is Capitalist in theory, and in propaganda, in always claiming the power of the free market. But when it suits the Powers, they intervene in all sorts of non-free-market ways. I think that makes it a dysfunctional, hypocritical capitalist state, but still capitalist in principle and propaganda, not socialist.I guess I'm arguing this point to death because I think it does socialism a disservice to associate this kind of irresponsible bailout with socialist economics. It would be better to either openly embrace certain socialist structures, or to truly function in a capitalist, free market way. In which case we would end public education and a whole host of other programs. (I have a strong libertarain streak, by the way, which is sort of a strange feature in a way-left liberal...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disastro Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I'm in total agreement that this bill is wrong in many, many ways. But I still won't accept that it represents a move any closer to a Socialist state. The only power we're giving the government is the power to waste our money. They are not providing any service to us at all. What we have is a state that is Capitalist in theory, and in propaganda, in always claiming the power of the free market. But when it suits the Powers, they intervene in all sorts of non-free-market ways. I think that makes it a dysfunctional, hypocritical capitalist state, but still capitalist in principle and propaganda, not socialist.I guess I'm arguing this point to death because I think it does socialism a disservice to associate this kind of irresponsible bailout with socialist economics. It would be better to either openly embrace certain socialist structures, or to truly function in a capitalist, free market way. In which case we would end public education and a whole host of other programs. (I have a strong libertarain streak, by the way, which is sort of a strange feature in a way-left liberal...).Someone mentioned "nanny state" earlier...and that's what this bill represents. The term nanny state is synonymous with socialism -- which, by the way, is a failed system, but hey...that doesn't seem to be preventing our slide towards said failed system.Anyway, the government should LESS power -- not more. The less the better.Anyone who puts their trust in big government "nanny-ism" is a fool who deserves no freedom whatsoever.But, again...this thing is a slap in the face to any fiscally responsible and productive member of this society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 The bill does not forgive debt for homeowners. It's a refinance program. Meanwhile, the lion's share of debt relief goes to the banks. Their collusion is rewarded with fresh capital.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disastro Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I agree with you wholeheartedly, my only issue with the whole banking fiasco is ARM lending to those who were enticed by the low rates, but were ignorant of the potential increase in rates in the future. The only "bailout" that I would find agreeable to is to freeze the rates to those that have purchased a home to a "reasonable" rate, let the buyers continue to pay and then call it a day. I guess I lost my conservative street cred.I'm more for "let them fail". Government, banks and irresponsible borrowers all deserve the opportunity to experience failure.But, such is the of the "accept no responsibility" society we have become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy76 Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 He was a failure even before being re-elected. Anyone that voted for him a second time should never be allowed to vote again.ne of the best reasons to vote for Bush was to keep Gore and Kerry out of office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts