President-elect Barack Obama held a meeting with his top economic advisors today at the Presidential transition team office in Washington D.C.
“Not only do we need to act boldly, swiftly and with sufficient magnitude to make a difference, but we also have to do things in a new way,” President-elect Obama said.
In his meeting, President-elect Obama underscored the importance of his proposed American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan to create jobs and spur the type of lasting economic change that our country needs.
President-elect Obama also noted that he is “confident” that legislation dealing with his economic plan will maintain “unprecedented transparency.”
“Not only will Congress tell exactly what’s in the bill, but we’re exploring steps, for example, like putting on a website very detailed information about what kind of projects are taking place,” President-elect Obama said... http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/we_have_to_do_things_in_a_new_way/ ---------------------------------------------------------- That's Obama's plan... Now here's Bush's results... ----------------------------------------------------------
So far, the Treasury Department has injected more than $250 billion into the U.S. financial sector.
But precious little has come back out in the form of loans that were supposed to help get the economy going again.
In the meantime, banks have been anything but shy about using billions of dollars for other purposes, many of which seem to have little to do with getting the U.S. economy rolling. Top bailout recipients have spent billions on everything from purchases of foreign companies to extravagant spa retreats and from exorbitant golden parachutes and executive pay packages to CEO use of corporate jets for private trips.
None of this should come as a surprise. The Government Accountability Office this month reported that the Bush administration had failed to prevent shenanigans or even adequately monitor what's going on.
So we did a little monitoring ourselves, with the help of BailoutSleuth.com and other Web sites. Here's what we found.
1. Millionaire players on the New York Mets and the Manchester United soccer team should be slapping high-fives over the government bailouts. The reason: The money is helping to pay their salaries. Without $45 billion in government help and a $306 billion backstop on its portfolio of rotten mortgage-backed securities, Citigroup would likely have disappeared. If so, the bank would have reneged on a $400 million, 20-year deal to name the new Mets stadium "Citi Field." Now, one New York pol quipped, "Citi-Taxpayer Field" might be a better name. And thanks to $144 billion in bailout money, AIG can make good on the $47 million it had agreed to pay for the right to plaster its logo on Manchester United soccer jerseys for the next 18 months. Glory, glory, Man United. AIG says it won't renew the contract and has eliminated other sports sponsorships.
2. Many banks are playing "Let's Make a Deal" and building empires with bailout money, instead of using it to make loans that help the economy. Shortly after PNC Financial Services got a $7.7 billion cash injection, it announced a buyout of National City. BB&T and Zions Bancorporation have said they have the urge to merge -- now that they've collectively pocketed $4.5 billion in bailout funds. Bigger banks mean less competition and higher fees for the taxpayers who helped fund these deals. And the mergers have created more banks that are "too big to fail" -- so when they come back for more money, it'll be even harder to say no. BB&T says it would buy only "problem" banks, in the spirit of the bailout program.
3. Cleveland's National City bank was run so badly that it was virtually ruined, mainly by imprudent exposure to subprime mortgages. Management's reward for creating this colossal disaster: $200 million in golden parachutes. And taxpayers will get fleeced a second time. Because of a last-minute change in tax rules, PNC Financial Services, which bought National City, will get about $725 million in income-tax credits. Those credits stem from the $19.9 billion PNC expects to lose on bad loans made by National City
4. U.S. taxpayers were told the $700 billion financial-system bailout would create jobs by helping the economy. Instead, one of the banks getting the most bailout money is plowing tens of billions of dollars into foreign companies. Bank of America, which will get $25 billion in bailout loans, recently spent about $7 billion to double its stake in state-owned China Construction Bank. B of A, whose CEO is Kenneth Lewis (pictured above), says it would've spent the money even without a cash infusion from the feds.
5. While taxpayers were still absorbing the shock of having to foot an $85 billion bill (a tab that later grew to $144 billion) to bail out American International Group, executives at the insurer headed straight for the exclusive St. Regis resort in Southern California just days after their company got the money. The $440,000 tab for their eight-day stay at the Tuscan-style resort included $150,000 for meals, $23,000 in spa charges and $7,000 for golf outings. AIG says the event was held mainly to reward performance of independent insurance agents and brokers who were not company employees.
6. Peter Kraus joined Merrill Lynch in early September to head up its strategy team. But Bank of America, bolstered by $25 billion in bailout money, won shareholder approval this month to take over Merrill. The deal will trigger a golden-parachute clause in Kraus' contract, allowing him to pocket as much as $25 million for his two months on the job, according to The Wall Street Journal.
7. Should taxpayers pay to keep executives who steered a company into a ditch? American International Group thinks so. It recently agreed to pay retention bonuses to 130 executives, including $3 million for Jay Wintrob, who heads the division that sells annuities. Last year, he earned $2.5 million in salary, bonus, stock and options. Other AIG execs will get more than $500,000, or about 200% of their salaries, to stay through 2009, according to Bloomberg. The insurer had previously promised to forgo bonus payouts as part of the bailout plan. AIG says retention bonuses are needed to keep execs from leaving while it restructures and that departures could cause the company's reinsurers to cancel contracts.
8. As millions of Americans learn what it's like to make ends meet on unemployment insurance, executives at banks getting taxpayer bailouts will continue to live the high life. Capital One Financial CEO Richard Fairbanks (pictured above) got $73.1 million in pay last year, according to The Corporate Library. That's 1,456 times the median household income of $50,233 earned by taxpayers footing the bill for Capital One's $3.55 billion federal bailout. Bank of America chief Kenneth Lewis last year took home $23 million, or 458 times the income earned by taxpayers covering his bank's $25 billion bailout. Both CEOs also make way more than the median of $8.85 million for CEOs at S&P 500 companies. Despite having to lean on taxpayers with modest incomes for help, both CEOs will likely continue to earn stratospheric pay. Neither bank has indicated it plans to cut CEO pay.
9. While hard times are forcing many Americans to stretch another year out of the family jalopy, the CEOs at banks getting bailout money will continue to ride -- and fly -- high. John Mack (pictured right), who heads Morgan Stanley, which has taken $10 billion in bailout money so far, enjoyed $356,000 worth of personal use of a corporate jet last year. JPMorgan Chase has gotten $25 billion in bailout money. Its chief, James Dimon (pictured left), took $211 million worth of use of a company jet last year. He used company cars at an estimated cost of $68,000. So far, neither company has indicated it will cut back on CEOs' personal use of corporate jets as part of its acceptance of taxpayer bailout money.
10. Citigroup, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase each spent around $5 million lobbying the federal government during the first nine months of 2008. Citigroup is getting $45 billion in bailout money, while the two others are getting $25 billion each. You can expect millions of dollars of that money to be spent on wining and dining Washington lawmakers; none of the banks has indicated it plans to cut back on lobbying... http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/the-10-worst-bailout -boondoggles.aspx Posted by Lockman on :
I would love to see a transparent bailout package.
