WOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOO! Another bailout....
- Thread starter darthtang aw
- Start date
socal57che
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2998200
http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...52N67F20090324
This nonsense will not stop until the government controls everything. We are doomed.
http:///forum/post/2998200
http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...52N67F20090324
This nonsense will not stop until the government controls everything. We are doomed.
reefforbrains
Active Member
It is like a bailout for the covered wagon industry. Newspapers would go great IF PEOPLE USED THEM.
I might sound like a complete jerk but if any of my companies failed because they were outdated and people had no use for them, shoud I expect a bailout?
What is next? Good grief
I might sound like a complete jerk but if any of my companies failed because they were outdated and people had no use for them, shoud I expect a bailout?
What is next? Good grief
coral keeper
Active Member
That's pretty lame. I have no idea what I'm going to be when I grow up with this ** Language! -Sep economy.
coral keeper
Active Member
Not even sure what I should take in college or if I should even go to college. Is it even worth going to college in this crappy economy?
bionicarm
Active Member
OK, I want all the financial experts and Obama Haters here to explain something to me. If McCain or any of your Ultra Conservative candidates would've won the presidency, what would they be doing now? If what Obama is doing is wrong in your eyes, what should he be doing? That's the problem I have with your constant complaints about what Obama is trying to do to get the economy turned around. Nobody is saying what he should be doing.
Let's take the Conservative approach I always hear - "They should've just let the banks fail or go into bankruptcy. Let the Big 3 fail, someone will take their place." How would this resolve anything? From what I get out of this mess, pretty much every major bank in this country gave out these sub-prime, interest only loans. Of course every bank started doing it because they had to compete for the loan business. That's where banks make most of their money. All of a sudden, the realization came that these people the banks loaned money to couldn't pay them back. Why? Because they attached these 3 or 5 year ARM's on the loan, and the loan payment jumped up 20% - 30% in one year. So all these loans go into default. Now the banks are stuck with loans that can't be repaid, and property that has devaluated because of market conditions. Since the banks don't have capital to keep operating, they go bankrupt and shut their doors. What happens to all these mortgages that are still out there? Do the people who have them just say, "Hey! The bank is closed! We no longer have to pay back our
[hr]
! Our house is free!!!" Somebody has to take over the loans. But who? If another bank takes over all the closed banks assets, they're stuck with this useless debt. They get burdened, so they go bankrupt. And so on, and so on. Isn't that how the Great Depression started?
When the banks have problems, consumers and businesses follow. If the banks can't loan anymore money out, then consumers can't get loans for cars, homes, starting new businesses, etc. Businesses can't get loans to increase their inventories, buy new equipment, start new locations. So the businesses start to fail because people aren't buying. Housing market tanks because no one can get a
[hr]
loan, and the builder can't get a construction loan to by the materials to build the home. A glut in the housing market (due to foreclosures) keeps new homes from being built, and values of properties start to fall. People lose equity in their homes. People can't get loans to buy new cars. Add the $4.00 - $5.00 gas prices last summer, and that's why the Big 3 can't sell enough cars to stay afloat. Doesn't matter who builds cars (Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda), none of them can sell cars because there are no loans available, and everyone is afraid to commit to a large expenditure like that. Why are they afraid? Because the companies they work for start going under, and they are either unemployed, have their hours cut back, or have already lost their jobs.
So if the government can't help stabilize these banks, what are the alternatives? You can't turn back the clock or build a Flux Capacitor and make these stupid decisions go away. This is what we have. So someone, anyone, tell me what a Republican/Conservative would do that would be any different than what Obama is attempting to do.
Let's take the Conservative approach I always hear - "They should've just let the banks fail or go into bankruptcy. Let the Big 3 fail, someone will take their place." How would this resolve anything? From what I get out of this mess, pretty much every major bank in this country gave out these sub-prime, interest only loans. Of course every bank started doing it because they had to compete for the loan business. That's where banks make most of their money. All of a sudden, the realization came that these people the banks loaned money to couldn't pay them back. Why? Because they attached these 3 or 5 year ARM's on the loan, and the loan payment jumped up 20% - 30% in one year. So all these loans go into default. Now the banks are stuck with loans that can't be repaid, and property that has devaluated because of market conditions. Since the banks don't have capital to keep operating, they go bankrupt and shut their doors. What happens to all these mortgages that are still out there? Do the people who have them just say, "Hey! The bank is closed! We no longer have to pay back our
[hr]
! Our house is free!!!" Somebody has to take over the loans. But who? If another bank takes over all the closed banks assets, they're stuck with this useless debt. They get burdened, so they go bankrupt. And so on, and so on. Isn't that how the Great Depression started?
