02 Sep 20
Is it FAIR for Pelosi to bail out (give money to) cities that have improperly managed the finances of their government and their citizens? I ask that, because other cities, like Lander, Wyoming, or Palousa WA, or many thousands of other cities, have run their cities correctly and are not going to get any money. Some of the money will come from you.
Is this rational? Theoretically, cities in the future might just let themselves get reckless, knowing that they can get bailed out. Good gracious.
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
@averagejoe1 said"Theoretically, cities in the future might just let themselves get reckless, knowing that they can get bailed out. Good gracious."
Is it FAIR for Pelosi to bail out (give money to) cities that have improperly managed the finances of their government and their citizens? I ask that, because other cities, like Lander, Wyoming, or Palousa WA, or many thousands of other cities, have run their cities correctly and are not going to get any money. Some of the money will come from you.
Is this rational? ...[text shortened]... future might just let themselves get reckless, knowing that they can get bailed out. Good gracious.
- averagejoe1
If you'd have substituted the word "cities" with words like "banks" or "corporations"... that would have made a mighty powerful statement.
As it is, you seem to prefer falling-back to safety by picking on the powerless and vulnerable.
No courage in your convictions do I sense.
@wolfe63 saidOk. If a person, or chrysler, tesla, KMart or a weed shop cant run their finances, they need to bankrupt or go out of business. Be Responsible, a concept lost on liberals.
"Theoretically, cities in the future might just let themselves get reckless, knowing that they can get bailed out. Good gracious."
- averagejoe1
If you'd have substituted the word "cities" with words like "banks" or "corporations"... that would have made a mighty powerful statement.
As it is, you seem to prefer falling-back to safety by picking on the powerless and vulnerable.
No courage in your convictions do I sense.
which gave rise to my question.
Nothing in the Constitution provides federal govt would have anything to do with it.
Wolf, If I make a bad investment and lose $10,000 in the stock market, if the government under the above concepts covers my $10,000 loss, should they not have to also give you $10,000 ? Why should I get money for doing something stupid, and you’re leading a nice simple life and don’t do something stupid, you are the loser. Logic.
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
02 Sep 20
@averagejoe1 saidThe years 2008 and 2009 beg to differ.
Ok. If a person, or chrysler, tesla, KMart has or a weed shop cant run their finances, they need to bankrupt or go out business. Be Responsible, a concept lost on liberals.
which gave rise to my question.
Nothing in the Constitution provides federal govt would have anything to do with it.
02 Sep 20
@averagejoe1 saidFederal aid to States and cities who's revenue have been reduced by the natural disaster of COVID-19 is no different philosophically than Federal aid to Louisiana because of damage caused by the natural disaster of a hurricane. Do you oppose that "bailout", too?
Is it FAIR for Pelosi to bail out (give money to) cities that have improperly managed the finances of their government and their citizens? I ask that, because other cities, like Lander, Wyoming, or Palousa WA, or many thousands of other cities, have run their cities correctly and are not going to get any money. Some of the money will come from you.
Is this rational? ...[text shortened]... future might just let themselves get reckless, knowing that they can get bailed out. Good gracious.
02 Sep 20
@averagejoe1 saidPeople live in cities; families, children, etc. It wouldn't be right to punish a city because the people whose job it is to responsibly manage finances messed up....especially for those who voted against the politicians in office.
Is it FAIR for Pelosi to bail out (give money to) cities that have improperly managed the finances of their government and their citizens? I ask that, because other cities, like Lander, Wyoming, or Palousa WA, or many thousands of other cities, have run their cities correctly and are not going to get any money. Some of the money will come from you.
Is this rational? ...[text shortened]... future might just let themselves get reckless, knowing that they can get bailed out. Good gracious.
A business in the same situation is a different matter, though.
02 Sep 20
@vivify saidI strongly disagree.
People live in cities; families, children, etc. It wouldn't be right to punish a city because the people whose job it is to responsibly manage finances messed up....especially for those who voted against the politicians in office.
A business in the same situation is a different matter, though.
Cities are like a corporation only they have a monopoly.
If the people voted in stupid spenders, let them live with it.
It's the same as stockholders of a corp. voting in a CEO that runs the company aground.
no different.
@earl-of-trumps saidWhat about the voters who chose someone else? Should they be punished for a choice they didn't make?
If the people voted in stupid spenders, let them live with it.
@no1marauder saidOK. Query that running the cities, pension plans, (I cud go on) into the ground is done my misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, a dash of criminal intent, by the leaders, elected officials.
Federal aid to States and cities who's revenue have been reduced by the natural disaster of COVID-19 is no different philosophically than Federal aid to Louisiana because of damage caused by the natural disaster of a hurricane. Do you oppose that "bailout", too?
The desolations you mention that (justifiably) are covered by federal government are brought on by storms, et al , natural causes. You, yourself, cite Covid as a natural disaster.
Are you aware that you are saying that Councilmember Capone could steal $1M from the treasury, and the govt would cover the loss?
This is the simplest answer i can give you.
02 Sep 20
@vivify saidRespectfully, the people agree on a System of a town ,and move there. Law says you accept the elected officials and their decisions. So if they make a decision, which is proven later to be a bad decision, you are saying that the federal government should step in and get involved with the elected officials, and ultimately give money to the town to correct the bad decisions of its officials? Please see my answer to Marauder above.
People live in cities; families, children, etc. It wouldn't be right to punish a city because the people whose job it is to responsibly manage finances messed up....especially for those who voted against the politicians in office.
A business in the same situation is a different matter, though.
02 Sep 20
@vivify saidIt is about accepting the law of the town, which is to abide by the officials ‘that were elected’. I won’t vote for Biden, so if he tells me I have to wear a facemask, do I have to????
What about the voters who chose someone else? Should they be punished for a choice they didn't make?
02 Sep 20
@earl-of-trumps saidExactly.
I strongly disagree.
Cities are like a corporation only they have a monopoly.
If the people voted in stupid spenders, let them live with it.
It's the same as stockholders of a corp. voting in a CEO that runs the company aground.
no different.
02 Sep 20
@averagejoe1 saidUh, no it doesn't. You may have to respect the laws but not the financial decisions of lawmakers.
Respectfully, the people agree on a System of a town ,and move there. Law says you accept the elected officials and their decisions.
Furthermore, not everyone has the financial freedom to simply choose to move wherever they wish. You can't expect such people to just accept the bad decisions of lawmakers.
02 Sep 20
@vivify saidYou have to explain how one would go about “(you dont have to respect) the financial decisions of the lawmakers.” Maybe give us an example of a decision the lawmakers make which One doesn’t like. Does that mean the citizen does not have to follow that decision. What do you mean?
Uh, no it doesn't. You may have to respect the laws but not the financial decisions of lawmakers.
Furthermore, not everyone has the financial freedom to simply choose to move wherever they wish. You can't expect such people to just accept the bad decisions of lawmakers.
02 Sep 20
@averagejoe1 saidFinancial decisions aren't the same as laws everyone has to follow; for example, giving huge tax breaks corporations. A citizen who disagrees with giving large tax breaks to corporations doesn't have to respect that decision.
You have to explain how one would go about “(you dont have to respect) the financial decisions of the lawmakers.” Maybe give us an example of a decision the lawmakers make which One doesn’t like. Does that mean the citizen does not have to follow that decision. What do you mean?