Comments:Despite passage of bailout bill, two US states may need loans
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Like pigs to the troff.. They have a point though, if you bail out one institution why not another? States employ many people, are they less important than corporations?
What kind of system is this?? edit
What kind of system is this? When things are getting along pretty well, it preaches against the Evil State, saying that the State shouldn't intervene on the economy and harm the low and middle class, with huge tax-breaks to the wealthy? And then, when things get sour, turns to the Evil State for help, needing loans from the low and middle class citizens they harmed?
What kind of system is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.166.31 (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
No surprise edit
No surprise that Massachusetts and California need loans. Fephisto (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
i like that its our two most liberal states who are biting off more sunshine and social programs than they can chew. but i mean we can do it for financial institutions why not them. i would ask hollywood for the cash but i guess theyre really going to need that extra 48 mil pretty bad next year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.150.216 (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)