When the banks have problems, consumers and businesses follow. If the banks can't loan anymore money out, then consumers can't get loans for cars, homes, starting new businesses, etc. Businesses can't get loans to increase their inventories, buy new equipment, start new locations. So the businesses start to fail because people aren't buying. Housing market tanks because no one can get a
[hr]
loan, and the builder can't get a construction loan to by the materials to build the home. A glut in the housing market (due to foreclosures) keeps new homes from being built, and values of properties start to fall. People lose equity in their homes. People can't get loans to buy new cars. Add the $4.00 - $5.00 gas prices last summer, and that's why the Big 3 can't sell enough cars to stay afloat. Doesn't matter who builds cars (Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda), none of them can sell cars because there are no loans available, and everyone is afraid to commit to a large expenditure like that. Why are they afraid? Because the companies they work for start going under, and they are either unemployed, have their hours cut back, or have already lost their jobs.
So if the government can't help stabilize these banks, what are the alternatives? You can't turn back the clock or build a Flux Capacitor and make these stupid decisions go away. This is what we have. So someone, anyone, tell me what a Republican/Conservative would do that would be any different than what Obama is attempting to do.
wattsupdoc
Active Member
Who said anything at all about Obama? I dont think that article did? I suppose in your own eyes Obama is responsible for everything. Thank God Obama made the Sun rise today.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2998308
OK, I want all the financial experts and Obama Haters here to explain something to me. If McCain or any of your Ultra Conservative candidates would've won the presidency, what would they be doing now? If what Obama is doing is wrong in your eyes, what should he be doing? That's the problem I have with your constant complaints about what Obama is trying to do to get the economy turned around. Nobody is saying what he should be doing.
Let's take the Conservative approach I always hear - "They should've just let the banks fail or go into bankruptcy. Let the Big 3 fail, someone will take their place." How would this resolve anything? From what I get out of this mess, pretty much every major bank in this country gave out these sub-prime, interest only loans. Of course every bank started doing it because they had to compete for the loan business. That's where banks make most of their money. All of a sudden, the realization came that these people the banks loaned money to couldn't pay them back. Why? Because they attached these 3 or 5 year ARM's on the loan, and the loan payment jumped up 20% - 30% in one year. So all these loans go into default. Now the banks are stuck with loans that can't be repaid, and property that has devaluated because of market conditions. Since the banks don't have capital to keep operating, they go bankrupt and shut their doors. What happens to all these mortgages that are still out there? Do the people who have them just say, "Hey! The bank is closed! We no longer have to pay back our
[hr]
! Our house is free!!!" Somebody has to take over the loans. But who? If another bank takes over all the closed banks assets, they're stuck with this useless debt. They get burdened, so they go bankrupt. And so on, and so on. Isn't that how the Great Depression started?
When the banks have problems, consumers and businesses follow. If the banks can't loan anymore money out, then consumers can't get loans for cars, homes, starting new businesses, etc. Businesses can't get loans to increase their inventories, buy new equipment, start new locations. So the businesses start to fail because people aren't buying. Housing market tanks because no one can get a
[hr]
loan, and the builder can't get a construction loan to by the materials to build the home. A glut in the housing market (due to foreclosures) keeps new homes from being built, and values of properties start to fall. People lose equity in their homes. People can't get loans to buy new cars. Add the $4.00 - $5.00 gas prices last summer, and that's why the Big 3 can't sell enough cars to stay afloat. Doesn't matter who builds cars (Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda), none of them can sell cars because there are no loans available, and everyone is afraid to commit to a large expenditure like that. Why are they afraid? Because the companies they work for start going under, and they are either unemployed, have their hours cut back, or have already lost their jobs.
So if the government can't help stabilize these banks, what are the alternatives? You can't turn back the clock or build a Flux Capacitor and make these stupid decisions go away. This is what we have. So someone, anyone, tell me what a Republican/Conservative would do that would be any different than what Obama is attempting to do.
/>
Here is the whole problem. McCain is no "conservative".
We are normal. You are the aberration.