Obama has to get it right from the start, lets hope he does.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
After much delay the United States opened its new $700 million embassy in Iraq on Monday, inaugurating the largest — and most expensive — embassy ever built.
The 104-acre compound, bigger than the Vatican and about the size of 80 football fields, boasts 21 buildings, a commissary, cinema, retail and shopping areas, restaurants, schools, a fire station, power and water treatment plants, as well as telecommunications and wastewater treatment facilities.
The compound is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the size of the National Mall in Washington.
It has space for 1,000 employees with six apartment blocks and is 10 times larger than any other U.S. embassy.
In a ceremony Monday attended by U.S. and Iraqi officials, the U.S. Ambassador Ryan Cocker ushered in a "new era" for both Iraq and for the Iraqi-U.S. relationship, although critics have said that the embassy's fortress-like design and immense size show a fundamental disconnect between the U.S. and conditions on the ground in Iraq.
“The presence of a massive U.S. embassy — by far the largest in the world — co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country,” the International Crisis Group, a European-based research group, said in 2006.
"The idea of an embassy this huge, this costly, and this isolated from events taking place outside its walls is not necessarily a cause for celebration," architectural historian Jane Loeffler wrote in Foreign Affairs in 2007.
"Traditionally, at least, embassies were designed to further interaction with the community in which they were built," she wrote. “Although the U.S. Government regularly proclaims confidence in Iraq’s democratic future, the U.S. has designed an embassy that conveys no confidence in Iraqis and little hope for their future. Instead, the U.S. has built a fortress capable of sustaining a massive, long-term presence in the face of continued violence.”
The inauguration of the $700 million embassy compound in the heart of the Green Zone came just days after a security agreement between Iraq and the United States took effect, replacing a U.N. mandate that gave legal authority to the U.S. and other foreign troops to operate in Iraq.
"I think we have seen a tremendous amount of progress, even since September. But the development of this new Iraq is going to be a very long time in the making, and we need to be engaged here," Crocker said.
Crocker's remarks were an indirect appeal for the U.S. to stay engaged diplomatically and politically in Iraq, regardless of the eventual withdrawal of the approximately 146,000 troops stationed here. The veteran diplomat has served before in the Middle East, where a lack of U.S. resolve in places like Lebanon 20 years ago opened that country to meddling from Iran and Syria.
U.S. diplomats and military officials moved into the embassy on Dec. 31 after spending almost six years housed in Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace, which they occupied when they captured Baghdad in April 2003.
The grandiose and gaudy palace, with its gold-plated bathroom fixtures, wall paintings of Scud missiles and enormous chandeliers, served as both headquarters for occupying forces and the hub for the Green Zone — the walled-off swath of central Baghdad that was formally turned over to the Iraqi government on New Year's Day.
The palace will now seat the Iraqi government and the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who did not attend the Monday's ceremony because he was traveling in Iran.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani praised President George W. Bush and the new embassy.
"The building of this site would not be possible without the courageous decision by President Bush to liberate Iraq," said Talabani. "This building is not only a compound for the embassy but a symbol of the deep friendship between the two peoples of Iraq and America."... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,476464,00.html Posted by CashCowMoo on :
That Iraqi embassy shows how unsafe it is over there no matter what anyone claims. It is a damn compound...its own city that is designed to survive cut off. I would never raise a family or bring a family there like they plan on doing for workers there.
What a Fn waste of 700 million dollars. Pretty much a billion, but hey whos counting anymore? What is a billion anyway when we are printing money like no tomorrow. What is 700 million compared to the coming TRILLION
Posted by raybond on :
I would sday that is a 700 million dollar joke on American people and a real warning for the people of Iraq. They are looking at there future when they look at that embassy
Posted by Highwaychild on :
Get a load of this...
WASHINGTON - Senior Bush administration officials, consulting with the Obama transition team, have prepared a plan to ask lawmakers for the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue package despite intense opposition in Congress, sources familiar with the discussions said.
The initiative could create an unusual political scenario straddling the Bush and Obama administrations. If Congress were to vote down the measure, either President Bush or Obama would have to exercise a veto to get the money.
Obama officials would prefer that Bush exercise any veto rather than leave the new president with the unsavory task of rebuffing his fellow Democrats in Congress to advance a widely unpopular program, sources said. The White House has declined to say publicly whether Bush would be willing to issue the veto.
"There have been discussions between the administration and the transition team on how to proceed should the president-elect determine that he would like President Bush to notify Congress on his behalf of the intent to use the remaining $350 billion so that it will be available early in the new administration," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "No final decisions have been made."
But Democratic Senate aides were notified in a meeting yesterday afternoon that the request could come as soon as this weekend and that a vote could be held as early as next week, said congressional sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because no decisions have been made.
Under the emergency rescue legislation approved by Congress in October, the administration must inform lawmakers that it wants access to the second installment of $350 billion. Unless Congress passes a resolution rejecting the request within 15 days, the Treasury can begin to tap the funds. If Congress turns down the request, the president could veto the resolution and then the Treasury could proceed. The money would be blocked only if Congress overrides the veto, which would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers.
A congressional source said advocates of the plan are exploring whether there are enough votes in the Senate to sustain a veto. The first $350 billion has already been committed.
"There have been discussions between the administration and the transition about how to proceed should the president-elect determine that he wants to have those funds available on January 20," said Robert Gibbs, spokesman for President-elect Barack Obama's transition team. "No final decisions have been made, but we want to be ready to act if needed."
Both Bush and Obama officials say gaining access to the balance of the rescue funds is crucial to turning the economy around. Without the money, it would be nearly impossible to offer significant help for homeowners facing foreclosure, stabilize the financial system or jump-start the credit markets so more consumers and companies can get loans. The latest sign of the economy's deep malaise was new jobless figures released yesterday showing that unemployment has soared to 7.2 percent, the highest rate in 15 years. (See story on page D1.)
Even as senior Bush and Obama officials consulted about how to access the rest of the money, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, unveiled a bill on Capitol Hill aimed at forcing the Treasury to use the money in accordance with lawmakers' wishes.
Many of the measure's provisions are being coordinated with Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy F. Geithner, who is planning to expand the scope of the rescue program well beyond the financial system to help ordinary consumers and homeowners, as well small businesses and municipalities. Frank said in a news conference yesterday that his bill might not be needed if the Obama administration promised to abide by its principles.
"It doesn't have to be enacted. It would be helpful if it was," Frank said. "We have smart and cooperative people in this [incoming] administration, I'm willing to accept their word that they will act as if it were the law."
Limits on executive compensation Frank's bill would mandate that the Treasury allocate at least $40 billion for foreclosure prevention. Banks and other institutions that receive funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, would be required to account for the use of the money. Clear limits on executive compensation would be imposed on all firms that take federal aid, including those that already received money.
The House is expected to vote on Frank's measure on Wednesday, congressional sources said. If the measure is approved, Frank has said that some lawmakers who would otherwise vote against releasing the next round of TARP funds might be persuaded to reconsider. Without Frank's bill, House leaders are convinced that lawmakers would block release of additional funds to the Treasury, which is widely viewed by lawmakers as having rushed the bailout through Congress and then badly mismanaged the program.
For Obama, using a veto runs the risk of souring his relationship with rank-and-file lawmakers, especially if it is one of his first official acts in the White House. It carries less risk for Bush, who is leaving office in a matter of days.
But the threat of a veto could assure distressed financial markets that more help is on the way.
In September, when Treasury secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. proposed the rescue to Congress, the House at first voted down the plan. Global stock markets plummeted immediately. The initiative eventually passed both chambers and was signed into law in October.
Bush officials committed nearly all of the first half of the rescue funds on aiding the financial system and bailing out individual firms. But their programs angered lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Some were steamed that no help was forthcoming for struggling homeowners. Others said the effort failed to stimulate lending.
A majority of lawmakers in both parties are strongly resistant to giving more money to continue the program, Democratic leaders say, adding that a request from either administration is likely to be rejected, making a veto almost unavoidable... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28589265 Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Where the hell did all the bailout money go that Bush did that had to be authorized within 48 hours or else the economy will collapse?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Where the hell did all the bailout money go that Bush did that had to be authorized within 48 hours or else the economy will collapse?
it went into the banks to replace all the money they didn't have (and never did) that they said they did...
Posted by Highwaychild on :
Senate approves infusion of bailout cash and an $825 billion stimulus bill.
Congress laid the foundation for President-elect Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan on Thursday with remarkable speed, clearing the way for a new infusion of bailout cash for the financial industry while majority Democrats proposed spending increases and tax cuts totaling a whopping $825 billion... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679801 Posted by glassman on :
well? that's a done deal then, cuz the HOuse GOP can't stop it, the GOP Senate could have...
i just finished watchin' an interview from this afternoon of Beohner (GOP)- House minoity leader) where he was claiming that the package was awful...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
What a way to ring the new Presidency in a serious recession with a 170 million dollar inaugration. Bunch of crybaby liberals never did shut up about the Bush inaugurations and now look. This 170 million trumps any others.
If this was a McCain inauguration that spent 170 million the people on this board would be all over him like stink on shi*.
What kind of afterparties will be going on in Washington by owners of bailed out companies?
Remember, almost 60 million people did NOT vote for Obama. Remember, the Democrats are "for the working man" oops, did I say man? I meant person to be politically correct for some of you. The Democrats are for the poor and they show it by spending like there is no tomorrow! We will spend our way out of debt America!
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: What a way to ring the new Presidency in a serious recession with a 170 million dollar inaugration.
how much of that is tax dollars?
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Honestly, I do not know glass.
Posted by glassman on :
i looked too, can't find it...
looks like security is the biggest cost...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Taxpayers it looks like cover the whole cost of it.
Why is it ok for Obama to spend 170 million on this, but when Bush spent 40 million people were demonizing him? Such a double standard from the left as usual.
The small airports in the area are turning into plane parking lots for CEOs jets! You should see some of the stuff behind this ball.
Posted by glassman on :
no, it doesn't all come out of treasury.. alot does, but McCain would have had the same costs for security...
i don't recall people demonising Bush for inauguration costs, i recall people being upset about the vote itself...
Who pays for Obama's inauguration?
U.S. President Barack Obama's inauguration team has disclosed the names of all donors who gave over $200 towards next week's festivities.
More than 5,000 individual donors contributed up to $50,000 each to sponsor the new president's swearing-in. As in his presidential campaign, Obama banned contributions from corporations, political action committees, registered lobbyists, foreigners and registered foreign agents. Click on the column header to sort donors.
Donors to the Presidential Inaugural Committee Donors are being limited to $50,000 and include liberal activist and hedge fund billionaire George Soros, as well as entertainment industry figures such as actors Sharon Stone, Halle Berry and Jamie Foxx.
there's a list of 5631 people and how much they donated
Posted by Highwaychild on :
Bush spent 11.5 trillion over his great legacy... if Obama goes over that, then we got problems.
Posted by bdgee on :
Only the cost of the swearing in is billed to the government. The rest, which is almost the total, comes from various doners. That doesn't mean that the cost to the treasury is tiny, but it isn't the enormous amounts cow wants to make us believe.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
Obama: big Wall Street bonuses 'outrageous' Wall Street firms paid out $18.4 billion in bonuses to employees in 2008
President Barack Obama believes the multi-billion dollar bonuses that Wall Street banks awarded themselves for 2008 are "outrageous", White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Thursday.
The New York comptroller reported this week that Wall Street firms paid out $18.4 billion in bonuses to employees, despite receiving multi-billion dollar payouts from the government to save them from collapse in the face of the worst financial crisis in decades.
Gibbs told a news conference that Obama had a one-word reply when he heard of the reports: "outrageous"... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28916936 Posted by glassman on :
the "justification" for paying the bonuses is that if they don't? the talent will go elsewhere?
first off? i'm wondering what talent they got
second? i'm wondering who would pay them to come lose thier company.
third? i'm really wondering if the bonuses could have been paid at all without the bailout.
all in all? calling it outrageous is kind. too kind by about 99%
Posted by thinkmoney on :
Glass - I 100% agree and you should send that to Obama, all the networks -cause it is sickening to even have this talk- Some defend the bonuses in support of capitalism? I am for capitlism but they failed--- And, what we have - I dont know cause in C when you fail you pay the price but now we are to bail out those that fail, harm us and then use it further for thier greed?
And, bonuses? All bonuses s/b recalled for the last 5 years and these jerks put in jail ---
Why is it that a person that robs you can get jailtime but wall street can harm miillions and expect bonuses?
Posted by glassman on :
Why is it that a person that robs you can get jailtime but wall street can harm miillions and expect bonuses?
that has always escaped me tm.
the SEC charged Mario Pino with issuing forged certificates in a stock, found him guilty in civil court, and he has never even been arrested, yet he printed forged documents and forged somebody's signature.
none of it makes sense. at least a bank robber goes out into public and risks their life to steal, these crooks don't seem to risk anything but losing a small part of their illegit profits, and they still get bonuses Posted by raybond on :
Makes me sick to think about it for any lenght of time.
It sounds like these guys ,ceo's think that the public treasury is there money and we a the jerk weeds that fill it up for them to use.
It will be a great day when we tell them enough and take it from them instead of caving in every time they say if you don't help us the whole world is coming to an end
Posted by Highwaychild on :
It's getting worst than Communism! They are abusing the system!
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Highwaychild: It's getting worst than Communism! They are abusing the system!
Nah they ain't. The system has always been set up so that them that's got the gold makes the rules.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
I don't know, looks like we have b: and c: covered already... b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
com·mu·nism Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\ Function: noun Etymology: French communisme, from commun common Date: 1840 1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed 2capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d: communist systems collectively
Posted by CJim on :
Another one is supposed to pass by the end of the week, $900,000,000,000 and counting projected so far... can we beak a $1,000,000,000,000? DAMMMMMN... that's alot of f'n 0's.
That was pretty funny Cj... almost made me feel sorry for them s.o.b.'s.lol
Posted by Highwaychild on :
A$15,000 tax break for home buyers was just approved... don't tell Tom Daschle
Posted by raybond on :
1. republican narnia The magical land where Republicans come from and hope to return too. Common features include The Cold War, but against either Nazi's or the bad guys from Rocky and Bullwinkle, a Pleasantville environment, everyone gets along and there are no minorities, and Jesus who has returned and smites the unworthy. Those lost in Republican Narnia may remain there temporarily or permanatley, it is often completly treatable.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
The front page of the WSJ was pretty interesting this morning. 'Obama lays out limits on executive pay'. Sounds a lot smarter than when Bush took the ball and ran with it...
Maximum annual pay, pay to be disclosed, bonuses can be clawed back, no golden parachutes, adopting policy on luxuries... hummmm
Posted by bdgee on :
Farting sounds a lot smarter than when Bush took the ball and ran with it...
And its residual effects are a lot nicer.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:'Obama lays out limits on executive pay'. Sounds a lot smarter than when Bush took the ball and ran with it...
That doesn't sound smart to me. In fact, it sounds dumb. Top executives at failed companies do NOT deserve a $500,000 per year salary and unlimited restricted stock - they deserve to be out of business and unemployed. This is what happens when the socialist government (Bush and Obama) meddles in business. A business that should have failed is kept alive with MY MONEY and failures are rewarded with a nice salary and a bunch of stock.
What would be the REAL ramifications of some of these big banks going bust? The answer is that there wouldn't be any significant ramifications. The FDIC would take control and sell the parts of the banks to other (hopefully responsible) banks. Do you really believe that these banks can't be replaced? C'mon - of course they can. Any number of regional banks that have acted responsibly could take over chunks of these big banks and they could therefore become the new big banks. The reason that hasn't happened is that the people running the Treasury Department are connected with the people running the big banks. In other words, it's just a BIG SCAM and a sweet way for all those scumbags to make (steal) a TON OF MONEY! Under the guise of a crisis, these banks will end up taking hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars of OUR MONEY! They will also eliminate a lot of their competition (for pennies on the dollar) - competition who isn't too big to fail!
It's all a big scam and you are being duped!
Posted by jordanreed on :
can you say 911?
Posted by glassman on :
The answer is that there wouldn't be any significant ramifications. The FDIC would take control and sell the parts of the banks to other (hopefully responsible) banks. Do you really believe that these banks can't be replaced
how much would the FDIC liability be?
more than a trillion, by several factors.
which is cheaper? a bailout or the govt absorbing ALL of the liability.
there isn't money to buy those banks without govt lending..JP Morgan HAD to borrow money to buy Bear Sterns
all of this arguing over 750 billion or 900 billion is a sick JOKE, and the joke is on US citizens...
IMO? we have a whole generation of politicians that never grew up.
all of the "naysayers" are the old SOB's that got us into this mess, and they simply want Obama to fail. no more no less.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
You didn't paste the rest of it Prop... Obama was calling for Maximum annual pay, pay to be disclosed, bonuses can be clawed back, no golden parachutes, adopting policy on luxuries
And, in the article...
"This is America," the President declared at the White House. "We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we belive sucess should be rewarded. But what gets people upset-and rightfuly so-are exutives being rewarded for failure, especily when thoes rewards are subsidised by taxpayers."
...but you didn't read it, did you Prop.?
Posted by bdgee on :
He may have read it, Highway..., but his brain is stuck on 19th century prejudices that prevent anyt idea beyond the year 1928 from finding a resting place in the vacuum between his ears. It just goes in through one ear, finds no resting place allowed to it, then out the other ear.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
No, Rush probably read it for him...
By the way Prop., if your personal Jesus "Mahi Rushi" or whatever he calls himself, was such a conservative why wasn't he supporting Ed Huckeby? He was the preacher... No, he was all for MUTT, I mean Mitt Romney. And dead set against McCain... Until he pulled off his triple hypocritical flip with a half twist.... TADAAAA, VOTE MCCAIN!lmao
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:which is cheaper? a bailout or the govt absorbing ALL of the liability.
What is the cheapest and best thing to do is allow bad companies to fail and other companies to take over their parts. The goverment could loan solvent successful banks the money to buy the remains of the big banks (if necessary), and the government would MAKE MONEY on that. The bailouts to date have not improved the economy. All they have done is transfer money from the middle class to the rich wall street crowd.
quote:all of this arguing over 750 billion or 900 billion is a sick JOKE, and the joke is on US citizens...
No, the sick joke is that TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS of taxpayer obligations are being taken from us and given to the ultra rich! This is the biggest theft in history.
quote:all of the "naysayers" are the old SOB's that got us into this mess, and they simply want Obama to fail. no more no less.
The socialists are in complete control of congress and the White House. I haven't heard any threats of a filibuster, so the socialists can do whatever they like. Pass it and then accept the responsibility for what happens (or doesn't happen). I know you lefties don't like it, but you're in control and you are responsible for your actions!
quote:We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we belive sucess should be rewarded. But what gets people upset-and rightfuly so-are exutives being rewarded for failure, especily when thoes rewards are subsidised by taxpayers."
What gets me upset is failure being rewarded and those executives even having a job when they've run their companies into the ground!
Posted by jordanreed on :
yes..we know what you believe...we've heard your rant enough times..but so what..no one cares
Posted by glassman on :
What is the cheapest and best thing to do is allow bad companies to fail and other companies to take over their parts.
despite all of the rumors floating around? that's what they did at the very beginning of the Great Depression... it led to catastrophe.
and despite all of the rumors? the only thing that got US out was WW2, which was a big govt spending package. you don't need a war to have a big govt spending package. nobody even asks how much in a case like that they just do it.
i don't like this need for a bailout. we could have avoided it, but it's too late to close the barn door now.
in any case? we are going to have no choice but to return to the tax structures of the 40's 50's and 60's....
Posted by Highwaychild on :
Props wrote "What gets me upset is failure being rewarded and those executives even having a job when they've run their companies into the ground!"
Oh yeah, You really want to go there? Bush is being rewarded with $186,600 to $400,000 a year (from what I've found) for retiring as the President that ran this Country, evidently, the World economy , into the ground...
Posted by bdgee on :
"and despite all of the rumors? the only thing that got US out was WW2"
That's an accurate statement if you DEFINE "got US out" to mean made the financial institutions were returned as both respectable and fat cats again, but well before WWII, most of the common people who had been devastated were going back to work and feeding their families because of Government programs, maybe not at high paying jobs, but at jobs and maybe not dining on fancy steak with champagne, but at the dinner table, not the bread line.
What is so very much more scary now is that back then most families still had relatives nearby on the farm and they had access to gardens and fresh milk and such. Now, almost everyone lives deep in some urban squall and the last they knew of anyone on a farm was in their "reader" or "speller" in the third grade.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
I just saw that the unemployment rate is the highest it's been since 1992... when the Republican before last left office. I'm sensing a pattern. But I guess we're out of the Bush's now though.
Posted by bdgee on :
We need to be careful that we never have another.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
After that last one, I doubt we will.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
OMG, F'n Democrats go around talking about change and this damn stimulus bill is LOADED with their pork projects. Most of this stuff doesnt do anything for creating jobs. Just government spending on projects that please those that helped get them elected.
I cant believe this. I am not for tax cuts one bit right now, and I think that they need to be able to explain how EACH allocation creates jobs. They cant!
This bill should be online for all to see and to show what each congressman and senator put into it. Expose the bill in the open for the citizens to see the slop they put together. This government is a joke. I am watching C-SPAN right now and have been looking at it from time to time today. WTF is wrong with these people.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
Well, it's the Republicans that was wanting the tax cuts Moo. And you say "Most of this stuff doesn't do anything for creating jobs." I'd say some, but how can you say it's most. And besides, this stimulus has some provisions unlike the stimulus package layout by your man Bush. People still don't know what the hell happened to that money Bush cleared. Matter of fact, this SECOND package was pretty close to getting pushed thru while Bush was still in office. Also, you can thank Bush for the boat we're all floating in right now in the first place. Obama didn't do this in 2 weeks, it was Bush's 8 years!
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Nobody can guarantee this is going to work...blowing all this money on a liberal wish list. I am so sick of the "Its all Bush's fault"
Well NO SH** everyone get over the argument already. Bush isnt president anymore. Move forward and not backwards. Look at this so called stimulus bill for what it is. Have any of you done that? Are you just trusting your party to make sure its ok? Fk some people are just so stuck on themselves and their argument. This is sick, and now they are talking about MORE TARPS!!!! WTF!?
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: OMG, F'n Democrats go around talking about change and this damn stimulus bill is LOADED with their pork projects. Most of this stuff doesnt do anything for creating jobs. Just government spending on projects that please those that helped get them elected.
I cant believe this. I am not for tax cuts one bit right now, and I think that they need to be able to explain how EACH allocation creates jobs. They cant!
This bill should be online for all to see and to show what each congressman and senator put into it. Expose the bill in the open for the citizens to see the slop they put together. This government is a joke. I am watching C-SPAN right now and have been looking at it from time to time today. WTF is wrong with these people.
Actually, you are dimwitted fool and an idiot.
All that is in the stimulus package is there because you guys bankrupted everyone, not just the U. S. EVERYONE!
Why in hell didn't you republican tax cutting know-it-alls do a damned thing other than invade Iraq illegally and cut taxes to those that didn't need it?
Change....damned right, there is change from idiotic dishonest republican stay the course bull sh-t.
Finally!
Now go send some candy kisses to you Party leader, Fat Rush the Doper, and leave saving the world to those that have the balls to try.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
You guys? Me? I was doing foot patrols during the surge on the streets of east baghdad for a b.s. war while you should have been writing your congressman demanding action against corrupt policies.
You are such a weak communicator bdgee. Look at you...
"Now go send some candy kisses to you Party leader, Fat Rush the Doper, and leave saving the world to those that have the balls to try."
I am so sick of your childish name calling and rants. You are nothing more than a grumpy old fart unhappy with life and it shows more than anything through your posts.
Posted by bdgee on :
I don' t care who was "doing foot patrols during the surge on the streets of east baghdad for a b.s. war". You are a loudmouth joke and a pain in the butt, who spend his every effort being a jerk and parroting Fat Rush's lies.
I've been sick of your name calling all along. You are a spineless little mental wimp, saying nastiness that you copy from looser web sites and raising the devil if anyone questions your b.s.
You are sick.
Posted by glassman on :
in order to throw mud? one must first get themselves really muddy.
the stimulus is what it is.
doing nothing would not happen even if we had a GOP president, the only difference is who is complaining and who is cheering.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:doing nothing would not happen even if we had a GOP president, the only difference is who is complaining and who is cheering.
You're right about that! In fact, Bush is totally responsible for the first $700 Billion Bailout and the initial move toward socialism! However, I think that many of us have been complaining about these bailouts since day one. I called my congressmen to urge them to vote NO on both the initial bailout and on the one currently being considered. In fact, I called the idiot Voinovich as late as an hour ago!
Posted by bdgee on :
"I called the idiot Voinovich"
Now was that modifier necessary?
Tch tch tch
It's hard to commend your spirit of participatory democracy when you display an unnecessary and crude mean spirit in talking about it.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: in order to throw mud? one must first get themselves really muddy.
the stimulus is what it is.
doing nothing would not happen even if we had a GOP president, the only difference is who is complaining and who is cheering.
I don't think there is anything to cheer about, whoever is doing it. That would be like being proud that toilet training has failed for a 5 year old.
This is a clean up job we should take seriously and think about what caused the failure in the first place, not how we can brag about it. Correcting what went wrong is what's on the agenda now. That is what is necessary.
(Correcting sort of demands admission of failure, I suppose.)
Posted by raybond on :
Yes you are right Glassman ww2 is what bailed us out of the depression and that was the new deal on steriods.
IMHO thats what we need now a bailout package at least three times the size that we have now and employ everybody period leave this damn period now behinde us so fast we won't know it was even here. then we can all fight later over wether we are socialist or not or just what we really are.
Wait around and do next to nothing and all of us will be fighting over the scraps that are left and this dear dream we call America will be gone.
Posted by T e x on :
Agriculture funded WWII, fwiw...
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
At times it seems like we are heading in a circle with these bailouts. It's almost like a dog chasing it's tail.
We give money and they spend some of it irresponsibly (Vegas etc) and that's the obvious mis-spending that we catch.
So now we have our politicians being the watch dogs of irresponsible spending by the banks etc.
These same politicans inturn our the one's that have supported irresponsible spending in the government.
Where does it end?
Posted by Highwaychild on :
On more than one occasion President Truman referred to the desk sign in public statements. For example, in an address at the National War College on December 19, 1952 Mr. Truman said, "You know, it's easy for the Monday morning quarterback to say what the coach should have done, after the game is over. But when the decision is up before you -- and on my desk I have a motto which says The Buck Stops Here' -- the decision has to be made." In his farewell address to the American people given in January 1953, President Truman referred to this concept very specifically in asserting that, "The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote Highwaychild:
"The Buck Stops Here"
_________________________________________________
That's a little scary.
