Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 95 of 95
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    In my experience, churches are just like the rest of the US society. There are a core of people who are willing to put themselves out there and work their butts off. The rest find it much easier to give money. Is that bad? No, there's nothing wrong with donating money. It's just that somebody has to do the work. A group of churches sponsor one of our homeless clinics that my office organized. We've been seeing patients for three years now. Never once seen anyone from any of the four churches directly involved. Now we wouldn't be able to do what we do without their money, so that's a good thing. But they get credit for the donating, not for the work, and they show up on your survey; I don't. Just an observation.
    I understand your point. Gotta have both to make it work (breaking out in "We are the World" and reaching out to hold everyone's hands as we rock back and forth).
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    And what did you hope to discover if "religious contributions" were removed from Conservative charitable giving figures? What would that show?

    Let's explore your comments regarding this.....maybe I did misread what you were driving at....please elaborate.
    The point is that I wasn't driving anywhere. How can one 'drive' without data? Following your gut leaves one out of gas, stranded on the side of the road without a map very quickly.

    So let's say the religious contributions was 50%, what would this show to you?
    Demographics which paint a more complete picture is what my request for further information would show. Male/Female, North/South, East/West, Age and Race/Religious-based charity/Non-religious charity. Sorry, but I'm not particularly interested in a discussion based on hypotheticals as they only lead to poor quality discussions.
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by mcmaster48 View Post
    Sorry, but I'm not particularly interested in a discussion based on hypotheticals as they only lead to poor quality discussions.
    I agree....your comment about wondering about how much of the contributions were religious contributions really couldn't go any where. At least we can agree on that! If I didn't know better, I would think your comment was just an attempt to be a little polarizing?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I agree....your comment about wondering about how much of the contributions were religious contributions really couldn't go any where. At least we can agree on that! If I didn't know better, I would think your comment was just an attempt to be a little polarizing?
    So much for having an honest dialog.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjwerth View Post
    If, if, if. You obviously missed my point.



    And how do you think they are making money right now? Did they not just lay off 10s of thousands of people??? (The answer is "yes") As for suppliers, they beat the crap out of them EVERY day. Why do you think companies like Delphi and Visteon are still in the crapper after going through many, many years of tough times? And yes, they did major wage cuts w/their union members.

    So again I say, "what's the difference??"
    I will point out, that if if if, is also on the plate for a free market, if they had been allowed to fail if if if.. goes both ways. yes gm and the rest of the big three beat up the suppliers regular like. The big difference as i pointed out, if they had been all allowed to fail there would have been NO money to restructure. huge difference between that and bail out..
    just take a look at when the plants shut down in the late 20s.. the bankrupties of the companies that were ALLOWED to fail. which included banks.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  6. #86  
    They did fail, Only thing the bail out's did was let the .gov control how they failed. People still lost their jobs, Stock holders lost the shares and the US, Canadian.gov and UAW now own GM. Even with this so called loan/bailout repayment. Pure PRPRPR.
  7. ght
    ght is offline
    ght's Avatar
    Posts
    772 Posts
    Global Posts
    886 Global Posts
    #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I appreciate and agree with much of what you've said, but I have to disagree on one point. It's not the governments role to "change what consumers want". Consumers should drive demand based on need, not on compulsion.
    I agree with you 100% on this. My only point was that lawmakers that want to change the fossil fuel consumption in this country (or at least make themselves look good while not actually changing anything), take the cowardly shortcut of putting the problem in the carmakers' hands, and punishing them for the choices consumers make.

    I'd prefer if they just did away with CAFE entirely. Tax gasoline if you want, and use the revenue to fund alternative energy research. I drive a Chevy Suburban (best vehicle I've ever owned, BTW), and I'd still welcome a gas tax to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Let those who NEED the capabilities of the Suburban (like myself) drive Suburbans, and those who do not can drive Smart Cars. There are still a lot of people on the road commuting to work in a pickup because gasoline is relatively cheap. Consumers will only pay so much for a gallon of gasoline before they start cutting back, and oil will rise again to those levels. It doesn't matter to the consumer if a $4 gallon of gasoline has $0.50 of tax or $1.50 of tax built in to the price. It only matters that the extra $1 of tax goes into US coffers instead of foreign oil cartel coffers.
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjgem View Post
    Using bailout money to repay a bailout, sounds about right for Government Motors. This whole thing was for PRPRPR $I$ $guess$, $cause$ $Ford$'$s$ $sales$ $are$ $up$ $and$ $people$ $are$ $still$ $boycotting$ $GM$.
    Should have just let GM fail and allow other companies to buy the divisions. The best thing that could have happened was the deal like Penske tried to do for Saturn. Government intervenes = FAIL Maybe the Government will have a fire sale someday and an American company will buy Chevy and Pontiac. Toyota will pickup Buick. Cadillac will just go into the sunset due to the new 2012 Cafe standards from the .... yup, the Government.

