meangreendork

As big as the universe is, some intelligent life has to exist. We all know that isn't on this planet, that's for damn sure.

Hell yes you can. High octane, too.

It's this exact set of scenarios that you have kind of ride the fence between fiscal policy types for. Really, both sides of the fence are there and can be used to keep the other in check while also making up for their weaknesses. Seriously, so many people think we HAVE to be one way or the other when our economy has really operated at its best when both systems are used in balance. That may have to lean one way or the other depending on the situation, but you can't lean too far one way.

Hey now, that means it benefits everyone. Downside is that this is never gonna happen. But yeah, I'd probably CD the money or invest it or pay some stuff down.

It beats having it handed out to random banks. This'd actually bring the sort of recovery as opposed to where the bailouts are going now. On the other hand, the money from this fictional taxpayer bailout may just end up being spent on vacations, big ticket purchases, and other things that don't involve serious finance. Either way, better that it goes to the taxpayer.

Hey that works. Take $750 billion and write out an equally shared check to every American taxpayer. Let's see what happens with that. Man, I bet that'd be awesome. I did the math: The current US population is about 305,620,000. If you divide up the $750billion for each person that's an American citizen (not even taking into account that many of these are children, or otherwise non-taxpaying individuals), that's like $2500 per person. I'd take that $2500 and probably turn part of that into a CD or something relatively safe. Take the rest, save it up, and then spend it on a car later on. That $2500 is probably more than that if the $750b is split to taxpayers only.

Looks like a great hire to me. Just hope Dodge knows what he's doing with the guys he's recruiting and the gameplan he's assembling for next fall.

Why didn't we take that guy? He had AC experience at the NFL level, NFL playing time, and pretty much had NCAA experience by consulting with his dad at WKU, plus the time at San Diego U.

No, I like naked women as much as the next guy, but this is getting silly. They need to figure something out so they can stay afloat without borrowing from Uncle Sam, like reworking something in their business model that means people still actually buy from them. It's like the movie industry asking for the government to pony up on a loan. I'm almost certain that the porn industry isn't as broke as the auto industry, which is bleeding more in a single day than the whole porn world made in one year.

That spending needs to be watched so it doesn't go to pad exec pocketbooks and so it actually does go to stimulating the economy.

I'd say, "that's what we get for years of living beyond our means..." but that doesn't quite directly apply here.

I've tried that, and on a good day, my typing is half-assed.

I want to know where you get your numbers from. And beyond that, when did heterosexuals have the monopoly on the moral high ground? All this "we're straight and therefore more righteous than you" business is a pile of crap. I'll entertain the idea of the sanctity of marriage when I see a lowered divorce rate, lowered domestic abuse rates, and fewer cases of marital infidelity. We're also subject to our own share of immoralities on the straight side of the fence. I can't say straight folks are doing better when I see them make mistakes in who they marry, how they raise their children, act unfaithfully, and of course, engage in sexual deviations. I'm almost certain that there's a lot more money in straight porn than there is in gay porn. You know, "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and such.

You know, because straight folks don't have their own share of sexual deviants, right? Oh, and more on-topic: Obama and McCain were pretty centrist. It actually made them hard to distinguish, especially as it pertained to environmental and national defense issues. Their standpoints on economics were different (basically a matter of what economic model you believe holds true). But many of their other issues were pretty close to each other. The real difference between them came in their running mates. Biden was more left and Palin was more right, and that's typically what VP candidates are. What probably killed McCain's campaign was bringing Palin along. I figure she probably scared off moderate Republicans with her over-religious talk since that's what pushed me off.

But that kind of thinking is still around, and it probably always will be. I don't like that at all, but that's the state of race relations. No matter what, people will still be thrown off by someone's skin color.

They were able to make these subprime loans, but not pushed to do it or forced to. Yes, but that's after the free market goes and causes itself to fail, and again, human greed in action. The worry is that bailout money won't go to anything that actually helps the economy but it will go to pad shareholder's pocketbooks. Now, I heard on NPR that something is being lined up to make 600 of that 750 earmarked for easing up credit markets by basically buying up the bad loans. That could be just what's needed here.

Because letting the banks do as they see fit was a great idea. It's such a great idea, the taxpayers are going to throw $75 billion at it. Now they're begging for money they shouldn't have needed in the first place, and the banks are basically being given the liberty to do as THEY see fit with the bailout money. Frankly, I think a bit of regulation (and a bit, mind you) is what the doctor ordered.

Essentially, yes. Obama can make all the plans he wants, but he has to pass it by Congress. Mind you, I have a feeling that tax cuts have been out of the question for months. Something has to fund the bailout, and it's not going to happen with tax cuts in place, and both McCain and Obama's different cut plans from before are more or less void now. The best ways to pay for the bailout that we're all pretty much stuck with is to up taxes and to create more jobs. You really stretched the truth there, BabyArm. Good job, kid.

Okay, okay. Hold up here. The violence is totally uncalled for, no matter what. Plus, I got a feeling there's missing information here, like what she was saying to incite the violence. Now I could be wrong, and she could just have been around some really screwed up people - much like those spouting off hate about Obama or that reporter at the Palin rally. The bigger thing here is that America still has a long way to go with race relations. The election of Obama has just brought to the forefront the prejudice between the races.

Even if mesquite was fireplace-OK, the smell of it (while very nice) is also really, really strong. You'll smell it for quite awhile and it'll get into everything in your apartment. The strong smell translates to strong flavor, which is why mesquite is so popular for smoking.

It's a combo of poor vehicle design and unions going ape$sh@t with their demands. Union costs make autoworkers for GM and Ford worth like, $70-$80 per hour (for pensions, etc). However, Honda and the rest are going like, $40-50 per hour and they're doing fine while also putting out good vehicles. Yeah, the US auto-makers need to totally re-think their system.

Okay, okay, the EV1 came out in freaking 1999. And even then, it was a half-asked attempt at an electric vehicle. The tech is there, but the auto companies of the US need to commit to something new or they're going to be sucking the corporate welfare teat forever. Changes have to be made with the auto unions as well as in the research and production lines. Basically, they need to restructure. They can't keep doing business-as-usual.

Thanks.