I think that's what got us into some of this mess in the first place...it stopped or started with the President
-
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Why is there so much pork in this stimulus? This is ridiculous! Another thing, why are they bailing out state governments with this money. If this 8-900 BILLION dollar package went strictly to creating jobs...wow America would be working! Instead it is just spend spend spend on earmarked projects.
What a joke
Posted by Highwaychild on :
Moo wrote "Another thing, why are they bailing out state governments with this money."
-Maybe because the 'states' is what kind of makes up the United STATES of America. But I don't know, I'm just guessing...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
The purpose of this stimulus plan is NOT to encourage jobs. The purpose of this stimulus plan is to advance a far-left socialist agenda. For example, extending the SCHIP program to families that make a whopping 300% of the poverty level. With the exclusions to income they have in the bill, some families making more than $100,000 per year will be eligible for the government handout. It's RIDICULOUS!
The estimates of the cost of jobs created by this bill run from a LOW of $200,000 per job to a high of more than $600,000 per job. I don't know about you, but as a taxpayer, I'm really not excited about spending $600,000 to create one job! That's beyond ridiculous!
How will this all end? Our economy IS going to collapse, followed shortly thereafter by our country as we know it. The socialists (including Bush) have literally spent us into destruction.
Posted by jordanreed on :
frickin commies Posted by bdgee on :
The sad fact is, PM actually believes that nonsense.
I feel sorry for him.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: The purpose of this stimulus plan is NOT to encourage jobs. The purpose of this stimulus plan is to advance a far-left socialist agenda. For example, extending the SCHIP program to families that make a whopping 300% of the poverty level. With the exclusions to income they have in the bill, some families making more than $100,000 per year will be eligible for the government handout. It's RIDICULOUS!
The estimates of the cost of jobs created by this bill run from a LOW of $200,000 per job to a high of more than $600,000 per job. I don't know about you, but as a taxpayer, I'm really not excited about spending $600,000 to create one job! That's beyond ridiculous!
How will this all end? Our economy IS going to collapse, followed shortly thereafter by our country as we know it. The socialists (including Bush) have literally spent us into destruction.
yawn, you're just whining about who won the election. grow up.
when Dick and Dubya won? they were elected by you and yours. this is what we got.
if we were not so screwed up by them? none of this would be going on, but it is..
there are no real conservatives in politics.
Frist called himself one, where is he?
DeLay called himself one, where is he?
look at the list from just Abramoff:
People convicted in Abramoff probe (as of June 9, 2007)
Abramoff is serving six years in prison on a criminal case out of Florida, where he pled guilty in January 2006 to charges of conspiracy, honest services fraud, and tax evasion. For the mail fraud, conspiracy, and tax evasion charges stemming from the influence-peddling scandal in Washington, Abramoff was sentenced to 4 years in federal prison on September 4, 2008 by U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle. He had faced up to 11 years in prison.
Abramoff is cooperating in a bribery investigation involving lawmakers, their aides, and members of Bush's administration.
Lawmakers, lobbyists, Bush administration officials, congressional staffers, and businessmen caught up in the Jack Abramoff public corruption probe:[60]
* Adam Kidan (former Abramoff business partner), was sentenced in Florida in March 2006 to nearly six years in prison for conspiracy and fraud in the 2000 purchase of the Fort Lauderdale-based SunCruz Casinos gambling fleet. * Bob Ney, (former Rep.) R-Ohio, sentenced in January to 2 1/2 years in prison, acknowledged taking bribes from Abramoff. Ney was in the traveling party on an Abramoff-sponsored golfing trip to Scotland at the heart of the case against Safavian. * David Safavian, (former White House official), the Bush administration's former top procurement official, was sentenced to 18 months in prison in October 2006 after he was found guilty of covering up his dealings with Abramoff. Safavian is appealing his conviction. * Italia Federici, co-founder of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, pled guilty to tax evasion and obstruction of a Senate investigation into Abramoff's relationship with officials at the Department of Interior. * Mark Zachares, former aide to Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, pled guilty to conspiracy. He acknowledged accepting tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts and a golf trip to Scotland from Abramoff's team in exchange for official acts on the lobbyist's behalf. * Michael Scanlon, a former Abramoff business partner and DeLay aide, pled guilty in November 2005 to conspiring to bribe public officials in connection with his lobbying work on behalf of Indian tribes and casino issues. He is cooperating with investigators. * Neil Volz, a former chief of staff to Ney who left government to work for Abramoff, pled guilty in May 2006 to conspiring to corrupt Ney and others with trips and other aid. * Roger Stillwell, a former Interior Department official, was sentenced to two years on probation in January after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge for not reporting hundreds of dollars worth of sports and concert tickets he received from Abramoff. * Steven Griles, (former Deputy Interior Secretary) the highest-ranking Bush administration official convicted in the scandal, pled guilty to obstruction of justice. He admitted lying to a Senate committee about his relationship with Abramoff, who repeatedly sought Griles' intervention at Interior on behalf of Indian tribal clients. * Tony Rudy, lobbyist and one-time aide to DeLay, pled guilty in March 2006 to conspiring with Abramoff. He is cooperating with investigators. * William Heaton, former chief of staff for Ney, pled guilty to a federal conspiracy charge involving a golf trip to Scotland, expensive meals, and tickets to sporting events between 2002 and 2004 as payoffs for helping Abramoff's clients.
that's just who got caught in one scandal dude...
your 'conservatives" do not exist any more than Jack's Beanstalk.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by Highwaychild: Moo wrote "Another thing, why are they bailing out state governments with this money."
-Maybe because the 'states' is what kind of makes up the United STATES of America. But I don't know, I'm just guessing...
Highway, please tell me why California's mismanaged budget disaster is worth billions of Floridians tax dollars? Instead of trying to see what I mean you just go straight into attack mode. Weak.
This is supposed to be a STIMULUS bill, not a bail out state government bill.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo:Highway, please tell me why California's mismanaged budget disaster is worth billions of Floridians tax dollars? Instead of trying to see what I mean you just go straight into attack mode. Weak.
This is supposed to be a STIMULUS bill, not a bail out state government bill. [/qb]
Well, California is the Tenth largest economy in the big 'ol goofy World just by itself. seems you wouldn't want that one to collapse. And last time I checked they ARE still one of the STATES that make this great nation. And if you like California or not, we're all in this together.
Look, I'm not an economist, But The C.E.O. of GE probably is, And he's saying we'll probably need 2 Trill. to pull out of this Republican CATASTROPHE.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Well, when California spends over 10 BILLION a year on health care for ILLEGAL immigrants from people in Mexico jumping the border....its not hard to figure out why the economy is such a wreck in that state.
you are calling this a REPUBLICAN catastrophe? Wow...keep taking steps back highway.