3rd, look at margaret thatcher and the coal miners. That is a good idea. At some point you HAVE to allow the markets to correct from the abosultely HORRIBLE government policies that caused these problems to begin with. Such has government creating a shell company to remove the risk of lending to the "subprime" market and take the risk upon themselves. Creating a moral hazard. Where they had no risk so they gave money to everyone. All in the name of affordable housing.
Had democrats not circled the wagons and said, "what you don't want black people to own houses?" or "these are perfectly safe investments." We wouldnt' be in this place today.
http:///forum/post/2998308
OK, I want all the financial experts and Obama Haters here to explain something to me. If McCain or any of your Ultra Conservative candidates would've won the presidency, what would they be doing now? If what Obama is doing is wrong in your eyes, what should he be doing? That's the problem I have with your constant complaints about what Obama is trying to do to get the economy turned around. Nobody is saying what he should be doing.
Let's take the Conservative approach I always hear - "They should've just let the banks fail or go into bankruptcy. Let the Big 3 fail, someone will take their place." How would this resolve anything? From what I get out of this mess, pretty much every major bank in this country gave out these sub-prime, interest only loans. Of course every bank started doing it because they had to compete for the loan business. That's where banks make most of their money. All of a sudden, the realization came that these people the banks loaned money to couldn't pay them back. Why? Because they attached these 3 or 5 year ARM's on the loan, and the loan payment jumped up 20% - 30% in one year. So all these loans go into default. Now the banks are stuck with loans that can't be repaid, and property that has devaluated because of market conditions. Since the banks don't have capital to keep operating, they go bankrupt and shut their doors. What happens to all these mortgages that are still out there? Do the people who have them just say, "Hey! The bank is closed! We no longer have to pay back our
[hr]
! Our house is free!!!" Somebody has to take over the loans. But who? If another bank takes over all the closed banks assets, they're stuck with this useless debt. They get burdened, so they go bankrupt. And so on, and so on. Isn't that how the Great Depression started?
When the banks have problems, consumers and businesses follow. If the banks can't loan anymore money out, then consumers can't get loans for cars, homes, starting new businesses, etc. Businesses can't get loans to increase their inventories, buy new equipment, start new locations. So the businesses start to fail because people aren't buying. Housing market tanks because no one can get a
[hr]
loan, and the builder can't get a construction loan to by the materials to build the home. A glut in the housing market (due to foreclosures) keeps new homes from being built, and values of properties start to fall. People lose equity in their homes. People can't get loans to buy new cars. Add the $4.00 - $5.00 gas prices last summer, and that's why the Big 3 can't sell enough cars to stay afloat. Doesn't matter who builds cars (Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda), none of them can sell cars because there are no loans available, and everyone is afraid to commit to a large expenditure like that. Why are they afraid? Because the companies they work for start going under, and they are either unemployed, have their hours cut back, or have already lost their jobs.
So if the government can't help stabilize these banks, what are the alternatives? You can't turn back the clock or build a Flux Capacitor and make these stupid decisions go away. This is what we have. So someone, anyone, tell me what a Republican/Conservative would do that would be any different than what Obama is attempting to do.
/>
Here is the whole problem. McCain is no "conservative".
We are normal. You are the aberration.
3rd, look at margaret thatcher and the coal miners. That is a good idea. At some point you HAVE to allow the markets to correct from the abosultely HORRIBLE government policies that caused these problems to begin with. Such has government creating a shell company to remove the risk of lending to the "subprime" market and take the risk upon themselves. Creating a moral hazard. Where they had no risk so they gave money to everyone. All in the name of affordable housing.
Had democrats not circled the wagons and said, "what you don't want black people to own houses?" or "these are perfectly safe investments." We wouldnt' be in this place today.
johnbob
Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/post/2998200
http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...52N67F20090324
https://www.saltwaterfish.com/vb/showthread.php?t=353538
http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...52N67F20090324
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2998308
OK, I want all the financial experts and Obama Haters here to explain something to me. If McCain or any of your Ultra Conservative candidates would've won the presidency, what would they be doing now? If what Obama is doing is wrong in your eyes, what should he be doing? That's the problem I have with your constant complaints about what Obama is trying to do to get the economy turned around. Nobody is saying what he should be doing.
