Instead of a $1 trillion bailout, why not give the money to us?

[Gewehr98]

She didn't pay for it.  Her daddy did, and here she is, approaching 30 years old, and she's upset she may have to get a job?

Yeah, right. 

[lupinus]

You're right, her father did pay for it.  And I'm sure he planned on using the returns on what he paid into for thirty years for it.

If you pay for something, you are rightly entitled to it.  Even if it's something as stupidly designed as a pension.

If I plan to use part of my 401k for my children's college education and can't because some jackass CEO screwed it up, I'd be pissed to.  And I wouldn't blame my kids for being pissed about the situation.

[Gewehr98]

I cannot generate any sympathy for the daughter in the above news report.

I'm spending my kids' inheritance, and if they somehow feel entitled to it, they can hold a pity party with whatever's left over after I take my dirt nap.

[Manedwolf]

It has always been very important to me that I be able to support myself. My parents gave me enough stuff when I was a kid, they gave me all kinds of things, all the best stuff.

My dad's pension and their retirement money is there for THEM to enjoy. All I care about is that they have enough. And if Obama and company ever mess with my dad's federal pension for many, many, many years of work for the FAA up to the level of GS-15, dealing with a lot of stressful work...there will be hell to pay. He has earned that.

[thebaldguy]

Instead of a $1 trillion bailout, why not give the money to us?

That would almost make too much sense. People could use the funds to survive and pay off debt. The spending would stimulate the economy. But corporations would prefer free money from the government without any strings attached. It's a lot easier.

Citizens didn't bribe (oops, I meant lobby) with hundreds of millions of dollars over the past to get money. Socialism for the wealthy corporations has to be purchased with lobby funds.

It looks like this bailout will cost much more than we were told. I'm not suprised. I don't think these trillions will do much to improve things either.

[charby]

I cannot generate any sympathy for the daughter in the above news report.

I'm spending my kids' inheritance, and if they somehow feel entitled to it, they can hold a pity party with whatever's left over after I take my dirt nap.

I told my parents to spend every dime except $3 so each of us boys gets a dollar.

[lupinus]

And that's fine and well.

However, if the plan was for him to pay for college, it was his choice.  And she's rightfully miffed to have plans thrown into a tailspin.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Instead of a $1 trillion bailout, why not give the money to us?

That would almost make too much sense. People could use the funds to survive and pay off debt. The spending would stimulate the economy. But corporations would prefer free money from the government without any strings attached. It's a lot easier.

Citizens didn't bribe (oops, I meant lobby) with hundreds of millions of dollars over the past to get money. Socialism for the wealthy corporations has to be purchased with lobby funds.

It looks like this bailout will cost much more than we were told. I'm not suprised. I don't think these trillions will do much to improve things either.

Giving the money to people doesn't do anything to improve the economy.  It doesn't create any wealth or grow the economy at all, it just moves wealth around from one place to another.

Also, corporations may have the money to lobby government, but they don't have any votes.  People have votes, and the people just voted themselves a socialist president who wants to stimulate everybody with funds that will come from increased corporate and capital gains taxes.