Posted by bdgee on :
Yes, cow, this is a situation brought to us by the republican part.
I think an estimate of 2 trillion to come out of this mess is a gross underestimate. Maybe more in the range of 3 - 4 trillion and that is just an estimate. Assuming there is a U.S. in the end, if the cost of recovery reaches 10 trillion it wouldn't be a surprise. This is not a time and place to play or to play to 19th century financial theory or practices.
The trouble is, without that effort, the cost could be, financially. 10 - 100 times more IF we even survived.
All this posturing by the republicans fits in well with their standard approach to everything.....BUSINESS AS USUAL.....which really translates to government by corporate influence.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Well, when California spends over 10 BILLION a year on health care for ILLEGAL immigrants from people in Mexico jumping the border....its not hard to figure out why the economy is such a wreck in that state.
you are calling this a REPUBLICAN catastrophe? Wow...keep taking steps back highway.
it's not just health care:
it's all services from education to incarceration.
however, if you dig into who is really behind keeping illegals here? look no further than their EMPLOYERS. throw them in jail, and illegal immigration would stop dead in it's tracks.
the fact is? employers are getting something for nothing.
Illegal Immigration Costs California Over Ten Billion Annually State's "cheap labor" costs average household $1,183 a year
"California's addiction to 'cheap' illegal alien labor is bankrupting the state and posing enormous burdens on the state's shrinking middle class tax base," stated Dan Stein, President of FAIR. "Most Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services deteriorate,
I agree, penalize the employers of them. We also need to penalize leaders of cities that openly say they are safe haven cities for illegal immigrants like San Fran.
Posted by bdgee on :
"leaders of cities that openly say they are safe haven cities for illegal immigrants like San Fran."
Exactly who has said that? And in the open, too....
Sounds like more of your fanciful imagination at work to me.
"illegal immigrants like San Fran."
Damn, I never knew San Francisco was an Illegal immigrant!
Posted by Propertymanager on :
thank god..I'm good to go..
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote:
"Well, California is the Tenth largest economy in the big 'ol goofy World just by itself. seems you wouldn't want that one to collapse."
_________________________________________________
There talking about giving an IOU for tax refunds this year.
Maybe we should all do the same thing, if we owe taxes.
You think that would be okay?
Posted by bdgee on :
You might want to check and see who the "they" is doing that talking before you choose to duplicate the effort.
Posted by raybond on :
One thing I would like to point is most illegal immigrants work and pay taxes also social security and lots of them collect nothing. They leave the country for one reason or an other lots pay taxes every year and are afraid to file when they are due a refund.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote Propertymanager:
"Here's a list of the Sanctuary Cities in the US."
_________________________________________________
That list seems to be very deceiving, at least for CA illegals.
I look at some of those cities and i believe there are many other cities that have a much higher population of illegals, yet not on that list.
I think they tend to live in areas close to work and have housing that provides for their living styles. It tends to be a different than normal lower income people, although looking for the lower cost housing in general.
Just doesn't seem like that list really means much to draw any conclusion off of it.
The only real conclusion is that there are a lot of illegals in a lot of cities in California, compared to many other states.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote Bdgee:
"You might want to check and see who the "they" is doing that talking before you choose to duplicate the effort."
_________________________________________________
Guess i just have a tough time with the idea of taxpayers overpaying taxes during the year to make sure they are covered and not short for the year.
Then when it comes time for a refund, California government sends you and IOU for the money you overpaid.
That sucks and sure makes taxpayers want to keep up on their taxes, so they can possibly be had for their efforts.
-
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
The answer to 1984 is 1776
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Quote:
"Well, California is the Tenth largest economy in the big 'ol goofy World just by itself. seems you wouldn't want that one to collapse."
_________________________________________________
There talking about giving an IOU for tax refunds this year.
Maybe we should all do the same thing, if we owe taxes.
You think that would be okay?
call 'em on the phone, and tell 'em the IOU is in the mail. Posted by glassman on :
if CA does that? people will be buying tax IOU's for pennies on the dollar.
might be a good business. Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: The answer to 1984 is 1776
Nah....
There isn't any need for that sort of violence any more in this country. Not for rational people, anyway.
They fixed the need for revolutions that back in September of 1787 by setting up a more peaceful and cheaper way to install a new government, so that all parties afterward can cease brawling and work positively and amicably together.
They call it a democratic election, like there was back in November. You do remember that, don't you? When you and yours were soundly defeated along with every possible reason to try to adhere to the shameful and outdated programs and philosophies yaw'll damned near destroyed the whole darn world with?
I guess you must have missed it, now that I think about it. There is nothing at all even close to positive or amicable about the way you do much of anything.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
We won't need a revolution. Our entire economy and our economy are nearing the point of collapse due to the overspending on social programs over the past few decades. Hopefully, sanity and a return to conservative principles will return after the collapse.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Our entire economy and our economy are nearing the point of collapse due to the overspending on social programs
Is that some fancy way to say, the war in Iraq?
Posted by bdgee on :
"We won't need a revolution. Our entire economy is nearing the point of collapse due" to Party before country dogma by the far right wing republican hate machine "over the past few decades. Hopefully, sanity and a return to" political honesty and humanitarian common sense "will return" with the people having finally wrested power away from the madness of the Party's evil madness via the overwhelming defeat of Partyism and far right-wing fear tactics in the last election.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote Glassman:
"if CA does that? people will be buying tax IOU's for pennies on the dollar.
might be a good business."
_________________________________________________
A penny on the dollar might look real good.
Although in coming years you might see many hold back paying those taxes until the end of the year and if their short, their short.
We have the highest state income taxes in the US, which i am sure you knew from living here.
It can go as high as 10.3%.
Plus our sales and gas taxes aren't very low.
That was the nice part when we lived in Wash State, there was no income tax.
Bill Gates made a smart move to set up in Wash instead of Ca.
Although our weather is not to shabby in CA.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
This is the kind of transparency you NEVER got from Bushhhhh... http://www.recovery.gov Posted by rhwdetroit on :
quote:There talking about giving an IOU for tax refunds this year.
Maybe we should all do the same thing, if we owe taxes.
You think that would be okay?
Well, I work for the IRS here in Detroit. The IRS in Detroit and the IRS in Ogden are the two hubs for sending out the notices. I would love to see IOU's sent out. Why? Because we already print and send out about 70+ million notices/fiscal year. I am already working overtime. If this number increases, I will have to work more! The more I work, the more all of you pay me. Thank god for our great government! I would personally like to thank my president and democratic party for our huge stimulus, and the GOP for causing the mess that the democratic party is trying to get us out of by just throwing money at it like it was hooker on Michigan Avenue. The way I look at it, I'll be doing well. This should make you all happier-I'm getting a pay raise in March and then another one in June/July. With IOU's our numbers should increase by about another 100 million or so. Detroit's unemployment is soaring and I'll have too much work. Hell, I might buy half the city!