Let's take the Conservative approach I always hear - "They should've just let the banks fail or go into bankruptcy. Let the Big 3 fail, someone will take their place." How would this resolve anything? From what I get out of this mess, pretty much every major bank in this country gave out these sub-prime, interest only loans. Of course every bank started doing it because they had to compete for the loan business. That's where banks make most of their money. All of a sudden, the realization came that these people the banks loaned money to couldn't pay them back. Why? Because they attached these 3 or 5 year ARM's on the loan, and the loan payment jumped up 20% - 30% in one year. So all these loans go into default. Now the banks are stuck with loans that can't be repaid, and property that has devaluated because of market conditions. Since the banks don't have capital to keep operating, they go bankrupt and shut their doors. What happens to all these mortgages that are still out there? Do the people who have them just say, "Hey! The bank is closed! We no longer have to pay back our
[hr]
! Our house is free!!!" Somebody has to take over the loans. But who? If another bank takes over all the closed banks assets, they're stuck with this useless debt. They get burdened, so they go bankrupt. And so on, and so on. Isn't that how the Great Depression started?
When the banks have problems, consumers and businesses follow. If the banks can't loan anymore money out, then consumers can't get loans for cars, homes, starting new businesses, etc. Businesses can't get loans to increase their inventories, buy new equipment, start new locations. So the businesses start to fail because people aren't buying. Housing market tanks because no one can get a
[hr]
loan, and the builder can't get a construction loan to by the materials to build the home. A glut in the housing market (due to foreclosures) keeps new homes from being built, and values of properties start to fall. People lose equity in their homes. People can't get loans to buy new cars. Add the $4.00 - $5.00 gas prices last summer, and that's why the Big 3 can't sell enough cars to stay afloat. Doesn't matter who builds cars (Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda), none of them can sell cars because there are no loans available, and everyone is afraid to commit to a large expenditure like that. Why are they afraid? Because the companies they work for start going under, and they are either unemployed, have their hours cut back, or have already lost their jobs.
So if the government can't help stabilize these banks, what are the alternatives? You can't turn back the clock or build a Flux Capacitor and make these stupid decisions go away. This is what we have. So someone, anyone, tell me what a Republican/Conservative would do that would be any different than what Obama is attempting to do.
The story is about newspapers....
http:///forum/post/2998308
OK, I want all the financial experts and Obama Haters here to explain something to me. If McCain or any of your Ultra Conservative candidates would've won the presidency, what would they be doing now? If what Obama is doing is wrong in your eyes, what should he be doing? That's the problem I have with your constant complaints about what Obama is trying to do to get the economy turned around. Nobody is saying what he should be doing.
Let's take the Conservative approach I always hear - "They should've just let the banks fail or go into bankruptcy. Let the Big 3 fail, someone will take their place." How would this resolve anything? From what I get out of this mess, pretty much every major bank in this country gave out these sub-prime, interest only loans. Of course every bank started doing it because they had to compete for the loan business. That's where banks make most of their money. All of a sudden, the realization came that these people the banks loaned money to couldn't pay them back. Why? Because they attached these 3 or 5 year ARM's on the loan, and the loan payment jumped up 20% - 30% in one year. So all these loans go into default. Now the banks are stuck with loans that can't be repaid, and property that has devaluated because of market conditions. Since the banks don't have capital to keep operating, they go bankrupt and shut their doors. What happens to all these mortgages that are still out there? Do the people who have them just say, "Hey! The bank is closed! We no longer have to pay back our
[hr]
! Our house is free!!!" Somebody has to take over the loans. But who? If another bank takes over all the closed banks assets, they're stuck with this useless debt. They get burdened, so they go bankrupt. And so on, and so on. Isn't that how the Great Depression started?
When the banks have problems, consumers and businesses follow. If the banks can't loan anymore money out, then consumers can't get loans for cars, homes, starting new businesses, etc. Businesses can't get loans to increase their inventories, buy new equipment, start new locations. So the businesses start to fail because people aren't buying. Housing market tanks because no one can get a
[hr]
loan, and the builder can't get a construction loan to by the materials to build the home. A glut in the housing market (due to foreclosures) keeps new homes from being built, and values of properties start to fall. People lose equity in their homes. People can't get loans to buy new cars. Add the $4.00 - $5.00 gas prices last summer, and that's why the Big 3 can't sell enough cars to stay afloat. Doesn't matter who builds cars (Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda), none of them can sell cars because there are no loans available, and everyone is afraid to commit to a large expenditure like that. Why are they afraid? Because the companies they work for start going under, and they are either unemployed, have their hours cut back, or have already lost their jobs.