    If the government is going to do anything they should cut the limb and guarantee the pensions. That's not a good idea ether but at least the workers will be protected.
    Sprint: 2-TouchPad 32g, Frank.-Pre-2, Pre-, MiFi & 1-LG Lotus with Xlink tied to home handsets. Backups: 650 & 700wx

    HP Please release the CDMA Pre3 phones!
    We want them!!!
  9. Mr Bigs's Avatar
    Posts
    19 Posts
    Global Posts
    715 Global Posts
    #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Here's the problem....when Chrysler was bailed out in the late 70's, wouldn't you think other auto companies would have realized that the union pay and benefits were going to do the same to them? A smart company would have started to make the appropriate adjustments to such ridiculous pay scales and benefits, but no, in the back of their mind they had to be thinking that government would bail them out if need be....so.....business as usual. The interesting thing will be to see if in 10 years they have learned their lesson, or if unions are still trying to get more than they are worth and willing to risk needing another bail out. My guess? At some point down the road they will be asking for another bail out.....I hope I'm wrong.
    Union pay & benefits is not what hurt the auto industry,poor quality and bonuses for mediocre performing executives did. GM was ion top for many years while being union no all of a sudden the union brought it down ? Compare prices of Asian brands to Domestics and see which one cost more and pay employees less.
  10. Mr Bigs's Avatar
    Posts
    19 Posts
    Global Posts
    715 Global Posts
    #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    I will point out, that if if if, is also on the plate for a free market, if they had been allowed to fail if if if.. goes both ways. yes gm and the rest of the big three beat up the suppliers regular like. The big difference as i pointed out, if they had been all allowed to fail there would have been NO money to restructure. huge difference between that and bail out..
    just take a look at when the plants shut down in the late 20s.. the bankrupties of the companies that were ALLOWED to fail. which included banks.
    You're 100% correct if the big three would have failed all of the suppliers would have too bringing the WHOLE auto industry to a screeching halt and possible shutdown. The domestic owned suppliers supply many parts for foreign brands on a large scale.
  11. #91  
    Personally, I'm all for bailing out the auto manufacturers. For a rather simple reason, as Jon Stewart noted: "They make real things."

    To top it off... they were only asking for a few billion $$.

    It's the banks and insurance companies. Of all the industries... those two should NOT be needing a FEW TRILLION $$.

    That's just bull$h!t.

    Corporate Welfare = Fascism
    Imperial army = Fascism
    1 Authoritarian Party (disguised as two) = Fascism
  12. #92  
    i see a lot of posts against the bail out of the automakers. Dont see anything about the bailout of the banks and insurance companies..Why is that?
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    i see a lot of posts against the bail out of the automakers. Dont see anything about the bailout of the banks and insurance companies..Why is that?
    GM paid back the direct government loans with TARP money from it's banking subsidiary. Pretty closely related. And no one is currently trying to scam the American people into thinking the bank bailouts were remotely effective as is happening with the auto bailouts.
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by NathanS View Post
    GM paid back the direct government loans with TARP money from it's banking subsidiary. Pretty closely related. And no one is currently trying to scam the American people into thinking the bank bailouts were remotely effective as is happening with the auto bailouts.
    With the exception of hyperbolic yada-yada, there is no evidence of anyone "trying to scam the American people" about the automotive industry restructure.

    As for the Banking industry, the level of corruption is likely deeper than anyone could have imagined, as evidenced by the insane bonuses constantly being handed out and complete lack of self-disciplined belt-tightening.

    It does make one wonder why 100% of Republican senators are in lock-step against much more invasive restructuring of Wall St. to hold it accountable against repeating such insultingly irresponsible behavior.
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by mcmaster48 View Post
    With the exception of hyperbolic yada-yada, there is no evidence of anyone "trying to scam the American people" about the automotive industry restructure.

    As for the Banking industry, the level of corruption is likely deeper than anyone could have imagined, as evidenced by the insane bonuses constantly being handed out and complete lack of self-disciplined belt-tightening.

    It does make one wonder why 100% of Republican senators are in lock-step against much more invasive restructuring of Wall St. to hold it accountable against repeating such insultingly irresponsible behavior.
    They made a commercial that clearly misrepresented their accounting trick... I think that is a scam.

    And it's perfectly reasonable to be against wallstreet restructuring if you voted against TARP.
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions