I agree. The inauguration may not be a good instance of that though, as it has a fair amount of historic and psychological meaning. Quite apart from the history that is being made is the fact that perception matters a great deal in any push to get people buying again, and if we are too poor to mark really momentous occasions, perhaps I better hold off on that new washing machine... if you see my point.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > You have a valid point, I have not bitched about it on this list. I have > bitched about it, just not here. > > I am not so opposed to the bailout as I am that there seem to be no strings > attached. Banks still gave millions in bonuses to the executive who put the > banks in the precarious position to begin with. > I also seem to think that in the future, we will hear a lot more stories > like what AIG did after getting bailout money. > > One thing that annoys me is that every time its pointed out that maybe Obama > could have done something different, you know, that 'change' he keeps > preaching, the defense has been 'well everyone else has done it'. > > Sometimes you can save more by limiting a lot of little spending rather than > eliminating one big purchase. > > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > >> my point is that I don't see you bitching about giving billions to >> banks. I have not been paying attention to the inauguration but you >> know what, I was in DC for Reagan's and you never saw so many hot and >> cold running balls. >> >> Furthermore, it's not just an extravagance. Consumer confidence needs >> to recover and I don't think sackcloth and ashes would work for that. >> >> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >> > So, because its not billions of dollars its OK to piss it away? You >> should >> > get into politics, you'd fit right in with that attitude. >> > >> > Finish up your Kool-Aid, the Prophet of Change is on his way. >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> more people, higher security risks, it's four years later... that's off >> the >> >> top of my head. I heard they are closing all of the bridges in DC. >> That's a >> >> pretty extreme security measure and it will take a huge amont of >> manpower >> >> just for that right right there. >> >> >> >> ::shrug:: I have not been paying attention to the inauguration but don't >> we >> >> have better things to bitch about? Like billions being wasted in the >> >> financial sector? >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:55 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey < >> [email protected] >> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> Hurricaines, floods and the inauguration....makes sense to me...not >> >> > > >> >> > > After 8 years of Bush the federal government qualifies as a disaster >> >> > > area and emergency management is needed. >> >> > >> >> > Given the subject of this thread and the facts as they have been >> >> > presented, I don't think blaming Bush is going to work this time... >> >> > unless your poster boy for change only intends to change things for >> >> > the worse. >> >> > >> >> > Or do you have some logical explanation for why this should cost the >> >> > tax payers so much more? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:285324 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