So if the government can't help stabilize these banks, what are the alternatives? You can't turn back the clock or build a Flux Capacitor and make these stupid decisions go away. This is what we have. So someone, anyone, tell me what a Republican/Conservative would do that would be any different than what Obama is attempting to do.
The story is about newspapers....
acrylics
Member
Originally Posted by ReefForBrains
http:///forum/post/2998218
It is like a bailout for the covered wagon industry. Newspapers would go great IF PEOPLE USED THEM.
I might sound like a complete jerk but if any of my companies failed because they were outdated and people had no use for them, shoud I expect a bailout?
You hit in on the head here. If people read them, then advertisers would see value and then the papers wouldn't need help. Problem is that people don't read them (as much) anymore so no amount of help is going to make them profitable.
Make them NPOs? silly. If you take out the editorial section of the local rag, the only point of the paper is to help me start fires.
Salute them for what they have done and let them die with dignity. Those that can hang around, will. Those that can't, shouldn't.
http:///forum/post/2998218
It is like a bailout for the covered wagon industry. Newspapers would go great IF PEOPLE USED THEM.
I might sound like a complete jerk but if any of my companies failed because they were outdated and people had no use for them, shoud I expect a bailout?
You hit in on the head here. If people read them, then advertisers would see value and then the papers wouldn't need help. Problem is that people don't read them (as much) anymore so no amount of help is going to make them profitable.
Make them NPOs? silly. If you take out the editorial section of the local rag, the only point of the paper is to help me start fires.
Salute them for what they have done and let them die with dignity. Those that can hang around, will. Those that can't, shouldn't.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2998356
You hit in on the head here. If people read them, then advertisers would see value and then the papers wouldn't need help. Problem is that people don't read them (as much) anymore so no amount of help is going to make them profitable.
Make them NPOs? silly. If you take out the editorial section of the local rag, the only point of the paper is to help me start fires.
Salute them for what they have done and let them die with dignity. Those that can hang around, will. Those that can't, shouldn't.
Why they are basically deciminate democrat propaganda under the guise as news? Of course they are going to circle the wagons around another failing business.
http:///forum/post/2998356
You hit in on the head here. If people read them, then advertisers would see value and then the papers wouldn't need help. Problem is that people don't read them (as much) anymore so no amount of help is going to make them profitable.
Make them NPOs? silly. If you take out the editorial section of the local rag, the only point of the paper is to help me start fires.
Salute them for what they have done and let them die with dignity. Those that can hang around, will. Those that can't, shouldn't.
Why they are basically deciminate democrat propaganda under the guise as news? Of course they are going to circle the wagons around another failing business.
acrylics
Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2998384
Why they are basically deciminate democrat propaganda under the guise as news? Of course they are going to circle the wagons around another failing business.
Justify it however you want, still wrong
j/k
http:///forum/post/2998384
Why they are basically deciminate democrat propaganda under the guise as news? Of course they are going to circle the wagons around another failing business.
Justify it however you want, still wrong
j/k
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2998339
The story is about newspapers....
You're right. But it's just another business that's being affected by this economic turmoil we're in. We pretty much know what your intentions were for starting the thread, considering the title. Don't think you just wanted to talk about the plight of the hardcopy newspaper.
http:///forum/post/2998339
The story is about newspapers....
You're right. But it's just another business that's being affected by this economic turmoil we're in. We pretty much know what your intentions were for starting the thread, considering the title. Don't think you just wanted to talk about the plight of the hardcopy newspaper.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2998422
You're right. But it's just another business that's being affected by this economic turmoil we're in. We pretty much know what your intentions were for starting the thread, considering the title. Don't think you just wanted to talk about the plight of the hardcopy newspaper.
lol, the newspapers aren't a "victim" of the recent turmoil. They have been in trouble for years.
http:///forum/post/2998422
You're right. But it's just another business that's being affected by this economic turmoil we're in. We pretty much know what your intentions were for starting the thread, considering the title. Don't think you just wanted to talk about the plight of the hardcopy newspaper.
lol, the newspapers aren't a "victim" of the recent turmoil. They have been in trouble for years.
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2998426
lol, the newspapers aren't a "victim" of the recent turmoil. They have been in trouble for years.
I can't even remember the last time I bought an actual newspaper. I have been reading all my news online for years now.
http:///forum/post/2998426
lol, the newspapers aren't a "victim" of the recent turmoil. They have been in trouble for years.
I can't even remember the last time I bought an actual newspaper. I have been reading all my news online for years now.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2998318
Here is the whole problem. McCain is no "conservative".