I would like to thank you all! Yes, YOU the American taxpayer! Between Bush and Obama, our country will be in debt long after I have passed away, but that's okay. I'll be debt free by summer.
Posted by glassman on :
I would like to thank you all! Yes, YOU the American taxpayer! Between Bush and Obama, our country will be in debt long after I have passed away, but that's okay. I'll be debt free by summer.
i have to tell you that the Govt always intends to be in debt.
it's not a GOP or a Dem thing.
it's just what the govt does.
whether you tax and spend? or cut taxes? the govt always operates on a deficit. this injects cash into the economy an is the real root of the power of the govt.
law enforcement is selective, and not an efficeint way to control peoples behaviour, most Americans are basically scofflaws anyway..
if you don't believe me? go sit on the side of the road with a radar gun, or sit at a stop lighted intersection and watch how many people run the red in one hour...
by spending the money they don't have, they get control over the states, and to some degree the individual.. if they just spent money they colleced? teh individual states would eventually complain that one state or the other is getting more than their "fair share", so they just give it to everybody and take a loan.
the people they borrow the money from to do that love it too... there is no "safer" investment than US Govt backed securities.
Posted by rhwdetroit on :
quote:whether you tax and spend? or cut taxes? the govt always operates on a deficit. this injects cash into the economy an is the real root of the power of the govt.
This doesn't inject cash into the economy! The GOP's power came from stroking the corporations. The corporations control the people with employment and by basically having all of the money. They, in-turn support the GOP which then controls the corporations by allowing them to make more money through tax cuts and deregulation. Look where that has taken us. Like a big ponzi scheme it has fallen apart. The dems control is government regulation and taxing the "haves" and then doling it out to the "have-nots" and social programs. The people become reliant on these programs, in many cases for everyday life. The problem is finding the middle ground. Ross Perot was right when he said that we need to quit writing everything into laws that take years to undo. What works now may not work in the future. You need an "out" in case your program fails. We never have an "out." When a government policy fails it usually hurts for many years and becomes very hard to undo.
Posted by glassman on :
we agree alot more than you might think rhw.
i think all laws should sunset every ten years. then the bashturds would have to actually work to rewrite them, and they'd have less time to have (all-day)lunch with lobbyists
however, the govt DOES create money by spending money they don't have and borrowing it...
it's a big giant slush fund that they write checks to themselves with that everybody can cash Posted by bdgee on :
"the govt always operates on a deficit. this injects cash into the economy an is the real root of the power of the govt."
Which is what Alexander Hamilton made clear when he set up the Treasury, in case you haven't studied that in depth. A government that refuses to run a deficit must fail.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
Share your Story
The economic crisis has touched all of us, regardless of the states where we live or the industries in which we work -- whether it's health care or education, real estate or construction, technology or manufacturing. That's why the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is designed to provide relief and reinvestment across the board.
We want to know how the economic crisis and this recovery program are affecting you. If you're an employer, are they affecting your thinking about your business or personnel decisions? If you're a student, are they affecting your choices for your education? If you've been looking for work, how is your job-search changing?
In a few months, this site will allow you to peruse extensive data that will enable you to measure our progress.
But you don't have to wait to leave a comment -- use the form below to share your Recovery story now. http://www.recovery.gov {share-your-experience}
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Just another example of "government by corporation", IWISH....and it would be a huge mistake to think California's laws are the problem. The problem lies in an attitude that has seeped into our national consciousness over decades.
"opportunistic lawmakers in South Dakota tossed their usury law out the window and invited Citibank to move its credit card operations -- and thousands of taxpaying workers -- to the state."
And in the process, you can bet that South Dakota promised Citibank they could operate there essentially tax free forever. In return, I'll bet that a huge chunk of the excess profits that fall into the hands of Citibank get reassigned to the interest of State legislators' and Administrators' wives and brothers and offspring and so on. Meanwhile, back at the ranch in D.C., more of those excess profits were winding up in Congressmen's reelection campaign accounts, provided the congressmen in question were pushing hard to lower taxes on corporations.
Posted by glassman on :
Usury is the single biggest hypocritical problem the "conservative" movement has.
Miriam may define it as "excessive" interest rates, but it's very clear in the Bible that usury was loaning money with interest.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
If people didn't borrow money with interest, then we certainly wouldn't have to worry about the housing bubble, because almost no-one would own a home.
Posted by bdgee on :
I'll go along with the idea that usury is, by definition, the charging if excessive interest. Then I'll point out that MOST lending today is usury.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: If people didn't borrow money with interest, then we certainly wouldn't have to worry about the housing bubble, because almost no-one would own a home.
that doesn't change the fact that people who claim to wish to run the country according to the teachings of their particular religion would be unable to do so.
Posted by bdgee on :
I've gotten at least a dozen emails since last night, all purporting to be from Barak Obama, recommending that I borrow money , at rather large interest, for a short time, until Barak can get the stimulus package into effect and make the necessary arrangements to get my share to me, from certain "understanding lenders", whose purpose is to help Barak save our economy.
Suuuuuuuuure!!!!!!
I believe that.......
Of course they are only interested in doing their civic and patriotic duty and wouldn't charge a dime if they could manage to get the Feds to contribute directly to the cost of building a swimming pool in the back yard of the CEOs fishing lodge in the mountains of Bolivia or the corporate jet he will need to get to that lodge at leas bi-monthly and the "secretaries" in string bikinis that will have to ride along so he will be able to "work" while he is there..
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Bdgee,
Seriously, you need to get medical help. Maybe they have a pill for that class envy you've got.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: I've gotten at least a dozen emails since last night, all purporting to be from Barak Obama, recommending that I borrow money , at rather large interest, for a short time, until Barak can get the stimulus package into effect and make the necessary arrangements to get my share to me, from certain "understanding lenders", whose purpose is to help Barak save our economy.
Suuuuuuuuure!!!!!!
I believe that.......
Of course they are only interested in doing their civic and patriotic duty and wouldn't charge a dime if they could manage to get the Feds to contribute directly to the cost of building a swimming pool in the back yard of the CEOs fishing lodge in the mountains of Bolivia or the corporate jet he will need to get to that lodge at leas bi-monthly and the "secretaries" in string bikinis that will have to ride along so he will be able to "work" while he is there..
.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote Bdgee:
"Just another example of "government by corporation", IWISH....and it would be a huge mistake to think California's laws are the problem. The problem lies in an attitude that has seeped into our national consciousness over decades."
_________________________________________________
The really sad part is that in these times it is hard for a lot of families, so they tend to use their credit cards a lot more to survive.
The banks know this and have become the legal loan sharks, but instead of breaking arms and legs they just send these people into the streets.
Would it be nice to be able to get 30% on your savings money now,(if any one has any) especially when every one else is getting pretty much nothing on their savings account interest rates in these same banks.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)