We are normal. You are the aberration.
3rd, look at margaret thatcher and the coal miners. That is a good idea. At some point you HAVE to allow the markets to correct from the abosultely HORRIBLE government policies that caused these problems to begin with. Such has government creating a shell company to remove the risk of lending to the "subprime" market and take the risk upon themselves. Creating a moral hazard. Where they had no risk so they gave money to everyone. All in the name of affordable housing.
Had democrats not circled the wagons and said, "what you don't want black people to own houses?" or "these are perfectly safe investments." We wouldnt' be in this place today.
I'm an aberration? Por que? You're still not answering the question. If anyone besides Obama were in office, what would they do? How can you afford to allow the 'markets to correct themselves'? How long do you wait? What happens to the businesses or people that can't get loans because there's no banks left to give them? How long do you think they can survive? Look at the newspaper article. Those industries are dropping like flies all over the country. Sorry, but it's not just about the Digital Age.
Again, what's happened has happened, and is moot point. You have to do something to get the economy 'jump-started' again. Get the banks viable so they can provide new loans to businesses, and people who want to purchase consumer items. If businesses have money, they can hire people to make whatever they make. People make money, they spend money. Businesses make a profit, their stock goes up. And the wheels on the bus go round and round...
http:///forum/post/2998318
Here is the whole problem. McCain is no "conservative".
We are normal. You are the aberration.
3rd, look at margaret thatcher and the coal miners. That is a good idea. At some point you HAVE to allow the markets to correct from the abosultely HORRIBLE government policies that caused these problems to begin with. Such has government creating a shell company to remove the risk of lending to the "subprime" market and take the risk upon themselves. Creating a moral hazard. Where they had no risk so they gave money to everyone. All in the name of affordable housing.
Had democrats not circled the wagons and said, "what you don't want black people to own houses?" or "these are perfectly safe investments." We wouldnt' be in this place today.
I'm an aberration? Por que? You're still not answering the question. If anyone besides Obama were in office, what would they do? How can you afford to allow the 'markets to correct themselves'? How long do you wait? What happens to the businesses or people that can't get loans because there's no banks left to give them? How long do you think they can survive? Look at the newspaper article. Those industries are dropping like flies all over the country. Sorry, but it's not just about the Digital Age.
Again, what's happened has happened, and is moot point. You have to do something to get the economy 'jump-started' again. Get the banks viable so they can provide new loans to businesses, and people who want to purchase consumer items. If businesses have money, they can hire people to make whatever they make. People make money, they spend money. Businesses make a profit, their stock goes up. And the wheels on the bus go round and round...
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2998426
lol, the newspapers aren't a "victim" of the recent turmoil. They have been in trouble for years.
That's interesting. The only paper here in San Antonio just laid off 10% of their staff. They cited "economic downturn" as the main reason for the reduction. I read yesterday, from my hard-copy newspaper, the Houston Chronicle was laying off 12% themselves. What's their reason for the reductions?
http:///forum/post/2998426
lol, the newspapers aren't a "victim" of the recent turmoil. They have been in trouble for years.
That's interesting. The only paper here in San Antonio just laid off 10% of their staff. They cited "economic downturn" as the main reason for the reduction. I read yesterday, from my hard-copy newspaper, the Houston Chronicle was laying off 12% themselves. What's their reason for the reductions?
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/2998429
I can't even remember the last time I bought an actual newspaper. I have been reading all my news online for years now.
My local newspaper doesn't offer the comic section or many of the smaller news articles online. I look at both, and there are stories in the hard print that I don't see, or can't easily find online. Besides, the newspaper is my 'preferred reading material' for my daily constitutionals.
http:///forum/post/2998429
I can't even remember the last time I bought an actual newspaper. I have been reading all my news online for years now.
My local newspaper doesn't offer the comic section or many of the smaller news articles online. I look at both, and there are stories in the hard print that I don't see, or can't easily find online. Besides, the newspaper is my 'preferred reading material' for my daily constitutionals.
aquaknight
Active Member
Ignoring the tagent on politics, but did anyone read the article and what it said? The entire point to allow local and community newspapers to classify themselves as nonprofit companies. It's designed not to allow TV/radio conglomerates which also own newspapers to change as well.
I'm not exactly sure why 'bailout'
was added?
I mean, if these companies go under, there's not going to be any tax reveune regardless...
I'm not exactly sure why 'bailout'